Talk:Turraeanthus africanus
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Requested move 17 June 2021[edit]
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Moved to Turraeanthus africanus per nom. No such user (talk) 07:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Turraeanthus africana → Turraeanthus africanus – The latter name was once regarded as a misspelling, but it may be the other ways around. Please see the ICN (ed. 2017, Art. 62.2 (c)), which supports T. africanus and please also note that databases such as Plants of the World Online (Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew), Tropicos.org (Missouri Botanical Garden) and GRIN-Global (United States Department of Agriculture accept Turraeanthus africanus indeed. Eryk Kij (talk) 10:51, 17 June 2021 (UTC)—Relisting. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- @エリック・キィ: "it may be the other way around" sounds like the move might not be entirely uncontroversial. I also note that some sources do use africana (e.g. the IUCN redlist), and that the article was moved in 2014 from the proposed title to the current title. Lennart97 (talk) 11:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Lennart97: OK, I had to say "it is the other way around". First, the source which the previous move was based on has already been deprecated. The move in 2014 was based on the entry at The Plant List, which is no longer updated since 2013. Second, IUCN Red List relies on an older version of an external website. The IUCN Red List (published in 2020) indeed accepts T. africana, but its taxonomic source relies on Plants of the World Online, whose entry was at first T. africana (25 May 2019) and later altered to the current T. africanus (11 April 2021). All the databases mentioned by both of us do not explain in detail why, so I think the ICN is most helpful in this case where we have to judge which one to choice. Eryk Kij (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- Sounds fine to me. Support, unless someone comes along with convincing arguments against. Lennart97 (talk) 14:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Looks reasonable. YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support Majority of references in the taxonbar have it as africanus, and the ICN provides justification for spelling the species epithet with a masculine grammatical genus. POWO is an important source, and is not included in the taxonbar of this article. It's currently spelled africanus at [POWO], which may have changed relatively recently (iNaturalist moved to africana in September 2019, citing POWO for the move). Plantdrew (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Lennart97: OK, I had to say "it is the other way around". First, the source which the previous move was based on has already been deprecated. The move in 2014 was based on the entry at The Plant List, which is no longer updated since 2013. Second, IUCN Red List relies on an older version of an external website. The IUCN Red List (published in 2020) indeed accepts T. africana, but its taxonomic source relies on Plants of the World Online, whose entry was at first T. africana (25 May 2019) and later altered to the current T. africanus (11 April 2021). All the databases mentioned by both of us do not explain in detail why, so I think the ICN is most helpful in this case where we have to judge which one to choice. Eryk Kij (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.