Talk:Scilla sect. Chionodoxa
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Names, number of species[edit]
There is so much confusion in the literature over the correct names and number of species, that I think an editor has to take a stance, and choose one source over another, otherwise the article will be very muddled. If you want to accuse me of a degree of WP:OR in this respect, I guess I'll have to plead guilty. Hopefully, the result is acceptable. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- I know almost nothing about Chionodoxa, but generally agree that it is clearer to pick one (relatively recent and well-supported by evidence) classification and use that (while also noting that other classifications exist). The way it is treated now looks OK to me. Kingdon (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Classification[edit]
The problem here is that we can’t treat a group of Scilla species as a Section, without treating the whole genus as being subdivided into Sections. More recent sources have advocated a resurrection of Chionodoxa as a genus. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 12:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)