Talk:Papaver

Taxonomy

The taxonomy section does not reflect accepted thinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.213.157 (talk) 15 February 2011+

In what way? Richard New Forest (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question I have some comments and suggestions regarding possible reworking of the Taxonomy part of the article.

The groupings here: " Clade 1. Meconella, Meconopsis Clade 2. Carinatae, Meconidium, Oxytona, Papaver, Pilosa, Pseudopilosa and Rhoeadium Clade 3. Argemonidium, Roemeria refracta " are the results of a molecular phylogeny by Carolan et. al which reveal Papaver as non-monophyletic as mentioned. However, the genus, sectional and species structure of Papaver and related genera have not been altered to reflect these grouping as yet. This could be clarified.

The text in the article following on from this shows some the the Sections of Papaver but only a couple: " The following are lectotypified with their lectotype species:

   * Carinatae (P. macrostomum Boiss. & Huet)
   * Oxytona (P. orientale L.)
   * Macrantha (P. orientale L.)- superfluous
   * Calomecon (Calomecon orientale)

" Calcomecon is a synonym used by Kiger for the Section Macrantha, and Oxytona is another synonym for Macrantha.

Kadereit, J.W has carried out revisions of most sections of Papaver plus Roemeria and Stytlomecon. A listing of all sections could be given here, plus some example species from each section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.97.163 (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

change infobox image

Please change the infobox image to the more common red flower, because i almost thought i had typed wrong and got myself on some Papaver flower-sub page, and since it's the most common, i strongly suggest using the red flower sort, and displaying the other colours in a section below, just like Raspberry the red sort is the most common and by definition should be displayed instead of that lilac rarer kind.

--109.58.186.199 (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• I suppose you are referring to Papaver rhoeas, which is a different species (not a different sort with a different color, as you say). Together with other species, they all belong to the genus Papaver. Papaver setigerum, the one represented here, is not at all rare. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

California poppy

The picture of a California poppy on this page is inaccurate. The flower called a California poppy is Eschsholzia californica, not Papaver anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.1.69 (talk) 05:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Copying or close paraphrase issue

Some of the text in the section "Phylogeny of Papaver and related genera" is, in my view, too close to the Carolan et al. (2006) source. For example:

• Carolan et al.: "... four annual, half-rosette species, P. apulum, P. argemone, P. hybridum and P. pavonium. Papaver apulum, P. argemone and P. pavonium are closely related and occur allopatrically from around the Adriatic Sea through Turkey–Iran to the Himalayas. The fourth species, P. hybridum, occupies a wide range from the Macaronesian Islands towards the Himalayas"
• WP article: "... four annual, half-rosette species, P. argemone, P. pavonium, P. apulum, and P. hybridum (Kadereit 1986a). Papaver apulum, P. argemone and P. pavonium occur allopatrically from the Adriatic Sea to the Himalayan range. P. hybridum is distributed widely from the Himalayas to Macaronesian Islands."

At present I'm working on some rewriting in my user space. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

And it was just slapped in there, without any understanding. Yes, a rewrite of the section would benefit the reader. --(AfadsBad (talk) 15:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC))

Stylomecon

I am proposing that Stylomecon be merged into Papaver. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Stylomecon into Papaver

Recent discussion indicates that in the twenty-first century, the windpoppy is Papaver heterophyllum rather than Stylomecon heterophylla, which means that Stylomecon is an old alternate name. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Support move not merge This seems to me to be quite uncontroversial, as it's supported by all recent secondary sources, such as PoWO. I would just have made the change, which is a move of Stylomecon to Papaver heterophyllum, not a merge. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Support move not merge, for the same reason as Peter coxhead. MeegsC (talk) 09:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually, given the fact that Papaver heterophyllum already exists, Stylomecon should REDIRECT to that page. It would have been helpful to know you'd approved the creation of that page! ;) MeegsC (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Support redirect. I did check two other sources: https://npgsweb.ars-grin.gov/gringlobal/taxon/taxonomydetail?id=35869 says Meconopsis heterophylla Benth. and iNaturalist - https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/78344-Papaver-heterophyllum - says Papaver heterophyllum. I'd take PoWO as the most authoritative of the bunch ( http://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:182757-2 ). In summary, I support making Stylomecon a redirect to Papaver heterophyllum. Kingdon (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Support redirect. There is not much to merge, Stylomecon should just be turned into a redirect. Hardyplants (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment

It looks not to be as simple as I first thought. I've been working on Meconopsis § Taxonomy. As traditionally defined, it seems that neither Meconopsis (even after removing M. cambrica) nor Papaver are monophyletic. There are two possible responses to this:

• The Meconopsis specialists have split up Meconopsis and would appear to support splitting up Papaver, which could involve using Stylomecon and Roemeria, but this hasn't happened as far as I can tell as of January 2021.
• As has happened in other taxa, Plants of the World Online (PoWO) is following the lumping approach of Christenhaus & Byng, and puts all genera involved, including Meconopsis, into Papaver.

So if we strictly followed PoWO, we would make Meconopsis disappear as a genus article, which I think would not reflect either the specialist literature nor the horticultural literature, and so would not serve our readers well, at least at present.

So I still favour redirecting Stylomecon for now, but the situation may change. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I redirected it. Since there is no discussion for several months--Cs california (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Taxonomy is out of date

The taxonomy in the article depends heavily on a 2006 paper. As per the references at Meconopsis, there have been studies since that have partly reinforced the results published in 2006, but also extended them and reached different conclusions about classification. The article needs updating. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)