Taxonomic Swap 115607
(Guardado el 16/10/2022)
|
|
Reemplazado con |
|
Comentarios
@mrtnlowr Yes, I also wanted to start a discussion first, but meanwhile the first taxa have been changed already so I decided to copy at least the paper into every taxonswap. It is important to have at least a source.
Apart from that, this revision was necessary and expected, and the author is employed at Kew Gardens, so it is extremely likely that this change will also be adopted by POWO in the near future.
@kai_schablewski Understood, I see it was necessary. I just means there is still some work to do once the records become available on POWO.
Agregar un comentario
Acceder
o Crear una cuenta
para agregar comentarios.
Although, having read the paper, I recognize the need to implement this change it's probably a bit premature as the new name is not yet present on POWO or WCVP and, at the moment, is suppressed on IPNI. The consequence is that an accurate taxonomic reference for the genus cannot be sourced.