Jump to content

Talk:Erechtites

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Australasian species

[edit]

The paper Chia-Sin Liew, Andrew E. Memory, Daniel Ortiz-Barrientos, Peter J. de Lange & Pieter B. Pelser, The delimitation and evolutionary history of the Australasian Lautusoid group of Senecio (Asteraceae: Senecioneae), Taxon 67(1): 130-148 (2018) finds the Australasian species among multiple groups of Australasian Senecio species. This study doesn't cover New World Erechtites; it requires synthesis or original research to generate an answer using earlier papers on Senecio sensu lato, but on first sight it looks as if the Australasian taxa should be excluded. (An alternative would be a broader Erechtites including additional Australasian and perhaps other taxa.) Lavateraguy (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've being read the papers from Pelser over the last week or so. I think it clear from the Pelser at al (2007) paper than the Australian species should be excluded from Erechtites and belong in their Senecio sensu stricto. The Liew et al (2018) paper is consistent with this, but doesn't deal with the north American species. There is also Pelser et al (2010) looking at the incongruence.
POWO recognises some of the Pelser-2007 suggestions and recommendations:
There is some published support for a narrower Erechtites:
The Global Compositae Database is new to me. It's hosted on the WoRMS Aphia system and Pieter Pelser is an editor. It has potential as a reliable source for Compositae. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems it is relatively new and a successor to the Global Compositae Checklist (see here and here).
@Plantdrew: Are you using Global Compositae Database as the preferred taxonomy source for Asteraceae? I noticed you recently revised the genera at Senecioneae using it as a source and also changed the parent in the Erechtites taxonomy template from the subtribe parent to the tribe. What do you think we should do for the Erechtites species composition? Also @Lavateraguy:. —  Jts1882 | talk  12:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jts1882:, my aim is to implement automatic taxoboxes for Asteraceae. The GCD is basically the only source I've found that gives tribal assignments for all genera. In the tribes I've worked on so far, GCD doesn't have genera assigned to subtribes. I've found that genus lists in the tribe articles I've worked were very incomplete; there are existing genus articles that weren't linked from any tribe article. Some of these genera aren't recognized by POWO; I think as long as lists of genera are sourced to GCD, genera that POWO regards as synonyms should be listed (but perhaps should be turned into redirects). I'm also consulting Funk et al. 2009, "Systematics, Evolution and Biogeography of Compositae" and doi:10.1002/tax.12235, although neither of these has lists of genera in tribes. iNaturalist does have some pages for subtribes listing genera that GCD only assigns to tribe; I regard iNaturalist as akin to Wikipedia in terms of user-generated content, and don't want to cite it directly, but I do want to investigate their sources for subtribes.
I have not been systematically checking whether the assignment of species to genera is up-to-date. If a species is listed in a genus article, and has binomial title consistent with placement in that genus, I've converted to a speciesbox without (usually) checking any further. So, I haven't looked in detail into GCD (or POWO)'s circumscription of Erechtites/Senecio. If recent studies have a circumscription different from GCD/POWO, I'm not going to insist that we necessarily follow GCD/POWO (but would want to discuss on a case-by-case basis). Plantdrew (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That was what I assumed. Getting comprehensive up-to-date lists with tribe and subtribe membership is difficult and the GCD provides that for tribes and not for subtribes. While there seems little doubt about the subtribe for Erechtites, it's better not to use subtribes in the taxobox system if they can't be used for all species. That needs a comprehensive listing. I'd expect the GCD to add subtribes in time. As I note below, the POWO/WCVP listing has changed and is now close to the GCD. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since I updated the species list to follow POWO, which recognised 27 species on 27 March 2022, both POWO and WCVP have revised Erechites and removed the Australasian species. They now recognise 8 species, the 6 Funez species plus Erechtites leptanthus from Chile and Erechtites runcinatus from Mexico. The GCD recognises the former, but not the latter, and also recognises Erechtites albiflorus and Erechtites minima for 9 total species. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update. POWO has Erechtites albiflorus as a synonym of Erechtites petiolatus. The latter was recognised as a species by Nunez et al (2021), but the authors corrected the name soon after (Hessemer & Funez (2021)). The GCD accepts the change to Erechtites albiflorus and cites the recombination here. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Erechtites&oldid=1201790953"