Talk:Adenanthos macropodianus

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: South Australia / Biota Low‑importance

	Australia portal Adenanthos macropodianus 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 South Australia (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 South Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

A fact from Adenanthos macropodianus appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 27 March 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the specific name of Adenanthos macropodianus refers to it only being found on Kangaroo Island?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2010/March.

Wikipedia

Name[edit]

SO I'm looking at it and I can't figure out why the name is A. macropodianus instead of A. brevifolus. There is no trace of a previous A. brevifolius/a, and that name should have priority. Given that I do not have access to the Brunonia paper, what am I missing? Circéus (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about the same thing. Melburnian (talk) 01:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Logically it should be discussed in the paper, but as I said I can't access it. Circéus (talk) 05:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can try and get in touch with E. Charles Nelson and see what he says if we can't find it soon. Not sure if Brunonia is held in my local uni.Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ICBN Article 11.2: "In no case does a name have priority outside the rank in which it is published."

I have an electronic copy. Anyone who wants it, speak up and I'll fire you off a copy tomorrow morning. Circeus, you'd have to drop me an email so that I know where to send it (you can't attach files using Special:EmailUser.)

Hesperian 10:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please. Melburnian (talk) 11:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sent. Hesperian 00:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Received, thanks. --Melburnian (talk) 02:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when you use "elevated", I assumed we are talking about not a new species (which indeed does not necessarily need to take account of priority of a variety), but a new status, which is governed by articles 7.4 and 7.7. If I understand things right, such a name, if it uses the same type, is actually required to reuse the original epithet (or at the very least is traditionally so: not doing it seems quite unconventional). Circéus (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You make an excellent point there, Circeus. There are two possible situations here:

A. macropodianus was defined by giving A. sericeus var. brevifolia as its basionym; or
A. macropodianus was defined with reference to a new description and type specimen, and A. sericeus var. brevifolia, which has its own type specimen, was synonymized with it.

This is case 2: A. macropodianus var. brevifolia is a taxonomic synonym rather than a nomenclatural synonym. You've convinced me that "elevated" is improper. I'll go change it. Hesperian 23:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still find it an odd approach since he makes it clear that it is the very same taxon ("Bentham (1870) considered this taxon to be a variety of A. sericea"). I understand that it was valid under the code, but I still think it is very unorthodox (I think it's the first time I encounter such a situation). Circéus (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree. It would make more sense if var. brevifolia wasn't typified, but it was.

I've seen this situation in a Banksia species (can't remember which one), which is how I knew that this was valid. Hesperian 01:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed him yesterday and will see what he says. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]