 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Taxonomic ranks edit
The sections listed within Iochroma are not supported by the most recent morphological and molecular attempts to resolve species relationships (Smith and Baum 2006) leading to information that conflicts directly with your provided sources...
It would be nice to see direct citations for the notes under the species subheading. Unless I'm reading the Smith and Baum 2006 paper incorrectly none of genera even appear monophyletic. With this in mind it becomes a bit pedantic to make notes about incorrect placement of species and placements of those species in different genera when the position/ identity of those genera is uncertain. Given updated citation provided, the only real taxonomic conclusion seems to be that all these species are members of the subtribe Iochrominae, updating the genera will require following http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Code_of_Nomenclature_for_algae,_fungi,_and_plants and early preserved type specimens for Iochrominae are not Iochroma. This suggests that, pending a petition of IBC, large parts of the subtribe may be renamed as genera (or a single genus) which is/are not Iochroma. Once again, thus making all these little distinctions about proper placement of species within currently defined genera as effectively null — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.45.95 (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)