Talk:Oxalis regnellii

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Oxalis triangularis has been tagged for merging into Oxalis regnellii. Although some popular sources appear to support this merge, I can't find any major botanical sources that give justification for this. Further, Oxalis triangularis A. St.-Hil. (Fl. Bras. merid. 1:102, 1825) is an older name than Oxalis regnellii Miq. (Linnaea 22: 545, 1849). I propose removing the merge tags, unless anyone can offer any convincing additional info. - MPF (talk) 21:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, there are no good sources for either, I remember that case. Do you have any? Comparing images of the plants, it seems that all names implying redness (see below) as well as triangularis refer to very anthocyanin-rich plants, and regnellii (namely w/o further qualifier) also refers to otherwise indistinguishable plants with the usual anthocyanin levels. See also the comments at PFAF.
USDA PLANTS (which is not the best, but for most purposes reliable enough, better than say ITIS) has only regnellii; when I did en:Oxalis I might have "relied" on that. But your argument seems valid (the ICBN is still a bit too baroque for me tho, so I might be wrong) and GRIN also has triangularis, and as its "common name" azedinha, apparently from Brazil. Also,
  • Google Scholar yields no useful hits for oxalis triangularis regnellii or "oxalis triangularis regnellii" or "oxalis regnellii triangularis"
  • Google on its own has a lot to offer for oxalis triangularis regnellii and "oxalis regnellii triangularis". Most - and that was my main rationale I remember - feature 'Triangularis' as a cultivar name, and most of the others as ssp. or var. of regnellii.
  • Google also found many hits for atropurpurea and rubra as supposed ssp./cv. of regnellii. (see also en:Oxalidaceae, whose history is also enlightening)
  • Google finds a few sources for "oxalis triangularis regnellii", none of which is scholarly. But a TCM site contains a extensive list of Oxalis cultivars, and looks competent at least from a horticultural standpoint. Whether they are taxonomically accurate IONO, but much of it looks legit; it stands to note that they do not consider regnellii distinct.
Not having the description dates, I was under the impression that regnellii has priority. There is also doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2008.11.022 - I cannot access it, but it mentions a ssp. of tridentata.
So, needs to be checked, whether the anthocyanin-rich plants were first described as triangularis, and hence this is the nominate ssp./var. - counterintuitively (but validly), leading to all sort of semiprofessional sources adopting the actual sub-specific name as species name for the "wild type". The lack of RS mentioning both taxa - specially the lack of any RS that discusses both in conjunction, combination, or a nomenclatorial, taxonomic or systematics context - gives an overall expression that these plants have never been considered specifically distinct, at least not in recent times. The occurrence of each on its own in RS, moreover, suggests that (non-expert) scientists were generally ignorant of the problem and used whatever name they "knew" to be "correct". However, triangularis occurs almost twice as often in scholarly sources than regnellii. In conclusion, it is apparently indeed O. triangularis ssp./var. triangularis and O. t. ssp./var. regnellii. Dysmorodrepanis (talk)
I have tagged it on en:. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Looks like you ran into the same lack of clear info that I did ;-) After getting no responses for the best part of a month (16 Sep) I did remove the merge tags, and haven't attempted to make any further investigation. If you think it would be best to merge regnellii into triangularis, go ahead, I have no strong opinion on the matter - MPF (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I have asked WP:PLANTS for advice. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Took a quick look at the en: article, uggh! - that woefully bad 'how to' indoor care paragraph wants stripping out, ditto the dot.com spamlinks. Won't leave much of an article, though!! - MPF (talk) 10:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)