![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
The taxonomy section does not reflect accepted thinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.213.157 ( talk) 15 February 2011+
To answer your question I have some comments and suggestions regarding possible reworking of the Taxonomy part of the article.
The groupings here:
"
Clade 1. Meconella, Meconopsis
Clade 2. Carinatae, Meconidium, Oxytona, Papaver, Pilosa, Pseudopilosa and Rhoeadium
Clade 3. Argemonidium, Roemeria refracta
"
are the results of a molecular phylogeny by Carolan et. al which reveal Papaver as non-monophyletic as mentioned. However, the genus, sectional and species structure of Papaver and related genera have not been altered to reflect these grouping as yet. This could be clarified.
The text in the article following on from this shows some the the Sections of Papaver but only a couple:
"
The following are lectotypified with their lectotype species:
* Carinatae (P. macrostomum Boiss. & Huet) * Oxytona (P. orientale L.) * Macrantha (P. orientale L.)- superfluous * Calomecon (Calomecon orientale)
" Calcomecon is a synonym used by Kiger for the Section Macrantha, and Oxytona is another synonym for Macrantha.
Kadereit, J.W has carried out revisions of most sections of Papaver plus Roemeria and Stytlomecon. A listing of all sections could be given here, plus some example species from each section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.97.163 ( talk) 15:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Please change the infobox image to the more common red flower, because i almost thought i had typed wrong and got myself on some Papaver flower-sub page, and since it's the most common, i strongly suggest using the red flower sort, and displaying the other colours in a section below, just like Raspberry the red sort is the most common and by definition should be displayed instead of that lilac rarer kind.
-- 109.58.186.199 ( talk) 14:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The picture of a California poppy on this page is inaccurate. The flower called a California poppy is Eschsholzia californica, not Papaver anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.1.69 ( talk) 05:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Some of the text in the section "Phylogeny of Papaver and related genera" is, in my view, too close to the Carolan et al. (2006) source. For example:
At present I'm working on some rewriting in my user space. Peter coxhead ( talk) 14:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I am proposing that Stylomecon be merged into Papaver. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Recent discussion indicates that in the twenty-first century, the windpoppy is Papaver heterophyllum rather than Stylomecon heterophylla, which means that Stylomecon is an old alternate name. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
It looks not to be as simple as I first thought. I've been working on Meconopsis § Taxonomy. As traditionally defined, it seems that neither Meconopsis (even after removing M. cambrica) nor Papaver are monophyletic. There are two possible responses to this:
So if we strictly followed PoWO, we would make Meconopsis disappear as a genus article, which I think would not reflect either the specialist literature nor the horticultural literature, and so would not serve our readers well, at least at present.
So I still favour redirecting Stylomecon for now, but the situation may change. Peter coxhead ( talk) 11:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
The taxonomy in the article depends heavily on a 2006 paper. As per the references at Meconopsis, there have been studies since that have partly reinforced the results published in 2006, but also extended them and reached different conclusions about classification. The article needs updating. Peter coxhead ( talk) 11:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)