Talk:List of Acacia species

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Plants Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Therefore, the following list of Acacia species cannot be maintained as a single entity, as this genus will be divided into 5 genera, Acacia, Vachellia, Senegalia, Acaciella and Mariosousa. This division was ratified on 30 July 2005 by the International Botanical Congress in Vienna."

"This new list has been accepted on 16 July 2005 by the XVII International Botanical Congress in Vienna , Austria [1]"

At the moment, there are a couple sections in this article that indicate that the division of Acacia into the genera Acacia, Vachellia, Senegalia, Acaciella, and Mariosousa was "ratified" or "accepted" by the IBC, as quoted above. This is not the case. The IBC voted on a proposal to change the type of the genus Acacia. This changes which segregate genus can be called "Acacia" when the genus is split. It does not suggest or endorse any particular splitting of the genus. The linked article "1" gets this right, this article does not.

Sorry, apparently forgot to sign the above. That, or it got screwed up somehow. Anyways, signing now: Paalexan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Is there any specific reason why Acacia albida Delile isn't included? Andres 14:43, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Most of these lists are known to be incomplete, add away. Stan 06:05, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

According to ITIS [[1]] and GBIF [[2]] is Acacia albida a synonym of Faidherbia albida JoJan 19:14, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As far as I know, it has been established that the genus Acacia is not a phylogenetic group and a new system is being worked out. Some species already are included to the genus Racosperma.

Do you mean that it has been established that Acacia albida definitely cannot be a member of the genus Acacia? Andres 09:33, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Now I had a look at the first source. As I am not an expert, please explain me what this "not accepted" means. Andres 09:36, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"not accepted by ITIS as valid", because their expert considers it to a synonym for another, better, name (click on their "Taxonomic Standing" link to see their detailed explanation). ITIS is of course just one of many possible authorities. I would include the name here, and mention the synonymy - a "complete" WP ought to mention obsolete names as well as current ones, to aid in the understanding of older literature. Stan 17:11, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with your solution. As far as I understand, this list includes only established species. GBIF lists many other species. Perhaps it should be expanded to involve those others as well. Andres 17:22, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It took me, some years ago, almost one month to draw up this list of "accepted" names. If I remember correctly, there must be about 3,000 names available (accepted names + synonyms). You can go ahead listing them all. But don't be surprised that some years later, some taxons are categorized differently or that some new species have been found. See this report [[3]] JoJan 19:30, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry but some of the photos are incorrectly titled.

The photo that is meant to be of Acacia melanoxylon is definitely NOT A. melanoxylon. I think it may by Acacia retinoides, but I'm not sure of this. The photo of Acacia verticillata is also definitely NOT A. verticillata. I'm happy to discuss..

The pictures are actually at the commons, [4] for the purported A. melanoxylon for instance, it would be more useful to discuss there. Would not be the first time an error got into the mass upload of biolib photos, but bring a supporting reference or two. Stan 1 July 2005 12:44 (UTC)

This article has too many internal links that don't lead to an existing article. They are in red, like this mdnmghgbhjxgmjmyx. This isn't necessary and should not be internal links in these places. If you want them to stand out, italicizing and/or boldfacing isquite enough --RayquazaDialgaWeird2210 (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a common convention that wikilinks are included for taxa mentioned in an article, with the expectation that some day articles will be added for those taxa; it saves the person adding the article having to find and edit all other articles mentioning the taxon. Lavateraguy (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missing link to Acacia triptera - found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acacia_triptera 50.13.225.151 (talk) 00:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Acacia species. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080501142231/http://data.gbif.org/welcome.htm to http://data.gbif.org/welcome.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]