Talk:Fagopyrum cymosum

Agriculture Low‑importance

	Agriculture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Plants Mid‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Why not cymosum

I suggest using Fagopyrum cymosum for this species, and calling it a wild plant rather than a domesticated plant.

The Fagopyrum taxonomist with the most influence today has to be Ohmi Ohnishi at Kyoto Univ. He consistently calls this species F. cymosum. Ohnishi O, Matsuoka Y (1996) Search for the wild ancestor of buckwheat.Taxonomy of Fagopyrum (Polygonaceae) species based on morphology, isozymes and cpDNA variability. Genes Genet Syst 71:383–390 Yasui, Y., and O. Ohnishi. 1998a. Interspecific relationships in Fagopyrum (Polygonaceae) revealed by the nucleotide sequences of the rbcL and accD genes and their intergenic region. American Journal of Botany 85: 1134–1142 Yamane K. O. Ohnishi 2001. Phylogenetic relationships among natural populations of Perennial buckwheat, Fagopyrum cymosum Meisn. revealed by allozyme variations. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 48: 69-77. Yamane, K., Y. Yasui and O. Ohnishi. 2003. Intraspecific cpDNA variations of diploid and tetraploid perennial buckwheat, Fagopyrum cymosum (Polygonaceae) doi: 10.3732/ajb.90.3.339 Am. J. Bot. 90:339-346

Furthermore, it is consistently referred to as a wild species, not domesticated, in germplasm and conservation studies from the region: Senthilkumaran,R., I. S. Bisht, K. V. Bhat, J. C. Rana. 2008. Diversity in buckwheat (Fagopyrum spp.) landrace populations from north-western Indian Himalayas. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 55:287-302

Ohsako, T. and Ohmi Ohnishi. 2000. Intra- and interspecific phylogeny of wild Fagopyrum (Polygonaceae) species based on nucleotide sequences of noncoding regions in chloroplast DNA Amer. J. Bot 87: 573-582

Yao Rongcheng, Y., M. Huang, Y. Wu, C. Yang.1989 ACTIVITY CONSTITUENTS OF ANTI-TUMOR FROM FAGOPYRUM CYMOSUM. Acta Botanica Yunnanica

US Patent US6726938 has a lot of history on the use of the wild plant as a folk medicine. Phytism (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here we follow the most recent publications that try to give a consensus view of the taxonomy. This means that Flora of China and databases such as The Plant LIst and the world checklist are used. From looking at the most recent citation that you list, Senthilkumaran,R., I. S. Bisht, K. V. Bhat, J. C. Rana. 2008, I read that as meaning that they had only two collections from the perennial tetraploid plants, and they refer to them as Fagopyrum cymosum for convenience. At one point they say "2 accessions of wild F. cymosum [F. acutatum (Lehm.) Mansf. ex Hammer]", so I would argue that they are not making a definite statement about F. cymosum being the correct species name. On the other hand, the Flora of China citation used on this page does state the opinion that F. cymosum belongs within the species whose correct name is F. acutatum. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Plant List shows F. acutatum as the accepted name and F. cymosum as the synonym, giving (Lehm.) Mansf. ex Hammer in Schultze-Motel, Verzeichnis Kultpflz. ed. 2 (1986) as the reference. It also lists F. dibotrys as a synonym.Thus the Wikipedia entry should stand here as F. acutatum.

Nevertheless, current taxonomists continue to use F. cymosum exclusively, and there is a lot of work in progress. Therefore, I make some notes here for future reference should more information become available. I am not arguing for a change at this time.

Shultze-Motel, J. et al. 1989. Taxonomy and evolution of cultivated plants: Literature review 1987/1988 Die Kulturpflanze 37:453-496. Includes: "Polygonaceae Fagopyrum MILL. Fagopyrum esculentum derived from F. cymosum by divergent evolution (KOVALENKO 1986)" That is inconsistent with the same author in 1986, which is the authority cited by The Plant List.
The International Organization for Plant Information Provisional Global Plant Checklist [1] does not list the species under either name.
Kew does not list Fagopyrum at all.
I can't access Flora of China (2003). See chapter by Li & Hong
There is an English edition of Mansfeld & Schultze, which is the official author for F. acutatum. Mansfeld's ::Encyclopedia of Agricultural and Horticultural Crops By Peter Hanelt
GenBank uses exclusively F. cymosum, but the deposited sequences are from Ohnishi's lab.
The species is referred to a F. cymosum in Mei-Liang Zhou, Qian Zhang, Ya-Di Zheng, Yu Tang, Fa-Liang Li, Xue-Mei Zhu, and Ji-Rong Shao. 2015. Fagopyrum hailuogouense (Polygonaceae), One New Species from Sichuan, China. Novon: A Journal for Botanical Nomenclature, 24(2):222-224. (Note that Novon is published by MBG, as is Flora of China.) They refer to the Li & Hong (2003) paper as stating "the perennial F. cymosum (Trevir.) Meisn., which has been synonymized to F. dibotrys (D. Don) H. Hara (Li & Hong, 2003)" No mention of F. acutatum.
(The taxonomic references in my initial comment are those by Ohnishi's group in the 1990s; Senthilkumaran addresses the cultivation status.)

Phytism (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geneticists and taxonomists continue to use Fagopyrum cymosum in the primary literature. There are three important recent publications that argue for listing this article as Fagopyrum cymosum.

The sources used to support Fagopyrum acutatum are comparatively weak. The name in "The Plant List" continues to be "In review" since 2012. I would not consider that a definitive source. The "Kew World Checklist" does not list Fagopyrum, and has no coverage of Polygonaceae at all.

Meiliang Zhou, Yu Tang, Xianyu Deng, Chen Ruan, Mengqi Ding, Jirong Shao, Yixiong Tang and Yanmin Wu, Chapter Seven - Perennial Self-Incompatible Wild Fagopyrum Species, In Buckwheat Germplasm in the World, Academic Press, 2018, Pages 61-66, ISBN 9780128110065, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811006-5.00007-0.

Sun Hee Woo, Swapan K. Roy, Soo J. Kwon, Seong-Woo Cho and Hag H. Kim, Chapter Twenty Four - Interspecific Crosses Between Fagopyrum cymosum and Other Species Through Embryo Culture Techniques, In Buckwheat Germplasm in the World, edited by Meiliang Zhou, Ivan Kreft, Galina Suvorova, Yu Tang and Sun Hee Woo, Academic Press, 2018, Pages 249-258, ISBN 9780128110065, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811006-5.00024-0.

O. Ohnishi, Chapter one - Molecular Taxonomy of the Genus Fagopyrum, In Molecular Breeding and Nutritional Aspects of Buckwheat, edited by Meiliang Zhou, Ivan Kreft, Sun-Hee Woo, Nikhil Chrungoo and Gunilla Wieslander, Academic Press, 2016, Pages 1-12, ISBN 9780128036921, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-803692-1.00001-8.

These papers are by the worlds three principal research groups working on Fagopyrum taxonomy. The first article is definitive, being a taxonomic monograph stating "In this chapter, the botanical descriptions of Fagopyrum cymosum, Fagopyrum urophyllum, and Fagopyrum statice are presented, and the global distributions, habitats, and growth habits of these perennial self-incompatible wild Fagopyrum species are described. Fagopyrum cymosum has been known about for a long time, and its changing nomenclature throughout the years is also presented in the chapter."

Phytism (talk) 13:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]