This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Puerto Rico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to Puerto Rico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Puerto RicoWikipedia:WikiProject Puerto RicoTemplate:WikiProject Puerto RicoPuerto Rico articles
I was wondering about the statement: "Though it was once endemic to southern Puerto Rico and Haiti, it appears to have been eradicated in those areas due to intensive land use." Apart from the use of the word endemic (should this be indigenous?), a Zamia species is still widespread in southern Puerto Rico. Whether this species should be called Zamia pumila or Z. portoricensis is unclear (see note on List_of_endemic_flora_of_Puerto_Rico), but it definitely has not been eradicated. Guettarda00:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we cut out the questionable portion until it can be verified or referenced. Since it's not footnoted, it might be best just to move it to talk for now.
Populations are presently limited to central Cuba and the Dominican Republic. Though it was once endemic to southern Puerto Rico and Haiti, it appears to have been eradicated in those areas due to intensive land use.
I took it out for the time being. It shouldn't be too difficult to find a ref that can better verify this info. I don't think it would hurt to leave it here for now. --DanielCD02:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is actually taken (nearly verbatim, but not quite) from the cycad pages ref at the bottom of the page. I'd guess whoever put it in changed the wording to avoid copyvio, but without properly understanding the meaning of 'endemic'. I'll put it back, suitably re-worded - MPF09:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that the species formerly found in southern PR still occurs there. If you follow Liogier in the Flora of Puerto Rico, that species would be Z. pumila, if you followed Acevedo in the more recent work, it would be Z. portoricensis. Whichever one formerly occurred in the south still occurs in the south. Guettarda12:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Might be worth discussing this with Ken Hill at the Cycad Pages; he also accepts Z. portoricensis as a distinct species, but with Z. pumila also present in the past (but no longer). I reckon it is worth following the Cycad Pages on cycad taxonomy (as does the IUCN Redlist). - MPF12:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I reckon it is worth acknowledging that reputable botanists have disagreed on the circumscription of this species and its closest relatives; some botanists have taken a broader circumscription of Z. pumila and others a narrower one, and any article on such a species must be explicit about varying circumscriptions and how such diverse opinions are reflected in the nomenclature of the various species involved. (At one extreme, Eckenwalder (1980) considered Z. pumila to encompass ALL the Zamias native to the West Indies and southeastern USA.) Unfortunately a couple of the listed references for this article just confuse matters more (like the University of Connecticut page). If I had more time I would help... MrDarwin15:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not arguing about species definitions, but rather about distributions. Presumably following Eckenwalder, Liogier listed Z. portoricensis as a synonym of Z. pumila. Consequently, records of Z. pumila in PR could encompass any of the Zamia species in Puerto Rico. My point is that there are Zamias in southern Puerto Rico, in the very areas that this article states that Z. pumila was eradicated.
One interpretation would be that Z. pumila was eradicated from southern PR, but Z. portoricensis still persists there. If that were the case, I would be interested to know the source of that information. Acevedo disagrees with Eckenwalder's synonymisation (while maintaining that molecular work is needed to sort this out). He attributes southern Puerto Rican collections to Z. portoricensis, and gives it a range that is distinct from the other species (iirc - I don't have his flora with me, it's in my office). Presumably the presence of Z. pumila in southern Puert Rico (to which this article refers) are records which cannot be separated from records of Z. portoricensis (I, for example, called any Zamias I encountered in southern Puert Rico Z. portoricensis in my original notes, following Liogier & Martorell (1982), and Z. pumila in my dissertation, following Liogier & Martorell (2000)).
So my point is, calling Z. pumila "eradicated" from southern Puerto Rico is inaccurate. And to not cite myself, let me cite Quevado, V., S. Silander, and R.O. Woodbury. 1990. Plantas críticas en peligro de extinción en el bosque de Guánica. Acta Cientifica 4: 137-150 (which includes a species list for Guánica Forest, in southern Puerto Rico. This list includes Z. portoricensis. Guettarda05:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
