Talk:Echinocereus brandegeei

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Plants Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Cacti This article is within the scope of the Cacti WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's articles relating to Cacti. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.CactiWikipedia:WikiProject CactiTemplate:WikiProject CactiCacti articles Mexico This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico 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.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

@Cs california, are you sure about the authority here? The linked references give different names; as does WikiSpecies. Should it not be (J.M.Coult.) K.Schum.? The homotypic is (J.M.Coult.) Schelle.

@Plantdrew any thoughts? --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 06:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It says (J.M.Coult.) Schelle here as the accepted species which is where I got it. -Cs california (talk) 06:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cs california and Classicwiki:, there is an error of some sort in Kew's databases. IPNI has two entries for E. brandegeei. One has the authority as "Schelle", and that is linked to the POWO record that has the authority as "(J.M.Coult.) Schelle" (the database IDs for this IPNI record and the POWO record are identical, so one of the must have had the authority updated to include ("J.M.Coult.)". The other IPNI record has the authority as "(J.M.Coult.) K.Schum.", with a link to BHL (and Echinocereus brandegeei does appear in the linked BHL page). The K.Schum. name was published in 1898 and the Schelle name was published in 1906 or 1907 (IPNI and POWO give different dates). Tropicos lists Echinocereus brandegeei Schelle as a homonym of Echinocereus brandegeei (J.M. Coult.) K. Schum. (the Tropicos record for Schelle was imported from Kew). I think (J.M. Coult.) K. Schum. is the correct authorship (being published before Schelle). Plantdrew (talk) 21:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cs california, ok with changing to (J.M. Coult.) K. Schum.? --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 22:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issues with you guys changing anything it is also a good idea to email the people maintaining the POWO website at bi@kew.org. Also another difference I found was Echinocereus barthelowianus is spelled Echinocereus barthelowanus(without the i) not sure who is right or wrong. But thanks for double checking the work. I am going to attempt to get the species pages for Echinocereus created so feel free to go over and check them. Sometimes the measurements or habitats are wrong in the old descriptions.--Cs california (talk) 05:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]