Jump to content

User:Plantdrew/Holarrhena pubescens

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All taxon articles in 1000 most viewed for February 2019 (552 total)

[edit]

61,734 plant taxa articles. Category:Redirects from scientific names of plants has 690 entries.

Common name (225 total)

[edit]

Common name is THE scientific name; if a vernacular name exists it is very uncommon (52 total)

[edit]

Scientific name is A common name; vernacular names are also used (27 total)

[edit]

Article with common name title discusses product of the plant at scientific name title (18 total)

[edit]

Scientific name (229 total)

[edit]

Linnaean Nerium antidysentericum described as Echites antidysentericus in 1810 [1], Wrightia antidysenterica in 1811 [2]. Wallich handwritten manuscript of 1828/1829 [3] has Holarrhena pubescens [4] and Holarrhena dysenterica [5]. Formal Wallich publication of 1837 [6] has Holarrhena pubescens [7]. 1844 Wallich publication [8] describes Holarrhena dysenterica [9]. In 1874, Wallich's pubescens is treated as a variety of antidysenterica [10].

Google has results for Wrightia antidysenterica as an ornamental plant (and few good taxonomic sources for the name) and Holarrhena pubescens/Holarrhena antidysenterica as medicinal plants (with several good taxonomic sources for the names). Flora of China [11] suggests that Wallich's antidysenterica is not the Linnaean antidysenterica. Not sure what's going on.

I'm not sure exactly what your question is. It's certainly worth converting species articles to speciesbox no matter if infrageneric/infrafamilial ranks are present.
In my efforts to convert to speciesboxes, I've proceeded from "easier" case to "harder" cases; all that is left now (aside from Asteraceae) is hard for one reason or another.
I started out working through small families that didn't have any infrafamilial classification, verifying accepted genera against The Plant List (I would use POWO now). When I started tackling larger families that had infrafamilial classification, I'd check that GRIN/NCBI/APWeb agreed (or mostly agreed) on that classification; I wasn't adding references to taxonomy templates. More recently, I've been going directly to sources cited by APWeb, and put those source as references in taxonomy templates.
I have never used |display_parents= to show infrafamilial ranks in speciesboxes (except for the case of monotypic genera).