Talk:Ulmus boissieri

Requested move 27 October 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 12:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ulmus Boissieri' → Ulmus boissieri – Earlier treatment as a cultivar is unsubstantiated, and original species taxon should be restored until such time as DNA analysis can prove otherwise. Four authorities cited in the article all maintain Ulmus boissieri as does IPNI; Richens sank the tree as Ulmus minor, though almost certainly never saw the tree or foliage specimen. Attempt to change title using Move was only partially successful, with bogus apostrophe appearing, and reversion to upper case initial B in boissieri. Stavast22 (talk) 10:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC) Stavast22 (talk) 10:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Flooded with them hundreds 13:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Clearly there are trees that growing in the wild in Iran that has been treated as the species Ulmus boissieri. Perhaps U. boissieri should be treated as a synonym of U. minor, but the wild material can not be a cultivar. It is certainly possible to have the cultivar name for cultivated material, even if U. boissieri is treated as a synonym. However, if it's a cultivar, the article shouldn't have material pertaining to wild trees (e.g., range in Iran and associated species), which was in the article preceding the recent round of edits. The bit about trees at Harold Hillier Gardens is pretty dodgy too. It certainly looks like Original Research to call them U. boissieri when they are labeled as U. minor. But if there are 4 wild-collected U. boissieri there, those 4 trees can't be a single clonal cultivar. However, there are some problems with the evidence being presented for species status. IPNI only shows that a name has been published. It offers no guidance on whether or not a species should be accepted. Flore de l'Iran is cited as supporting species status, but it was published in 1950 and U. boissieri wasn't described until 1977. Plantdrew (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Soviet botanists were conservative - e.g. they listed U suberosa and U densa as species, not as forms of field elm (today's U minor). It's interesting that the distinctive regional field elms, treated in the past as species, are on the fringes of the main U minor area. There's an arc of them from E to W - densa (C Asia), boissieri (Iran), canescens (various Med islands), atinia (lowland Spain, S England), stricta (Celtic fringes), plotii (N England). Inside this arc we have the more variable field elms and their sports. The logical thing, I think, would be to revert in article titles to U minor var densa, var boissieri, var canescens, var atinia, var stricta, var plotii. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.39.159.73 (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Boissier collected extensively in W Asia, and knew U campestris (U minor) well. There's no reason to question his ability to recognise field elm, or to claim a new species. His herbarium specimen and the Iranian photos show a Rueppellii-like field elm, present also in Turkestan. Specimens of some sort must have been seen by Richens as part of his research for Elm 1983. A tree so extensive in Iran cannot but have been cultivated to some extent, if only locally, justifying (on Coleman's principle) a retention of the name U minor 'Boissieri'. The Soviet botanists were known to be "splitters" rather than "lumpers" (Ulmus suberosa, etc.) There is nothing in the herbarium specimens, description, drawings or photos to justify distinguishing the tree from field elm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.39.159.73 (talk) 14:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A new elm species on the fringe of the U minor area would surely have aroused interest from researchers in the last four decades. How DED-resistant is it? How readily does it hybridise? Is its form suitable for cultivation in the West? The 1977 paper would have been translated and cited. Specimens would have been gown for testing. But there is none of this. People knew about the taxonomy of Soviet scientists, and quietly ignored "Ulmus boissieri, new species". If we don't want to go down the var. route, which would mean further title-changes, we should restore the U minor Boissieri heading, as less improbable than U boissieri. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.39.159.73 (talk) 10:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Support. In the absence of a copy of 1977 paper or a translation of 2002, we are not in a position to argue that it's not a species - we have very little information. No harm in having it as a disputed species like we do U. canescens & U. elliptica. Tom_elm^talk 08:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]