Talk:Lavatera arborea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Lavatera arborea 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] Rename Malva dendromorpha?

If I understand correctly, the proposed Malva name was approved. [ITIS still lists the old name, but GRIN lists the new one, and it seems GRIN is updated more frequently.

I changed the text in the article to reflect the approved change; if I misunderstood, and it's still a proposed change, it should be re-edited back.

If the new name was approved, should the article be renamed Malva dendromorpha? I know with competing proper names, WP suggests to use the most common name, but I'd think Malva is now considered the current proper scientific name, with Lavatera being a valid synonym, as listed in GRIN. I don't know though. I'll add the Malva name as a redirect to this article, in any case, so people will find it either way.

-Agyle 03:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The Malva Alliance describes the state of taxonomy. It's fairly clear that Lavatera arborea is closer to Malva sylvestris than to Lavatera trimestris, and therefore if classification is to reflect phylogeny Lavatera arborea cannot be kept in Lavatera (even if the genera are merged, as Malva has priority over Lavatera). The name Malva arborea is not available (IIRC, it was used for Phymosia umbellata), so Martin Forbes Ray produced a new name, Malva dendromorpha. A recent Italian paper (I've only seen the abstract) reckons that he was wrong, and the correct combination for the species in Malva is Malva eriocalyx. I don't see why Salisbury's 18th century Malva fastuosa doesn't take priority over both. See also User_talk:MPF

The name Lavatera arborea is going to hang around in horticulture and old floras, for quite some time, so it seems reasonable to have both names in Wikipedia. (I've got the same problem as to which name to use in Malvaceae Info; with luck .htaccess redirects will work with the new server, and I'll be able to adopt a similar solution.)

You could ask for WikiProject Plants thinks about the case where the name is common use is not the same as the latest botanical opinion. Lavateraguy 10:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

If MPF's Italian paper is online and and you think it contains useful info, I could have a look at it (if it's in Italian, of course). Just ask. Aelwyn 08:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I referred to you User_talk:MPF for my comments there; I may be mistaken by I don't expect that MPF knows any more about the Italian paper than I told him.

I think I could have puzzled through the Italian text, as nomenclatural papers are pretty stereotyped, but it's not online.

The citation is Atti Soc. ital. sci. nat. mus. civ. stor. nat. Milano 145(2): 219-244 (2005), Banfi et al, Notes on systematics and taxonomy for the Italian vascular flora (abstract}. Other relevant recent papers are Fontqueria 55: 285-292 (2005), Molero & Montserrat, Nomenclatura de algunas especies del género Malva Linnaeus (Malvaceae) (not even an abstract online, but cited, and also referenced from IPNI) and a paper by the same authors, in Lagascalia which has comments on (yet another candidate for) the correct name for Lavatera arborea.) Lavateraguy 10:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

A spelling error, axilary, was corrected to axillary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.237.75.98 (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)