Talk:Tyloglossa genistiformis

Is this a valid species?

This page has been proposed for deletion because it is not found on POWO or WFO.

However, there are entries on some Brazilian databases and WFO has a couple on unchecked items that may be related.

• SiBBr: Justicia genistiformis Nees
• REFLORA: Query Virtual Herbarium=By list, Scientific Name=Justicia genistiformis (10 specimens)
• WFO: Tyloglossa genistiformis Nees and Adhatoda genistiformis Nees

It's not a new species which POWO/WFO haven't got around to, as the specimens are from 1964 to 1997. I can't find anything on synonyms on POWO, WFO or World Plants, which you'd normally expect. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

It's in (as Tyloglossa) Martius's Flora Brasiliensis, so it goes a lot further back (1847 per IPNI). See also comments made on Tom Radulovich's talk page. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I've deprodded for now. That MSc thesis certainly treats the species as valid, although I can't quite parse why they consider this name in particular to be applicable. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your research. So what do you think should be done with the article? It has been unreferenced since it was created in 2006, so we should remedy that. It could be 1) kept where it is with a referenced discussion of its current status, with Tyloglossa genistiformis listed as a synonym, 2) moved to Tyloglossa genistiformis, the unplaced name listed in POWO and WFO, and moved when a valid name is published, or 3) deleted, on the presumption that someone might write an article when it's a validly published species. Tom Radulovich (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The 2010 Catálogo de Plantas e fungos do brasil doesn't have this species under any of its names. But that predates the thesis. The more recent database has Ecbolium genistiforme as the correct name (according to POWO Ecbolium is restricted to the Old World), but has Ecbolium genistiforme, Tyloglossa genistiformis and Adhatoda genistiformis as "nome mal applicado". There may be disagreement among Brasilian botanists about this taxon, but I would have thought that one would be able to find someone placing it in synonymy with something else.

There's a "Chagas, E.C.O., Costa-Lima, J.L. 2020. Tyloglossa in Flora do Brasil 2020. Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro. (https://floradobrasil2020.jbrj.gov.br/FB596304)", but hangs when I try to load it. Lavateraguy (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

So what are we doing with this article? If it's a valid synonym we should redirect it, but if it's neither an accepted species nor a valid synonym we should delete it. Tom Radulovich (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I think technically the article should be at Tyloglossa genistiformis, but Tyloglossa is considered a heterotypic synomym of Justicia, so if moved it would be good to explain the taxonomic and nomenclatural issues (species recognised in a MSC thesis and some Brasilian databases, but combination apparently not - yet - validly published).

I had been hoping that someone with a better command of Portuguese could resolve the issue, but after two months it's getting to the point where the nettle should be grasped. I've emailed an enquiry to the thesis supervisor. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I've had no reply. I think we go ahead and move it to Tyloglossa genistiformis, with a note on the nomenclatural issue, unless someone has a case for "Justicia" genistiformis or Justicia "genistiformis", as the article title. Lavateraguy (talk) 22:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Yup - sounds reasonable. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)