Talk:Cercis

China Mid‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Plants Low‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Legume?

So, redbuds are essentially legumes then? I always thought their pods looked kinda pea-like. So are they edible?

Species?

The article says the genus contains 6 to 10 species. It then lists 17. Can someone resolve this? 72.83.149.28 (talk) 11:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza[reply]

Yes I noticed this anomaly as well. I'm assuming the initial sentence is incorrect, though I don't know how many species the genus does strictly contain - five of the ones in the list are described as 'variation' or 'variety' of other species. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy

Neither the systematics nor the nomenclature of the New World species matches that given in USDA. Lavateraguy (talk) 04:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the USDA is the ultimate authority on taxonomy nor systematics and nomenclature. They tend to be very conservative in their approach and there's been an ongoing scientific discussion of the correct systematics and nomenclature of New World Cercis. It's the "lumpers" versus the "splitters" taxonomic argument going on, but there's been no definitive DNA study yet that I know of, but rather morphological and flavonoid studies. Most more recent morphological studies seem to suggest 4 separate species, Cercis occidentalis Torr. ex A. Gray, C. canadensis L., C. reniformis Engl., and C. mexicana Rose. Older morphological studies concluded that there were 3 varieties rather than 3 separate species in eastern North America in large part because they found areas of overlap between the 3. While the flavonoid studies seem to suggest only 2 species, C. occidentalis Torr. ex A. Gray and C. canadensis L., except they suggest lumping C. reniformis and C. mexicana in with current C. occidentalis, not C. canadensis! The discussion isn't over, but there seems to be a growing consensus that there are 3 species in eastern North America, C. canadensis L., C. reniformis Engl., and C. mexicana Rose. As someone who's observed all 3 in the wild and grown them side-by-side, it's clear to me they are quite distinct from each other in several morphological and adaptive aspects, but like I said the argument hasn't been settled yet. Personally though, I feel the current taxonomy on the page is the correct one. Kmanblue (talk) 06:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found a couple of genetic studies, such as Phylogeny and Biogeography of Cercis (Fabaceae): Evidence from Nuclear Ribosomal ITS and Chloroplast ndhF Sequence Data, now that try to break down the phylogeny of Cercis and they agree with the flavonoid studies in that Cercis canadensis var. texensis and C. canadensis var. mexicana are actually much closer related to C. occidentalis, while C. canadensis closest relation is the European C. siliqustrum. As such, the current break down of species is obviously flawed. As such, I think the previously listed break down should be used until someone publishes an updated break down based on the latest genetic evidence, which I haven't seen published yet. Kmanblue (talk) 08:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]