This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
plants and
botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
It's not a new species which POWO/WFO haven't got around to, as the specimens are from 1964 to 1997. I can't find anything on synonyms on POWO, WFO or World Plants, which you'd normally expect. — Jts1882 |
talk 08:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
It's in (as Tyloglossa) Martius's Flora Brasiliensis, so it goes a lot further back (1847 per IPNI). See also comments made on Tom Radulovich's talk page.
Lavateraguy (
talk) 12:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I've deprodded for now.
That MSc thesis certainly treats the species as valid, although I can't quite parse why they consider this name in particular to be applicable. --Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs) 16:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for your research. So what do you think should be done with the article? It has been unreferenced since it was created in 2006, so we should remedy that. It could be 1) kept where it is with a referenced discussion of its current status, with Tyloglossa genistiformis listed as a synonym, 2) moved to Tyloglossa genistiformis, the unplaced name listed in POWO and WFO, and moved when a valid name is published, or 3) deleted, on the presumption that someone might write an article when it's a validly published species.
Tom Radulovich (
talk) 16:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The 2010 Catálogo de Plantas e fungos do brasil doesn't have this species under any of its names. But that predates the thesis. The more recent database has Ecbolium genistiforme as the correct name (according to POWO Ecbolium is restricted to the Old World), but has Ecbolium genistiforme, Tyloglossa genistiformis and Adhatoda genistiformis as "nome mal applicado". There may be disagreement among Brasilian botanists about this taxon, but I would have thought that one would be able to find someone placing it in synonymy with something else.
So what are we doing with this article? If it's a valid synonym we should redirect it, but if it's neither an accepted species nor a valid synonym we should delete it.
Tom Radulovich (
talk) 20:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I think technically the article should be at Tyloglossa genistiformis, but Tyloglossa is considered a heterotypic synomym of Justicia, so if moved it would be good to explain the taxonomic and nomenclatural issues (species recognised in a MSC thesis and some Brasilian databases, but combination apparently not - yet - validly published).
I had been hoping that someone with a better command of Portuguese could resolve the issue, but after two months it's getting to the point where the nettle should be grasped. I've emailed an enquiry to the thesis supervisor.
Lavateraguy (
talk) 18:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I've had no reply. I think we go ahead and move it to Tyloglossa genistiformis, with a note on the nomenclatural issue, unless someone has a case for "Justicia" genistiformis or Justicia "genistiformis", as the article title.
Lavateraguy (
talk) 22:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply