Talk:Nasturtium (genus)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Nasturtium (genus) 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.
??? This article has not yet received a quality rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

It should be noted that ITIS only includes Nasturtium gambellii (S. Wats.) O. Schulz in this genus, and places the watercresses in Rorippa WormRunner | Talk 00:13, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, as you well know, these things change all the time. Rorippa is an old name, and maybe the species have been moved back into it. These things are always difficult to track down, as one never knows from one (or several) source(s), what is current or most accepted. My source is 1999, but a revised version (I can only assume the taxonomy was all revised up to 1999). I think we can only note what we find, and that allows others to modify conservatively towards the "correct" or most modern taxonomy. Do you want to add something from the ITIS? - Marshman 01:36, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) I went ahead and did the change per ITIS - Marshman 02:30, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
My main point was to note somewhere that there was disagreement over the placement. I do not know whether the ITIS version is the best or not, but the fact that some references place the watercresses here and others place them in Rorippa should be available somehow in the article or its discussion page. -- WormRunner | Talk 03:57, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Rorippa or Nasturtium

Hi Marshman, I posed a question about the integration of Rorippa and Watercress at Talk:Watercress and I'd appreciate if you could voice your opinion on it. TeunSpaans 07:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Marshman,
I noticed you changed the genus of watercress back to Nasturtium. But according to APG II at http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/research/APweb/orders/brassicalesweb.htm#Brassicoideae, latest update 2005, Nasturtium is not mentioned as a genus in brassicaceae. TeunSpaans 04:55, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Since not all Nasturtium were moved to Rorippia and not all Rorippia were moved back, I would be a little nervous about using the absence of Nasturtium from a website list as a basis for changing things either way. If you can cite a paper that solves the mystery, then that would work for me - Marshman 30 June 2005 04:41 (UTC)
As far as I know all Nasturtium were moved to Rorippa. I must admit I have been unable to locate any articles about a move back. I am interested in your sources - at the moment we have a very inconsistent situation. TeunSpaans 8 July 2005 21:37 (UTC)
Yes, well I do have the reference for the "move back" listed on the Nasturtium page, I believe. It involved only a selective move back from Rorippa based upon genetic studies. Of course, the APG, like any other botanists, are free to accept or not the authors' suggestion. We cannot resolve, only report the facts. At this point, it seems appropriate to mention that Nasturtium is no longer recognized or included by APG, but that would not be a reason to change the article. Taxonomy changes by (typically) slow acceptance of "expert" opinion, not by "official edict". The APG may represent expert opinion, but that is all it represents. - Marshman 9 July 2005 04:06 (UTC)
From a wiki point of view, I would like to see the following articles give a consistent view of the current situation: Rorippa - Watercress - Nasturtium (scientific name). (Also, checking ITIS I found they seem to have moved Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum (L.) Hayek back to Rorippa again, or perhaps they havent moved it to nasturtiuj back again.) At the moment, Rorippa lists both watercress species. But the taxonomy table lists them as Nasturtium. Nasturtium mentions them, but lists only 1 species, which is not one of the two watercress species. Also, we shouldnt refer to ITIS if it does not support the current view. I dont mind very much if it is in Rorippa (which I have a slight pref for) or Nasturtium, as long as it is consistent. As you seem more knowledgable than I am, could you please fix it? TeunSpaans 9 July 2005 04:48 (UTC)
Yes, I'll try and maked things consistent. That would be our responsibility. But I do not see anything wrong with listing ITIS because it does not comport with what we present. There is not necessarily one "current view" so it is better to include uuseful sources whatever view they present - Marshman 9 July 2005 16:47 (UTC)
I agree TeunSpaans 22:07, 9 July 2005 (UTC)