Talk:Prunus × yedoensis

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Cerasus x yedoensis - page move probably required

Hi. I've checked further into the Prunus vs Cerasus question brought up by 113.159.12.93, and it does look like there has been a scientific name change, according to IPNI (and TROPICOS, but I believe the International Plant Names Index is more official), considering Prunus x yedoensis a basionym. However, GRIN disagrees (as does the NCBI taxonomy), although these may simply not have been updated yet (NCBI cites TROPICOS for Prunus, for instance). This will need to be handled with a page move and taxobox, etc change, with the above as references, I would say, but with a notation of some degree of possible disagreement (or at least of Prunus x yedoensis as a former name, which all of the above agree on). Allens (talk | contribs) 13:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

This is taxonomy, not nomenclature, so IPNI, which deals only with nomenclature, is irrelvant. What is needed is a phylogeny. The 2001 phylogeny by Bortiri et al. found that "subgenera" Cerasus, Padus, and Laurocerasus form a clade. If those have been combined, then perhaps Cerasus has priority as the name of that larger group. There is a paper [www.academicjournals.org/ajb/pdf/pdf2010/2Aug/Gilani%20et%20al.pdf using the ITS region only] that confirms the 2001 result. I can't find a classification that wikipedia could follow. Wikipedia should not venture out on its own, but should follow authoritative phylogenies; what is likely to happen here if this "update" is made, is that wikipedia will have a massively inconsistent classification. It is certainly correct to put all of the species into Prunus, though the subgenus classification is now dubious. Nadiatalent (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't call IPNI and nomenclature irrelevant, but I agree that Wikipedia should not contradict phylogenetics. Perhaps this should be noted as an area of disagreement, with Cerasus x yedoensis a redirect? Allens (talk | contribs) 14:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course, nomenclature is basic, what I meant was that it would be wrong to say that because the name was validly published and legitimate that such a taxon should be accepted. Indeed, redirects should have been there; I've added a couple of them, but perhaps there are more needed. Nadiatalent (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I've added a 2007 citation to the Prunus page for some of the best-known synonyms of the genus, including Cerasus. Nadiatalent (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I've put in a redirect from Cerasus x yedoensis to here, and noted it as an alternative name in the lead. Once I'm feeling up to it (headache and nausea), I'll put in something regarding that it's disputed, unless you'd like to do so before then. Allens (talk | contribs) 15:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Yikes, a break from wikipedia sounds like what you need! "Disputed" is not a word that I'd ever use for alternative taxonomies, so I'll have to see what you want to put there. I did change it to say that it is a synonym. Perhaps that could be linked to Synonym (taxonomy), which explains that "synonym" in taxonomy means something different from what it means in regular life. That's all that I'd want to do at present. Nadiatalent (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you think that it would be better to use P. subhirtella as the other parent, since there is no page for P. pendula and they are synonyms anyway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.205.151.58 (talk) 12:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Grafting

This article is totally wrong. This species never occurs as natural hybrid, and can only be made by grafting. Recent genomic research shows that the species can be traced back to one particular tree near Ueno, Tokyo. --79.238.103.113 (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

'Somei-yoshino', one of the P × yedoensis cultivars, was propagated by grafting as is well known. However, P × yedoensis refers to all hybrids between Oshima cherry and Edohigan, and wild hybrids also exist.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)