 | A fact from Myrica cerifera appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 January 2008, and was viewed approximately 1,792 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Name Change
editThe name "Myrica cerifera" needs to be changed. Either it should be changed to the more current "Morella cerifera" or altered to it's most common name "Southern Wax Myrtle". While both names redirect here, it is improper to use the outdated scientific name as the whole article title.
A case for the name "Morella": This is the current scientific name and has been for quite a while. "Morella" is widely accepted by sources such as the USDA, Smithsonian, and NCBI. While some current research still refers to the old name "Myrica", taxonomic basis for the name change back to Morella has existed since the early 1990s, and the genus Morella (of the family Myricaceae) has existed for even longer. See: Wilbur 2002, Wilbur 1994.
A case for the name "Southern Wax Myrtle": As a biologist, I prefer "Morella cerifera" but "Southern Wax Myrtle" is the most common name used in the majority of it's range. While some common names can be improper, confusing, offensive or non-descript, the term "Wax Myrtle" does not have such issues. Taxonomic categories are much more subject to change than common names. Wikipedia's Article Titles page clearly states that use of common names is preferred. See: Guinea pig (not: Cavia porcellus). Additionally, other well known encyclopedias such as Encyclopedia Britannica use "Wax Myrtle" to appeal to a broader audience. Regardless of what is chosen, clearly "Myrica" is an outdated use and Wikipedia should maintain a more widely accepted name as it's article title.Spacefatty (talk) 16:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Move requested. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 17:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)- Looking at this again, both WFO and POWO list myrica cerifera as the accepted species name. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 02:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- @SailingInABathTub neither of those have the most recent change, the Wilbur 1994 paper (and subsequent Wilbur 2001). So that's probably why they're missing. Spacefatty (talk) 03:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Kew even states there's alternative taxonomy used in more recent science where both list it as "Morella cerifera"
- "
- "Garcia-Mendoza, A.J. & Meave, J.A. (eds.) (2012). Diversidad florística de Oaxaca: de musgos a angiospermas (colecciones y listas de especies), ed. 2: 1-351. Instituto de Biología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. [Cited as Morella cerifera.]
- Nelson Sutherland, C.H. (2008). Catálogo de las plantes vasculares de Honduras. Espermatofitas: 1-1576. SERNA/Guaymuras, Tegucigalpa, Honduras. [Cited as Morella cerifera.]
- " Spacefatty (talk) 03:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- The alternative taxonomy is represented in this article. Without being able back-up a change of species name through the taxonomic databases that Wikipedia widely uses as reliable sources for such data, it would be difficult to achieve a consensus for a change to the article title. This of course may change in the future. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 17:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- @SailingInABathTub youre right. screw having multiple sources/ideas. wikipedia gets all its ideas from one database Spacefatty (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- The alternative taxonomy is represented in this article. Without being able back-up a change of species name through the taxonomic databases that Wikipedia widely uses as reliable sources for such data, it would be difficult to achieve a consensus for a change to the article title. This of course may change in the future. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 17:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- @SailingInABathTub neither of those have the most recent change, the Wilbur 1994 paper (and subsequent Wilbur 2001). So that's probably why they're missing. Spacefatty (talk) 03:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)