Talk:Acantholippia
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
NCBI link has been updated: it now lists four species edit
The NCBI taxonomy browser currently (as of February 5, 2022) lists four species of Acantholippia:
NCBI page for genus Acantholippia: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?mode=Info&id=336882&lvl=3&lin=f&keep=1&srchmode=1&unlock
NCBI page for species Acantholippia deserticola: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?mode=Info&id=925325&lvl=3&lin=f&keep=1&srchmode=1&unlock
NCBI page for species Acantholippia salsoloides: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?mode=Info&id=925325&lvl=3&lin=f&keep=1&srchmode=1&unlock
NCBI page for species Acantholippia seriphioides: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?mode=Info&id=336883&lvl=3&lin=f&keep=1&srchmode=1&unlock
NCBI page for species Acantholippia trifida: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?mode=Info&id=1434938&lvl=3&lin=f&keep=1&srchmode=1&unlock
Kew still lists only one species. I'm a published geneticist and I would edit things myself, but Wikipedia is not a friendly place for newcomers and I've been burned before, so I'd rather just point out that Wikipedia is currently lying about one of its own links, though the other still makes the same claims.
To this I would add two more things: World Flora Online, descendant organization of The Plant List, lists two further species and a variety of A. trifida:
WFO page for genus Acantholippia: http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-4000000125
WFO page for species Acantholippia deserticola: http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000263913
WFO page for species Acantholippia salsoloides: http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000264322
WFO page for species Acantholippia seriphioides: http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000264407
WFO page for species Acantholippia trifida: http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000264587
WFO page for species variety Acantholippia trifida var. reichei: http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000264688
WFO page for species Acantholippia riojana: http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000264234
WFO page for species Acantholippia tarapacana: http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000264498
In addition, A. salsoloides and A. deserticola also have multiple distinct references in sources whose credibility I am not qualified to assess as to whether they meet Wikipedia's standards, some specifying that they exist in Chile and Bolivia. Here are three examples:
A. deserticola photographed in Chile: http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/plants/chile/plants/Verbenac/Acantholippia_deserticola.html
A. deserticola in project Bolivia: http://legacy.tropicos.org/Name/50069376
A. salsoloides, claimed to be "common in the Andean region: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333825129_Acantholippia_salsoloides_Phytochemical_Composition_and_Biological_Potential_of_a_Thujonic_Population
If somebody who is part of the Wikipedia elite who knows how to interpret the rules should deign to update this page, bitterness aside, I do hope my links are helpful to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.5.140.161 (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- 69.5.140.161, Hello! Please, by all means, feel free to edit the article. It seems you are very knowledgeable and passionate about this topic. You're absolutely right, there are parts of Wikipedia that are not newcomer-friendly in the slightest. I'm more than happy to add this information if you don't want to, or if you want to I can clean up any minor formatting errors or whatever and give help/advice. Either way is fine with me, just let me know, and thanks for pointing out a gap in the article! Fritzmann (message me) 19:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks so much, it's gratifying to hear that this is a corner of Wikipedia I can contribute to. I'm in the middle of writing a thesis on backbone relationships in the legumes, so I *am* passionate about taxonomy, though I can't say I've directed my passions towards Verbenaceae before. One of the things that I can say regarding which sources should be given precedence, is that on botanical matters, Kew has a general tendency to be somewhat "behind the times", on its taxonomic classifications. That's not actually a criticism of them; conservativism in changing names and clades prevents whiplash, and their purpose as a botanical garden is more on training people to identify species based on traits observable in the field. In the past, all taxonomic relationships were assigned based on observable traits, the body of evidence we now call "phenotype" to distinguish it from genotype. But we've got genes now, and genes record inheritance better. It's no field botanist's fault that gene sequences don't exactly dangle off the plant in a convenient little ACGT format, but the fact is, that observable traits don't always represent genetic relationships or actual descent groups. There are "cryptic species" that are indistinguishable visually, yet extremely genetically distinct; and the reverse is true, that you can have wildly different phenotypes within a single species (e.g. dog breeds; in plants, good example would be kale, broccoli, cabbages, brusselsprouts, kohlrabi, cauliflower, and the shrub-like tree cabbage: one species, all interfertile, barely distinct as breeding populations, really easy to tell apart). So for a concrete example of Kew being behind the times, in the legumes that I know best, they still class them into three subfamilies: Papilionoideae, Mimosoideae, and Caesalpinioideae. These are distinguishable categories in the field, but in the genes, Mimosoideae is firmly embedded within "Caesalpinioideae", and so would Papilionoideae be too if