Taxonomic Swap 26138 (Tehty 02-11-2017)

New England Wild Flower Society's Flo... (Viittaus)
Kyllä
Lisännyt bouteloua marraskuu 1, 2017 03:43 IP. | Tallentanut danielatha marraskuu 2, 2017
korvattu seuraavalla:

Kommentit

I agree with the swap. Ampelopsis glandulosa is the older name for the same widespread and variable species. The varieties as defined in the Flora of China (http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=2&taxon_id=242302746) are impossible to apply to North American material. Their validity should be tested elsewhere.

Lähettänyt danielatha yli 6 vuotta sitten

Just want to run this by a few other people since there are so many observations that would be affected.

@abookb
@tminatbe
@tsn

Another curator can commit the swap if they so feel brave :)

Lähettänyt bouteloua yli 6 vuotta sitten

I don't particularly care which name we use, as long as we can all be consistent. Using A. glandulosa would make iNaturalist consistent with GoBotany, which is probably good. However, I am not a fan of forcing the use of subspecies names, especially for a very common, invasive species that is eye-catching enough that many people will photograph it. If we would have to use the entire subspecies name Ampelopsis glandulosa brevipedunculata to distinguish this plant from another subspecies, then I worry about the potential for confusion and the constant need to explain why a subspecies designation is necessary (as with, for example, Viburnum opulus americanum or Osmunda regalis spectabilis). However, if we can just switch to A. glandulosa at the species level, that would be ok. Thanks.

Lähettänyt tsn yli 6 vuotta sitten

Thanks, Tom. I agree with you about the subspecies here. From the evidence in the Flora of China, the subspecies are so poorly defined, they are impossible to apply. I propose a simple swap from Ampelopsis brevipedunculata to Ampelopsis glandulosa. Cassi, what do you think?

Lähettänyt danielatha yli 6 vuotta sitten

I don't agree with discarding a subspecies on iNat for ease of explanation...But if the subspecies are not accepted by our taxonomic authorities we should change the taxon swap. (I'm not familiar with this species and have too poor of internet right now while traveling to do more research at the moment.)

Lähettänyt bouteloua yli 6 vuotta sitten

I am by no means a taxonomic authority, just a user expressing my view from a user's perspective. I defer to you and Daniel and other authorities on the botanical merits, but if it is possible to keep this at the species level, that would be great.

Lähettänyt tsn yli 6 vuotta sitten

I meant the taxonomic authorities (publications/websites) listed here for vascular plants on iNaturalist: https://www.inaturalist.org/pages/curator+guide :)
I'm actually at a wifi spot now and can check this out a little.

So The Plant List accepts the var: http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl1.1/record/kew-2634502
Flora Novae Angliae/GoBotany accepts the var: https://gobotany.newenglandwild.org/species/ampelopsis/glandulosa/?key=dichotomous#dkey
VASCAN doesn't choose to list it: http://data.canadensys.net/vascan/taxon/28979?lang=en
It looks like Weakley also just lists as species http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/FloraArchives/WeakleyFlora_2015-05-29.pdf
It's not found in California, so Calflora doesn't include it
Flora of North America, which isn't a taxonomic authority on iNat, says "The infraspecific classification of Ampelopsis glandulosa is highly controversial. Five varieties were recognized by Chen Z. D. et al. (2007). A broad concept of this taxon is followed here."
WCSP doesn't include Vitaceae

I think for now the most prudent thing to do, and in accordance with the Curator Guide, would be to do the swap into the variety.
Folks can still identify to species level if they want, of course. And in the future, the variety can always be lumped back into the species on iNat.

EDIT: edited to say var. not subsp.

Lähettänyt bouteloua yli 6 vuotta sitten

Thank you Cassi and Tom. Cassi's reasoning is persuasive. I think Alan Weakley has good taxonomic concepts, but the other references outweigh his for now. So by consensus of iNat references, the varieties win. I don't think they will stand the test of time, but we'll see. Fortunately, the varietal epithet is the same as the specific epithet, so users will not be totally disoriented.

Lähettänyt danielatha yli 6 vuotta sitten

Okay. I am going to hit "Commit".

Lähettänyt danielatha yli 6 vuotta sitten

Lisää kommentti

Kirjaudu sisään tai Rekisteröidy lisätäksesi kommentteja