Oplismenus undulatifoliusEdit

I noticed that you were interested in Oplismenus undulatifolius. Here is a link where the complications of their taxonomy is well explained: http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=2&taxon_id=200025760. On Wikidata should both names have their own item as it then works well with synonyms and how different wikipedia can choose differently (or have articles for both). This is comparable to how on wikipedia several aspects can be described within the same article. Here we cannot mix different properties as simply within one item and both names should therefore have their own item. That way all information (authors, publication year, species rank etc) can be described for both. It also makes infoboxes able to automagiacally fetch data appropriately even if there are differences between different wikipedias (or other sites using Wikidata). Best regards Averater (talk) 13:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)