This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
plants and
botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Well, there is often variation in how genera are treated in different floras. In this case, the Flora of North America still considers the species to be in Coreopsis, which might be an argument against. There may also be issues relating to consistency with other articles. At the moment, Leptosyneredirects to is listed at Coreopsis as a synonym, and all its species are likewise treated as Coreopsis species. I think you would have to propose moving all those articles, and amending the Coreopsis article to reflect its narrower circumscription (which may also have knock-on effects requiring other genera to also be recognised, for all I know). That's quite an undertaking. I'm not saying don't do it, but, ideally, don't do it piecemeal. Perhaps ask at
WT:PLANTS if anyone familiar with the local flora (which I am not) has any opinions. --
Stemonitis (
talk)
18:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC) [edited 05:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)]reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
plants and
botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Well, there is often variation in how genera are treated in different floras. In this case, the Flora of North America still considers the species to be in Coreopsis, which might be an argument against. There may also be issues relating to consistency with other articles. At the moment, Leptosyneredirects to is listed at Coreopsis as a synonym, and all its species are likewise treated as Coreopsis species. I think you would have to propose moving all those articles, and amending the Coreopsis article to reflect its narrower circumscription (which may also have knock-on effects requiring other genera to also be recognised, for all I know). That's quite an undertaking. I'm not saying don't do it, but, ideally, don't do it piecemeal. Perhaps ask at
WT:PLANTS if anyone familiar with the local flora (which I am not) has any opinions. --
Stemonitis (
talk)
18:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC) [edited 05:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)]reply