Talk:Hesperocyparis macnabiana

Requested move 11 February 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. – robertsky (talk) 02:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

---

• Cupressus macnabiana → Hesperocyparis macnabiana
• Cupressus goveniana → Hesperocyparis goveniana
• Cupressus macrocarpa → Hesperocyparis macrocarpa
• Cupressus sargentii → Hesperocyparis sargentii
• Cupressus guadalupensis → Hesperocyparis guadalupensis
• Cupressus forbesii → Hesperocyparis forbesii
• Cupressus lusitanica → Hesperocyparis lusitanica
• Cupressus stephensonii → Hesperocyparis stephensonii
• Cupressus abramsiana → Hesperocyparis abramsiana
• Cupressus nevadensis → Hesperocyparis nevadensis
• Cupressus pygmaea → Hesperocyparis pygmaea
• Cupressus revealiana → Hesperocyparis revealiana
• Cupressus arizonica var. glabra → Hesperocyparis glabra

– To be in line with the currently accepted classification used by Plants of the World Online, World Flora Online, Gymnosperm Database, and World Plants it is requested that the pages of the new world cypress trees be moved from Cupressus to Hesperocyparis. This move follows the scientific consensus and when discussed at WT:PLANTS and there was consensus that this is the correct move. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support the current botanical databases and the majority of literature supports these recombinations.--Kevmin § 20:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Support: While the monophyly of Cupressus with respect to Juniperus is an open question, it is paraphyletic with respect to Xanthocyparis and Callitropsis; if the latter two genera are to be retained then the principal of monophyly requires the recognition of Hesperocyparis. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support Tom Radulovich (talk) 07:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support, let's follow the database consensus. Fritzmann (message me) 18:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose; premature, the data are still equivocal, with retention in Cupressus of this, Xanthocyparis, and Callitropsis, still a good call as the monophyly of Cupressus with respect to Juniperus looks good despite some aberrant genes (Zhu et al. 2018). The Cupressus Conservation Project, IUCN, and GBIF all retain Cupressus in its broad sense. There are also no morphological criteria distinguishing the sensu stricto genera; every character found in any one, can also be found in others (unlike Juniperus, which is 100% reliably diagnosable in multiple reproductive organ characters). Note also that reciprocal genetic nonmonophyly is also widespread in conifers; it can't be relied on for circumscription of genera or species without other data like morphology (see e.g. Syring et al. 2007). - MPF (talk) 23:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
• More comment: I see on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#Change some Festuca to Lolium that "× Festulolium which will have to be merged with Lolium (it's one of the arguments for the change because it removes these intergeneric hybrids)" [and ditto later in the same discussion for × Schedolium]. Exactly the same can be said – and with considerably greater force, as there are no other intergeneric hybrids in the entire Pinophyta – of the multiple hybrid cypresses that (to date) involve 3 of the sensu stricto genera - MPF (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• @MPF: The Cupressus Conservation Project was discussed at plants, and found to be wanting in the face of usage in papers and major floral databases. I also see that you seem to have missed @Plantdrew:s question regarding your attachment to the project. You keep saying the data is "equivocal", but you also keep ignoring that the split is in use in the literature now and the last comment by The Cupressus project (as an "editorial") is nearly 7 years out of date. Also none of these (The Cupressus Conservation Project, IUCN, and GBIF) are the WP:Plants base databases that we decided to use for plant taxonomy, that would be POWO, which accepts the split.--Kevmin § 17:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• if you are a certain arboriculturist from England who is also on the board of The Cupressus Conservation Project you are straying close to COI territory--Kevmin § 17:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Error on my part. I left off Cupressus arizonica var. glabra which should be moved to Hesperocyparis glabra, currently a redirect. @Kj cheetham, is it possible to add the page into the move request or should I open a separate move request for it? 🌿MtBotany (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

MtBotanyGiven it's another Cupressus one, I think it'll be okay to add, so I have. Hopefully the bot will notice it and appropriately flag that page. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Kj cheetham, the discussion ended up essentially the same place that it did on WT:PLANTS and there has been a full week for any objections to the addition of the Hesperocyparis glabra move. Should I ping you or another editor for a close on this request? 🌿MtBotany (talk) 01:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.