Talk:Salvia rosmarinus
Add topic@Andyboorman: is it justified that the redirect is removed. Enwiki and also WS says that synonym--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: This combination is now accepted by many authorities with Rosmarinus officinalis as the synonym, but it is not a done deal as there is a small number of botanists who still wish to dismantle Salvia s.l. in favour of about 4/5 smaller genera. That is why I have left R. officinalis in place for now. Andyboorman (talk) 08:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Imprecision with some synonyms
[edit]Hello, how are you all? I would like to inform and ask for help to improve the precision of 2 or 3 synonyms that apply to this species, I base myself directly on the original sources (where there is an opportunity to consult them) so that you can compare and draw your own conclusions, but what is sought is mainly to resolve this imprecision, which can also be observed even in taxonomic databases such as World Plants. Synonymic Checklist and Distribution of the World Flora., Global Biodiversity Information Facility, International Plant Names Index, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, etc.:
- Rosmarinus prostratus H.J.Veitch, Veitch's Herb. Specialities 1911-1912: 7 (1911).
- Rosmarinus prostratus Mazziari, Ionios Antologia 2: 446 (1834). (doubtful)
- Rosmarinus officinalis var. prostratus Mazziari, Ionios Antologia 2: 446 (1834).
Note: The first synonym mentioned here was already included in species's article, leaving the rest intact. AbeCK (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hello. Are you trying to trace the prologues (original descriptions) for the above names? As far as I am aware only Veitch's Herb. Specialities is generally and easily available. Andyboorman (talk) 07:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Mazziari's protologue can be consulted here: https://liksouri.reasonablegraph.org/archive/item/607 , page 109. The protologue starts with "2. R. prostratus. Varietá del precedente". So it was clearly Mazziari's intention to publish a variety of Rosmarinus officinalis, and the species name ascribed to Mazziari should be deleted. The variety name should be validly published according to Art 24.4 ICN. It is a matter of guess if the Veitch species and the Pasquale variety were published independently from Mazziari or not. --RLJ (talk) 09:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- In my opinion both Rosmarinus prostratus Mazziari, Ionios Antologia 2: 446. (1834). nom. inval. and Rosmarinus officinalis var. prostratus Mazziari, Ionios Antologia 2: 446.(1834) can be ued in the list. IPNI and POWO both can be used as citations, although the later do not include the nom. inval. Veitch's name can be retained as it shows its use in 1911. Andyboorman (talk) 09:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- But that is OR, as there is no autocorrect involved. Just my opinion. I would leave it as is, but perhaps seek a second opinion from IPNI. Andyboorman (talk) 13:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- We can not second guess Mazziari's intent after all. Andyboorman (talk) 13:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think the Mazziari name is one name, and it should be cited this way:
- Rosmarinus officinalis var. prostratus Mazziari, Ionios Antologia 2: 446 (1834) ["R. prostratus. Varietá del precedente"].
- But that is OR, as there is no autocorrect involved. Just my opinion. I would leave it as is, but perhaps seek a second opinion from IPNI. Andyboorman (talk) 13:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- In my opinion both Rosmarinus prostratus Mazziari, Ionios Antologia 2: 446. (1834). nom. inval. and Rosmarinus officinalis var. prostratus Mazziari, Ionios Antologia 2: 446.(1834) can be ued in the list. IPNI and POWO both can be used as citations, although the later do not include the nom. inval. Veitch's name can be retained as it shows its use in 1911. Andyboorman (talk) 09:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Mazziari's protologue can be consulted here: https://liksouri.reasonablegraph.org/archive/item/607 , page 109. The protologue starts with "2. R. prostratus. Varietá del precedente". So it was clearly Mazziari's intention to publish a variety of Rosmarinus officinalis, and the species name ascribed to Mazziari should be deleted. The variety name should be validly published according to Art 24.4 ICN. It is a matter of guess if the Veitch species and the Pasquale variety were published independently from Mazziari or not. --RLJ (talk) 09:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)