modern taxonomic consensus (e.g. the most recent report from the Legume Phylogeny Working Group) hadn't split four new subfamilies out from the old "Caesalpinioideae". Kew and genetic databases have complementary goals, but eventually, Kew is going to have to either redo their botanical keys to account for what the genetic subfamilies actually are, or, at least rename their keys, maybe call them "field phenotype groups." And that can apply at all levels. Species with similar flowers, that are assigned to the same genus by phenotype, can't always be assigned to the same genetic genus; I'm about to publish a paper regarding a legume subfamily whose species and genera might have to be reshuffled (though to be clear, bitter memories aside, I agree with the rule about how having primary source authors write non-peer-reviewed ideas is not encyclopedic, I won't write anything I can't cite). So I don't know how Kew decided that Acantholippia only has one species, and they're still a reputable source in general obviously (helluvalot better than guesswork), but, I take their judgments with salt. I don't have infinite amounts of time (it just looks like it 'cuz I type fast), but I am trying to have better work-life balance, and, I'm enough of a nerd to admit that editing a Wikipedia page on Acantholippia falls on the "life & relaxation" side of that balance. So maybe tonight, maybe tomorrow night, maybe this weekend, one of these nights I can update this page on Acantholippia. If you get around to it first, no harm no foul. Thanks for the encouragement! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.5.140.161 (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Absolutely, go for it. I'm watching the page so I can tidy up if need be but it seems like you've already got a really good grasp already. If you're planning to continue editing, might I suggest creating an account? It makes correspondence easier, and typically reduces scrutiny of your edits; some Wikipedians are unduly suspicious of IP editors. Let me know if you have any questions about editing or how to do something, I can also link some comparable articles I've written if you wanted to see how formatting/markup is typically done. Fritzmann (message me) 19:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks so much, it's gratifying to hear that this is a corner of Wikipedia I can contribute to. I'm in the middle of writing a thesis on backbone relationships in the legumes, so I *am* passionate about taxonomy, though I can't say I've directed my passions towards Verbenaceae before. One of the things that I can say regarding which sources should be given precedence, is that on botanical matters, Kew has a general tendency to be somewhat "behind the times", on its taxonomic classifications. That's not actually a criticism of them; conservativism in changing names and clades prevents whiplash, and their purpose as a botanical garden is more on training people to identify species based on traits observable in the field. In the past, all taxonomic relationships were assigned based on observable traits, the body of evidence we now call "phenotype" to distinguish it from genotype. But we've got genes now, and genes record inheritance better. It's no field botanist's fault that gene sequences don't exactly dangle off the plant in a convenient little ACGT format, but the fact is, that observable traits don't always represent genetic relationships or actual descent groups. There are "cryptic species" that are indistinguishable visually, yet extremely genetically distinct; and the reverse is true, that you can have wildly different phenotypes within a single species (e.g. dog breeds; in plants, good example would be kale, broccoli, cabbages, brusselsprouts, kohlrabi, cauliflower, and the shrub-like tree cabbage: one species, all interfertile, barely distinct as breeding populations, really easy to tell apart). So for a concrete example of Kew being behind the times, in the legumes that I know best, they still class them into three subfamilies: Papilionoideae, Mimosoideae, and Caesalpinioideae. These are distinguishable categories in the field, but in the genes, Mimosoideae is firmly embedded within "Caesalpinioideae", and so would Papilionoideae be too if modern taxonomic consensus (e.g. the most recent report from the Legume Phylogeny Working Group) hadn't split four new subfamilies out from the old "Caesalpinioideae". Kew and genetic databases have complementary goals, but eventually, Kew is going to have to either redo their botanical keys to account for what the genetic subfamilies actually are, or, at least rename their keys, maybe call them "field phenotype groups." And that can apply at all levels. Species with similar flowers, that are assigned to the same genus by phenotype, can't always be assigned to the same genetic genus; I'm about to publish a paper regarding a legume subfamily whose species and genera might have to be reshuffled (though to be clear, bitter memories aside, I agree with the rule about how having primary source authors write non-peer-reviewed ideas is not encyclopedic, I won't write anything I can't cite). So I don't know how Kew decided that Acantholippia only has one species, and they're still a reputable source in general obviously (helluvalot better than guesswork), but, I take their judgments with salt. I don't have infinite amounts of time (it just looks like it 'cuz I type fast), but I am trying to have better work-life balance, and, I'm enough of a nerd to admit that editing a Wikipedia page on Acantholippia falls on the "life & relaxation" side of that balance. So maybe tonight, maybe tomorrow night, maybe this weekend, one of these nights I can update this page on Acantholippia. If you get around to it first, no harm no foul. Thanks for the encouragement! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.5.140.161 (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)