Talk:Selenicereus trigonus

Blank and delete

@AbeCK: My advice is not to blank and delete for two reasons, but still leave the redirect. I will not use my admin rights to carry out the request.

Firstly, a blank and delete erases all of the data and history of the page. This needs to be reviewed by an admin not involved with the taxon and make a judgement about the request.

Secondly, the consensus about the synonymy under Selenicereus triangularis is still not complete see CACO. In an ideal world the editors of this site should be contacted for their opinions.

Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 07:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I am in favor of retaining the information on the page, because of the shifting opinions regarding validity. By putting the redirect at the top of the page, the information is retained while redirecting. Neferkheperre (talk) 12:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Please note that this issue is also discussed at the Village Pump, here: Wikispecies:Village Pump#Taxonomical data on redirect pages. Please don't delete the Selenicereus trigonus page until those discussions are finalized. Thank you. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:53, 1 June 2025 (UTC).

As a non-taxon authority, I agree that this seems worth discussion rather than a speedy deletion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:54, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

agree not for speedy delete. It may end up being deleted but a page being discussed and could possibly contain valuable info should not be a candidate for speedy deletion. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 19:43, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Speedy delete denied

• I have removed the Delete Template. The reason for delete given was Currently, "Selenicereus trigonus" and "Selenicereus triangularis" are the same accepted taxa, according to different taxonomic databases, this page should be a redirection of "Selenicereus triangularis". Since the current page structure can be confusing, it's considered more feasible to delete this article and recreate it as a redirect. This will allow for better content organization and avoid unnecessary clutter in page histories.
• The edit comment for this action by @AbeCK: was This was already discussed in your thread a while ago, Andyboorman, this page should be removed and avoid further tarnishing the history of this page. As I said above a page under discussion cannot be considered for speedy delete. I leave it to those with expertise in this taxon to sort this out. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 19:50, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Selenicereus trigonus in recent research

This species is still under discussion in recent research: Korotkova, Borsch & Arias 2017. (A phylogenetic framework for the Hylocereeae (Cactaceae) and implications for the circumscription of the genera. Phytotaxa 327(1): 1-46.) was published after Hunt, D.R. 2017. (Selenicereus. Cactaceae Systematics Initiatives 36). Korotkova et al. wrote: "A next level of study is required in Selenicereus concerning the delimitation of several species which remain insufficiently known, e.g. Selenicereus ocamponis/S. purpusii, S. triangularis/S. trigonus, S.vagans/S. murrillii, and S. costaricensis/S.monacanthus. These taxa require insights from extensive field studies and a combination of molecular, morphological and ecological data."

In Gutiérrez Rodríguez et al. 2021. (Ecological niches, endemism and conservation of the species in Selenicereus (Hylocereeae, Cactaceae). DOI: 10.1007/s40415-022-00818-z, ResearchGate), Selenicereus trigonus keeps being accepted.

As a taxonomist (who was working on Caryophyllales, too), I know that databases often do not reflect the recent phylogenetic research and update with a long time lag. So I prefer to keep this page, as long as Caryophyllales.org accepts this species. Thiotrix (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Thankyou for the reference I have added a template to the Selenicereus taxon page, as it is relevant to the genus as a whole. Andyboorman (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)