Talk:Begonia × tuberhybrida

Correct name

The Plant List] says that Begonia × tuberhybrida Voss is an "unplaced name" based on WCSP (in review). So I wouldn't use it as the article title or the basis of the taxobox.

The International Cultivar Registration Authority (ICRA) for Begonia is the American Begonia Society. It does have a cultivar list online. Unfortunately although it puts cultivars into "types" it doesn't consistently use the cultivar group/Group nomenclature correctly. However, there's evidence here that it does use "Tuberhybrida" capitalized as a group name.

So I think this article should be moved to Begonia Tuberhybrida Group and the alternative discussed in the text. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be good, but it would be difficult to bring the rest of the page into alignment with that. The current major citation uses the species name (not at the top of the source page but further down), and then talks about "groupings" within that. Newer citations are needed. Books that are commonly available, such as Philips & Rix on Annuals and Biennials (1990), are older than the most recent, quite radical, changes to the ICNCP that uses the Group nomenclature. The "groupings" material that is currently on this page is unusual, I think, since sources that I've checked go straight from the Tuberhybrida level to individual cultivars. The "types" used by the American Begonia Society, e.g., on their cultivar registration form, have "tuber hybrida" as a sub-set of "Tuberous" ("Tuberous- dregei/semi-tuberous type, bulbous, Heimalis, Cheimantha, tuber hybrida, other (describe)"). I think it is incorrect to have Tuberous begonia redirecting here. I also think that it would be justified to remove the "groupings" material from this page, or to explain that it is a minority classification. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 07:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Tuberous begonia is a larger group of plants than Begonia Tuberhybrida Group, so another solution is to move this article to "Tuberous begonia", treated as an informal name, and then discuss what it covers.

The ICNCP doesn't treat Groups as hierarchical, giving explicit examples of overlapping Groups (e.g. Maincrop Group and Red-skinned Group in potatoes). This makes it difficult to write coherent articles based on Groups. Sigh... Peter coxhead (talk) 10:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the above discussion, I would agree with moving this article to tuberous begonia.--Melburnian (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I get the impression no one here knows what correct Groups there actually are in Begonia. I noticed there is one of the formally published Groups of Begonia mentioned in the text of the ICNCP, so apparently the info is out there. I would be reluctant to delete an article title that looks like it might be correct, just because we don't personally have a free copy of the correct publication; especially if this is being moved to an article title that neither accurately describes it nor is the name of any published taxon. Regarding the idea of hierarchy not allowed in the ICNCP Groups, see discussion at Template_talk:Infobox. --Tom Hulse (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, Begonia × tuberhybrida almost certainly isn't correct as the title of this article. It's not clear what the correct ICNCP Group is (or more probably Groups), so until that's sorted, it's surely better to have the article at Tuberous begonia. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have truly no idea on the correct nomenclature, but I guess I'm a little concerned about a couple things: 1.) you just agreed with Sminthopsis that tuberous Begonia means something different than × tuberhybrida (or Tuberhybrida), yet 2:) the sources say they're about tuberhybrida. Are you moving tuberhybrida info to an article title that doesn't apply? In fact the only taxonomic authority I've seen comment on this is one of the sources in the article. It says Begonia × tuberhybrida Voss. There are also voluminous sources that use Begonia × tuberhybrida Voss. It seems like you're getting your authority to override a solid listing at GRIN, and other cited authors, from just a no-listing at WCSP. I'm concerned that you're doing that thing again of favoring your British database so much that you could actually extrapolate some kind of negative message from "in review". Did I misunderstand? What is your authority to override GRIN, the sources in the article, and many other respectable authors who use Begonia × tuberhybrida Voss? I totally accept they may certainly be wrong, but I'd just like to understand what sources support changing an established article title that does seem to follow it's current sources?--Tom Hulse (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WCSP isn't a "British" source. It's hosted in the UK but is an international collaboration. If you prefer, use The Plant List as a source (here), noting the list of institutions in the left margin.

Of course in the text all names need to be discussed, but an article can only be at one name. The Plant List seems to be by far the most authoritative and up-to-date source at present, so it's the one I would use for the article title. (Note that if any of the other databases it uses as sources included the name Begonia × tuberhybrida it would appear in the list.)

Actually, this isn't the issue. The issue is what the article is about. It appears to be about "tuberous begonias" as per the opening, and it seems to me that this is the most sensible article title. A section on taxonomy can then say that alternative names, which may or may not cover the same set of cultivars, include Begonia × tuberhybrida, Begonia Tuberhybrida Group, etc. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that it makes sense to have a wikipedia page called "Tuberous begonias", but I think it should include discussion of all the tuberous and semi-tuberous (caudex forming) ones, mentioning, e.g., Begonia boliviensis. Could Begonia × tuberhybrida, with its naming nightmare be also shoehorned onto that page? I think it could. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]