 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Edited discussion from WikiSpecies:
Combinations in Pachystrobilus are synonyms within Strobilanthes according to the more up to date COL. We need to find a journal article that indicates who is right or wrong. TPL is at least 5 years out of date now of course and I trust it as a secondary source far less than I used to. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- The article that refers to Strobilanthes warburgii Terao ex J.R.Benn. (2003) directly is Bennett, J.R. & Scotland, R.W., 2003. A revision of Strobilanthes (Acanthaceae) in Java. Kew Bulletin 58(1): 1-82. Here on JSTOR. The paper also makes Pachystrobilus syn. nov. Seems that TPL is incorrect. Thoughts? Andyboorman (talk) 12:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- I confess I was somewhat nervous about the inconsistency - I was tempted to say that we need an Acanthaceae expert, but wouldn't be surprised if we may be seeing different opinions here. Quite agree about the need to find a journal article, but unless there is compelling molecular evidence from a wide sample base, I'm not sure if we would get a clear "right or wrong". The species I am interested in is P/S. involucratus which seems to be monotypic. The Bennett & Scotland paper refers to other Indonesian spp. (based on morphology only it seems?) which indeed remain Strobilanthes: I would have thought that P. hirsutus / S. warbugii would be a separate case (TPL says 'unresolved', but the B&S paper perhaps makes the record out of date). I remember having a discussion with User:Plantdrew about what to do when databases differ, and was under the impression that WP (and presumably WS) tended to default to TPL, but agree it dates to March 2012 and refers to IPNI (2005). I couldn't find a reference in COL, which is 'newly updated' but it appears to have always 'defaulted' to Strobilanthes. I think that, unless there is a compelling paper that says otherwise, it would be good to have an entry for Pachystrobilus (there are links from elsewhere) - perhaps putting a note that there is a database conflict - as I have tried to do in En:Pachystrobilus. Brgds Roy Bateman (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- I have made changes and note (as above) on the relevant pages and set-up a redirect page on En:WP ... suggest that, if the 'compelling journal paper' turns up or TPL changes, we can simply switch-over content with the redirect pages: but not quite sure what is most appropriate here in WS.
- I do not think that in this case we need to add a {{Disputed}} tag to the pages. Incidentally, I can no longer default to TPL as it was last updated in 2013. whereas COL and also WCSP are updated every few months. It is annoying that neither TPL and COL have references which makes it more difficult and requires cross checking for difficult taxa. I have edited your edits, if that makes sense, to get rid of in text citations which we do not use on WS and this has given you a template for COL to use in the future. It is rare, but not uncommon, in botany to find two "names" being used for the same taxon. That is just a fact of life and makes the insistence on "one name one taxon" a bit difficult. Now if this taxon is found only or mainly in Vietnam then local usage should have weight, however, if it found more extensively then you will have to take a wider view. Hope this helps Andyboorman (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- I have made changes and note (as above) on the relevant pages and set-up a redirect page on En:WP ... suggest that, if the 'compelling journal paper' turns up or TPL changes, we can simply switch-over content with the redirect pages: but not quite sure what is most appropriate here in WS.
- I confess I was somewhat nervous about the inconsistency - I was tempted to say that we need an Acanthaceae expert, but wouldn't be surprised if we may be seeing different opinions here. Quite agree about the need to find a journal article, but unless there is compelling molecular evidence from a wide sample base, I'm not sure if we would get a clear "right or wrong". The species I am interested in is P/S. involucratus which seems to be monotypic. The Bennett & Scotland paper refers to other Indonesian spp. (based on morphology only it seems?) which indeed remain Strobilanthes: I would have thought that P. hirsutus / S. warbugii would be a separate case (TPL says 'unresolved', but the B&S paper perhaps makes the record out of date). I remember having a discussion with User:Plantdrew about what to do when databases differ, and was under the impression that WP (and presumably WS) tended to default to TPL, but agree it dates to March 2012 and refers to IPNI (2005). I couldn't find a reference in COL, which is 'newly updated' but it appears to have always 'defaulted' to Strobilanthes. I think that, unless there is a compelling paper that says otherwise, it would be good to have an entry for Pachystrobilus (there are links from elsewhere) - perhaps putting a note that there is a database conflict - as I have tried to do in En:Pachystrobilus. Brgds Roy Bateman (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)