Talk:Salix 'Chrysocoma'
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Tovasor (talk) 08:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)I tried to change the title of the article, but that proved to be impossible. Tovasor (talk) 08:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)In the article this tree is called part of the Chrysocoma Group, 'which includes all crosses between S. alba and S. babylonica.' But 'Chrysocoma' itself means 'with golden yellow hair' ( Greek 'chrysos'= 'gold' and 'komè'= 'headhair'). It is just a cultivar with a more striking yellow color and female catkins, together with the unfolding the leaves.The other cultivar S. x sepulcralis 'Erythroflexuosa' for example has orange yellow twigs, that are twisted, and also leaves that are twisted. We can't call 'orange yellow' 'golden yellow'. Tovasor (talk) 06:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC) Sorry, but in the rest of the world it is still Salix x sepulcralis 'Chrysocoma'. Reference: Dendrologie van de Lage Landen, KNNV uitgeverij, Zeist, 2012. This is the official guide for trees & shrubs for the dendrologists in the Netherlands, written by professionals from the National Plantgarden of Belgium in Meise and the Hortus Botanicus in Leiden in the Netherlands.Tovasor (talk) 07:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC) The website from Kew Gardens also uses the nam Salix x sepulcralis 'Chrysocoma', so I don't understand the earlier information from user Tikiwont on 12-2-2011
Article Title[edit]
The referenced source [1] states that the official name is 'Chrysocoma'. No reference to "Salix Sepulcralis Group"... should the article be moved to Chrysocoma? Don't know much about taxonomy but the inclusion of Group and the inverted commas seem unnecessary to me. --Aka042 (talk) 08:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I do know a lot about taxonomy and although what you did is technically not wrong. It is better to ise Group names for artificial hybris as suggested by the cultivated code. The reference refers to the correct cultivar name.. --Weepingraf (talk) 11:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- The deletion request was placed in correctlly on the artcile (with the actual title Salix x sepulcralis 'Chrysocoma') and stated: "The page to be moved to this name is Salix Sepulcralis Group 'Chrysocoma'." Maybe you meant the opposite, but at this point please list it at WP:Requested moves.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
No longer consider to be Salix x sepulcralis[edit]
I've added references & a note because IPNI/POWO use a different nomenclature. Semudobia (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)