Talk:Coelospermum reticulatum

Plants Low‑importance

	Plants portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia: Northern Territory / Queensland / Biota Low‑importance

	Australia portal Coelospermum reticulatum is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Northern Territory (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Queensland, or the Northern Territory Library.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Requested move 12 June 2014[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 11:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pogonolobus → Coelospermum reticulatum – Pogonolobus is a synonym of Coelospermum reticulatum. However, this page already exists and redirects to Pogonolobus. It should be the other way around. I will edit the content as soon as the move is done. – Orbicule (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Steel1943 (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:FAUNA#Monotypic taxa, and the article also says, that it's a former name. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- First, it is not a monotypic taxon. The species Coelospermum reticulatum is one of 11 species in the genus. Second, Pogonolobus is the former name, not Coelospermum. Wikipedia articles are not always correct...that's why I want to change it. For synonym, see http://apps.kew.org/wcsp/namedetail.do?name_id=162052. Orbicule (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case the page should be moved to Coelospermum, and the Coelospermum reticulatum redirect should be replaced with an article. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The 2009 article on Morinda paraphyly in the references section clearly shows Pogonolobus included within the Coelospermum clade. That paper's recommendation was recognition of Coelospermum reticulatum. This article is about the species and not about the genus Coelospermum, thus I agree with Orbicule that it should be moved to Coelospermum reticulatum and updated. An article for Coelospermum already exists. Rkitko ^(talk) 17:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I created this article. We should be aiming for whatever reflects the most accurate current taxonony.Mark Marathon (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Follow current taxonomic status. Plantdrew (talk) 04:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I presume consensus has been reached? Can an administrator please perform the move? Orbicule (talk) 07:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question. The article claims that the genus is monotypic, containing only Pogonolobus reticulatus, but Coelospermum lists several species. What exactly happened here? Did the authorities determine that Pogonolobus reticulatus was actually a species of Coelospermum instead of its own genus? Or is Pogonolobus now synonym for Coelospermum? If it's the former, Pogonolobus should redirect to the new species name Coelospermum reticulatum, but if it's the latter, it should redirect to Coelospermum. If this can be made clear I'll take care of the move, but in any event the article needs to be rewritten.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't care about monophyly, then yes, the genus Pogonolobus as circumscribed contained a single species. But the 2009 paper listed in the references section found gross paraphyly and found Pogonolobus nested within Coelospermum, thus requiring the transfer of Pogonolobus reticulatus to the genus Coelospermum which already has several species. This article should just be moved to Coelospermum reticulatum with Pogonolobus redirecting to Coelospermum (as a synonym of the genus) and Pogonolobus reticulatus redirecting to Coelospermum reticulatum. I can re-write the article when it's moved to clarify its position and status. Rkitko ^(talk) 22:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support and follow up with the sequence of redirects outlined by Rkitko immediately above.--Melburnian (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2014 (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.