Talk:Cupressus
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Moving to Hesperocyparis
[edit]POWO and World Flora Online both classify the New World members of Cupressus in Hesperocyparis, and many studies have found that the "New World Cupressus" treatment is paraphyletic with respect to Juniperus, but the Gymnosperm Database still classifies these species in Cupressus. Which treatment should we follow? Geekgecko (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Geekgecko I'm mildly inclined to follow POWO and WFO. Before we just jump into moving let's post some requests for comment from other plant editors at WP:Plants talk and maybe some of the affected species. I'm wrapping up moving Mahonia to Berberis so I'll have time to work on this if it does need to be moved. One more bit of weight on the side of "move" https://www.worldplants.de also lists Hesperocyparis as correct. A tiny vote against it, NatureServe is still using Cupressus. Not sure what would be a really authoritative recently published botany book to look into to see if this is starting to be widely used. Doing a quick search in the Wikipedia Library it does seem to be in use, and not just as a mentioned synonym. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 05:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Reopening discussion
[edit]I've paused my moving Cupressus to Hesperocyparis in light of the most recent comment by @MPF at the Plants Project talk page. So far I had edited and requested moves for Hesperocyparis arizonica and Hesperocyparis bakeri. Also pinging @Geekgecko, @Peter coxhead, @Abductive, @Lavateraguy, and @Plantdrew as potentially having an informed opinion.
Summary of the situation:
- POWO, WFO, World Plants, and Gymnosperm Database list Hesperocyparis as the correct genus.
- FNA and Cupressus Conservation Project retain Cupressus.
I think that the weight of opinion is on the side of Hesperocyparis, but the question has been raised on if this is a political move or not. There is a good summary of the arguments at the Cupressus page on the Gymnosperm Database. However, Wikipedia should use a consensus of what is actually being used rather than picking which argument is correct. I will do a survey of which names are used in Wiley and Nature over the last five years to see what is the scientific consensus if we here at Wikipedia think this is the correct way to figure out what name our articles should have, while retaining that there is not universal consensus on this topic in the Taxo section of each species and the two genus pages. What is the opinion of the group? 🌿MtBotany (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- The FNA treatment was published in 1993, well before Hesperocyparis was described, so that can be discounted (I'm not aware of any efforts to update nomenclature at the wiki version of FNA hosted at floranorthamerica.org , and I believe the version hosted at efloras.org is completely faithful to the printed volumes). Plantdrew (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- That's a good point I had not thought of. I have not seen any online pages that I know to have been updated post publication, though I think that was originally the intention. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- If we "should use a consensus of what is actually being used rather than picking which argument is correct", then Hesperocyparis certainly wins. But is this really the best option? It is the territory of bandwagons and mass delusion if not backed up by hard evidence; and that hard evidence appears to be lacking.
- The second part of the sentence on the Hesperocyparis page "Members of Hesperocyparis were and still are placed in Cupressus by many authorities, but phylogenetic evidence supports a different affinity" is certainly very poorly worded. The phylogenetic evidence shows that division of Cupressus into four genera is optional and not required for monophyly, and not of any different affinity. And ditto the Taxonomy section on the Cupressus page "A 2021 molecular study found Cupressus to be the sister genus to Juniperus, whereas the western members (classified in Callitropsis and Hesperocyparis) were found to be sister to Xanthocyparis". More accurately, Cupressus s.l. is sister to Juniperus, but Cupressus s.str. is sister to the Callitropsis – Hesperocyparis – Xanthocyparis group; that is far from clear with the current wording.
- As well as the lack of any definable characters distinguishing the segregates, a further problem for acceptance is hybrids between Cupressus s.str. and Hesperocyparis, and between Callitropsis and Hesperocyparis; if accepting the division of Cupressus into multiple genera, these are the only intergeneric hybrids known in conifers: a strong argument against splitting (conifers are not promiscuous like orchids!). Do these all have valid nothogeneric names if these genera are accepted? - MPF (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- @MPF Wikipedia is not the arbiter of what is true or correct, it is an wp:encyclopedia. If I understand your position correctly, you think the majority of scientists are wrong about this and that we should follow one source over what the majority of reliable sources report. That's not what encyclopedias do. If you want me to I'll take this to a formal process, but I think that WP:due weight in this case means that we use the sources we have and report that disagreement continues in the botanical community. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 04:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- I take your point, but the text as it is at the moment isn't accurately or fully reporting on the disagreement. Also, I'm not saying "the majority of scientists are wrong about this"; more that they are not reporting on their own results in an unbiased manner, but at least appear to be seeking excuses to agree with the splits (a pre-determined editorial condition for research funding and/or publication??), rather than testing whether they are required or not. - MPF (talk) 10:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Ummmmmm, why exactly would we rabbit hole on conspiracy theory thinking that asserts global collaborations between journals to publish a result you seem to disagree with? This feel rather paranoid and playing loose with the data we have.--Kevmin § 17:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)...but at least appear to be seeking excuses to agree with the splits (a pre-determined editorial condition for research funding and/or publication??)...
- I take your point, but the text as it is at the moment isn't accurately or fully reporting on the disagreement. Also, I'm not saying "the majority of scientists are wrong about this"; more that they are not reporting on their own results in an unbiased manner, but at least appear to be seeking excuses to agree with the splits (a pre-determined editorial condition for research funding and/or publication??), rather than testing whether they are required or not. - MPF (talk) 10:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- I was the one who added that info about the Stull et al (2021) study, the study recovered the Old World (sensu stricto) Cupressus as sister to Juniperus, with the New World Cupressus and Xanthocyparis forming their own clade sister to these two. The only way to make that group monophyletic would be synonymizing Juniperus with Cupressus. I thought that was pretty clear from what I added, I'm not sure why you'd have a different reading of it. Geekgecko (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- @MPF Wikipedia is not the arbiter of what is true or correct, it is an wp:encyclopedia. If I understand your position correctly, you think the majority of scientists are wrong about this and that we should follow one source over what the majority of reliable sources report. That's not what encyclopedias do. If you want me to I'll take this to a formal process, but I think that WP:due weight in this case means that we use the sources we have and report that disagreement continues in the botanical community. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 04:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)