Talk:Conocarpus

Discussion

I am strongly suspicious of the statement that Conocarpus is a monotypic genus. A species native to Somalia and Yemen and planted throughout east Africa, Arabia, and through Iran and Pakistan, is called Conocarpus lancifolius. I have a specimen of this tree and it is very clearly different from Agoneissus latifolia/latifolius described in this article, which is native to India and has very different appearance and growth habit. It is also very clearly not erecta (the buttonwood), although the two trees share many similarities as one would expect of members of the same genus. The assertion that Conocarpus is a monotypic genus and that erecta is its sole species seems to have started at WordNet, whence every internet definition has come. I've queried WordNet as to where their definition came from. I am leaving this article alone for now, but I believe it is incorrect. If you have another reference for this being a monotypic genus please share.thehappysmith 12:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got the statement of the genus being monotypic from New York Botanical Garden, which should be authoritative, but it is possible they have made an error there. Other reputable sources (e.g. IUCN, CABI, FAO) certainly suggest that C. lancifolius is validly included in the genus. I'll work on the page shortly to reflect this - MPF 13:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the USDA site at this link in the References section states that Conocarpus has two species, although it doesn't name the second one. -- Donald Albury 23:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out the NYBG's information sheet on C. erecta is a scan of a page in Nathaniel Lord Britton's Flora Borinqueña (a popular flora of Puerto Rico written in the early 1930s). Lord Britton should have been aware in 1934 of Engle's Monographien Afrikanischer Pflanzen, which dates to c 1903 and is the first description of C. lancifolius, but evidently he wasn't. In any event, his reference to the genus in Flora Borinqueña was incorrect. The woman I spoke to at NYBG said they didn't vouch for the accuracy of Lord Britton's work, but it included attractive sketches and made sense to post on the web (I don't recall her exact words but I have them written down at work).

The reference in our article to Beddome's description of C. lancifolius as equivalent to Anogeissus lancifolius is incorrect. Beddome did not make that description; it's a transcription error on CABI's part. I've removed the reference from the article. Anogeissus, incidentally, was a subgenus within Conocarpus until 1833, when it was elevated by Guillemin and Perrottet. I wonder if this article really needs to mention this fact in the list of "former members of C. at the bottom, since we're now several generations removed from anyone who might still be confused about that issue. Well, then again we were all confused about C. lancifolius and it's never really been in doubt. Thehappysmith 16:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DR/ Ahmed Helaly and his researches about Buttonwood will be available soon.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Conocarpus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120911030619/http://www.sfrc.ufl.edu/4h/Buttonwood/buttwood.htm to http://www.sfrc.ufl.edu/4h/Buttonwood/buttwood.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]