Talk:Stachys lanata

Is this species name correct?[edit]

Awfully confused here. Lamb's-ear, which is a hugely popular temperate garden plant (and weed) in the U.S., is specifically called Stachys byzantina in all our major databases--that is,

GRIN [[1]]
NCBI [[2]]

and in ITIS, Stachys byzantina is called woolly hedgenettle. [[3]]

However, none of these three databases recognizes a species called Stacys lanata at all. Not even as a synonym.

Furthermore, the Wiki entry (a stub) for Stachys byzantina refers to an entirely different species, which the stub identifies as woolly bettony. But the plant illustrated there is not a lamb's ear.

The references given for using Stachys lanata are several horticultural sites, and such sites--although they may have excellent information on the maintenance of a plant--are notoriously inaccurate in binomial nomenclature.

What am I missing? Is there a reason this should not be changed? NaySay 14:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think S. lanata and S. byzantina need merging.

Here's an example of a scholarly article that supports S. lanata as a synonym for S. byzantina:

Essential oils composition of Stachys byzantina, S. inflata, S. lavandulifolia and S. laxa from Iran

I'm going to add a merge request on Stachys lanata. Mork the delayer 22:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see S. lanata in the USDA Plants Database, even as a synonym. When I learned the species, I thought that S. lanata and S. byzantina were synonymous and I was never sure which was the accepted name. Lacking any evidence that S. lanata is a valid name, it would make sense to merge this page under S. byzantina. botanybob 22:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I found, and I concur. NaySay 16:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not native, and not particularly weedy in the States, so why would it be on the USDA list? Check KEW and ITIS, first. KP Botany 18:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, the species does not exist in ITIS. GRIN, the database arm of the USDA, which is very inclusive of every spore which has passed through immigration, and any plant with the slightest economic impact that hasn't, does not recognize it. If it were a fairly obscure Madagascan variety, this wouldn't be surprising. But for a common garden plant, it would doubtless be there. As for Kew, if you'd like to check it and report back, please do. NaySay 21:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, EPIC finds some references, 4 from IPNI: Stachys lanata (epic) Mork the delayer 05:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, merge. Flora NW Europe [4] and Flora Europaea [5] both give S. lanata as a synonym of S. byzantina. Another issue though, the current description at the S. byzantina page reeks of copyvio to me (and even if it isn't it needs to be converted to more readable prose). - MPF 22:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some research on the name itself. Considering the articles of botanical descriptions from ipni.org I've found that S. lanata (Lamiaceae Stachys lanata Moench, Methodus (Moench) 397. 1794 [4 May 1794]) was described 53 years earlier than S. byzantina (Lamiaceae Stachys byzantina K.Koch, Linnaea 21: 686. 1849). When synonyms occur, the oldest name is the correct one, so by botany-nomenclature rules the correct name should be S. lanata regardless of the USDA, GRIN and ITIS databases. irongollem —Preceding undated comment added 11:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]