Talk:Pouteria
Add topicLatest comment: 8 months ago by Plantdrew in topic Tag removal
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Tag removal
[edit]@Plantdrew: Can you take a look at the tag place on this article? I tried to delete it saying it's not our job, but it's come back with a ref. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:01, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
- @UtherSRG:, the circumscription that the 2007 ref calls out as polyphyletic is not what Wikipedia is using. This article already has a 2023 reference that notes that polyphyly existed, and Wikipedia's articles had a bunch of page moves in 2023. Clade A in the 2007 paper has had Pouteria species moved to Planchonella. Clade C has had species moved to Pleioluma. I don't know if the polyphyly has been completely resolved; the 2007 paper has P. sandwicensis in a clade D and suggests a new genus is needed for it, but we have it as Planchonella sandwicensis, so perhaps Planchonella is still polyphylyetic. And we can't do anything with a study that identifies polyphyly without making new combinations to resolve it (other than noting that polyphyly has been identified).
- Anyway, the short answer is that the 2007 paper is irrelevant, as that is not the circumscription currently used on Wikipedia. Plantdrew (talk) 16:09, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks! I'll remove the tag if you haven't yet. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Plantdrew: Can you double check the anon's recent edits. I think they are in line with what you said, but would like it checked. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- @UtherSRG:, I'm not so sure about the edits to Lukma Punta and Lujmani, but the issue there is a broader question than what this particular anon editor is doing. I know there are a lot of editors who update linked scientific names that appear in articles about non-taxon subjects. I don't think Wikipedia has any settled guidance on whether such links should be updated, or should use an older scientific name that appears in a cited source.
- And in the case of those two particular articles, the only source I can access in those two articles is a Quechua/Spanish dictionary that defines "lukma" as "lúcuma"; I'm not sure if Lukma Punta should be linking/displaying a scientific name at all, rather than the Spanish name lúcuma. Plantdrew (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2025 (UTC)