I removed the one species that was listed and added a bunch of others. Might be good to do a combined list of species from GBIF and IFPNI. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- @UtherSRG: A combined list from both would be best, though they will both have scatterings of jr synonyms do to uncaptured moves in the actual literature. In your last edit you removed C. ardtunnesis noting its a synonym? what paper is that info from?--Kevmin § 15:33, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- I may be wrong on that. GBIF tends to indicate when something is a synonym, but it isn't there at all. There's a few good ways to do a combined list, but I'm not quickly finding one. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- The more I look at it, the more I'm wondering why we should be trusting the GBIF data scraped from IRMNG for this list. Neither are paleobotanical databases, I think staying with IFPNI (even with its gaps) and adding from collated print sources such as LaMotte 1952 is our best bet for an opening list.--Kevmin § 16:14, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- I'm fine with that. GBIF is my first general source DB to go to, but I agree that IFPNI likely has the better list here.- UtherSRG (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
