Talk:Zephyranthes atamasca

Atamasco/Atamasca

I previously changed the name of this page to Zephyranthes atamasca, the name listed in the ARS-GRIN database, which everyone I know in the field considers to be the authority on taxonomy and nomenclature. I see that it's been changed back. The common name is Atamasco lily, but the binomial definitely should be Zephyranthes atamasca. Opinions?Carlaclaws (talk) 13:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't accept that ARS-GRIN is "the" authority on taxonomy and nomenclature; sometimes it's ahead of other major online sources (such as IPNI and WCSP), sometimes not, and sometimes different reliable sources disagree.

In this case the issue is what is said in the current (Melbourne) version of the ICN in App. IIIA, since this is the authority given by GRIN for the change to atamasca. This doesn't seem to be online, so the question is whether anyone has access to the printed version to verify GRIN's statement. I'll ask at WT:PLANTS. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the detailed response here makes clear (see the Vienna code entry under 'Zephyranthes'), Zephyranthes atamasca (L.) Herb. (based on Amaryllis atamasca L.) is a conserved type. As of now, IPNI and other sources appear to be wrong. (I'll contact IPNI.) The page should be moved back and the text corrected. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. I've changed the more obvious "atamasco" spellings, but someone should check over the whole synonymy section. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I should clarify: ARS-GRIN is, in my experience, considered the definitive source in the U.S. commercial horticulture industry. Those of us with dirt under our nails can't track taxonomic changes without going through a keyboard every week, I fear. In any case, thanks for the resolution!Carlaclaws (talk) 04:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]