Talk:List of Acer species

message: Acer tataricum subsp. ginnala is a subspecies according to Finnish and European systematics. My source is Suomen puu ja pensaskasvio.
:Disputed; many others retain A. ginnala as a distinct species, including e.g. the Flora of China, Komarov in the Flora SSSR, and the USDA. There is no overlap in range (actually, over 4000km range gap), and the two taxa are very readily distinguishable with no intergradation. That they may hybridise in cultivation is of no significance (so do numerous other maple species). - MPF 16:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: If there are no objections I have rearranged the photos in a gallery set of four, in two sections. I also added a link to wkimedia commons which has the missing photos. I hope to put the missing photos on here from my collection and W-Media WayneRay 17:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a mistake in the labeling of the photos. Acer palmatum is called 'Fullmoon maple', which is of course Acer shirasawanum. Although called 'downy maple', to most people looking it will be 'Japanese maple'. Yes, I know there are other Acer growing in Japan, but that is the name used by 99% of gardeners, as I am sure you know. But it's really the 'fullmoon' error I am drawing to your attention. 2A01:CB1D:2E:3500:B4CC:7DCA:F8D9:A01A (talk) 11:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

text: IPNI is primarily a database of names and is not the best source for determining whether a taxon is valid or not; Tropicos on the other hand, while also not 100% reliable, suggests that A. discolor will be accepted in the Flora of China (the English edition with this family is not yet published but A. discolor was considered a distinct taxon in the Chinese edition.) MrDarwin 18:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing in life is perfect - Tropicos is, afaik, very incomplete. What do you see as the drawbacks of IPNI? TeunSpaans 19:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IPNI will tell you where and when a name was published but for most records not much else, such as whether or not a name is currently recognized as a valid species.  Most of the earlier names give the combining but not basionym author, and very inconsistently list basionyms and other homotypic or heterotypic synonyms, many of which are now out-of-date. (On top of that these names were scanned from hard copies with a minimum of proofreading, which has introduced comletely new errors.)  More recent names, now entered directly into a database, usually have much better information (including type data) but the older names usually have no indication as to whether they are still recognized or are now considered a synonym of something else. IPNI is a very valuable and useful reference, but should never be considered a primary source for any name. MrDarwin 19:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thx. I do use IPNI rather often, though usually in combination with other sources, such as www.efloras.org and www.mobot.org. It is good to know its limitations. TeunSpaans 20:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: In this case, I didnt mention flora of china, because you had already mentioned that, but I did check it out. To err is human, you konw. TeunSpaans 20:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The draft Flora of China  treats A. discolor as a synonym of A. oblongum - MPF 15:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was treated as a species in van Gelderen (which was my base for the original list). We might want to give it a note, since the situation is obviously not a clear cut case. Circeus 03:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done - MPF 08:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gallery

message: The article on maples says that there are in fact evergreen species, and even has a few articles on them. It would be great if there were some kind of mark so that we know which species in the list are evergreen, for example a pound (#) sign next to them, as in the quercus species list.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.4.24.9 (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evergreen maples 

message: Per Han et al (2016) Efficient Identification of the Forest Tree Species in Aceraceae Using DNA Barcodes:
Acer, Arguta, Carpinifolia, Cissifolia, Distyla, Ginnala, Glabra, Goniocarpa, Hyptiocarpa, Integrifolia, Lithocarpa, Macrantha, Macrophylla, Microcarpa, Negundo, Palmata, Parviflora, Pentanphylla, Platanoidea, Rubra, Saccarodendron, and Trifoliata. 
While per Phylogeny and historical biogeography of Acer I-Study history of the infrageneric classification: 
Acer, Arguta, Cissifolia, Ginnala, Glabra, Goniocarpa, Hyptiocarpa, Indivisia, Integrifolia, Lithocarpa, Macrantha, Macrophylla, Negundo, Palmata, Parviflora, Pentanphylla, Platanoidea, Pubescentia, Rubra, Saccharina, Spicata, and Trifoliata (Not including the sections Carpinifolia, Distyla, Microcarpa and Saccarodendron, but adding the sections Indivisia, Pubescentia, Saccharina and Spicata). 
If no one objects I will start converting the article listing to Han et al (2016), with reference to the older placement/sections from Huang, Ricklefs, & Raven (2002), while maintaining the integration of the extinct sections from Wolfe & Tanai (1987).--Kevmin § 23:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Currently accepted sections