Talk:Haemanthinae
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Need some "sensu" information[edit]
The text needs to clarify that some of the names are used differently, e.g. Amaryllidoideae sensu APG III and hence the taxobox ≠ Amaryllidoideae sensu Pax; ditto Amaryllidaceae. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- I would hope that it is apparent that when we are talking about current taxonomy we refer to APG, as opposed to discussions of historical context. Actually the argument could be applied to most taxa. There is also a danger of overuse of sensu. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 05:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hoping is fine, but making it clear is surely better? :-) Peter coxhead (talk) 09:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how it could be clearer - without creating a lot of clutter. When one says "Pax (1888) treated the Amaryllidaceae" the implication is that it refers to Amaryllidaceae sensu Pax. The reductio ad absurdum would be to add sensu to every taxon name on WP, every time it is mentioned. There are literally dozens of different circumscriptions of Amaryllidaceae, hence the rationale for APG. I started a Amarylloidinae to help a little. And surely this argument would have to apply to every page within the Amaryllidaceae project?, not just this one --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hoping is fine, but making it clear is surely better? :-) Peter coxhead (talk) 09:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's not mainly an issue about the circumscription of the taxon – I agree that it's not sensible to keep adding "sensu" in such cases – but about the rank, and hence the name, of what is essentially the same circumscription. What's important about a taxon, especially in modern times, is its position in the hypothesized phylogenetic tree, and this is what you don't know from the name, unless you know whether the "lumped" system is in use or not. For example, the hierarchy Amaryllidaceae – Hippeastroideae – Hippeastreae of some authors corresponds to Amaryllidoideae – Hippeastreae – Hippeastrinae of others. If you just see the name Hippeastreae, you don't know whether it's the terminal node in this hierarchy or one level above. So you can't mix information about "Hippeastreae" from sources that use the two systems.
- I don't think this is explained as well as it could perhaps be at Amaryllidoideae – e.g. the term "hippeastroid" is used following sources (but should not be capitalized as it's an English name), but it would be an error if the scientific name Hippeastroideae were used, since it's below Amaryllidoideae. However, it may be too complex/subtle for a Wikipedia article, and I might be being too pedantic (a fault to which I often have to plead guilty). Peter coxhead (talk) 09:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)