User talk:EUvin
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Tommy Kronkvist in topic Mamillaria
Mamillaria[edit]
Hello EUvin. I have a hard time finding any references stating that Mamillaria are algae. Do you have any citation that can be used for that statement? Best regards, –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC).
- Hello, please see here:
- "The Linnaean genus Cactus of 1753 included 22 species and was coextensive with the present order. In 1812 the species were separated by Haworth into five genera, the original generic name Cactus being discarded. Among these species C. maxillaries seems to have stood as the type, not only of the Linnaean genus Cactus, but also of Haworth's Mamillaria, and as such should retain the original generic name. Besides, Mamillaria was used as the generic name of an alga in 1809. Cactus mamillaris L. is the West Indian Mamillaria simplex Haw." — The preceding unsigned comment was added by EUvin (talk • contribs) 15:09, 5 June 2016.
- It's a little more complicated, as there is a synonym Mamillaria as well as Mammillaria of Polinices, but it is Mammillaria (Herrmannsen) (not Haworth). --Murma174 (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- The reason why I followed there was original confusion in Wikidata element that was linking to Mamillaria in sea database while it was definitely Cacti.--EUvin (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- I see. I'll try to sort this out within the next couple of days. Not the taxonomy itself of course :) but Wikispecies+Wikidata's way of presenting the systematics. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC).
- The reason why I followed there was original confusion in Wikidata element that was linking to Mamillaria in sea database while it was definitely Cacti.--EUvin (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- It's a little more complicated, as there is a synonym Mamillaria as well as Mammillaria of Polinices, but it is Mammillaria (Herrmannsen) (not Haworth). --Murma174 (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)