Talk:Galtonia

Keep article?[edit]

Although the genus is now regarded as part of Ornithogalum, I think the article is worth keeping because two of the species are widely grown as garden plants under the generic name Galtonia. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The incorporation into Ornithogalum is controversial - and I will address that shortly, so definitely a keep. And definitely not a C class! --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have to go with one classification rather than another as regards article titles and taxoboxes, although of course all alternatives supported by recent reliable sources should be discussed in the text. What's wrong at the moment is that there are no species articles for the genus (and in my view there should definitely not be), yet there's a taxobox, which implies this is a genus in use. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have the usual problem of conflicting science and authority - although interestingly WCSFP and the Plant List are at variance on this. I think we have a responsibility to address both. Martinez-Azorin's work is more convincing than Manning's, has the authority of Michael Fay behind it and has not been refuted. Kew is still using Manning's sensu lato, rather than the traditional and now resurrected sensu stricto. And of course when I checked with a local nursery this week, it is still being sold as Galtonia.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the conflicts, but note that at least in the article text we cannot and must not decide which is the more convincing work. For article naming and the associated taxoboxes, we are forced to make a choice. Sometimes this is based on policy (e.g. WP:PLANTS uses APG III even though most of the specialists in the area prefer the narrower Hyacinthaceae to Scilloideae and the narrower Amaryllidaceae to Amaryllidoideae). Mostly it has to be based on the use of a source broad enough to cover all the related taxonomy, so as to maintain self-consistency. Peter coxhead (talk)08:25,4 April 2015 (UTC)

I think as with all these evolving understandings our responsibility is to point to any differing systems in use so people are not confused, and to provide them with enough information and sources to let them make up their own mind. I don't think there is any doubt about commitment to APG, although it is interesting that in the Martinez-Azorin paper the authors agree to disagree over the use of Hyacinthaceae. The original Galtonia article used the word obsolete which I removed since it clearly is not, since there is support for its retention, and even if one went with Manning it still has subgenus status. As ususual, interesting discussion! --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Fay: I should have pointed out that Michael Fay is co-author on all the papers on the phylogeny of Galtonia, so there is not really a discrepency within the scientific literature, just between it and Kew, whose machinations continue to mystify me, but hopefully will become more transparent. However I am not above discussing it with them directly. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tropicos and G. viridiflora[edit]

There are known to be serious problems with the way in which The Plant List extracts information from Tropicos. In particular, Tropicos lists species names + authorities rather literally. See Galtonia:subordinate taxa, where both "Galtonia viridiflora Verdc." and "Galtonia viridiflora I. Verd." appear. But these are homonyms, as can be seen by going to the page for each of the names and looking under the Homonyms tab. So they should not be processed separately when Tropicos information is taken into TPL, but the former was erroneously included as can be seen here. There is no "Galtonia viridiflora Verdc." according to IPNI; like IPNI, Manning & other sources all give the author as "I.Verd."

So it's misleading to say that TPL "accepts" Galtonia viridiflora, except perhaps in a footnote which explains that it's an error in the way that it handles data from Tropicos.

See also Plantdrew's comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive60#Gaura: Tropicos presents competing classifications rather than choosing as WCSP does, and as TPL tries to, but fails when it relies on Tropicos. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Any case where TPL lists something as Accepted with Tropicos as the source should be a huge red flag (although it doesn't necessarily mean the taxon isn't accepted, TPL is mishandling the Tropicos data when this happens). If TPL was handling the Tropicos data properly, "Accepted" would be attributed to a particular publication (a monograph or flora). If you know about TPL's idiosyncrasies with regards to Tropicos, it's obvious at a glance that the listings for something like Ouratea are complete garbage. Also note that as part of the collaboration underlying TPL, Tropicos is now bringing in records from WCSP. "Galtonia viridiflora I. Verd." on Tropicos is imported from WCSP. (Plantdrew)

That's all very well, but this verges on OR. The problem is that TPL lists G viridiflora with the word 'accepted' next to it, rightly or wrongly, and can't be ignored or someone is going to point it out. To say that that is an error would need to be verifiable. I will rethink how to word the reference, there but we can't simply delete it. Incidentally all these websites are supposed to be collaborating but there are enough discrepancies to suggest there is a long way to go.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we can delete it. We have no obligation to include information that is manifestly wrong, which this is. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I mean one cannot simply ignore discrepancies - they come up all the time. The problem is that is what TPL says whether we agree with or not, deleting something on WP we don't agree with (and that happens a lot) does not make it go away, but rather requires discussion. I would like to suggest a generic approach, which is that where WCLSPF and TPL appear to differ, and TPL provides TRO as their source that Tropicos be included in the citations. I added Tropicos and moved the note on TPL to a footnote, as suggested above. In the extensive discussion on methodology on TPL, they say they welcome input, so I suggest one of us does that, so it can be revised.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The deeper point is that TPL is not a reliable source at present, particularly where it derives information from Tropicos. There was quite a discussion at WT:PLANTS about its unreliability when it first came out. So for those families it covers, I would always reference only WCSP. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a sidebar - despite extensive searching I find no support anywhere, except at Tropicos for ascribing authority for G. viridiflora to Bernard Verdcourt (Verdc.) which seems to be a transcription error at Tropicos for the correct attribution which is Inez Verdoorn (I. Verd.) Verdoorn IC. 1955. Galtonia viridiflora. Flowering Plants of Africa 30: 1118. I will make sure that is pointed out. Nevertheless Verdcourt did describe the flora of Africa. Fascinating discussion! --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that Tropicos can include attributions written on herbarium specimens, even if errors. So this may be the source. I did track down such an example when I was working on the Maurandyinae, tho' I can't recall the genus or species at present. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that is true --Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]