Talk:List of Acer species
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. |
| List | This article has been rated as List-class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
Acer tataricum subsp. ginnala is a subspecies according to Finnish and European systematics. My source is Suomen puu ja pensaskasvio.
- Disputed; many others retain A. ginnala as a distinct species, including e.g. the Flora of China, Komarov in the Flora SSSR, and the USDA. There is no overlap in range (actually, over 4000km range gap), and the two taxa are very readily distinguishable with no intergradation. That they may hybridise in cultivation is of no significance (so do numerous other maple species). - MPF 16:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Gallery
If there are no objections I have rearranged the photos in a gallery set of four, in two sections. I also added a link to wkimedia commons which has the missing photos. I hope to put the missing photos on here from my collection and W-Media WayneRay 17:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)WayneRay
- Acer
- Acer buergerianum
- Acer campestre
- Acer capillipes
- Acer cappadocicum
- Acer carpinifolium
- Acer circinatum
- Acer crataegifolium
- Acer davidii
- Acer davidii ssp. grosseri
- Acer ginnala
- Acer grandidentatum
- Acer griseum
- Acer grosseri
- Acer japonicum
- Acer laevigatum
- Acer macrophyllum
- Acer maximowiczianum
- Acer micranthum
- Acer monspessulanum
- Acer negundo
- Acer opalus
- Acer opalus obtusatum
- Acer palmatum
- Acer pensylvanicum
- Acer platanoides
- Acer pseudoplatanus
- Acer rubrum
- Acer rufinerve
- Acer saccharinum
- Acer saccharum
- Acer tataricum
- Acer zoeschense
Acer discolor (Maximowicz) is accepted by IPNI. GRIN makes no mention of it. Antoine Le Hardy de Beaulieu mentions it in his book " An Illustrated Guide to Maples" on page 21 as beloging in section Pentaphylla. This seems like sufficient ground to accept the species as existing. Another note was that the species is rare. TeunSpaans 14:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- IPNI is primarily a database of names and is not the best source for determining whether a taxon is valid or not; Tropicos on the other hand, while also not 100% reliable, suggests that A. discolor will be accepted in the Flora of China (the English edition with this family is not yet published but A. discolor was considered a distinct taxon in the Chinese edition.) MrDarwin 18:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Nothing in life is perfect - Tropicos is, afaik, very incomplete. What do you see as the drawbacks of IPNI? TeunSpaans 19:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- IPNI will tell you where and when a name was published but for most records not much else, such as whether or not a name is currently recognized as a valid species. Most of the earlier names give the combining but not basionym author, and very inconsistently list basionyms and other homotypic or heterotypic synonyms, many of which are now out-of-date. (On top of that these names were scanned from hard copies with a minimum of proofreading, which has introduced comletely new errors.) More recent names, now entered directly into a database, usually have much better information (including type data) but the older names usually have no indication as to whether they are still recognized or are now considered a synonym of something else. IPNI is a very valuable and useful reference, but should never be considered a primary source for any name. MrDarwin 19:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thx. I do use IPNI rather often, though usually in combination with other sources, such as www.efloras.org and www.mobot.org. It is good to know its limitations. TeunSpaans 20:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- In this case, I didnt mention flora of china, because you had already mentioned that, but I did check it out. To err is human, you konw. TeunSpaans 20:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- IPNI will tell you where and when a name was published but for most records not much else, such as whether or not a name is currently recognized as a valid species. Most of the earlier names give the combining but not basionym author, and very inconsistently list basionyms and other homotypic or heterotypic synonyms, many of which are now out-of-date. (On top of that these names were scanned from hard copies with a minimum of proofreading, which has introduced comletely new errors.) More recent names, now entered directly into a database, usually have much better information (including type data) but the older names usually have no indication as to whether they are still recognized or are now considered a synonym of something else. IPNI is a very valuable and useful reference, but should never be considered a primary source for any name. MrDarwin 19:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Nothing in life is perfect - Tropicos is, afaik, very incomplete. What do you see as the drawbacks of IPNI? TeunSpaans 19:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
