Talk:Quercus × hispanica

Proposed merge with Quercus × crenata

The plant traditionally called Quercus × hispanica Lam. (= Q cerris × Q suber) is now renamed Quercus × crenata Lam. The name Quercus × hispanica Lam. is now applied to a different plant: Quercus faginea × Q suber. We already have an article for Quercus × crenata, so there are now two articles for the same hybrid. I therefore propose we merge the two existing articles and have a new one at Quercus × hispanica for the other hybrid, with a link of course to Quercus × crenata. See [1] and [2]. Richard New Forest (talk) 11:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Support. It seems that relevant content has already been merged, so all that remains is to write an article about Quercus × hispanica. Plantdrew (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

@Richard New Forest and Plantdrew: the present situation is clearly wrong and needs to be fixed. Plants of the World Online treats Quercus × hispanica Lam. as a synonym of Quercus × crenata Lam., so the nothospecies traditionally known as Q. × hispanica should, I think, be treated at Quercus × crenata, as seems to have happened. However, it seems that what is really a synonym of Quercus × crenata is not the true Quercus × hispanica Lam. but "Quercus × hispanica auctorum" [but using this full name would be WP:OR because I can't find it in any of the relevant articles]. Vázquez Pardo et al. (2018), referenced in Quercus × crenata and online here, says that origin of the true Quercus × hispanica Lam. is "Q. tlemcenensis Trab. x Q. suber L." (bottom of p. 25). However, PoWO treats Q. tlemcenensis as Quercus × tlemcenensis, a hybrid of Q. canariensis × Q. faginea, apparently based on this paper, pp. 20–21. This would mean that the true Quercus × hispanica is the triple hybrid (Q. canariensis × Q. faginea) × Q. suber, for which there's no direct source.

So the issue is what to do with this article:

• Just redirect to Quercus × crenata, based on PoWO, and the idea that at least "Quercus × hispanica auctorum" is actually Q. × crenata.
• Attempt to write up what I've summarized above – but this would be based on primary sources and some synthesis.

Views? Peter coxhead (talk) 11:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead@Plantdrew@Richard New Forest Perhaps using this article to discuss the problems thrown up by taxonomic changes would be instructive. The above is fascinating! Paulitzer (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@Paulitzer: the problem is doing it without WP:SYNTH and/or WP:OR. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)