From Wikispecies
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Andyboorman in topic Notes
Jump to navigation Jump to search


  • The genus, as traditionally circumscribed, appears not to be monophyletic and is awaiting future treatment (Walker et el, 2004). Their paper also suggests that the genus contains three natural clades, but species from these are scattered throughout the traditional subgenera, sectiones and sub-sectiones rendering their taxonomy paraphyletic. Therefore, these should be dispensed with whilst awaiting further work.
  • The re-establishment of the genus Pleaudia is proposed by Will et al., 2015, but has yet to be accepted by some authorities, who still prefer retain it into Salvia s.l.. Govaerts et al., (2017) now accept it as separate from Salvia, but also a wider circumscription of this genus rather than its dismemberment. The treatment of Salvia is a problem and needs a wider sampling (APG, 2017).
  • See Drew et al., (2017) and Will & Claßen-Bockhoff, (2017) for synopses of recent work and two very different approaches to the evidence. When should WS should make changes? However, the present subgeneric classification is unsustainable. Andyboorman (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Salvia s.l. has more or less gained consensus see Kriebel et al. (2019) and Stevens (2019). A monophyletic Salvia s.l. can be obtained by including all genera in Salviinae except Lepechinia s.l. and Melissa s.s. Time for changes? Andyboorman (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)Reply