Draft talk:Dzukou lily

Taxonomic status and notability of Lilium chitrangadae?

Hey, so I was working on this article, and I did some further digging and found out that this is not really a new species. Apparently, one study showed that it's basically a subspecies of Lilium mackliniae. However, according to some Wikipedians, the two are different species, as can be seen in the hatnote at Dzüko Valley. Do you think this would warrant an article? Or how should we approach this? Tagging @Astra Travasso and @Haoreimasince you two were the first one to add the tag to this. See , , and . I am not a botanist, so I am soliciting opinions. Also tagging @Nomen alternativum, @MtBotany, @Plantdrew and @Ethmostigmus Thanks! Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

@Flyingphoenixchips:, I think this putative species was never formally published (and thus doesn't meet the notability standard of WP:NSPECIES). I can't find any record of it in any of database of botanical nomenclature. My interpretation of Mao & Gogoi is that it wasn't described as a new species in the News Letter of the Manipur Association for Science and Society, but that the News Letter mentioned that it had been described in some other unspecified publication.

I don't think this warrants an article, but it might be worth mentioning something in Lilium mackliniae.

Here's what Mao & Gogoi say (copying for the sake of any other editors who have been pinged):

"This white lily was mentioned as a new species “Lilium chitrangadae” by late Hijam Bikramjit Singh in the News Letter of Manipur Association for Science and Society 1991. We searched all relevant literature to find out where it was published but could not get the publication and also Manipur University where Singh worked as Research Assistant in the Department of Life sciences. However, as per the detailed study made by us the white lily is same as L. mackliniae in all aspects except for colour. Hence, it is not a new species but an albino form of the species" () Plantdrew (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

@PlantdrewThanks for looking into this, much appreciated! Would also help in the edit dispute that was ongoing in Dzüko Valley! Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Ditto on the thanks to Plantdrew, I did a quick look in archive.org and I see there are a few mentions of Lilium chitrangadae in five other publications, but nothing like a description of it. All more or less "famous Dzukou lily" with no other information. Fairly clearly not an accepted species, though I agree that it is worth mentioning in the Lilium mackliniae article. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps a merge over a redirect to Lilium mackliniae would make sense? Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 21:08, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, redirect to L. mackliniae and merge a little bit about the Dzüko populations have differently colored flowers.

By the way, pinging/notifying other editors is driven by your signing your post. If you add more editors to the notifications (or modify the notifications in any other way, such as correcting a mistyped user name), the notifications won't be delivered unless you re-do your signature. I don't know why it works like that. Plantdrew (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Cool! thanks again, for the head's up! @Haoreima, tagging to make you aware of this as well. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 02:24, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

What about keeping this article as such but clarifying it as a sub variety of the macklineae, rather than total merging/redirecting? Haoreima (talk) 02:37, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I feel that since this is not notable as per WP:NSPECIES, you would have to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. If so, I do not see why we cannot keep this article as such. However, if that were the case, I feel the title should be changed to Dzukou Lily instead. Do correct me if I am wrong. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:54, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

D. Lily is the popular name of the species, more widely known than its scientific name. And like many subspecies articles are available separately, we can put it if enough contents and citations are added. Rest lies to the decision of the editors. Haoreima (talk) 12:28, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Based on what is summarised in the page already, a new species is not proposed, catalogued, or approved by the publication in a local newsletter without going through the formal scrutiny by the scientific community. By the 1990s, the scientific process for these was well-established in India. The circulation of the legend of this species, in my speculation, was constantly facilitated by local press without scientific standing. When scientific rigour was employed by Mao and Gogoi who are very well-established botanists in the country, vis-a-vis Hijam Bikramjit Singh, it did not stand ground. I do not see the need to have a page based on what Singh thought was a new species. The note on popular name, range, colour variation, can all be subsumed into the Lilium mackliniae page. Astra Travasso (talk) 18:41, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for all the work everyone put into this. It rests my doubts that this was never accepted as a separate species. I do not think this page is merited or the extra details on Dzukou valley page. For pages like these, peer-reviewed journals must be the only source. Many academics and researchers from Northeast India publish in paid journals or without peer-review setting a bad standard for research on/from the region. Wikipedia should steer clear from this, lest it creates hoaxes and myths. Astra Travasso (talk) 18:17, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I would agree with this @Astra Travasso. Most open access journals based in india tend to be predatory. I had talked about this in the essay WP:UGCCARE as well. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2026 (UTC)