 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
A type of this edit
I added this here, because - one link says it is a type of this subject plant. While another link says it is a new and different one, and still has to be named, still, it is not yet settled if this is really a new one, until scientists officially name this one. So, until named in Latin, I added this here, since it is a type of this plant here: On May, 2008, St. Louis botanist George Yatskievych and a colleague, with the Missouri Botanical Garden, rediscovered and identified (in Sierra Madre del Sur, a pine oak forest in Mexico's mountains) a rare odd, orange-brown, fleshy-stemmed parasitic plant, first found in 1985 by Wayt Thomas, New York Botanical Garden scientist. A type of Orobanchaceae, the pine cone-shaped dense cluster of flowers and juicy celery-like stalks plant will have the formal Latin name for the "little hermit of Mexico," both a new species and a new genus because "it is so unusual and distinct that it cannot be included in any of the existing genera in the plant family Orobanchaceae". There are echoes in this plant’s lifestyle of species such as Orthilia secunda, which steals its goodness from funghi.[1][2][3][4] --Florentino floro (talk) 06:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Normally such material would go in an article for the genus (which would also cover the species, since there is only one). But it probably is wise to wait until the genus is published in a scientific journal (planned for later in 2008), so keeping this material here for now sounds good to me. Kingdon (talk) 13:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Floro has a history of adding news items in the wrong places, I revert many of them. If you think this really belongs here feel free to revert my edit, but it seems like this new find, though notable, doesn't deserve so much more attention than the other plants in this family. Adding the genus here seems like as much as is really necessary, once there is such a genus. And, if you do put it back, one of the refs would probably be sufficient, they are really just 4 copies of the same AP story. maxsch (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, once there is such a genus, it becomes easy, but the question is what to do for the 6 months or so that it will take. I think it shows admirable restraint to not jump the gun and start using the genus name before there is a validly published name. We've had similar situations with Red List entries for "sp. nov. A" and the like (see for example Rhus and search for "Rhus sp. nov. A"), and at least in that case we just put it in the article for the higher level taxon (although it seems a bit odd, I agree, it isn't clear whether there is a better solution). Kingdon (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree - stripped of technicalities and unessential details, and reading carefully the policies of Wikipedia vis-a-vis the letter and spirit of its rules on news versus encyclopedic materials, I respectfully submit that, in the meantime, it is best to put the notable study, report or discovery on this article, inter alia; in the end, readers, professors, and researchers on the subject, would all be notified. And we must leave it to these experts to consider and study further the matter. For this is a growing, or expanding encyclopedic article, and like many stubs, editors must freely be given latitude in adding or editing to a growing article to expand it. - --Florentino floro (talk) 06:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Based on this Hedyosmum paper there is now a genus so I'm adding it to the list of genera and deleting this speculative paragraph. --Kwixtartpahtee (talk) 18:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oops I mean Eremitilla genus. --Kwixtartpahtee (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Based on this Hedyosmum paper there is now a genus so I'm adding it to the list of genera and deleting this speculative paragraph. --Kwixtartpahtee (talk) 18:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- I agree - stripped of technicalities and unessential details, and reading carefully the policies of Wikipedia vis-a-vis the letter and spirit of its rules on news versus encyclopedic materials, I respectfully submit that, in the meantime, it is best to put the notable study, report or discovery on this article, inter alia; in the end, readers, professors, and researchers on the subject, would all be notified. And we must leave it to these experts to consider and study further the matter. For this is a growing, or expanding encyclopedic article, and like many stubs, editors must freely be given latitude in adding or editing to a growing article to expand it. - --Florentino floro (talk) 06:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, once there is such a genus, it becomes easy, but the question is what to do for the 6 months or so that it will take. I think it shows admirable restraint to not jump the gun and start using the genus name before there is a validly published name. We've had similar situations with Red List entries for "sp. nov. A" and the like (see for example Rhus and search for "Rhus sp. nov. A"), and at least in that case we just put it in the article for the higher level taxon (although it seems a bit odd, I agree, it isn't clear whether there is a better solution). Kingdon (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
This article versus Broomrape edit
I'm not sure what the process is for merging articles or the like, but there is an article also under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broomrape. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.224.190 (talk) 04:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Aphyllon edit
Should the New World Orobanchaceae be moved into Aphyllon? The DNA phylogeny seems convincing although not all sources have embraced the change.
Resurrection of the genus Aphyllon for New World broomrapes (Orobanche s.l., Orobanchaceae), Adam C. Schneider. PhytoKeys 75:107-118. 9-Dec-2016. https://phytokeys.pensoft.net/issue/985/ Karl Horak (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- We would want to see good secondary sources, such as major taxonomic databases, adopt this view before following it. We don't base such changes on primary sources like journal articles. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)