Talk:Helosciadium × longipedunculatum

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 30 December 2020 by reviewer Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs).

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.

Scientific name

Splitting off Helosciadium from Apium isn't accepted as of 2020 by major taxonomic databases such as Plants of the World Online. So I think the article should be at Apium × longipedunculatum for now, for consistency with our treatment of the parent species. A move to Helosciadium may be justified later. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomic databases are not the most up-to-date sources of information. The latest molecular phylogenetic (Downie et al. 2009; DOI 10.1002/tax.583004) and morphological examinations (Ronse et al. 2010; DOI 10.1007/s00606-010-0284-3) of the group clearly show that Apium sensu lato (including the six recognised species of Helosciadium) is polyphyletic. This has led to the restitution of the genus Helosciadium. In fact, while bearing a superficial resemblance the type species of Apium, A. graveolens (celery), species such as fool's water cress (Helosciadium nodiflorum) are not closely related at all. Apium is in tribe Apieae and the species of Helosciadium in tribe Oenantheae. This updated classification is not at all controversial and has been adopted by all subsequent botanists, including Prof. Clive Stace in the fourth edition of his Flora of the British Isles. Furthermore, a new species Helosciadium milfontinum has not even been given a name under Apium, neither has the newly described hybrid between nodiflorum and bermejoi (H. x clandestinum) or the intergeneric hybrid between Berula and Helosciadium (x Beruladium). I therefore feel it is a backwards step to use Apium x longipedunculatum, but rather we should update the treatment of the parental species to Helosciadium. ( Taxonomyofapiaceae (talk) 13:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC) )[reply]

I don't disagree with you, but WP:PSTS and WP:RS discourage us from using primary sources and Wikipedia does not aim to be the most up-to-date. I think the best thing to do is to discuss this at WT:PLANTS and see if we can get a consensus to move to using Heliosciadium. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#Heliosciadium or Apium?. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]