User talk:RLJ

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

These are the archives of my talk page:
To Jan 2024   |- The archives are searchable:

Vitis vinifera[edit]

Do you support the current accepted synonymy for this taxon? WS support for the subspecies seems to be at odds with the current thinking for non-cultivated plants. At the moment I am concentrating on adding the Chinese accepted mames, but need to have a look at the European and American species in due course. Thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 10:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The lumper is POWO (without source), not Hassler (V. v. subsp. sylvestris as V. gmelinii). It is distinguished from the cultivated taxon by diecy, by different leaf, fruit and seed characters. The wild taxon is endangered e.g. in Germany. I think the scientific non-recognition is contraproductive for its protection. I don't think there is any consensus about merging, and I would prefer keeping these two taxa separate. --RLJ (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As an instinctive lumper, we can always find differences in natural variety after all, I distrust unnatural divisions not supported by distinct evidence. The pages of taxonomic treatises are full of infraspecific and generic names that are no longer used. The only more or less current primary source that covers this is Ardenghi et al. (2014) and they are very unsupportive, it is worth a read. I take your point, about protection of a few genotypes, but I am not convinced. I will not engage in any edit wars. Andyboorman (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Information sources and some help[edit]

Hi, RLJ, I wanna ask you some help about something. Lately, I've seen how you have modified some pages created by me and you have taken a look at others and corrected them for the better, either due to my interference or that of other users (which, by the way, I must thank you for your work, keep it up), but I need your help to do better my modifications and future pages, so, I don't know if could you help me with the sources you use to modify, expand, and contrast the synonymy of the species I modify or make. for example, sometimes POWO, GBIF or Catalogue of Life aren't enough, and I should compare Wikipedias in other languages, check the species sources, etc. like some synonyms in Hepatica nobilis or Paliurus spina-christi(which are species where I've edited and you've enriched their synonymy), I hope you could help me, thank you and greetings. AbeCK (talk) 04:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vitis vinifera[edit]

Hello also @MPF: I have added a note on Vitis vinifera page explaining the problem and potential of accepting the two subspecies circumscription. If WS keeps this circumscription then I think we must transfer all the synonymy on Vitis vinifera subsp. vinifera to the yet to be created Vitis vinifera subsp. sylvestris. Thoughts please. Andyboorman (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd be happy with dumping subsp. sylvestris as a synonym - MPF (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All the current synonymy of Vitis vinifera subsp. vinifera as presented here clearly belongs to the cultivated taxon. Maybe some relate to cultivars of hybrid origin.--RLJ (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for checking through that. I had started, but thanks again! Andyboorman (talk) 08:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MPF: & also @AbeCK: here with reference to your sources discussion above. My work to date on Vitis vinifera finds very little agreement with respect to infraspecifics across the secondary sources on the links. I have added two primary sources, but can find more if you advise this would strengthen the page. I am happy to go with consensus with respect to the subspecies and create Vitis vinifera subsp. sylvestris. Please advise Andyboorman (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see that Euro+Med as well as POWO treat Vitis vinifera as monotypic. I would guess the basic point in question, is whether any cultivated derivative of a wild plant (nothotaxa derived from two or more taxa presumably excepted) can be considered distinct at an ICN taxonomic rank as opposed to an ICNCP rank; many (me included!) would say not.
As an aside, it would be nice (even despite it being named from a cultivated plant) to find a photo of a wild plant to illustrate the page. - MPF (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is also rather ironic that the cultigen becomes an autonym. Presumably this is what Hassler was trying to avoid. Andyboorman (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quite likely! It is very far from the only case; the same probably applies to most major crop species. Among the conifers that I know better than other groups, the type of Cephalotaxus harringtonia is a fastigiate cultivar, and (IIRC) the type of Chamaecyparis pisifera is a juvenile-foliage cultivar. - MPF (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WS does have pages for cultigens, for example Citrus, Triticum aestivum and Camellia sinensis. The pages do need a little more work. Andyboorman (talk) 08:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MPF: I have started the page Vitis vinifera subsp. sylvestris, if you would like to have a look and add date, re-edit and so on. Andyboorman (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the ping! Nothing really to add, except in the synonyms, to query whether a taxon named "sativa" (sweet) would really refer to an unselected wild plant, rather than a cultivated selection? - MPF (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MPF: You were correct I checked through the references and according to DC it is cultivated. 08:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Andyboorman (talk)Reply[reply]