Talk:Comptonia peregrina

Move to Comptonia peregrina
The genus is not actually monotypic, with a number of extinct species having been described. This article is mostly on the living species and would be better suited at the species name, with a genus article written covering the overall number of species, and species on the extinct species written-- Kev min  § 20:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If you intend to write an article that covers the genus/extinct species then it should be moved (as the edit history mostly pertains to the species). I don't think it needs to go through a formal RM; just do a technical move request or ask somebody with page mover permission. Plantdrew (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You got a source on these new species? --Nessie (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes I do, this is a very short list of extinct species-
 * ''Comptonia anderssonii Florin (1920) (Miocene; Fushun, China)
 * Comptonia columbiana Dawson, 1890 (Eocene; Okanagan highlands, USA/Canada)
 * Comptonia difformis Sternberg, 1821 (Miocene; Most Basin, Czech Republic)
 * Comptonia naumannii (Nathorst 1888) (China/Japan)
 * Comptonia tymensis Dorofeev (1966) (Miocene, Russia/China)
 * Plus see the discussion section here and the list here for additional species.  Yes I am planning on writing an article on Comptonia columbiana as I expand the articles for Klondike Mountain Formation species.  I dont know whom to contact for the technical move though, hence the RM.-- Kev  min  § 21:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * could do the move. Or you can request it at Requested_moves/Technical_requests. Plantdrew (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

✅: moved and a stub created for the genus. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * For some reason, Plants of the World Online says that Liquidambar peregrina is a synonym, but not what it is a synonym of, so it's not listed as a synonym of Comptonia peregrina. Odd, because it's the basionym. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * An interesting question is why the correct name in Comptonia isn't Comptonia aspleniifolia rather than Comptonia peregrina. The facts are (1) the epithets peregrina and aspleniifolia have equal priority, being published in the same volume of Species Plantarum (2) the first transfer to Comptonia was of Myrica aspleniifolia in 1789 by L'Héritier (3) then in 1894, Coulter transferred Linnaeus's Liquidambar peregrina to Comptonia, and treated Linnaeus's Myrica aspleniifolia as a synonym. You might expect that Coulter would have accepted Comptonia aspleniifolia (L.) L'Hér. with Liquidambar peregrina L. as a synonym, rather than publishing Comptonia peregrina (L.) Coult. with Myrica aspleniifolia L. as a synonym. My understanding of the ICNafp (admittedly always suspect!) is that Art. 11.5 supports the right of the first person to unite two species whose epithets have equal priority to choose which to use. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I hope to get to C. columbiana as soon as I finish out the articles on the 4 K.M.F. Rhus species. -- Kev min  § 23:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)