Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a23294d05e4d3f27

Jump to content

Talk:Polystichum

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Correcting suggestions to chapter: Former species

[edit]

This article about fern genus Polystichum may certainly be improved a lot, nevertheless i liked to say thanks to it's creator and coeditors! Not being experienced in editing i do prefer to add suggestions for corrections and improvements here at talk page before changing the article myself. 1, at chapter "Former species" the binomen Polystichum auriculatum (L) C.Presl is given as (apparently accepted) synonym of Dryopteris auriculata (L) Kuntze. In fact both taxonomic combinations are most likely to be treated as synonyms to accepted Nephrolepis cordifolia (L) C.Presl, the so called "Tuber ladder fern", following Flora of China vol.2-3, 2013, which is cited as source at web-references "The Plant List" and "Tropicos". http://efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=2&taxon_id=233500798 Consequently P. auriculatum is to be cited as outdated synonym to N. cordifolia and the source has to be changed.

2, at chapter "Former species" binomen Polystichum lepidocaulon (Hook.) J.Sm. is given as (apparently accepted) Cyrtomidictyum lepidocaulon (Hook.) Ching. Once again both websites, "The Plant list" plus "Tropicos" are incorrect, having common source of information "Flora of China vol. 2-3, 2013", but are contradicting by ignoring the fact that Cyrtomidictyum is integrated within Polystichum at source. http://efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=2&taxon_id=242340580 Consequently Polystichum lepidocaulon was not to be displayed as former species of Polystichum, but better remarked that there are different opinions and treatments as the taxonomic combination into separate genus Cyrtomidictyum. The concerning link should be changed. --Stamnariophilus 09:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)  Preceding unsigned comment added by Stamnaria0568 (talkcontribs)