Talk:Lathyrus lanszwertii

Article title

What are the sources for the correct binomial? Should this be Lathyrus palustris? KP Botany 16:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=LALA3 against http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=LAPA4

l. palustris seems to be more eastern in distribution and l. lanszwertii is western, both have a number of subspecies. it could be one large species complex, but I don't know. Hardyplants 22:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm talking about the IPNI record which indicates that L. lanszwertii is incorrect.[1] The USDA site doesn't tend to be nomenclaturally accurate, necessarily. KP Botany 23:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that what the IPNI record says? I do not know how to interpret the page. MOBOT has no overlap anywhere in all the different names applied to the two "species" in question. Hardyplants 23:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but it's not so straight-forward as that. I did searches and found L. lanszwertii to be used mostly in older sources, and L. palustris to be used in most of the newer sources, but there was one major paper, not about the species, that used the former. It's not so straight-forward, which is why it needs an authorative source, not just USDA or something which is derivative. KP Botany 22:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/content/full/92/7/1199 see Fig. 4. Hardyplants 01:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this uses Lathyrus palustris, and the American Journal of Botany is rather authorative. If you're willing to go with this, please move. If you think it needs more input, please post on wikiplants, as I'll be off for a few days. KP Botany 04:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that they tested both species and they sorted out a short distance from each other- so I am inclined to except that they are both valid and seperat species. Hardyplants 22:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I can only find L. lanszwertii mentioned in the herbaria specimens, not in the text, can you just quote the relevant line on this page? I see the listings of the two species in the clades, but no discussion whatsoever of them, and the L. lanswertii is otherwise only listed as an accession, not discussed within the text that I can see, and things are not discussed within the text for various reasons, including that the name may be at issue--but I can't find this. Just quote and give me page number so I can follow. KP Botany 03:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The paper talks about very few species but lists them in the diagrams, it talks about L. palustris because three different groups are tested. http://www.amjbot.org/content/vol92/issue7/images/large/abot-92-07-13-f04.jpeg. I have looked at many lists that have both species represented and no were does it indicate that the two species are same. http://data.gbif.org/search/Lathyrus_lanszwertii http://www.secretariat.gbif.net/portal/ecat_browser.jsp?taxonKey=1710259&countryKey=0&resourceKey=0&showIncertae=false&nextTask=ecat_browser.jsp

http://www.kew.org/searchepic/detailquery.do?requiredPage=1&scientificName=Lathyrus+lanszwertii&datasources=ipni&datasources=mc&datasources=kr&datasources=libcat&datasources=pmb&datasources=ebbd&datasources=ecbot&datasources=livcoll&datasources=herbcat&datasources=sid&datasources=sepasal&datasources=efz&datasources=kewweb&categories=names&categories=bibl&categories=colln&categories=taxon&categories=flora&categories=misc&detailDatasource=ipni

Hardyplants 06:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for IPNI, it could be a speciment mislabeled, rather than an indication of the change. The links you posted don't actually link to anything--try them. (Other than the AJB link.) Did you check Kew? KP Botany 18:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not mean to be pushy about adding the reference to the legume group. Heres my thinking on this, The only place that even hints that there is a problem with the name is IPNI, but on the other hand the IPNI lists all the "correct" names for all the varieties. How can all the varieties be correctly named or accepeted but the main species not be? It looks to be an error or a misunderstanding. http://www.ipni.org/ipni/idPlantNameSearch.do?id=951337-1&show_history=false&output_format=normal http://www.ipni.org/ipni/idPlantNameSearch.do?id=302673-2&show_history=false&output_format=normal http://www.ipni.org/ipni/idPlantNameSearch.do?id=1034875-2&show_history=false&output_format=normal I will send them an e-mail after the 4th and see if we can have this clarified. Hardyplants 19:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked at this briefly, but I want to bring up three issues. First, the question of whether two species are separate is different from the question of what are their correct names. Second, the entry in IPNI is from Index Kewensis, and the "=palustris" is a note. Index Kewensis itself sometimes has problems, and the note is too cryptic to interpret nomenclaturally. Third, the Jepson Manual treatment uses Lathyrus lanszwertii, and it was written by Duane Isely, who is no slouch about matters nomenclatural.--Curtis Clark 21:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm not willing to change a name with an IPNI notation alone. Hardy, in horticulture the names aren't always updated when the name is changed taxonomically, sometimes horticulture retains older names on purpose. Thank you for the explanation on your thinking on the designation, though, as I now see where you're coming from. Yes, the on-line Jepson Manual lists it as a JFP-1,[2] the Jepson on-line Manual gives updates not always in the print edition, and the botanical authorities have the ability to add nomenclatural notes to their taxa at any time. I don't know why I didn't check there, except possibly I'm too busy right now to think. Thanks, Curtis. KP Botany 00:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]