Talk:Phormium colensoi

Earp (https://doi.org/10.1080/0028825X.2022.2093119) accepts p. colensoi Hook.f in Le Jolis (1848) as validly published. There are to my mind questions around this, perhaps over whether Hooker accepted the name, but the case is made. However, as Earp discusses, typification of P colensoi is very problematic. I think we are heading for conservation one way or another, more is the pity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:E003:5E3:B01:5C29:CC65:C60C:3797 (talk) 11:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Redirect

I redirected this article (and tenax) to Phormium because this is a stub, a very skimpy one at that. Phormium has considerably more info, and it is hardly in the interest of readers who search for phormium cookanium to arrive at this stub instead of the more informative article at phormium. Ok, Stan Shebs didn't like the redirect, but is there a better way we can take the reader there? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I did perhaps err in splitting off a stub too early (given there are only 2 species), but have now expanded it and intend to add more as there is an abundance of information specific to this particlar species. Melburnian (talk) 04:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Phormium cookianum

All or most of the New Zealand sources (http://nzpcn.org.nz/flora_details.asp?ID=1111) refer to it being called P. cookianum. The PlantList.org record stating that the accepted name is Phormium colensoi must be wrong, the page needs to be moved back. Rudolph89^talk 07:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the PlantList information is correct according to the Kew World Checklist of Selected Plant Families entry at [1]. The New Zealand sources are probably out of date – it's hard to keep up with changes in scientific names! The information in the Taxonomy section of the article explains some of the complications in the naming of this species. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

That can't be right, P. cookianum appears to be the commonly used name, reinforced here by a NZ Government website that accesses the New Zealand plant database [2]. There are also two subspecies [3] named from cookianum by Wardle (1979), I so can't see how it could be colensoi?

Two points first:

• I didn't make the initial change from P. cookianum to P. colensoi; User:Brunswicknic changed the text of the article.
• Since the text was inconsistent with the article title, I checked what the World Checklist of Selected Plant Families (WCSP) says, since in my experience it is regarded as definitive, and as it said P. colensoi, I moved the article to the current title so that it was fully consistent.

What name has priority when more than one has been given is a complex matter of interpretation of the rules of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants. A name can be regarded as correct for many years and then be shown not to have priority. Common usage is not the issue, unfortunately. There are many, many examples of plants known for years by one name which is then changed when experts decide that another name is correct under the rules.

So it certainly can be right. Whether it is or not is another matter, but all we can do in Wikipedia is to use what appears to be the most reliable and up-to-date source. In my experience other databases tend to follow WCSP in the end, unless WCSP is shown to be wrong, which can happen. But this would need a reliable source, such as a scientific paper in a taxonomy journal. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

It turns out that the source of the problem is traceable through IPNI, though they don't have the links nicely set up. FNZ is wrong, because a little-known publication has nomenclatural priority. I've changed the page now, though it needs a bit more tidying that I'll try to get to in the next couple of days. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, right, expertly sorted! (For the less taxonomically minded, the problem is that the English-speaking world thought that Hooker first published the name P. colensoi in 1848 after Le Jolis had published the name P. cookianum earlier in the same year. This meant that P. cookianum had priority over P. colensoi. But actually Hooker first published P. colensoi in 1846 in a French language publication which Smithopsis84 describes as "little-known", although early French sources turn out to be well aware of it; e.g. the name P. colensoi was used in 1872 with the right publication title in Lemaitre's L'Illustration horticole. So unless someone finds that P. cookianum was actually published even earlier, P. colensoi is definitely the earliest and hence correct name. Isn't taxonomy wonderful!) Peter coxhead (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Peter for your separate email to me. This situation is far more complex than I thought, and IPNI might be incorrect. Also, as you point out, "a little-known publication" is not an accurate description of the French-language "Choix de Plantes de la Nouvelle-Zélande". More detective work is required to write a proper description of how the name of this plant came to be whatever it actually should be. More anon. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

So if I were to create the articles for Phormium cookianum subsp. hookeri and Phormium cookianum subsp. cookianum that branch off this article (colensoi) and have reliable references, how would that make any sense?? Rudolph89^talk 02:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Both the subspecies (if they are still recognized as subspecies) must now be called P. colensoi, e.g. P. colensoi subsp. hookeri and P. colensoi subsp. colensoi. P. cookianum is now only a synonym. Actually, the WCSP doesn't recognize any subspecies of P. colensoi; it lists P. cookianum subsp. hookeri as just P. colensoi. (By the way, we don't normally create separate articles for subspecies but deal with them under the species, unless they are of special economic or other importance.) Peter coxhead (talk) 04:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The following seems to be the order in which names appeared in print – but this is a complicated story, and I stand to be corrected!

