 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Is there a source somewhere for collapsing (Duchesnea, etc.) several genera into this one? This has appeared on several articles, but the authoritative sources still treat them as distinct genera. If there is not, a bit of subjunctive couching would be in order. SB Johnny 12:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- The entire thing seems to be sourced from Eriksson and all, which is a ref given at the end of "Recent genetic research has resulted in a number of changes to the circumscription of Potentilla". Circeus 13:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- After a quick check, that is, indeed the source for everything.
Circeus 13:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- From my angle, maybe it would be better to simply add redirects using the new names, rather than renaming and rewriting the articles. I did a bit of googling and found some papers on it, but it doesn't seem to be accepted by most authorities (at least not yet). (Some of the articles were oddly POV... using the term "folk taxonomy" for morphology-based classification, which may explain the lack of acceptance by botanists.)
SB Johnny 14:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Essential reading:
Mabberley, D.J. (2002). Potentilla and Fragaria (Rosaceae) reunited. Telopea 9(4): 793-801 (downloadable from
here). Note the inclusion of Fragaria, as well as Duchesnea, in Potentilla. The conclusions are robust; it is only the "political" considerations to be overcome. I consider we should follow Mabberley (maybe if not now, then when the new edition of The Plant Book comes out later this year) -
MPF 09:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- By "political" you mean that the traditional classification still has many partisans, right?
Circeus 02:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- That old traditions die hard and that many people don't like change even when it becomes evident that it is necessary! - MPF 10:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- It's also a practical matter. There are big differences in cultivation methods, pests and diseases, etc. that are reflected in centuries' worth of literature (particularly regarding Fragaria). The change might be felt necessary by genetic taxonomists, but the distinction will be felt necessary by the growers. SB Johnny 10:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- By "political" you mean that the traditional classification still has many partisans, right?
Circeus 02:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Essential reading:
Mabberley, D.J. (2002). Potentilla and Fragaria (Rosaceae) reunited. Telopea 9(4): 793-801 (downloadable from
here). Note the inclusion of Fragaria, as well as Duchesnea, in Potentilla. The conclusions are robust; it is only the "political" considerations to be overcome. I consider we should follow Mabberley (maybe if not now, then when the new edition of The Plant Book comes out later this year) -
MPF 09:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- From my angle, maybe it would be better to simply add redirects using the new names, rather than renaming and rewriting the articles. I did a bit of googling and found some papers on it, but it doesn't seem to be accepted by most authorities (at least not yet). (Some of the articles were oddly POV... using the term "folk taxonomy" for morphology-based classification, which may explain the lack of acceptance by botanists.)
SB Johnny 14:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
The species list is getting very cluttered. I'd like to suggest removing the authority names, which are not consistently used. Adding the remainder would clutter the page further. This information can easily be accessed on the pages, in Wikispecies, or from IPNI. Nadiatalent ( talk) 01:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe it would be a good idea to split that part off to List of Potentilla species along the same lines as List of Drosera species? Rkitko ( talk) 02:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)