Talk:Dysphania graveolens
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Peter coxhead in topic Unpublished
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Unpublished edit
@Peter coxhead:, Dysphania incisa is unpublished. In doi:10.15407/ukrbotj78.04.266 it is argued that D. incisa is unnecessary, and this species should be D. graveolens. Plantdrew (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Plantdrew: I hesitated over the name, since it's very unusual for PoWO to use "ined." (although found not infrequently in World Ferns). I have to say that I don't fully understand the issue in order to write it up. Please do so if you do.
- Should Chenopodium graveolens be "Lag. & Rodr. (1802)" IPNI 164958-1 or "Willd. (1809)" IPNI 56134-2? As IPNI seems to have both, and the first is earlier, Mosyakin's argument seems to have been accepted, so it should be the former.
- Should a name in Dysphania for the species in question be based on Chenopodium incisum or Chenopodium graveolens? Whatever the correct authorship of Chenopodium graveolens, Chenopodium incisum is agreed to be "Poir. (1810)", i.e. later than either possibility for Chenopodium graveolens, so I would have expected Dysphania graveolens.
- Peter coxhead (talk) 06:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- I added a note with the Mosyakin (2021) reference and created a redirect at Dysphania graveolens. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Plantdrew: I see that the record in IPNI for Dysphania incisa is now "suppressed", which wasn't the case at one time. So I'm moving the article to Dysphania graveolens. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)