Questions about a certain [reversion] edit   

I have some questions about this edit. 

I did not remove the character string that [supposedly] is the title.  That is, the string that is the title according to the "edit comment" which says: "um, no, the title is the line above that".] 

On the other hand, this edit (see above) did remove the character string that (IMHO) was a better title.  (That is, the string that I thought was better, as [all or part of] a "title" for the web page with the URL of http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon;_id=128944 .) 

I am not immediately ready to "insist" that leaving in both of those two character strings is the best choice.  (However, if you have any comments about that "idea", I am willing to listen.)  

I am prepared to try to reach some consensus.  Is there anything we can do to explore (or discuss) (or, explain to each other) the goals that are [perhaps] to be achieved by choosing well, [and carefully] which character string to use as the "title"?   (or, maybe that should say, << the goals that are "more nearly" to be achieved >> by doing so) (- ? -). 

Would it benefit anyone (perhaps in pursuing the above mentioned goals?) if one of us were to explore (or discuss) (or, explain) the reasons why the use of the character stringSabal Adanson ex Guersent, Bulletin des Sciences, par la Societe Philomatique. 87: 205-206. 1804 for the "title", would be better? 

Do we both understand (thoroughly and well) what each word of that "title" means, and what its role is, in doing whatever things a title is supposed to be helpful for?  (such as, describing the "topic" of a certain web page, and informing the reader a little bit, what a certain web page is "about" - ? - ) 

Do we both (or, do any of us) think that this "title"Sabal Adanson ex Guersent, Bulletin des Sciences, par la Societe Philomatique. 87: 205-206. 1804 comes closer to describing the "topic" of the web page, or otherwise (in some sense) doing thoroughly and well those things that a title is [/slash, "should" be] helpful for? 

Have both of us [sufficiently] considered the question of what the web page with the URL of (value of the "url" field) is about?  IMHO, it comes pretty close to being about "Palmetto".  I could be wrong... 

I hope this does not sound [too] negative.  I hope that there is still a chance that one of us can wake up and learn something, that is not already known (at least, something that we don't both already know).  So, maybe there is hope for a happy, win-win outcome, that will be the best for all concerned.  (It would even be fine with me, if [after reaching some consensus successfully] we were to nuke this whole section, if [e.g.] we both wanted to delete it before it got in to any "archive" files.) "No harm / no foul."  (getting in to "history" logs,  or, "remaining" in them  might be a different matter.) 

You are welcome (btw) to answer some questions that I did not [know to] ask.  ("if any").  

The kindness of a response (and/OR an edit that restores the word "Palmetto") would be appreciated.  Thank you.