Talk:Strophocactus wittii
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | This article contains a translation of Selenicereus wittii from de.wikipedia. (1008228463 et seq.) |
Correct name
editI've left the sentence "The systematic position of the species is still unclear." However, I don't think it's correct; the evidence from molecular phylogenetics is very clear that Selenicereus when circumscribed to include this species is not monophyletic, and it should be placed in a narrowly defined Strophocactus. Personally, I would move the article to Strophocactus wittii. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Peter coxhead: Seems reasonable to me. I'd not read that paper. The Selenicereus page would also need updating too. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 22:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Evolution and evolvability: ok, I first created the genus article Strophocactus and sorted out the other species in the genus. I've now moved this article. The references in particular need more work as they are styled (and in some cases worded) as in the German wikipedia. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Refs now fixed. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Evolution and evolvability: ok, I first created the genus article Strophocactus and sorted out the other species in the genus. I've now moved this article. The references in particular need more work as they are styled (and in some cases worded) as in the German wikipedia. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Moth name
editBarthlott et al. (1997) doi:10.1007/BF00987947 give the name of a possible pollinating moth as "Cocytius cruentus" and this has been widely repeated in the context of this cactus. However, this appears to be an error for Cocytius cluentius, a synonym of Neococytius cluentius; Google Scholar only finds "Cocytius cruentus" in relation to this cactus. However, it can be argued that the "correction" made in the article is WP:OR. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- I've now added a footnote with references that I think establishes that the correction from "cruentus" to "cluentius" is justified. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)