Talk:Anemone hepatica
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Anemone hepatica is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organize 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. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
[edit] Name change
I checked the botanical literature, literature I don't generally have access to, and the major papers on this species under Hepatica are referenced in later articles where the species is called Anemone hepatica. Based upon this, that later references use Anemone rather than Hepatica and IPNI[1] I moved the article to Anemone heptaica. Sorry for not posting this with the move last night. KP Botany 20:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Anemone hepatica vs Hepatica nobilis
I've added some references on the subject of Anemone hepatica versus Hepatica nobilis (in a nutshell, ITIS says that Anemone hepatica is "not accepted" but there's at least one study of the phylogeny, by Hoot, which seems to imply that Hepatica belongs within Anemone). I'm not sure I've fully gotten to the bottom of this, and what particularly bugs me is that, if Anemone is the right home, I don't know how each of the Hepatica species gets mapped to a name within Anemone (note that most of the Hepatica taxa have two names, one as a species and one as a variety of H. nobilis). (It would appear that the Hoot article proposes a classification, but I'm just going on the abstract and first page - I didn't try to find a copy of the full article). Note that in ITIS (if I'm reading it correctly), A. hepatica is the same as H. nobilis var. obtusa not the entire species H. nobilis. But I don't know whether to go by that. Kingdon 20:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest leaving things roughly as they stand, with a note at Anemone and Hepatica explaining that the matter is undecided. Otherwise their articles will be reverted back and forth until the cows come home. Totnesmartin 21:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. The links between the various articles have been there for a while, even before this latest move. But gathering new evidence (as opposed to just edit warring based on slim evidence) is also good. Kingdon 21:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I'm not completely sure what you mean by "roughly as they stand". I'm kind of assuming that we should have some kinds of references concerning the name, even if we aren't completely sure what conclusions to draw from them. So I put back the links to Hoot and ITIS (and I see you have restored the link to Howard). If you don't think we should have the Hoot and ITIS references, please discuss. Kingdon 21:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- This is definitely premature; I'd strongly recommend moving it back to Hepatica nobilis. It is still universally so treated in Europe (e.g. [2]), from where the species was described, despite the cited study being published over a decade ago - MPF 15:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't really have a dog in this fight (a google scholar search shows plenty of hits for both names, both before and after the paper by Hoot et al). But it sure would be nice if we could make up our mind. Every time that someone moves things around, it seems like there is some kind of loose end (for example, text which refers to things by the not-currently-favored names, and doesn't explain how the different names line up with each other). Kingdon 02:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'd kinda rather wait also, at least until we have a specific scholarly source. I'm not sure I can find the source on the website MPF linked, probably because I'm hecka busy. If MPF feels particularly strongly about it, maybe we can accomodate a move, but not even I would go near the Ranunculaceae right now. KP Botany 02:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- As we have redirects and the position of Hepatica is mentioned in the article, we should wait for a consensus to form. Moves are pointless right now. Aelwyn 12:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'd kinda rather wait also, at least until we have a specific scholarly source. I'm not sure I can find the source on the website MPF linked, probably because I'm hecka busy. If MPF feels particularly strongly about it, maybe we can accomodate a move, but not even I would go near the Ranunculaceae right now. KP Botany 02:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't really have a dog in this fight (a google scholar search shows plenty of hits for both names, both before and after the paper by Hoot et al). But it sure would be nice if we could make up our mind. Every time that someone moves things around, it seems like there is some kind of loose end (for example, text which refers to things by the not-currently-favored names, and doesn't explain how the different names line up with each other). Kingdon 02:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- This is definitely premature; I'd strongly recommend moving it back to Hepatica nobilis. It is still universally so treated in Europe (e.g. [2]), from where the species was described, despite the cited study being published over a decade ago - MPF 15:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I'm not completely sure what you mean by "roughly as they stand". I'm kind of assuming that we should have some kinds of references concerning the name, even if we aren't completely sure what conclusions to draw from them. So I put back the links to Hoot and ITIS (and I see you have restored the link to Howard). If you don't think we should have the Hoot and ITIS references, please discuss. Kingdon 21:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. The links between the various articles have been there for a while, even before this latest move. But gathering new evidence (as opposed to just edit warring based on slim evidence) is also good. Kingdon 21:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
