Talk:Hylotelephium telephium

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Move

It is about time this was moved, after all Hylotelephium was segregated from Sedum in 1977. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 22:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It appears this has been tried before, and currently cannot be done because of preexisting page.--Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 22:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move requested from Sedum telephium to Hylotelephium telephium, as per Wikispecies --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 23:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently a previous move was reverted on the grounds the name had not been changed in The Plant List, a database that has been static since 2013, and no longer current. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 01:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 October 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 18:08, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sedum telephium → Hylotelephium telephium – Since Ohba segregated the genus in 1977 designating this species as the type no taxonomist has contradicted this and the original combination on morphology grounds has been repeatedly confirmed on molecular grounds As is common the older name persists in horticultural circles Somewhat frustratingly some databases such as the obsolete The Plant List have been slow to adopt the new nomenclature On the other hand, many others have See Wikispecies and Wikidata. Cannot be moved at present due to existing redirect. Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 23:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 02:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, subject to some issues being clarified The problem with the move in 2016 was the lack of secondary sources provided to support the acceptance of Hylotelephium. I agree that TPL is now obsolete. It's interesting that PoWO, the replacement for TPL, still doesn't accept the genus: Hylotelephium in PoWO, and if moved the article needs to say this. Wikispecies and Wikidata are, of course, not reliable secondary sources. But we can use ITIS, GRIN and the Flora of North America, I guess. Stace's latest New Flora of the British Isles also accepts the genus.

If this species is moved, then there needs to be a list of accepted species in the article at Hylotelephium. What would you use as a reliable secondary source for that list? Peter coxhead (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, PoWo is simply a migration of TPL. One disadvantage of these sources is that they re opaque as to what evidence they are based on. Secondary sources - International Crassulaceae Network, Canadensys also a number of flora. It is a little bizarre having the genus page, Hylotelephium, but the type species still in older nomenclature.--Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 15:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PoWO's underlying database is beyond TPL in general, but clearly some families/genera haven't yet been reviewed. I'm uneasy when sources are heavily regionally oriented – the collaboration underlying the Kew databases makes them less so, in my experience. I agree, as I noted above, with the move, but would like to see more at the genus page, which I'm sure you'll fix. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True in general. As you may have noticed I am engaged in a major overhaul of Saxifragales/Crassulaceae.

(cave regional base) BSBI adopted change March 2019. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 19:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Plant List is problematic, it lists 44 species of Hylotelephium, but omits H telephium, despite listing it as a synonym under Sedum. This may be an error of ommission. I can find no taxonomic evidence to support removing it from the genus.--Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 22:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done ok, I made the move as it's clear that there are sufficient good sources, and also made a few initial fixes; I'll leave it to you to fix things up a bit more. APweb is another ref for the genus: Crassulaceae genera. Reading some more of the literature, I wonder if some of the resistance is because it's clear that Sedum needs more splitting up (e.g. doi:10.1016/j.flora.2016.08.003), which could impact on splits already made. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:28, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its even more complicated than that, since Orostachys is embedded in Hylotelphium, and so far molecular markers have failed to produce enough resolution to make further clean splits in Sedum. I will clean up. Also need to bring discussion to a close. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 17:56, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Etymology

I cannot vouch for the various derivations of all the names editors have placed on this page --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 16:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]