Talk:Dysphania graveolens

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.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Unpublished

@Peter coxhead:, Dysphania incisa is unpublished. In doi:10.15407/ukrbotj78.04.266 it is argued that D. incisa is unnecessary, and this species should be D. graveolens. Plantdrew (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Plantdrew: I hesitated over the name, since it's very unusual for PoWO to use "ined." (although found not infrequently in World Ferns). I have to say that I don't fully understand the issue in order to write it up. Please do so if you do.

Should Chenopodium graveolens be "Lag. & Rodr. (1802)" IPNI 164958-1 or "Willd. (1809)" IPNI 56134-2? As IPNI seems to have both, and the first is earlier, Mosyakin's argument seems to have been accepted, so it should be the former.
Should a name in Dysphania for the species in question be based on Chenopodium incisum or Chenopodium graveolens? Whatever the correct authorship of Chenopodium graveolens, Chenopodium incisum is agreed to be "Poir. (1810)", i.e. later than either possibility for Chenopodium graveolens, so I would have expected Dysphania graveolens.

Peter coxhead (talk) 06:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added a note with the Mosyakin (2021) reference and created a redirect at Dysphania graveolens. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Plantdrew: I see that the record in IPNI for Dysphania incisa is now "suppressed", which wasn't the case at one time. So I'm moving the article to Dysphania graveolens. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]