Talk:Pentacentron

Are we saying this might not actually exist as a separate species?
, the dyk hook seems to be indicating that, but after reading the article I'm confused because we don't clearly state that. If it's true, I think we need to make it clearer in the section and lead somehow; if it is actually likely this doesn't exist, I'd argue it would be the most important thing we need to say about it. Right now we say in the section:

Additionally the species Trochodendron drachukii is known from related Kamloops group shales at the McAbee Fossil Beds near Cache Creek, British Columbia. Manchester et al 2018 noted that Tr. drachukii is likely the fruits of Tr. nastae, while Pe. sternhartae are likely the fruits of Te. hopkinsii. If fossils of the fruits and foliage in attachment are found, that would bring the species count down to three whole plant taxa.

Maybe we change that to something like

Additionally the species Trochodendron drachukii is known from related Kamloops group shales at the McAbee Fossil Beds near Cache Creek, British Columbia. Manchester et al 2018 noted that Tr. drachukii is likely the fruits of Tr. nastae, while Pe. sternhartae are likely the fruits of Te. hopkinsii, and that Pe. sternharae may not exist as a species. If fossils of the fruits and foliage in attachment are found, proving that hypothesis, that would bring the species count down to three whole plant taxa.

And then make it clear in the lead, too. Would that change be accurate? —valereee (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * It DOES exist as a species, as the article and the descriptive paper state. However, if fossils are eventually recovered with Pentacentron sternhartae (described from isolated fruit fossils) physically attached to Tetracentron hopkinsii (described from isolated fossil leaves), then the species will be combined under a single name (likely Pentacentron hopkinsii).  This is how organ fossil taxa are treated in paleobotany.  They are both currently valid taxa and will be treated as such until a "rosetta stone fossil" is found. At no point are the describing authors saying the species "doesn't exist". Paleobotanists treat whole plant species as different from organ taxa due to the rarity of connected parts being fossilized together. Saying that Pentacentron does not/may not exist is false.-- Kev  min  § 19:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , hm. My concern is that nonexpert readers, like me, are going to see the hook, come to the article, and be confused, but of course I don't have the expertise to understand how we can prevent that (or if we actually need to lol). Pinging as she may have some insight. —valereee (talk) 19:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I know little about fossil species, but what Kevmin is saying sounds reasonable to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks both, I'll leave as is, then! —valereee (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)