Talk:Visnea

Monotypic?

@Plantdrew: so is Visnea L.f. monotypic? It appears to be in all the sources I've seen. If so, the species article should be merged here. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: TPL lists (as unresolved) V. mocanera and V. canariensis. The genus is probably monotypic, but it would be nice to have a source that explicitly synonymizes V. canariensis (IPNI apparently does so, but listing synonyms is so uncharacteristic of IPNI, I'm not sure what to make of it). Plantdrew (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Plantdrew: well, there's this, but it's not clear what the underlying source is. I'd be happier if the synonymy were in, say, the African Plants Database, but it isn't.

IPNI gives the origin of the name as this. Oken says "Hübscher Strauch auf den canarischen Inseln, in Hecken auf Hüglen und auch in einigen Wäldern, die einzige bekannte Gattung." = "Pretty shrub in/from the Canary Islands, in scrub/hedges on hills and also in some woods, the only known genus." The last bit is odd, because he's describing the species, but he probably means "the only known member of the genus". Oken references "Bory de St. Vincent, Iles fortunées [=Essais sur les isles Fortunées et l'antique Atlantide] t. 7", which I can't find online, and "Ann. gén. Sc. phys. [=Annales générales des sciences physiques] I. 1819. t. 5 Berthelot", which is online here, and where the species is clearly called Visnea mocanera L.f..

So based on these primary sources, I think that it is clear that Visnea mocanera = Visnea canariensis, although it's not clear why Oken used the latter name. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]