Selaginella. This
happens when we can't automatically assign an identification to one of the
output taxa.
Review identifications of Selaginella densa 136990
Taxonomic Split 142828
(Tehty 01-06-2024)
|
|
jakaa |
|
Kommentit
@birdwhisperer @wildskyflower All ready for the split, thank you so much for all your help!
Can do let me double check the atlases first though
@margaret_eaglecap I tweaked the atlases a little bit down to county level based on the observation you've ID'd plus the FNA maps. I tried to be conservative and make things overlap if there looked like any chance that they might. The tweaks prevent about 80 IDs from being changed that otherwise would have been. Can you double check the new atlases and see if they look good to you or if you have any further suggested changes?
@wildskyflower Ok thanks for that...I'm sorry I don't understand all the mechanics of the atlasing, but I do notice a few observations of S. scopulorum that are in States that are atlased as containing RG observations, but the counties are blank - not assigned either to no-RG or RG... is that ok? I don't see that on the S. densa or S. scopulorum maps, although I could have missed some by just panning and zooming.
So you mean that now 80 S. densa s.l. IDs will just stay as S. densa and not drop to genus?
And the S. densa s.l. in SK, MB, ON, ND, & SD are going to stay as S. densa s.s., whether they are IDd as S. densa s.l. or S. densa var. densa? Just checking, since most of them don't have a var. densa ID.
Thank you!
@margaret_eaglecap There are only 4 observations currently ID'd as selaginella densa that aren't covered by one or more of the atlases; 2 private location (which can't be helped), 1 in Bolivia that already has a disagreeing ID, and this casual one: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/200633281. I don't think I see any s. scopularum observations outside the atlas, but if you point me to the ones you are concerned about I can check.
@wildskyflower Here are the S. scopulorum observations that are in a State atlas but not in a County atlas, which may be totally OK...?
https://inaturalist.ca/observations/172172421
https://inaturalist.ca/observations/178305677
https://inaturalist.ca/observations/31731032
https://inaturalist.ca/observations/31739526
https://inaturalist.ca/observations/124923623
https://inaturalist.ca/observations/83555370
https://inaturalist.ca/observations/36458475
How do I see the two private location observations? Can you share those links?
Thank you!
@margaret_eaglecap Those won't change they're already ID'd to s. scopularum. Here are the private ones:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/164961666 https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/109672435
@wildskyflower Ok, those are var. densa, I fixed them.
Ready to commit the split now I think?
Committed. May take some time to update all of the records
@wildskyflower Thank you so much for all your help!
Hi to all, just to be really clear, please could no one commit this until I have finished reviewing all the S. densa s.l. observations, I am trying to apply a var. to as many as possible to help with this complicated swap/split. The majority of S. densa s.l. observations are correct and will not have unintended disagreements if I merely add in the var. densa ID. This review will take me some days; I hope to be done by early May. Thank you!