Talk:Paepalanthus

A number of sub-genera, sections, sub-sections and series have been described for this genus (Tropicos, 2014). However, many of these sub-generic taxa have not been subject to contemporary analyses and where they have this has often resulted in changes. A good example is the transfer of Paepalanthus subg. Actinocephalus to Actinocephalus by Sano, P.T. (2004). Paepalanthus subgenus Xeractis has been studied and its monophyly established, (Echternacht et al., 2011), but Paepalanthus section Diphyomene has been extensively analysed, which has resulted in changes (Trovo and Sano, 2011). Therefore, it is best that WS does not attempt to establish sub-generic categories on what is over 400 species until more work has been undertaken. Andyboorman (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, we should keep track of the subgenera. An overview of species on the genus page will allow the user to choose between taking any notice of the subgenera or not. Stho002 (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed we should, but at the moment IMO its over-complicated to add additional taxon pages for the sub-genera - you give it a go if you want, but you will need full text of the references over plus a lot more I have identified - there is no summary as yet nor an authoritative contemporary treatment. Andyboorman (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a priority, just that we should do it. Glad to see you trying to keep things simple Stho002 (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Actinocephalus?

Actinocephalus was redirected here. Currently, it is a disambiguation. Maybe Paepalanthus and Actinocephalus should be individual articles, see eg en:Actinocephalus--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I would not trust WP, but Actinocephalus could easily be segregated using molecular evidence and its trinumerous flowers. WCSP does not accept segregation, but I have not checked with them the reason for this. Andyboorman (talk) 13:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Estopedist1:. If the proposals highlighted in Andrino et al. (2020) gain consensus and are worked through into taxonomy, then this will lead to significant changes in the circumscription of this and other genera. Andyboorman (talk) 17:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

However, Kew (pers comm.) as with many other taxonomy authorities do not like to dismantle well accepted genera without good grounds. Paepalanthus as constituted on the taxon page is monophyletic and Kew maintains it makes no sense to segregate it into numerous smaller genera on relatively minor morphological grounds. WS has to adopt a conservative approach by policy and will follow WCSP in this case, as Andrino et al. (2020) is unlikely to gain consensus. Andyboorman (talk) 14:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)