Talk:Coreopsis bigelovii

Renamed to Leptosyne bigelovii

Jepson 2nd ed. 2012 has this renamed to Leptosyne bigelovii. Is there a reason not to rename this article? FloraWilde (talk) 10:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is often variation in how genera are treated in different floras. In this case, the Flora of North America still considers the species to be in Coreopsis, which might be an argument against. There may also be issues relating to consistency with other articles. At the moment, Leptosyne ~~redirects to~~ is listed at Coreopsis as a synonym, and all its species are likewise treated as Coreopsis species. I think you would have to propose moving all those articles, and amending the Coreopsis article to reflect its narrower circumscription (which may also have knock-on effects requiring other genera to also be recognised, for all I know). That's quite an undertaking. I'm not saying don't do it, but, ideally, don't do it piecemeal. Perhaps ask at WT:PLANTS if anyone familiar with the local flora (which I am not) has any opinions. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC) [edited 05:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)][reply]

I asked at WT:Plant[1]. FloraWilde (talk) 01:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]