Talk:Echinocereus brandegeei
Latest comment: 4 months ago by Cs california in topic Authority
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Authority
edit@Cs california, are you sure about the authority here? The linked references give different names; as does WikiSpecies. Should it not be (J.M.Coult.) K.Schum.? The homotypic is (J.M.Coult.) Schelle.
@Plantdrew any thoughts? --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 06:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- It says (J.M.Coult.) Schelle here as the accepted species which is where I got it. -Cs california (talk) 06:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Cs california and Classicwiki:, there is an error of some sort in Kew's databases. IPNI has two entries for E. brandegeei. One has the authority as "Schelle", and that is linked to the POWO record that has the authority as "(J.M.Coult.) Schelle" (the database IDs for this IPNI record and the POWO record are identical, so one of the must have had the authority updated to include ("J.M.Coult.)". The other IPNI record has the authority as "(J.M.Coult.) K.Schum.", with a link to BHL (and Echinocereus brandegeei does appear in the linked BHL page). The K.Schum. name was published in 1898 and the Schelle name was published in 1906 or 1907 (IPNI and POWO give different dates). Tropicos lists Echinocereus brandegeei Schelle as a homonym of Echinocereus brandegeei (J.M. Coult.) K. Schum. (the Tropicos record for Schelle was imported from Kew). I think (J.M. Coult.) K. Schum. is the correct authorship (being published before Schelle). Plantdrew (talk) 21:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Cs california, ok with changing to (J.M. Coult.) K. Schum.? --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 22:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- I have no issues with you guys changing anything it is also a good idea to email the people maintaining the POWO website at bi@kew.org. Also another difference I found was Echinocereus barthelowianus is spelled Echinocereus barthelowanus(without the i) not sure who is right or wrong. But thanks for double checking the work. I am going to attempt to get the species pages for Echinocereus created so feel free to go over and check them. Sometimes the measurements or habitats are wrong in the old descriptions.--Cs california (talk) 05:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Cs california, ok with changing to (J.M. Coult.) K. Schum.? --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 22:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Cs california and Classicwiki:, there is an error of some sort in Kew's databases. IPNI has two entries for E. brandegeei. One has the authority as "Schelle", and that is linked to the POWO record that has the authority as "(J.M.Coult.) Schelle" (the database IDs for this IPNI record and the POWO record are identical, so one of the must have had the authority updated to include ("J.M.Coult.)". The other IPNI record has the authority as "(J.M.Coult.) K.Schum.", with a link to BHL (and Echinocereus brandegeei does appear in the linked BHL page). The K.Schum. name was published in 1898 and the Schelle name was published in 1906 or 1907 (IPNI and POWO give different dates). Tropicos lists Echinocereus brandegeei Schelle as a homonym of Echinocereus brandegeei (J.M. Coult.) K. Schum. (the Tropicos record for Schelle was imported from Kew). I think (J.M. Coult.) K. Schum. is the correct authorship (being published before Schelle). Plantdrew (talk) 21:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)