Talk:Yucca gigantea

message: The commonest name in the literature for this species is Y. elephantipes Regel which originates from Gartenflora 8:35 (Feb. 1859). It's often cited as Regel ex Trel. for which the source is Annual Rep. Missouri Bot. Gard. 13: 94 (1902). The latter is online here and clearly refers to Gartenflora 8:35 (1859), so these two appear to be the same name.
(As of February 2012, the Spanish Wikipedia article has "Baker in Regel", but  I can't find a reliable source for  this.)
As of February 2012, both GRIN and WCSP regard Y. elephantipes Regel as incorrect, as does  Flora Mesoamericana (search for "Yucca elephantipes") at Tropicos. However, GRIN and WCSP then use different names. GRIN uses Y. guatemalensis Baker (1972); WCSP uses Y. gigantea Lem. (1859). If Y. elephantipes is not acceptable, then Y. gigantea Lem. seems to be the correct name as it is earlier. However, sources date the Lemaire name to October 1859 which is later than Y. elephantipes Regel of February 1959.
At present I can't find any reason why Y. elephantipes Regel is rejected by these sources. (Thanks to User:Tom Hulse for drawing this to my attention.) Peter coxhead (talk) 10:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I may have found the reason.  Tropicos, under Y. elephantipes Regel, has an annotation that it was published as a synonym of Yucca aloifolia L..  Here is a rough Bing translation of that first 1859 publication. If you read the whole context, even in this form it is still apparent that he is basically saying something like 'the real name is Yucca aloifolia, but many gardeners casually call it Yucca elephantipes'. So without a clear intent to say the real name is Y. elephantipes, this would not be a validly published name (also, the name Y. aloifolia was already taken for a different, separate species).  Regel ex Trel in 1902 does carry intent to attach this name solely & specifically to our taxon, so it is a valid publication, but since it is preceded by both Y. gigantea and Y. guatemalensis, it is then superfluous and illegitimate.  --Tom Hulse (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that seems clear. I'll add a Taxonomy section to the article. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Now completed. Thanks again, Tom. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Correct name

message: Yucca gigantia is NOT the tallest Yucca species. Its not even the most massive. Yucca filifera is. Although Y.gigantia will sucker and those will often fuse with the main trunk creating a massive base. Y.filifera simply develop a huge base over the more then a century that they live. Some at Stanford U. are 120 years old.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[Special:Contributions] (User talk:) 22:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The University of Florida reference in the article claims that Yucca elephantipes (Yucca gigantea) is the tallest, claiming it can grow to 30 feet tall. However, The Flora of North America (eFloras.org) mentions that Yucca brevifolia can grow to 15 metres (about 50 feet) tall.], as does the Jepson manual.. As a result of this I've removed "tallest" from the lead--Melburnian (talk) 02:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Tallest