Talk:Asplenium bulbiferum

New Zealand Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics 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.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Plants Low‑importance

	Plants portal 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.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Asplenium bulbiferum. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100524160224/http://cpfoundation.co.nz/node/25 to http://www.cpfoundation.co.nz/node/25

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 00:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate articles[edit]

Filikovalo, what's the intention here? It seems you set up a duplicate article at Asplenium gracillimum. We certainly don't want two articles about the same taxon under two different names, nor would we want one for a subspecies (which generally are treated in the species article, unless particularly distinct / well covered). Could you clarify which epithet is to be regarded as the accepted name? The other name should then be a redirect there, no more. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, according to some emminent sources, Asplenium gracillimum is a genuine taxa. Did you see the extensive references? I'm waiting to hear back from the National Herbarium of Australia for confirmation. Have another look the references in the article. There is also a Wikidata reference for Asplenium gracillimum. According to New Zealand authorities, A. bulbiferum is endemic to New Zealand as of 2018. If so, there is no duplicate. Do you know much about ferns or updated taxonomy of this group? Filikovalo (talk) 01:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Filikovalo: Nah, not my area at all, so I'll be happy to let you figure that out. But you will notice that, among other things, there are about a dozen redirects from variations of "hen and chicken fern" to Asplenium bulbiferum, so claiming that name (and the Te Reo names) for Asplenium gracillimum will at minimum require a lot of redirect changes. So I'd suggest being sure that this reclassification is sticking before setting up a new article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it is wise to wait for the (non New Zealand) experts to decide whether Asplenium bulbiferum is endemic to New Zealand. They could be correct, and the other websites are behind the times. It was accepted in 2018 by the New Zealanders. If so, then A. gracillimum will also be accepted as a current species.

What counts is whether this publication is considered accepted (see below).

It states Asplenium bulbiferum subsp. gracillimum (Colenso) Brownsey is a SYNONYM OF Asplenium gracillimum. Which means A. gracillimum (if accepted) is a current species.

nomenclatural synonym of: Asplenium gracillimum Colenso

The New Zealand websites are emphatic in their acceptance. But I'll go by the National Herbarium of New South Wales, and wait for their reply. They may say that they accept the sub species Asplenium bulbiferum subsp. gracillimum. If leading botanical authorities differ in acceptance, it's up to Wikipedia to accommodate them both.

Taxonomists are changing names all the time. Out of date websites can confuse readers. For instance, Eucalyptus brunnea is a genuine species, but ignorant people on this site think otherwise.

The situation with the common name is hardly of much importance, and can be got around.

The current situation of Asplenium bulbiferum and Aslplenium gracillimum is a mess on Wikipedia. I hope we can find the correct answer and publish what is correct. Filikovalo (talk) 03:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed by the National Herbarium of New South Wales: The name change is now accepted by the Australians as well as the New Zealanders. The article on Asplenium gracillimum is correct and should stand. It is not a duplicate article: See this reference: Asplenium gracillimum Colenso (National Herbarium of New South Wales) Filikovalo (talk) 07:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All right - looks like Choess has already reinstated the article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, per the NZFlora writeups, they're definitely distinct taxa (allotetraploid and one of its hybrid parents)—it's generally accepted practice today to distinguish between such even if the morphology is pretty subtle. APNI's taxonomy may be a bit dated. For ferns, at least, Perrie has been good at keeping New Zealand practice up-to-date. Choess (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum--Ash Field published a checklist of Australian lycophytes and ferns last year using PPG I taxonomy, which is probably a good ref for what's recognized. Choess (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]