Talk:Atherosperma

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: New South Wales / Tasmania / Victoria / Biota Low‑importance

	Australia portal Atherosperma 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 New South Wales (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Tasmania (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Victoria (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 New South Wales, or the State Library of Victoria, or the State Library of Tasmania.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Atherosperma is a monotypic genus and the only species is Atherosperma moschatum

Hey @Gderrin, despite what Plants of the World Online might say, Atherosperma is a monotypic genus with a single species: A. moschatum, and so considered by all Herbaria in Australia.

All species mentioned in the article text have been considered synonyms of A. moschatum practically forever, and there is no recent research showing any different opinion, so I believe this is a case where Plants of the World Online has not got around to culling their raw list of names in the literature: https://biodiversity.org.au/nsl/services/search/taxonomy?product=APC&tree.id=51209179&name=atherosperma&inc._scientific=&inc.scientific=on&inc._cultivar=&max=100&display=apc&search=true MFdeS (talk) 05:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MFdeS: we certainly must include the view that there is only one species, but so long as sources like PoWO, World Flora Online, Tropicos, etc. list multiple species, we have to present this view as well. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In this case it's not a matter of different taxonomic opinions, just outdated names that have appeared in old literature and remained unchecked.

I got a response from Plants of the World Online after writing to them: their data was not yet revised and it dated back to 1995 (as I suspected). They have now amended it. I will keep an eye out on their site to see when the changes appear on the live version. All of these data aggregator sites feed of each other, and many of them are based on the original Index Kewensis, which fed into IPNI, and propagated from there. MFdeS (talk) 04:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]