Talk:Cupressus: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:56, 28 January 2024

Moving to Hesperocyparis

POWO and World Flora Online both classify the New World members of Cupressus in Hesperocyparis, and many studies have found that the "New World Cupressus" treatment is paraphyletic with respect to Juniperus, but the Gymnosperm Database still classifies these species in Cupressus. Which treatment should we follow? Geekgecko (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Geekgecko I'm mildly inclined to follow POWO and WFO. Before we just jump into moving let's post some requests for comment from other plant editors at WP:Plants talk and maybe some of the affected species. I'm wrapping up moving Mahonia to Berberis so I'll have time to work on this if it does need to be moved. One more bit of weight on the side of "move" https://www.worldplants.de also lists Hesperocyparis as correct. A tiny vote against it, NatureServe is still using Cupressus. Not sure what would be a really authoritative recently published botany book to look into to see if this is starting to be widely used. Doing a quick search in the Wikipedia Library it does seem to be in use, and not just as a mentioned synonym. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 05:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've paused my moving Cupressus to Hesperocyparis in light of the most recent comment by @MPF at the Plants Project talk page. So far I had edited and requested moves for Hesperocyparis arizonica and Hesperocyparis bakeri. Also pinging @Geekgecko, @Peter coxhead, @Abductive, @Lavateraguy, and @Plantdrew as potentially having an informed opinion.

Summary of the situation:

POWO, WFO, World Plants, and Gymnosperm Database list Hesperocyparis as the correct genus.
FNA and Cupressus Conservation Project retain Cupressus.

I think that the weight of opinion is on the side of Hesperocyparis, but the question has been raised on if this is a political move or not. There is a good summary of the arguments at the Cupressus page on the Gymnosperm Database. However, Wikipedia should use a consensus of what is actually being used rather than picking which argument is correct. I will do a survey of which names are used in Wiley and Nature over the last five years to see what is the scientific consensus if we here at Wikipedia think this is the correct way to figure out what name our articles should have, while retaining that there is not universal consensus on this topic in the Taxo section. What is the opinion of the group? 🌿MtBotany (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 :@[[User:Geekgecko|Geekgecko]] I'm mildly inclined to follow POWO and WFO. Before we just jump into moving let's post some requests for comment from other plant editors at [[WP:Plants talk]] and maybe some of the affected species. I'm wrapping up moving ''[[Mahonia]]'' to ''[[Berberis]]'' so I'll have time to work on this if it does need to be moved. One more bit of weight on the side of "move" https://www.worldplants.de also lists ''Hesperocyparis'' as correct. A tiny vote against it, NatureServe is still using ''Cupressus''. Not sure what would be a really authoritative recently published botany book to look into to see if this is starting to be widely used. Doing a quick search in the Wikipedia Library it does seem to be in use, and not just as a mentioned synonym. [[User:MtBotany|🌿MtBotany]] ([[User talk:MtBotany|talk]]) 05:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
+:I've paused my moving ''Cupressus'' to ''Hesperocyparis'' in light of the most recent comment by @[[User:MPF|MPF]] at the [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants#Cupressus_and_Hesperocyparis|Plants Project talk page]]. So far I had edited and requested moves for ''[[Hesperocyparis arizonica]]'' and ''[[Hesperocyparis bakeri]]''. Also pinging @[[User:Geekgecko|Geekgecko]], @[[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]], @[[User:Abductive|Abductive]], @[[User:Lavateraguy|Lavateraguy]], and @[[User:Plantdrew|Plantdrew]] as potentially having an informed opinion.
+:Summary of the situation:<br>
+:*[https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:60451544-2 POWO], [https://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-4000017629 WFO], [https://www.worldplants.de World Plants], and [https://www.conifers.org/cu/Hesperocyparis.php Gymnosperm Database] list ''Hesperocyparis'' as the correct genus.
+:*[http://floranorthamerica.org/Cupressus FNA] and [http://cupressus.net/ Cupressus Conservation Project] retain ''Cupressus''.
+:I think that the weight of opinion is on the side of ''Hesperocyparis'', but the question has been raised on if this is a political move or not. There is a good summary of the arguments at the [https://www.conifers.org/cu/Cupressus.php ''Cupressus'' page] on the Gymnosperm Database. However, Wikipedia should use a consensus of what is actually being used rather than picking which argument is correct. I will do a survey of which names are used in Wiley and Nature over the last five years to see what is the scientific consensus if we here at Wikipedia think this is the correct way to figure out what name our articles should have, while retaining that there is not universal consensus on this topic in the Taxo section. What is the opinion of the group? [[User:MtBotany|🌿MtBotany]] ([[User talk:MtBotany|talk]]) 19:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)