Talk:Cunninghamia

Cunninghamia has been selected and cultivated for its timber, particularly in China, for millennia. Therefore, evidence seems to be emerging that many or all extant populations of Cunninghamia lanceolata are cultivated or escaped from cultivation, whereas those of Cunninghamia konishii in Taiwan can be considered as wild and indigenous. As a consequence, it makes sense to maintain C. konishii as a separate species, particularly as it is now been seen to occur more widely in relatively undisturbed habitats outside of Taiwan. (Averyanov et al., 2014) Andyboorman (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Andyboorman: - only just seen talk page this now. Unfortunately, the result here, as in much of the literature, is a nomenclatural mess. Genetically, C. lanceolata is wholly embedded within the variation of C. konishii; therefore, the two are synonymous. The older name is C. lanceolata, so C. konishii (and C. lanceolata var. konishii) should be redirects to that. A shame that the type of the species is based on a specimen of a cultivar group with somewhat abnormal foliage, but it is far from the only species where that applies, and it doesn't mean that the natural wild material should have a different name to the type material. This has actually been known since 1999: Lu, Sheng-you et al. (1999). Re-examination of the taxonomic status of Cunninghamia konishii and C. lanceolata based on the RFLPs of a chloroplast trnD-trnT spacer. Taiwan Journal of Forestry Science 14 (1): 13-19 abstract. - MPF (talk) 11:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@MPF: Could not agree more. I got the impression from Kew that they would like to go for a nom. cons on C. konishii, but they felt that it would get caught up in a political mire at committee and may not get much further, certainly in the short term. I propose that we keep things as they appear for now. Andyboorman (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@Andyboorman: Thanks! Not sure about the page duplication, though - not a good idea to have the same taxon as both a variety and a species. Should be possible to have one page (my pref the variety page) and mention the conflicting views in the synonymy and refs list (mention which refs prefer varietal, and which prefer species, status). I've not been able to get the full Lu et al. paper, but get the impression it proposes all-out synonymy (no recognition at any rank for konishii), so this option is available too - MPF (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)