Talk:Scilla peruviana

Article title

This is not exactly a well-known plant, except among bulb enthusiasts, who are used to scientific names. Hence I can't see why it should not be at the scientific name, Scilla peruviana. (And anyway, it should be at "Portuguese squill", not "Portuguese Squill".) Peter coxhead (talk) 07:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, but I can't make the move myself. I've been on a Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants assessment kick today, but have been noting the articles I've visited that might be best moved to scientific names. User:Rkitko indicated that he was willing to consider executing some moves for me. I'll suggest the move to him shortly, if he doesn't see the comments here. Plantdrew (talk) 08:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to make any moves you may have picked out as easily uncontroversial, like this one. And this notification function is great for things like this! Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 13:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Naming

I have looked at Linnaeus' description of Scilla peruviana in the Species Plantarum (Linnaeus, 1753) and under type locality it clearly states "Lusitania" i.e. Portugal. Therefore, he did know the species did not come from Peru. On top of that, the paragraph stating that he thought it was from Peru is unreferenced. I think it should be removed on this basis Elspooky (talk) 12:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are reliable sources which state that the name is because the plant was originally thought to have come from Peru, but not that Linnaeus thought this. Linnaeus's peruviana is based on the name given earlier by Clusius, Hyacinthus stellatus peruanus. There's a story that Clusius misunderstood a statement that the bulbs came from a ship called "Peru" to mean that the bulbs came from the country of Peru. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]