Taxonomic Swap 139441 (הועלה ב 2024-02-18)

לא ידוע
נוסף על־ידי t_e_d בתאריך פברואר 18, 2024 01:38 לפנה"צ | אושר על ידי t_e_d בתאריך פברואר 18, 2024
הוחלף ב

תגובות

No - this is silly.

Erica lanata is a good concept, and the IDs are all to the same species - making them Erica is just ridiculous.

This is based on https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/498859

But the concept we are all using is
Erica lanata Andrews
First published in Col. Engr. Heaths, ed. 2, 3: t. 121 (1845), nom. illeg.
This name is a synonym of Erica flaccida

So ALL the IDs are for the Erica flaccida version of Erica lanata - to sink this to the genus just makes no sense whatsover. It needs to be swapped into Erica flaccida

פורסם על-ידי tonyrebelo לפני בערך 2 חודשים

Please : the discussion is here : https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/498859
No need to have several parallel discussions.

פורסם על-ידי t_e_d לפני בערך 2 חודשים

There needs to be a reference to the flag and discussion, otherwise some overeager curator may commit this.

פורסם על-ידי tonyrebelo לפני בערך 2 חודשים

There is a reference to the flag at the top of the page.

פורסם על-ידי t_e_d לפני בערך 2 חודשים

OK: but let us move the discussion here then.

https://phytokeys.pensoft.net/article/110498/

10. Erica lanata J.C. Wendl. (1798), non Andrews (1806)
Messrs Lee & Kennedy had employed the name “Erica lanata” in the manuscript list, mentioned previously (see Nelson and Oliver (2004: 138)), of species that had been introduced into cultivation by the firm before 1808. Andrews (1806: t. 121) was undoubtedly using this binomial for the same plant. However, the binomial had been published eight years earlier by Johann Christoph Wendland (1755–1828) for a different species (Wendland 1798: 45). The persistent use of Andrews’s binomial, despite the priority of Wendland’s, is inexplicable. As noted by Dulfer (1965: 44), Wendland’s name was a synonym of Erica conspicua Sol., which Dulfer relegated to a variety of E. curviflora L. (var. splendens (J.C. Wendl.) Dulfer = E. splendens J.C. Wendl., non Andrews), but is currently regarded as a distinct species (Oliver and Oliver 2000, 2003; Oliver 2012). There is a later name available to replace Erica lanata Andrews and that is E. flaccida Hort. ex Link; Sinclair (1825: 10) was the first to make this equation in print. Erica flaccida has been traced in print in several publications (e.g. Anonymous (1808: 191); Cushing (1812: 224; 1814, 224)) and in Conrad Loddiges & Sons’ catalogue for 1811, before it was taken up by Link (1821: 1: 367), who cited English gardeners as his source. None of the sources published prior to 1821 included a diagnosis or description.

So please redo this SWAP to
Erica lanata will become Erica flaccida
and execute it.

פורסם על-ידי tonyrebelo לפני בערך 2 חודשים

Again : discussion on the flag (link at the top of the page), not on the swap. The swap can be deleted at any moment by any curator, and all discussions will be lost.
Can you stop discussing here ?

פורסם על-ידי t_e_d לפני בערך 2 חודשים

Why not delete it now ...

פורסם על-ידי tonyrebelo לפני בערך 2 חודשים

הוספת תגובה

כניסה או הרשמה להוספת הערות