Talk:Diospyros blancoi

Requested move 17 January 2022

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. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

---

Diospyros discolor → Diospyros blancoi – As previously discussed in Talk:Diospyros blancoi, the correct name is Diospyros blancoi A.DC.; Also see:Hung, Sheng-Feng; Roan, Su-Feng; Chang, Tsu-Liang; King, Hen-Biau; Chen, Iou-Zen (January 2016). "Analysis of aroma compounds and nutrient contents of mabolo (Diospyros blancoi A. DC.), an ethnobotanical fruit of Austronesian Taiwan". Journal of Food and Drug Analysis. 24 (1): 83–89. doi:10.1016/j.jfda.2015.08.004. and Morton, Julia F. (1987). Fruits of Warm Climates. Creative Resources Systems. ISBN 9780961018412.  OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

That previous discussion was in 2007. Both POWO and WFO now have Diospyros discolor as the accepted name and Diospyros blancoi as a synonym. [Update: As a result of the discussion below I now support the move.] —  Jts1882 | talk  08:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Regardless, it is nomen illegitimum, which is how it is treated in IPNI and Tropicos. Both sources I gave earlier mention

• Howard, R.A. (1971). "The correct name of the mabolo or velvet persimmon". Baileya. 18: 26.

Unfortunately, I do not have access to it. But here are quotes from the two sources referring to it:

• "However, as early as in 1971, Howard had already legitimized D. blancoi as the plant's scientific name, and thus it is the one that we use in this study." (Hung, et al., 2016)
• "...the mabolo has appeared in literature for many years under the illegitimate binomial Diospyros discolor Willd. In 1968, Dr. Richard Howard, Director of the Arnold Arboretum, Harvard University, proposed the adoption of D. blancoi A. DC., and this is now regarded as the correct botanical designation for this species. " (Morton, 1987)

And an additional one:

• "Diospyros blancoi A.DC. is a member of the Ebenaceae . . . The taxonomic status of this plant is confusing, and it has generally been called D. discolor Willd. Unfortunately, however, as Howard (1971, 1972) has pointed out, the name is illegitimate." - Collins, R.P.; Halim, A.F. (October–December 1976). "Characterizations of Volatile Compounds of Diospyros blancoi". Economic Botany. 30 (4): 313–316.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)

I think those supersede the databases.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

See this 2002 proposal to conserve D. discolor. Diospyros blancoi is in any case incorrect, and superseded by both D. philippensis and D. malobo. 2A02:A45D:25BD:1:5CFC:4797:E91A:26DF (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

That proposal was withdrawn.

"(1548). To conserve Diospyros discolor Willd. against Cavanillea philippensis Desr. (Ebenaceae). Proposed by S.Knapp & M.G. Gilbert in Taxon 51: 579–580 (2002). Withdrawn by the proposers. This proposal prompted a request for a decision on homonymy (Diospyros philippensis vs. D. philippinensis) on which this committee presented a report in Taxon 51: 798 (2002) recommending that they should be treated as homonyms. Later the proposers found that there were additional taxonomic complications, and they asked for their proposal to be withdrawn" - Brummitt, R. K. (November 2005). "Report of the Committee for Spermatophyta: 57". TAXON. 54 (4): 1093–1103. doi:10.2307/25065499.

As noted on IPNI and Tropicos, both D. mabolo and D. philippensis are nom.illeg. (the latter also a homonym). -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm, indeed. In that case I agree with you, the name must be changed according to the rules, PoWO be damned. 2A02:A45D:25BD:1:5CFC:4797:E91A:26DF (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I wish we could get a copy of Howard, 1971 though. Sadly I think it's not digitized.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

It would be nice to know why the newer databases (POWO/WFO) keep the seemingly questionable name. @Peter coxhead: Isn't there someone at Kew/POWO that you occasionally contact for issues like this? —  Jts1882 | talk  07:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

There's some confusion above I think. According to IPNI, Diospyros philippensis (Desr.) M.R.Almeida (2001) is a legitimate name, and is the replaced synonym of the illegitimate Diospyros discolor Willd. (1806). The illegitimate name, according to IPNI, is Diospyros philippensis (Desr.) Gürke (1891).
The question for PoWO is "what is the oldest specific epithet in Diospyros for this species given the synonyms it lists?" It's not clear from IPNI, because both Diospyros blancoi A.DC. and Diospyros malacapai A.DC. are given exactly the same reference, namely "Prodr. 8: 237 (1844)".
I will inquire. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I got a rapid reply; it would appear that they weren't aware that the conservation proposal hadn't gone through. The next update to PoWO will accept Diospyros blancoi. So we should move the article. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting them. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 08:42, 22 January 2022 (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.