Comments from taxon swap proposed. This is a mistake and must not be done! The two genera are not even closely related.

Comments
Thumb
This was a colossal mistake. Tecomaria is not related to Tecoma.

The genus Tecomaria was sunk into Tecoma because the leading botanists working on the family considered that the differences in the flowers between Tecomaria and Tecoma were not enough to justify keeping them apart and they should be treated as one. Hence Tecomaria capensis becameTecoma capensis. However, recent molecular studies show that Tecomaria is in fact most closely related to Podranea and not Tecoma, which means that it can no longer be lumped together with Tecoma, and the genus Tecomaria is reinstated. This is a case where the DNA evidence overturns decisions made on genetic relationships that are based just on morphology (how the plants look). (John Manning, pers. comm.) http://pza.sanbi.org/tecomaria-capensis

Tecoma?
9 December 2015 - 6:33PM sallyslak
Did it not change to Tecoma?

Yes, but it was a mistake.
10 December 2015 - 8:34AM Cassine
Based on palynology and cytology, It was recommended in 1979 and 1980 that Tecomaria to be included in Tecoma. Much later 2004 it was formally included based on the earlier papers. Tecoma is a genus of 14 species from SW USA to South American Andes. Tecomaria capensis is following the latest DNA results closer to to the other African genus Podranea. R. https://www.ispotnature.org/communities/southern-africa/view/observation/583234/cape-honeysuckle-tecomaria-capensis

Fischer et al. (2004) follow Gentry ’ s recommendation ( Goldblatt and Gentry, 1979 ; Gentry, 1980 ) that Tecomaria should be included in Tecoma . However, our results indicate that Tecomaria is closer to Podranea , the only other African member of this clade.

Richard G. Olmstead, Michelle L. Zjhra,7 L ú cia G. Lohmann, Susan O. Grose, 2\ and Andrew J. Eckert A MOLECULAR PHYLOGENY AND CLASSIFICATION OF BIGNONIACEAE. American Journal of Botany 96(9): 1731–1743. 2009.

So we need to change all Tecoma capensis to Tecomaria capensis!

Posted by you about 1 year ago
Thumb
I agree, the Olmstead et al. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51174533 results show quite clearly, that Tecomaria should not be included in Tecoma.

I don't remember the details, I probably followed TPL http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl1.1/record/kew-318566 and APD http://www.ville-ge.ch/musinfo/bd/cjb/africa/details.php?langue=an&id=48311 for this taxon swap. So there it should probably be changed as well.

Posted by marcoschmidtffm about 1 year ago
Thumb
Agreed, given this evidence it was a mistake on my part to make the change. I followed the curator's guide advice to rely on The Plant List, but as an authority it - nor any other authority for that matter - is not perfect. By all means proceed.

Posted by stevejones about 1 year ago
Thumb
Thanks. Will do.

Posted by you about 1 year ago

Lets consolidate future conversation about this Tecomaria split here https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/273518