| Revision as of 17:00, 5 May 2008 editMaxschmelling (talk | contribs)1,594 edits →A type of this← Previous edit |
Revision as of 04:26, 6 May 2008 edit undoKingdon (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers8,135 edits don't see why we need to be so eager to delete, rather than move, informationNext edit → |
| Line 5: |
Line 5: |
|
:Normally such material would go in an article for the genus (which would also cover the species, since there is only one). But it probably is wise to wait until the genus is published in a scientific journal (planned for later in 2008), so keeping this material here for now sounds good to me. ] (]) 13:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
:Normally such material would go in an article for the genus (which would also cover the species, since there is only one). But it probably is wise to wait until the genus is published in a scientific journal (planned for later in 2008), so keeping this material here for now sounds good to me. ] (]) 13:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
::Floro has a history of adding news items in the wrong places, I revert many of them. If you think this really belongs here feel free to revert my edit, but it seems like this new find, though notable, doesn't deserve so much more attention than the other plants in this family. Adding the genus here seems like as much as is really necessary, once there is such a genus. And, if you do put it back, one of the refs would probably be sufficient, they are really just 4 copies of the same AP story. ] (]) 17:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
::Floro has a history of adding news items in the wrong places, I revert many of them. If you think this really belongs here feel free to revert my edit, but it seems like this new find, though notable, doesn't deserve so much more attention than the other plants in this family. Adding the genus here seems like as much as is really necessary, once there is such a genus. And, if you do put it back, one of the refs would probably be sufficient, they are really just 4 copies of the same AP story. ] (]) 17:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Well, once there is such a genus, it becomes easy, but the question is what to do for the 6 months or so that it will take. I think it shows admirable restraint to not jump the gun and start using the genus name before there is a validly published name. We've had similar situations with ] entries for "sp. nov. A" and the like (see for example '']'' and search for "Rhus sp. nov. A"), and at least in that case we just put it in the article for the higher level taxon (although it seems a bit odd, I agree, it isn't clear whether there is a better solution). ] (]) 04:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC) |
I added this here, because - one link says it is a type of this subject plant. While another link says it is a new and different one, and still has to be named, still, it is not yet settled if this is really a new one, until scientists officially name this one. So, until named in Latin, I added this here, since it is a type of this plant here: On May, 2008, St. Louis botanist George Yatskievych and a colleague, with the Missouri Botanical Garden, rediscovered and identified (in Sierra Madre del Sur, a pine oak forest in Mexico's mountains) a rare odd, orange-brown, fleshy-stemmed parasitic plant, first found in 1985 by Wayt Thomas, New York Botanical Garden scientist. A type of Orobanchaceae, the pine cone-shaped dense cluster of flowers and juicy celery-like stalks plant will have the formal Latin name for the "little hermit of Mexico," both a new species and a new genus because "it is so unusual and distinct that it cannot be included in any of the existing genera in the plant family Orobanchaceae". There are echoes in this plant’s lifestyle of species such as Orthilia secunda, which steals its goodness from funghi. --Florentino floro (talk) 06:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
