Talk:Ipheion uniflorum

Article title

I'm a bit concerned by what seems to be the use of a single primary source to keep this article at Ipheion uniflorum rather than Tristagma uniflorum, which seems to be preferred by reliable secondary sources. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(@user:Peter coxhead) Having skimmed the primary source, I don't think that it specifically supports keeping it at Ipheion - the thrust of article is that the single-flowered Allioideae should be divided between Nothoscordum and Ipheion rather than placed in what turns out to be a polyphyletic Ipheion. The paper mentions in passing that Ipheion is sister to Tristagma, which would mean that splitting or lumping the genera is a matter of taste. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lavateraguy: secondary sources have changed since my comment in 2015, and there's wide support for Ipheion now that there wasn't then. (As it happens, I've recently used Ipheion in the 4th photo here.) Peter coxhead (talk) 08:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are two issues - the name to be used for the species (POWO has Ipheion, Stace III and Sell & Murrell Tristagma) and the statement "research published in 2010 suggested that this is not correct". Regardless of the name (which I'd leave alone on the basis of "if it isn't broken, don't fix it) the statement seems to be incorrect, depending how you interpret "suggested" and "correct". I haven't yet come up with an appropriate rewording.

(POWO's sources are Souza 2016 and some later 20th century floras.)Lavateraguy (talk) 09:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]