• P. fosterianum Colenso ex Hook.f. in London Journal of Botany (1844) – given without a description and thus not establishing the name under the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN).
• P. colensoi Hook.f. in Choix de plantes de la Nouvelle-Zelande (1846) – also given without a description and so not establishing the name.
• P. colensoi Hook.f. ex Le Jol. in Revue Horticole III 2:6 (1848) – published with a description in the 1 January 1848 section of Revue Horticole and thus establishing the name under the ICN. This publication seems to have been overlooked for a long time; the description is in an article written by Auguste le Jolis but in a quotation attributed to J.D. Hooker.
• P. cookianum Le Jol. in London Journal of Botany (1848) – only a synonym, given that P. colensoi was validated by a description earlier in the year. For a long time this seems to have been regarded as the correct name.
• P. colensoi Hook.f. in Flora of New Zeland (1864) – given that the 1848 validation of P. colensoi was missed, 1864 was treated as the publication date for P. colensoi, and hence P. cookianum appeared to have priority.

Thanks to Sminthopsis84 for sources for some of this information. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Well this long went over my head.. so I'll have to trust you guys have it right. Appreciate all the work that's gone into investigating it. The people out there who know it as cookianum will be a bit baffled like me, but should be able to work it out. Rudolph89^talk 11:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sorry to have been baffling – it's like a maths problem, ideally you wouldn't have been shown the messy attempts to solve the problem, just the neat final solution. The key point to understand is priority. The first properly published name is generally the correct one. So a species can be called by one name for years, and then someone discovers that actually a different name was published first. Then that becomes the correct name. What seems to have happened here is that it was thought that P. cookianum was published first, but now it has been decided that P. colensoi was published first. If tomorrow someone could show that P. mirabile was published for the same species even earlier, then that would become the correct name. However, sometimes taxonomists agree that changing to the earlier name would be just too much hassle and it is agreed to "conserve" the later name. So we might all change to P. colensoi only for a botanical congress to decide later to conserve P. cookianum. Isn't taxonomy wonderful? Peter coxhead (talk) 15:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Taxonomy certainly is wonderful. It would be interesting to know the total number of hours we've all spent on this problem. With luck, this article will now save somebody a bit of time some day. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 01:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem with colensoi vs cookianum is this: was the description from Hooker, extract of which was published by Le Jolis in Revue Horticole a valid publication? In order to be so, there are a number of tests, one of which is ICN Art. 60.1(b), namely did the author (Hooker in this case) intend to publish the name, or did he merely propose it? The extract states (in what is probably Le Jolis' translation rather than Hooker's French) "J'appelle celle-ci Ph. colensoi, et j'ai remis une note à son sujet à M. Colenso; mais je ne sache pas qu'il l'ait publiée" ("I call this P. colensoi, and I've sent a note on the subject to Mr. Colenso; but I don't know if he has published it".) It's arguable that this shows no intent to publish (which no botanist of Hooker's standing would do without a formal description) but is merely a comment. Then there is the description itself, which must satisfy ICN Art. 38 ... once again, it's arguable that it does not. One could go on, but it's most disappointing that the decision by whoever to change from the widely accepted cookianum to colensoi seems to have been made without any supporting article in Taxon e.g. a proposal under ICN Art. 38.4 for a binding decision. MisterCDE (talk) 07:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The account by Hooker in the letter published here does, I think, make clear that Hooker regarded Ph. colensoi as having been published by him for the first time in Raoulx ("que j'ai signalée pour la première fois dans Raoulx ... sous la nom de Ph. Colensoi.") and that he regarded Le Jolis' later publication ("vint ensuite") of Ph. cookianum as referring to another species. So there seems no reason not to accept Raoulx, Choix de plantes de la Nouvelle-Zelande (1846) as intending to publish the name; if the description here is not adequate, then Revue Horticole III 2:6 (1 Jan 1848) is, so either way the name has priority. I note that IPNI currently accepts the first and WCSP the second.

Hooker was a highly educated man, and would, I'm sure, have been able to read and write French, so I expect that his letters are quoted verbatim.

