In this edit, I changed 3 links to "[genus name] (plant)". This may be rejected by gnomes or by reviewers; I'm not sure. But it seems like redirecting to the species of a monospecific genus, in these cases, could be asking for trouble, since around 2000 new plant species are discovered and described per year. And, in fact, this is the approach to linking monospecific genera widely adopted in en.wp plant articles. Even worse: I'm working on a list with almost 14,000 rows here, and it's off the beaten path (that is, it's likely to attract less careful attention that pages devoted to genera or species), so mistakes aren't likely to be corrected quickly. Even worse: a redirect to a species is not the kind of edit that immediately attracts attention as soon as a new species in the genus appears; people would have to be looking for this kind of problem to find it. - Dank (push to talk) 17:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
None of my etymological sources lists Bechium, but Quattrocchi notes that Bechion is a Latin and Greek name for some plant "good for a cough". - Dank (push to talk) 21:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Blutaparon: I'm cheating a bit ... Quattrocchi (oddly for him) omits saying that this name is derived from a Latin name, and instead refers the reader to the primary source (which says that). I don't want to get started citing primary sources, because once I start, it might be hard to draw the line, and many reviewers frown on overuse of primary sources. - Dank (push to talk) 17:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
