Talk:Brodiaea

Type species

The nomenclatural history of the genus is complex, to say the least. My understanding is that the type species is Brodiaea grandiflora Sm., an illegitimate name for Brodiaea coronaria (Salisb.) Jeps.. However, since the types of B. grandiflora and B. coronaria are not the same (as per WCSP and the original descriptions), it's misleading to give the type species just as B. coronaria, hence the current entry in the taxobox: "Brodiaea grandiflora Salisb., nom. illeg., syn. Brodiaea coronaria (Salisb.) Jeps.".

However, I'm not a professional taxonomist, and this is a complex taxonomic issue! Peter coxhead (talk) 10:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

You will be, Oscar, you will.

There are some hiccups in the databases, e.g., GRIN credits Engl. rather than Jepson for transferring the epithet; I think that Tropicos is wrong when it says the type is B. grandiflora. There hasn't been a conservation act for B. grandiflora, which is still illegitimate, and has the same type that it always did. It's the type of the genus that has changed, according to ING and the Appendix III of the Code (Appendix IV lists conserved species).

So, I'd say that "Brodiaea grandiflora Salisb., nom. illeg., syn. Brodiaea coronaria (Salisb.) Jeps." is not good phrasing because B. coronaria is not a nomenclatural synonym (homotypic synonym) of B. grandiflora. ING under Hookera says ≡ Brodiaea, using a congruence sign, not an equals, meaning homotypic synonym, that the type specimen (or illustration) of the two genera is the same. In the phrasiology of article 14.9, Brodiaea has been conserved from its place of valid publication (by Smith), even though the type (H. coronaria) was not then included in Brodiaea.

As well as article 14.9, there is some relevant phrasing in the Code in the notes and examples with article 10.4, though they don't deal with quite this sort of case. "Note 2. If the element designated under Art. 10.4 is the type of a species name, that name may be cited as the type of the generic name. If the element is not the type of a species name, a parenthetical reference to the correct name of the type element may be added." The Pseudolarix example shows that the parenthetical usage that the Code and ING are using for this case is not what is being referred to in article 10.4.

The type of Brodiaea is the type of B. coronaria. I'd favour simply listing the type as B. coronaria, and attaching "nom. et typ. cons" to the genus as a shorthand for the whole mess. I think that would have a pleasing simplicity to it. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Anything that makes it simpler for readers is surely a good idea! So I'm happy to make the change. I'm a bit reluctant to put these cryptic Latin abbreviations in taxoboxes unless there's a clear wikilink, which for the full "nom. et typ. cons." there isn't (perhaps add a subsection to Conserved name?). Peter coxhead (talk) 09:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

On further consideration, although people write nom. et typ. cons., it is rather inelegant because the grammatical gender of the two noun phrases varies (so "cons." is serving as an abbreviation of both conservandus and conservandum). I've forced the two phrases separately into the taxobox by pretending that nom. cons. is part of the authority. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)