The sequence of publications listed above does represent original research by Sminthopsis84 and me, so can't go in the article. I agree that it's a pity that this isn't in the published literature. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Raoul's publication of the name in Choix... is just that ... name only, no description of any sort. So it would not be considered valid today, and I'm very surprised that IPNI accepts it, but given that it comes from Index Kewensis which is built upon a Hookerian edifice, I guess I shouldn't be. And yes, I'm only guessing that the extract published by Le Jolis, apparently from a letter to him from Hooker, is a translation, because it refers to Banks as "Sir Bancks" which I doubt any Englishman would put, however fluent in French (and probably Hooker was, as you say). It's an interesting subject, but of course, not one which can be pursued here. MisterCDE (talk) 12:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Wikipedians. Regrettably, I do not read French, but I find it hard to accept that Le Jolis quoting a letter from JD Hooker can be accepted as Hooker validly publishing Phormium colensoi in 1848 (WCSP etc give Hook.f. as the authority) in a publication he did not write or approve. The question then would be did Le Jolis intend to publish the name P. colensoi. I think this is questionable, but even if he did (or inadvertently published the name) then the WCSP name is incorrectly attributed to Hook.f. As given above, if Le Jolis did validly publish then P. colensoi Hook.f. ex Le Jolis might be valid. I have my doubts based on the google translation of his text. The NZ folk will no doubt review this issue, but I fear you're worthy efforts to resolve things so far will not be the end! Interestingly, Le Jolis cites P. colensoi as a manuscript name of Hooker's under his new P. cookianum and further seems to suggest that the description he had earlier provided in the Rev. Hort article was of a plant he mistakenly thought at the earlier time to be P. tenax and NOT P. colensoi. He attributes this confusion to a transposition error in JD Hooker's letter which was apparently written in haste as he departed for the East Indies. Fascinating, but I do suspect WCSP have jumped the gun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonotopodium (talk • contribs) 03:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Pretty clear the correct name is P. cookianum. I will adjust when I work through how to do so politely. Hopefully someone else can? There is no literature to suppose WCSP's position. Leonotopodium (talk) 10:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@Leonotopodium: it's irrelevant what you think or what I think or what anyone else here thinks. What matters is what reliable sources say. Wikipedia reflects what such sources say, not what we think is right. IPNI, WCSP, World Flora Online, etc. all say the correct name is Phormium colensoi. The discussion above merely represents our attempts to understand and explain why they take this position. Speculation and WP:OR are fine on a talk page, but an article, and its title, need to reflect what reliable sources say. So, no, you cannot "adjust" unless and until reliable secondary sources do so, regardless of what you think is right. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey, well said Peter Coxhead What I meant by "when I can work out when to do it politely", is "I won't be doing it soon". You can now be reassured that I will ignore this page henceforth. However, I don't consider IPNI, WCSP or any other Kew database authoritative on the correct names of indigenous New Zealand vascular plants. I suggest Nga Tipu Aotearoha as an authoritive secondary source. But more to the point, the primary sources are largely unambiguous. Having written some of them, I actually think my opinion does matter. It may not matter to Wikipedia, and I love your point, but I'll keep publishing (in the peer reviewed literature, not here) using the name P. cookianum. How is WCSP etc a reliable source when there are multiple primary sources that don't agree - none of which are cited by the so called reliable source. Love and peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.248.141.105 (talk) 07:36, 25 December 2020 (UTC) Primary sources: Moore and Edgar 1970 [9]. Wardle P. 1979. Variation in Phormium cookianum (Agavaceae).New Zealand Journal of Botany 17: 189-196. Smissen RD, Heenan PB. 2007. DNA fingerprinting supports hybridisation as a factor explaining complex natural variation in Phormium (Hemerocallidaceae). New Zealand Journal of Botany 45: 419–432. Smissen RD, Heenan PB. 2010. A taxonomic appraisal of the Chatham Islands flax (Phormium tenax) using morphological and DNA fingerprint data. Australian Systematic Botany, 23, 371–380 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.248.141.105 (talk) 09:18, 25 December 2020 (UTC) Oh yeah, one final thing. It is irrelevant what you think, on that we agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonotopodium (talk • contribs) 11:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@Leonotopodium: the issue remains whether there are sources that discuss the nomenclature of the species with detailed reference to the ICNafp and that argue that colensoi does not have priority over cookianum (not merely sources that use the epithet cookianum). If there are, then they should be added to the article with a discussion. IPNI can then be asked to look again at this issue – I find them very willing to respond to my queries. So far I haven't found the necessary detailed nomenclature discussion in the literature. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Nice effort, but no. The question is, are there any references that suggest that P. colensoi was validly published before P. cookianuum. The one reference provided by WCSP is the paper discussed above. WCSP provides no interpretation. My interpretation is that Le Jolis did not validly publish the name. It's actually for someone else to say otherwise, but frankly they are going to struggle. As I write above, there is no literature to suppose WCSP's position. I have also found IPNI great, and great sports when challenged. That is not the point. I have read Le Jolis's work, and I have had an erudite colleague check the translation. There is nothing that I can read as valid publication of the name P. colensoi. WCSP provides nothing. It is entirely a straw man. The status of P. colensoi, and to what species it might apply is a long running amusement for NZ botanists, so I will retain a degree of agnosticism. But if you want to defend WCSP's view that P. colenosoi was published by hooker in Le Jolis 1848, good luck. To summarise, there are no sources that discuss the nomenclature of the species with detailed reference to the ICNafp and that argue that P. colensoi does have priority over P. cookianum. On the other hand, the name P. colensoi is well known and was treated as a synonym of P. cookianum by Moore and Edgar and later authors. That should be the starting point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.248.141.105 (talk) 12:21, 25 December 2020 (UTC)