Talk:Sambucus australasica

Category:Taxa named by John Lindley

John Lindley named ''Tripetelus australasicus'' in 1838. That means, this taxon (group of organisms) was named by John Lindley. Karl Fritsch later changed the name of the species to S. australasica. Nevertheless, the taxon was named (and described) by Lindley. Gderrin (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@Gderrin: Tripetelus australasicus is no longer an accepted species, and has been replaced by Sambucus australasica, named by Fritsch. Lindley may have described the species originally, but that species is now considered a synonym of the accepted species Sambucus australasica. I believe to recall that the author outside of the parentheses is the accepted author, while the one inside the parentheses described the species originally, now the basionym. Also, a taxon is simply a taxonomic rank such as species, genus, family, etc., so I don't see the difference between the taxon and species here? If neither of us is interested in changing our opinions, I'd suggest a request for comment. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@Gderrin: Also, if this makes things any clearer: The species Tripetelus australasicus was described and named by John Lindley. That species is now considered a synonym, specifically the basionym, of Sambucus australasica. Sambucus australasica, the accepted species, and, perhaps more importantly, the species that this Wikipedia article is about, was named by Karl Fritsch; therefore, Fritsch is the accepted author. Lindley may have (at least mostly) described the species, but the species he named is now a synonym of Sambucus australasica, so Lindley definitely did not name the accepted species, or taxon, which is the primary focus of the categories. The parentheses simply accredit Lindley for the basionym. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 01:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll try again: The taxon Tripetelus australasicus was named and described by Lindley. Fritsch later changed the name of the species to Sambucus australasica. A taxon is not "simply a taxonomic rank", but a group of organisms. In this case, Lindley named a group of organisms (a taxon), that we now know by the species name Sambucus australasica. We can go for a RfC, but hopefully, I'll get another plant taxonomy expert to comment here first. Gderrin (talk) 04:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that the distinction made above between taxon and species is relevant; a species is just one example of a taxon.

Part of the problem is that there isn't a clear and precise definition of what "Category:Taxa named by ..." is supposed to mean for names under the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants.

• If this were a name under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature then it would be absolutely clear. The specific name would be australasica. A new combination would not in any way alter the authorship; the ICZN treats the transferring author as irrelevant.
• The authority for Sambucus australasicus is "(Lindl.) Fritsch". Lindley first described the species in 1838 as Tripetelus australasicus. So the species should be categorized as Category:Plants described in 1838, as indeed it is, quite correctly. Lindley undoubtedly named the species, because the epithet australasicus is due to him. Karl Fritsch is responsible for the currently accepted combination, so if we treat that as a name, he also contributed to the current naming of the species. So for ICNafp names there's a case to use "Taxa named by ..." categories for both authors. However, there are some biologists who have named both animals and plants, so there's also a case for consistency across the codes. In which case, only Lindley should be used.
• If we take literally the description at the parent category Category:Botanical taxa by author, "as indicated by author abbreviations", then both names should be used since both occur in the authorship given by IPNI, PoWO, etc.
• It might be better to have separate categories for the nomenclature codes, e.g. "Animals named by ...", "Plants named by ...", etc., because the treatment of authorship clearly differs.

Peter coxhead (talk) 09:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I see now that Fritsch didn't come up with an original name. I think having both authors' categories makes enough sense. I do agree that the difference between taxon and species was never relevant in this context. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 19:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)