Talk:Malva arborea

Rename Malva dendromorpha?

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

If I understand correctly, the proposed Malva name was approved. [ITIS still lists the old name, but GRIN lists the new one, and it seems GRIN is updated more frequently.

I changed the text in the article to reflect the approved change; if I misunderstood, and it's still a proposed change, it should be re-edited back.

If the new name was approved, should the article be renamed Malva dendromorpha? I know with competing proper names, WP suggests to use the most common name, but I'd think Malva is now considered the current proper scientific name, with Lavatera being a valid synonym, as listed in GRIN. I don't know though. I'll add the Malva name as a redirect to this article, in any case, so people will find it either way.

-Agyle 03:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

The Malva Alliance describes the state of taxonomy. It's fairly clear that Lavatera arborea is closer to Malva sylvestris than to Lavatera trimestris, and therefore if classification is to reflect phylogeny Lavatera arborea cannot be kept in Lavatera (even if the genera are merged, as Malva has priority over Lavatera). The name Malva arborea is not available (IIRC, it was used for Phymosia umbellata), so Martin Forbes Ray produced a new name, Malva dendromorpha. A recent Italian paper (I've only seen the abstract) reckons that he was wrong, and the correct combination for the species in Malva is Malva eriocalyx. I don't see why Salisbury's 18th century Malva fastuosa doesn't take priority over both. See also User_talk:MPF

The name Lavatera arborea is going to hang around in horticulture and old floras, for quite some time, so it seems reasonable to have both names in Wikipedia. (I've got the same problem as to which name to use in Malvaceae Info; with luck .htaccess redirects will work with the new server, and I'll be able to adopt a similar solution.)

You could ask for WikiProject Plants thinks about the case where the name is common use is not the same as the latest botanical opinion. Lavateraguy 10:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

If MPF's Italian paper is online and and you think it contains useful info, I could have a look at it (if it's in Italian, of course). Just ask. Aelwyn 08:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I referred to you User_talk:MPF for my comments there; I may be mistaken by I don't expect that MPF knows any more about the Italian paper than I told him.

I think I could have puzzled through the Italian text, as nomenclatural papers are pretty stereotyped, but it's not online.

The citation is Atti Soc. ital. sci. nat. mus. civ. stor. nat. Milano 145(2): 219-244 (2005), Banfi et al, Notes on systematics and taxonomy for the Italian vascular flora (abstract}. Other relevant recent papers are Fontqueria 55: 285-292 (2005), Molero & Montserrat, Nomenclatura de algunas especies del género Malva Linnaeus (Malvaceae) (not even an abstract online, but cited, and also referenced from IPNI) and a paper by the same authors, in Lagascalia which has comments on (yet another candidate for) the correct name for Lavatera arborea.) Lavateraguy 10:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

A spelling error, axilary, was corrected to axillary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.237.75.98 (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

rename

Requested move 16 October 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) Fuortu (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Lavatera arborea → Malva arborea – http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl1.1/record/kew-2494405 178.117.194.21 (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I did some research on the nomenclature of this species in 2008/2009. It turns out that Index Kewensis had an erroneous record of a publication of Malva arborea prior to the use of the combination for this species by Webb & Berthelot. When this is discounted Webb and Berthelot have the first use of the combination which is clearly validly published, which makes it the correct name for this species. (Malva arborea got used a lot, but there doesn't seem to any earlier, but post-Linnaean valid publications.) Lavateraguy (talk) 21:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Support The species belongs in Malva and as the Webb & Berthelot combination is not, in fact, preoccupied, there's no problem moving to Malva arborea. Plantdrew (talk) 00:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Malva arborea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Add topic