 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | The contents of the Lewisia tweedyi page were merged into Lewisiopsis on 2011-08-17. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Lewisia tweedyi edit
As of 2009, Washington Flora Checklist uses Lewisia tweedyi for this species. "FNA discusses the unsettled flux in generic assignments in Portulacaceae, and places this species in the genus Cistanthe, while noting the arrangement is equivocal, and it may belong in its own genus. We retain it in its traditional genus, and wait for further research on the problem."[1] E-flora BC retains Lewisia tweedyi, also.[2] This species is endemic to the region covered by these two sources. It may be appropriate to give them extra weight. ITIS and NCBI favor Cistanthe tweedyi. USDA PLANTS uses Cistanthe tweedyi but it is not particularly reliable on such matters. I see no reason to move this article, at this time. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- "Report". Integrated Taxonomic Information System.
- "Report". Integrated Taxonomic Information System.
- "Cistanthe tweedyi". National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI).
- Hello, Walter. Thanks for looking this up. Note that I didn't move the article: there was a pre-existing article on Cistanthe tweedyi dating from 2009, and someone last month wrote an article on Lewisia tweedyi, based on a 1968 reference. So, I merged the two articles: it's much better now, I think.
- As for the title, I'm open for discussion. The e-flora paragraph about the taxonomy states [3]:
- Publications by R. C. Carolin (1987) and M. A. Hershkovitz (1991, 1991b) have required the addition to the North American flora of the genus Cistanthe, which originally was erected to accommodate some Chilean species that were segregated from Calandrinia. Recent investigations indicate that a considerably broader range of species belongs in the genus, including two North American species formerly placed in Calandrinia, all the species formerly included in Calyptridium, and one species previously classified in Lewisia. While the current recognition of Cistanthe originally rested on the cladistic work of Carolin and the studies of leaf morphology by Hershkovitz, who documented nine traits of leaf morphology distinguishing Cistanthe, more recent molecular studies by M. A. Hershkovitz and E. A. Zimmer (2000) have provided general support for it. The inclusion of C. tweedyi appears to be somewhat equivocal and it might best be treated as a distinct genus.
- I interpret this to mean that the species should not belong in Lewisia, it may belong in Cistanthe, or it may belong in a yet-to-be-defined genus. Given WP's guidelines for using current taxonomy, I would think we should place it in Cistanthe. I will attempt to find the Hershkovitz and Zimmer 2000 paper and see if we can get to the bottom of this. —hike395 (talk) 06:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Later: The Hershkovitz and Zimmer paper is beind a paywall. Sadly, the abstract [4] is silent on Cistanthe tweedyi. I found Hershkovitz's paper on the morphology of Cistanthe tweedyi, [5] and it very strongly argues that this species belongs in Cistanthe, not Lewisia. Some taxonomists may be reluctant to update, but given WP's guidelines towards currency, I really think we should list it in Cistanthe. What do you think, given the new information? —hike395 (talk) 06:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Latest taxonomy edit
I've been browsing through the taxonomy literature, and it seems like the new genus for this plant has been accepted: it's Lewisiopsis. See, e.g., [6][7] .. Wikispecies already lists this as Lewisiopsis. Shall we move this article to Lewisiopsis, and also fix the structure at Commons? —hike395 (talk) 07:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- I went ahead and did the moves. Now wikispecies, commons, and en are all consistent, with no duplicate species articles or galleries. —hike395 (talk) 05:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
- Wow! I should go away more often. Thank you for doing all that work. The Nyfffeler et al. paper is interesting. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
