Talk:Hesperocyparis pygmaea

message: Importance stems from narrow range california endemic with vulnerable status.  further the species is notable for its role in pygmy forests, a substantial visitor attraction.  further the species is important to prehistoric northern calif as a dominant tree species.Anlace 07:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Revised - MPF 11:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: assessment notes

message: "Cupressus goveniana pigmaea
     n : rare small cypress native to northern California; sometimes
         considered the same species as gowen cypress (syn: pygmy
         cypress, Cupressus pigmaea, Cupressus goveniana
         pigmaea)"
"Cupressus pigmaea
     n : rare small cypress native to northern California; sometimes
         considered the same species as gowen cypress (syn: pygmy
         cypress, Cupressus pigmaea, Cupressus goveniana
         pigmaea)"
The second one is the URL you posted as #2, the first is the URL for Cupressus goveniana pigmaea.  I'm not following how you interpret this dictionary to mean that this "dictionary (source)[2] (recognizes) the name Cupressus pigmaea as the preferred taxonomic name."  Please explain.  KP Botany 03:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: your point on that one dictionary is well taken. several dictionaries use both terms. i have added a second dictionary that uses only the article name.  i have also copy edited the text to make it less confrontational as to which authors said what and when.  im not trying to trip the authors up in contradicting themselves, but this species has historically been somewhat of an enigma as far as where to place it.  i think it's only become clearer in the last decade or so as genetic data has trickled in.  i really think Little's treatment trumps everyone in the show here.  read it and let me know your thoughts.  regards and peace. Anlace 06:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bartel, Farjon and current dictionary sources[1][2] recognize the name Cupressus pigmaea as a valid taxonomic name.  quoting from article KP Botany 18:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Please look at the dictionary sources you are referencing.  They give the exact same page, except for the title for the species Cupressus pigmaea and Cupressus goveniana pigmaea.  Go to the links you provided, on each page you will see, under the entry various alternate names, including the one you did not choose for the article title.  18:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Bartel, as MPF pointed out, is the authority for the Jepson Manual section on Cupressaceae, so you must point out, if you say that "Bartel ... (recognizes) the name Cupressus pigmaea as a valid taxonomic name," that he does so in his 1991 article, but uses C. goveniana pigmaea in his Jepson Manual treatment of 1993.  In fact since he calls it "C. subsp. goveniana pygmaea (sic) (Lemmon) Bartel" in the Jepson Manual it does not seem that he has chosen to "recognize the name Cupressus pigmaea as a valid taxonomic name," but rather the opposite, that he dismisses it with his Jepson Manual treatment "as a valid taxonomic name." KP Botany 18:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: So, the dictionaries are out, and Bartel is out, or he is contradictory, or he disputes your chose of title.KP Botany 18:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Little just uses the name twice, but refers to it from some rather older papers by a chemist, I think, who uses various unusual spellings in his papers, and Little doesn't list any newer sources referencing this name.  KP Botany 18:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: However, what it boils down to right now is the article title is based upon its unexplained usage in a single recent paper in the American Journal of Botany, and ignores the various taxonomic treatments of the species' name?  Or according to the references in the article, since Bartel himself, later contradicts the source you quote him on, and the dictionaries both list both without mentioning any preference for either.  I think this needs a much better explanation, and one that reflects what is in the journals, the dictionaries don't explain anything and they're not sources of accuracy in taxonomy (at least these), if Bartel is used it must be pointed out that you're using his earlier treatment, and why, and if Little is the sole source it should be pointed out that he does not discuss his choice of name and references papers by an author seen to choose unusual spellings.  KP Botany 18:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Prefered taxonomic name

message: This is improperly sourced, as the sources do not say what is claimed in the article, and it's not really a taxonomy section, but a nomenclature section, as nothing is really said about the taxonomical reasons for the dispute.  The dictionary comment is flat wrong.  The others I discuss below.  KP Botany 20:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The dispute

message: Bartel et al. 2003 says, "C. pigmaea has been treated as synonymous with C. goveniana (Farjon 1998), but in this analysis it appears to be closely allied with C. sargentii .... This analysis gives some support for its recognition as a separate species (Wolf 1948; Munz 1968) or as a variety of C. sargentii." 
I believe this shows most clearly what Bartel's position is on the matter of relegating this taxon to its own species, namely, there is "some support for its recognition as a separate species" (emphasis mine), or maybe a subspecies of a different taxon ("or as a variety of C. sargentii", emphasis added, rather than C. goveniana).  This also shows that Farjon 2005 is a change from his former position of making C. pigmaea not only not a species, but not a subspecies, either, because he had it completely subsumed into C. goveniana.  Again, more reasons not to jump to a name choice.  KP Botany 23:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bartel et al. 2003 

message: *Bartel, J. A., Adams, R. P., James, S. A., Mumba, L. E., & Pandey, R. N. (2003). Variation among Cupressus species from the western hemisphere based on random amplified polymorphic DNAs. Biochem. Syst. and Ecol. 31: 693–702.
It places C. pigmaea as in a group including C. goveniana, C. abramsiana AND C. sargentii, and closest to C. sargentii. Also treats Nootka Cypress as Cupressus nootkatensis (but no Old World taxa in the study so it leaves open the Callitropsis question). Only just got it, so I've not read it fully, but it looks to be a ref of major importance. More tomorrow! - MPF 02:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another important ref

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cupressus pigmaea. 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/20060923083427/http://www.ca.nrcs.usda.gov/mlra02/wmendo/woodland.html to http://www.ca.nrcs.usda.gov/mlra02/wmendo/woodland.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Do we have an authoritative spelling of the species with i or y?  Most sources say pygmaea but ITIS seems to regard only pigmaea as accepted, a status supported by the C. pygmaea dab.  Most incoming links come via the  redirect. Certes (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Cupressus macnabiana which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 04:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress