Talk:Kolkwitzia
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Linnaea amabilis. 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/20080626193306/http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~gdk/stabotanic/jun05pom.htm to http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~gdk/stabotanic/jun05pom.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) 12:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Linnaea?
[edit]Moving Kolkwitzia to Linnaea may be a bit premature. The synonymy of Kolkwitzia under Linnaea appears to be based on a single reference, it is not at all clear that this represents any kind of consensus regarding the classification of this group of species. If the broader circumscription of Linnaea is accepted, the page for Abelia as well as all of the articles for the several species now included in that genus would also need to be moved to Linnaea. Meanwhile, the article on the genus Linnaea makes no mention of any of this. 160.111.254.17 (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
- Here is a scholarly account of the change in nomenclature http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=EE39BB34A26DCF43F5DDE8EECCF5F582?doi=10.1.1.397.846&rep=rep1&type=pdf California Academy of Science also uses Linnaea https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/472975-Linnaea-amabilis
- I propose that the title of this article be changed back to Linnaea amabilis, which will also match the name used in Wikimedia Commons. Sorry I don't know how to do this myself. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Well, I see that Kew here has adopted the new nomenclature, so I think it will be accepted. Let's see if there are more comments. Unless there are good arguments against, then I'll make the move(s). Peter coxhead (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- @HouseOfChange: as there were no adverse comments, I moved the old version of "Linnaea" to Linnaea borealis and started a new article at Linnaea. I moved Kolkwitzia amabilis to Linnaea amabilis; I need to check/move the other species/genera with changed placements. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)