Talk:Quercus lusitanica

Wrong Article
According to the botanical website | Oaks of the world, Quercus lusitanica is an ambiguous designation since it is used for three different species by different catalogers:


 * 1/ Q. lusitanica Webb and auctores = Q. faginea Lam.
 * 2/ Q. lusitanica Boiss. = Q. infectoria Oliv.
 * 3/ Q. lusitanica Lam. = Q. fruticosa Brot.

See Oaks of the World on these three species named Q. lusitanica:
 * http://oaks.of.the.world.free.fr/quercus_faginea.htm|Q. faginea
 * http://oaks.of.the.world.free.fr/quercus_infectoria.htm|Q. infectoria
 * http://oaks.of.the.world.free.fr/quercus_fruticosa.htm|Q. fruticosa

If this is accurate, and I can't see that it is likely to be less accurate than the herbal remedy website currently cited, then a disambiguation page should be created for the current name of this article, Quercus lusitanica with pointers to the three species named above and the current Quercus infectoria page, which is redirected to this article, should in fact be the name of this article, judging by the common names, e.g. Gall Oak -- the galls being the results of the infection referenced in infectoria, I think -- but unfortunately Q. infectoria may not be the only species subject to this. First, however, the whole issue should be examined by an editor with some familiarity with botanical science, of which I have very little.

Meanwhile, I have removed the line, "Every home will a have one or two pieces as it is quite useful for children." It may refer to some herbal, medicinal property of the galls but as it stands it is totally unintelligible. Since the tag: probably referred to that line I have removed that too. —Blanchette (talk) 12:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The Oaks of the World page has a very idiosyncratic view, calling Q. lusitanica a nomen ambiguum. As far as I can tell, successful rejections of names as nomina ambigua depend on not being able to tell what species the original author intended (perhaps because the type species was lost or never designated). If Lam.'s "Quercus lusitanica" can be definitively associated with one plant, it doesn't matter that two later homonyms (Boiss. & Webb.) exist. It certainly can be confusing if the Boiss & Webb names were widely used in the literature, but that doesn't make "Q. lusitanica Lam." ambiguous. And it does appear that there is some confusion. Q. infectoria is not the same as Q. lusitanica Lam. (in spite of what the herbal reference claims). Galls develop on most oak species, so we can't assumethat the Gall Oak is Q. infectoria. Plantdrew (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I created an article for Quercus infectoria, and will be adding the homonyms/synonyms. Plantdrew (talk) 21:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)