Talk:Chamaenerion latifolium

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Chamerion latifolium. 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/20110605183620/http://www.mun.ca/biology/delta/arcticf/_ca/www/onepla.htm to http://www.mun.ca/biology/delta/arcticf/_ca/www/onepla.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080130151126/http://www.nto.gl:80/english/ff/frame.htm to http://www.nto.gl/english/ff/frame.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:57, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Epilobium angustifolium
The accepted binomial for this species is Epilobium latifolium, not Chamerion latifolium as stated in the article. Chamerion is the synonoym and Epilobium the accepted name. See. I therefore propose that the article is moved to Epilobium latifolium and that Chamerion latifolium is converted to a redirect. Plant surfer 13:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 20 February 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: procedural close this really should have been one RM that had a changed proposal. I'm going to close the one below as moved since it seems to be the current proposal (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

– The accepted binomial for this species is Epilobium latifolium, not Chamerion latifolium as stated in the article. Chamerion latifolium is the synonym and Epilobium latifolium is the accepted name. See. I therefore propose that the article is moved to Epilobium latifolium (which is currently a redirect) and that Chamerion latifolium becomes a redirect to Epilobium latifolium. Plant surfer 16:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Chamerion latifolium → Epilobium latifolium


 * Comment Chamerion angustifolium should potentially be moved as well, following the outcome of this move request. I acknowledge that we generally follow The Plant List, but it is not updated very frequently. Hoch and Wagner's regularly updated site has these two species in the genus Chamaenerion as does [ARS-GRIN. It's probably behind a paywall for most people, but see here for an explanation of why Chamnaerion is preferred over Chamaerion. I'm not sure whether or not Chamnaerion should be recognized as distinct from Epilobium, but either way, the present title should probably be changed. [[User:Plantdrew|Plantdrew]] (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't find a bare TPL listing very convincing as evidence that "Epilobium latifolium is the accepted name." As per the above, workers in Onagraceae seem to favor Chamaenerion or Chamerion. Flora of China (v. 13, pub. 2007) uses Chamerion, which it describes as a "well-differentiated sister group to Epilobium, and Weakley (2015) recognizes Chamerion and says "There is increasingly strong evidence for the recognition of this group of plants as a genus separate from Epilobium." Choess (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Contemporary UK usage is fairly consistently Chamerion.
 * TPL is good on some clades, and not so good on other clades. I'd say it's only a reliable source to the degree that it's sources are reliable. Lavateraguy (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: Really? I don't see evidence for that in secondary sources such as Stace 3 or the BSBI or NBN or BRC where Chamerion is only applied to C. angustifolium and Chamaenerion angustifolium (L.) Scop. is nom. illegit. Plant surfer  00:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Let's not confuse two issues here: which is correct, Chamaenerion or Chamerion, and whether to accept the splitting of Epilobium. The Taxon paper is available in JSTOR here which might be more accessible to some people (as it is to me). It's very convincing, including the thanks for assistance to John McNeill, the senior editor of the ICN. Anything written about Chamaenerion vs. Chamerion before the publication of this paper in October 2011 is irrelevant. I think we should take it as given that Chamaenerion Ség. has precedence over Chamerion for a genus split off from Epilobium which includes Epilobium angustifolium L. Whether the split should be accepted or not isn't so clear to me: there are good sources both ways. When there's doubt, I favour maintaining splits in Wikipedia, with discussion in the Taxonomy section. If we agree to keep the split, then Chamaenerion is the generic name and moves should be made accordingly. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note also that the Smithsonian Onagraceae website, previously cited in Epilobium in support of the Wagner & Hoch (2009) classification, which uses Chamerion, has been updated to use Chamaenerion, as noted above. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep, those do seem to be the primary and secondary sources WP needs, both for the split from Epilobium and the return to the use of Chamaenerion. Plant surfer  12:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * However, the major discrepancies between the various secondary sources we might choose for this are troubling. How are we to reconcile these differences within Wikipedia's rules? Plant surfer  12:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * well, the date matters, first of all: more recent reliable sources are to be preferred over older ones. Remember that we are only deciding a purely internal matter, namely the article title. The article itself must include all relevant views. It's notable that sources that have been updated since the 2011 paper (Smithsonian, GRIN, Tropicos, etc.) have all gone with Chamaenerion and accept the name and the split. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I accept that logic, so Chamerion should go to Chamaenerion and not to Epilobium. Plant surfer  16:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I've made a start by creating Chamaenerion. More work will be needed to improve it, especially taxonomy section, and to fix related articles. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 23 February 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Chamerion latifolium → Chamaenerion latifolium – The name of this species has been changed - per talk on this page, see above Plant surfer  14:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I was going to move it, but I think the discussion above is supposed to be closed first. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * To be consistent with Chamaenerion angustifolium, Chamerion latifolium should indeed be move to Chamaenerion latifolium. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 17:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think there's agreement, but the technical issue is that when an RM is opened, the move isn't supposed to be made until the discussion is closed, which has to be done by someone uninvolved – at least that's how I understand it. If the "7 days" above applies, it can't be moved now until 2 March. Sigh... Peter coxhead (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.