Talk:Horsfieldia

Changes to species list

In an effort to have the species listed with references (so that they can at least be verified as coming from somewhere) I have updated the list by first taking the one for Horsfieldia at Tropicos.org; I next checked those species on the original list that already had articles, but were not on the Tropicos list, against IPNI (most of these articles were created from information originating at the IUCN red list for threated species). In cases where IPNI had a less binomial authors than IUCN, I used IUCN. All others on the original list for Horsfieldia at Wikipedia that had no articles already were removed (they can be put back as articles, or at least sources for them, are also added). Hamamelis (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Much improved.

The Plant List shows H. lemanniana as a synonym of H. irya, though Tropicos doesn't. I think this is because the work of resolving the synonymy is proceeding independently, so it would be appropriate to combine what these databases show. Consequently, I've removed H. lemanniana from the species list, and these other red links: H. canarioides, H. hainanensis, H. longipedunculata, H. macrocoma, H. odorata, H. prainii, H. racemosa, H. tetratepala, H. thorelii, H. tonkinensis. Some of the others show "unresolved" in TPL (today). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

So far so good, but something puzzles me. If Horsfieldia odorata Willd. is a synonym of Horsfieldia iryaghedhi (Gaertn.) Warb. (according to The Plant List), how can it be the type (according to Tropicos)—or is it? I have seen other instances in the past of plant genera having their types also being synonyms of something else, notably at GRIN. Hamamelis (talk) 00:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, that's interesting, and I had no idea such a situation could happen, but I think the following must be the explanation. Horsfieldia odorata must be the type, because it is the only species that Willdenow lists (at botanicus.org). "WCSP in review" shows Gaertner as the author of the iryaghedhi epithet, and IPNI has Myristica iryaghedhi Gaertn. in volume 1 of Fruct. Sem. Pl., which was published in 1788. That pre-dates Horsfieldia odorata in 1806. So, in moving a component of Myristica to Horsfieldia, the type of M. iryaghedhi is a different specimen from the type of H. odorata, but the name H. iryaghedhi has priority (article 11.4). It would be nice if TPL distinguished heterotypic synonyms from homotypic ones, so that it would be possible to verify that they consider these to be heterotypic synonyms, which would tend to confirm the chain of inference.

So, should Horsfieldia odorata have an article about it? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that explanation makes sense to me. But I'm not sure of the best route to proceed; H. odorata should probably redirect to H. iryaghedhi for now, but the result would be unsatisfying and confusing; but unless and until a reliable, publicly available source can be found that explicitly says what you say, making an article (with a link pointing to H. iryaghedhi) would bump up against WP:OR. If we can't find the source(s) on our own, maybe this should be brought up at WikiProject Plants where others may have diverse resources available to them. What do you think? Hamamelis (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and perhaps for now we should put back the red link on this page for H. odorata. I'm out of ideas about how to improve this page without a trip to the library, and there are other things that I should be doing instead of that. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok: will do both. Hamamelis (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no problem with the type species of a genus being a junior synonym of another species, and this happens quite frequently. The solution is usually to show the name of the type species, but either redirect it (as has been done here) or pipe it (as I did at Uncinia) to the current name. We don't make separate articles about synonyms, so there should not be a separate H. odorata page; it should instead redirect to the accepted name, and any details about the synonyms should be given there. It might be appropriate to give the accepted name of the species on the genus page as well, in square brackets or something. I have never seen this done, but it could help to minimise confusion (although it wouldn't work well with the type_species_authority parameter). --Stemonitis (talk) 05:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, and the alternative piping method. But are we certain that that is what took place in this particular instance; unless it is self-evident, where no alternative explanation is possible, we would still need the smoking-gun for a citation. If there is no way that this could occur, then I guess we can proceed with it. But is there any other plausible way it could have happened? Hamamelis (talk) 05:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Horsfieldia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140627094911/http://www.iucnredlist.org/ to http://www.iucnredlist.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)