Talk:Chrysothamnus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

[edit] Chrysothamnus / Ericameria

(The following is the edited discussion on this topic from the talk pages of the participants)

Franz Xaver says that Image:Chrysothamnus nauseosus 7991.jpg is actually Ericameria nauseosa according to http://plants.usda.gov/ this species now belongs to genus Ericameria. Is plants.usda.gov authoritative on this matter? If so, Chrysothamnus needs to be moved to Ericameria and the article updated. Please advise. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Walter - this looks to be a fairly complex one, and probably open to dispute. It seems that some botanists have transferred some, or all, of the species of Chrysothamnus into Ericameria, but that not everyone accepts the move(s). The original references are cited on the New Mexico Botanist website (google cache with the names highlighted); I don't have access to the paper, but Phytologia is not held in the highest regard (it isn't peer-reviewed or only minimally so), so it may well be premature to follow it without further research. AFAIK, Great Basin Naturalist is peer-reviewed, though I don't know the calibre of their reviewers; still, it isn't in the same calibre as e.g. Am.J.Bot. or Missouri BG's publications. The USDA appear to have accepted part of the transfer, but not all, retaining some species in Chrysothamnus (tho' not C. nauseosus). Conversely the Univ. of Brit. Columbia have not accepted the move, despite being aware of the proposals (Botany Photo of the Day 14/9/2005 and 3/12/2005).

Of the USDA Plant Profiles, I'd say they're usually fairly reliable, but I'd not consider them any more authoritative than several other sources; I've certainly found a number of differences between them and some others (compare e.g. their treatment of Abies or Quercus with that of the Flora of North America) (unfortunately, FNA haven't done Asteraceae yet).

My overall feeling is to retain them in Chrysothamnus at least for the moment, but that the question of transfer to Ericameria should be mentioned (and also make a stub for Ericameria with species that have always been in that genus). I'll drop the UBC people a line and ask what they think. If you've got easy access to Phytologia and GBN, have a read of the papers and see what they say.

The people at UBC are having a look into it, but haven't replied yet (you can follow progress here, scroll down to the comments section).

Thanks for giving me a notice of this discussion. I think it is not really necessary to search for the old papers from Phytologia. Probably more relevant is the following paper: Roberts R.P. & Urbatsch L.E. 2003: Molecular phylogeny of Ericameria (Asteraceae, Astereae) based on nuclear ribosomal 3 ETS and ITS sequence data. Taxon 52 (2) - see Abstract. The journal "Taxon" is peer-reviewed and has a rather good reputation. I do not yet have the paper from Taxon. However, there is no reason to think, that the content is much different from the dissertation of the first author. Cheers --Franz Xaver 20:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; looks like it stays in Chrysothamnus on the basis of the abstract (unless it is one of the "species transferred from Chrysothamnus including E. albida"!) - MPF 22:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Probably you did only read the abstract of the Taxon paper. You should also have a look at the phylogenetic trees on pages 57, 59, 62, 63, 66 of the dissertation and read the first sentence on page 69: The present investigation and that of Ericameria (chapter 3) support Nesom and Baird's (1993) transfer of Chrysothamnus nauseosus .... to Ericameria. --Franz Xaver 23:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I've taken a look now and agree that those phylo trees do show it to be an Ericameria after all - MPF 23:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I will make the move (if it hasn't been made) and copy the relevant material above to the Ericameria discussion page, if no one objects. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The content of Taxon 52 (2) pp. 209-228 seems to be the same as the dissertation. "The transfer of Chrysothamnus nauseosus, C. paniculatus, C. parryi, C. teretifolius to Ericameria by Nesom & Baird (1993) is supported." "Except for one species, E. albida, Anderson's (1995) transfer of all species of Chrysothamnus is unsupported." That leaves seven of the species originally in Chrysothamnus. They propose adding five taxa in Chrysothamnus previously treated in other genera (Roberts & Urbatsch, in press). Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rabbitbrush article

How bout create a "Rabbitbrush" article, with these Chrysothamnus species and those from Ericameria such as nauseosus that also go by "rabbitbrush". I think nauseosus is the thing most commonly thought of as rabbitbrush (at least by laymen like me), so the current situation with Rabbitbrush redirecting here is not so good. Toiyabe 21:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to this, but it must have happened before. I'll ask MPF to take a look. I think that a disambiguation page WP:D is the Wikipedia standard solution. Thank you for bringing this up. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

One solution would be to have Rabbitbrush redirect to Ericameria nauseosus (once it's written, of course) along with a disambig notice and page listing other species that have rabbitbrush as part of their common name. That's based on the assumption that E. nauseosus is the most prominent rabbitbrush, which I may well be wrong about. If that is a good solution, it probably should also be applied Sagebrush and Artemisia tridentata. Toiyabe 22:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd make rabbitbrush into a disambig, along the same lines as e.g. thistle, cypress and hawthorn, with all the species and genus pages at their scientific names - MPF 22:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That is very helpful. I've started a disambiguation page using hawthorn as a model. Hopefully, it will solve the immediate problem. I'm not sure that E. nauseosus dominates the rabbitbrush species; my impression is that E. viscidiflorus is quite widespread and superficially quite similar to the former. However, I will be the first to admit that I know very little about these genera; they don't grow where I live. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I've copied this discussion to Talk:Rabbitbrush. I suggest that further discussion be moved there. Forgive me if you object. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)