User talk:Dwergenpaartje

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 64 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Thanks for creating

, Dwergenpaartje!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please strive to expand the article beyond a stub. Especially important is basic biology and information (size, description, distribution, etc) rather than just obscure taxonomy and nomenclature, which is likely irrelevant to most readers. Cheers!

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about

.

Thanks for creating Ranunculus pinguis, Dwergenpaartje!

Wikipedia editor

just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

So far so good

To reply, leave a comment on Dat GuyWiki's

.

Learn more about

.

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ortholobium

The position of Otholobium at present seems to be a mess. I see that you created most of the article. It appears to be agreed by sources such as Plants of the World Online that the African species of Otholobium are synonymous with Psoralea (which is the older name), so they are treated in that genus. Thus Otholobium accrescens is a synonym of Psoralea accrescens. The problem with the South American species is that they cannot be left in Otholobium, because the type species of that genus was the South African Psoralea caffra, so when the genera are combined, Otholobium becomes a synonym of Psoralea. As of now, South American species like Otholobium glandulosum are treated as "unplaced" by PoWO. I do think that we have to be clear that the South African species are now placed in Psoralea – note for example that Psoralea accrescens is listed in the Psoralea article. There's a real danger of articles being created for some species in both Psoralea and Otholobium. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. South-American Otholobium is not particularly closely related to South-African. The author of Otholobium, Charles Stirton, himself only put South-African species in his own genus. Merging South-African Otholobium with Psoralea is straight forward, but Stirton himself identified characters distinguishing the two. Following the phylogeny portrayed in the wiki-article, the consequence of lumping both South-African and South American Otholobium with Psoralea implies that all other genera in the entire Psoraleeae are reduced to Psoralea (i.e. Cullen, Bituminaria, Hoita, Orbexilum, Ladeania, Psoralidium, Rupertia and Pediomelum). I am not aware of a new study conflicting with the one cited there. Stirton seems to have changed his opinion from splitting to lumping, but I do not know exactly why. I note however that the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) still sticks to Otholobium, e.g. Otholobium bracteolatum. As long as a revision has not been published, stability in the nomenclature of the Psoraleeae is not guaranteed. I think redirects from Psoralea species to the respective names in Otholobium would be clear enough and avoids changes that may have to be reverted in coming years. Do you want me to consult Stirton or one of his younger colleagues, so you can make an informed decision? I am all in your hands. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 10:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]