User:Nadiatalent/sandbox

"Synonyms" of scientific names
It is desirable to discuss and fully disambiguate many of the large number of names found in botanical or gardening reference works that appear to be scientific names of plants, but synonym lists in publications often contain many elements that are not synonyms as defined in the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, and these lists can be both difficult to interpret and confusing. The following approach is suggested:


 * 1) The Taxobox synonyms area (the synonyms parameter of the Taxobox template) should be reserved for two kinds of names that are usefully considered to be synonyms of the taxon name used on the wikipedia page:
 * 2) Names that are synonyms as defined by the Code of Nomenclature, and
 * 3) Validly published names of a different rank that have the same type (specimen) as the taxon name used on the wikipedia page, and are well-known.
 * 4) A section of the text area of the page could be used to explain interesting or difficult aspects of nomenclature. This section could be called Taxonomic history or Nomenclatural history.
 * 5) For taxonomic (heterotypic) synonyms, which are synonyms only in the opinion of a particular author or authors, it is important to include one or more citations to the source(s) of these taxonomic opinions (the synonyms_ref parameter of the Taxobox template can be used for this).
 * 6) For nomenclatural (homotypic) synonyms, which involve the same type (specimen) and are not debatable, it is also desirable to include a citation to the source(s) from which this information was obtained.

For example:
 * Photinia arbutifolia Lindl. could be listed as a synonym of Heteromeles salicifolia.
 * Cedrus libani var. brevifolia Hook.f. could be discussed on the Cedrus libani page and also listed as a synonym in the taxobox on the page for Cedrus brevifolia.
 * Banksia latifolia var. minor Maiden & Camfield could be listed in the taxobox as a synonym of Banksia oblongifolia.

Some cases to exclude from the taxobox (an incomplete list):
 * Misidentifications would not appear in a synonym list, and often would not require mention. For example:
 * Crataegus pubescens Steud. nom. illeg. and Crataegus gracilior J.B.Phipps are very commonly misapplied to Crataegus mexicana DC., but if that situation is rectified it may no longer warrant discussion.
 * Names that do not satisfy the technical definition of a botanical name, and uncorrected forms, would be excluded:
 * Orthographic variants can be handled by redirects to the page with the correct spelling, and should not require any mention on the page. For example:
 * Pereskia opuntiaeflora, the original spelling used by de Candolle, could redirect to Pereskia opuntiiflora, the corrected spelling specified by the code of nomenclature (article 60.8).
 * Populus section Aegiros, a common misspelling, could redirect to Populus section Aigeiros.
 * Nom. inval. or num. nud. signals a name that was not validly published as a botanical name. Few of these have become well known without being validated by a later publication, but a small number are well known, and these may warrant discussion. For example:
 * Crataegus macracantha Lodd. need not be listed; the validated name is written as Crataegus macracantha Lodd. ex Loudon or Crataegus macracantha Loudon.
 * Subfamily Prunoideae Burnett was not validly published because Burnett compiled a list of comments about the (group at the rank now considered to be a) subfamily but did not provide text that qualifies as a description, according to the requirements of our modern codes of nomenclature (and he did not provide a diagnosis or refer to a previous description).
 * Certain names published in suppressed works (opera oppressa) are considered invalid, and do not belong in the taxobox. It may be useful to discuss some of these in the page text. For example:
 * Michel Gandoger earned some renown for publishing a vast number of species names in the genus Rosa in his suppressed work Flora Europae terrarumque adjacentium. It could be helpful to discuss these with Rosa canina, which is sometimes noted as a species that caused taxonomic confusion.
 * Nom. rej. and/or Nom. illeg. can signal a name that has not satisfied some of the rules of the code of nomenclature. Nom. rej. can also indicate names that have been explicitly rejected (articles 14 and 56). Some such names may be best omitted, and others may justify detailed explanation. For example:
 * On a page about the genus Hierochloë R. Br., it might be desirable to discuss Savastana Schrank, Torresia Ruiz & Pav., and Disarrenum Labill. These names are rejected in favour of Hierochloë, but a different taxonomy could consider them to be separate from Hierochloë, in which case they are valid and legimate botanical names.