Flag for Taxon: Thicket Creeper (Parthenocissus vitacea)
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| smithh05 | Thicket Creeper (Parthenocissus vitacea) |
Parthenocissus vitacea and Parthenocissus inserta are actually the same species |
Aug. 1, 2016 19:34:58 +0000 | stevejones |
Comments
This recent monograph of the genus makes no mention of P. inserta beyond listing one reference to a paper on floral morphology. (The full monograph can be downloaded here.) One of the authors (Jun Wen) also coauthored a paper that refers to a "P. quinquefolia - P. inserta clade" with no explanation of the level of the clade.
Pringle's article predates the monograph and it surprises me that the monograph makes no mention of P. inserta.
Looks as if it boils down to two conflicting interpretations. I'd rather not pull the trigger and merge P. vitacea into P. inserta, even given the curator guide's favored treatment of CalFlora (and therefore Jepson) and The Plant List. Speaking of Jepson, here it notes the choice to accept Pringle's interpretation. I lean that way too but can't ignore the monograph. I'll leave the flag unresolved.
@stevejones I'm not a taxonomist but it appears that there's no conflict that these two are the same species/clade/subspecies/whatever, correct? The only question is which name to use. iNat users are posting obs to both vitacea and inserta when they are the same. From a layperson's view, doing nothing seems more problematic than choosing the "wrong" name.
If Jepson and The Plant List accept V. inserta, put them all there for now. At a future date, if the dust settles on violacea, or a subspecies or clade, move them all to whatever the "newest" is at that moment in time. Doesn't this switching and moving happen all the time in taxonomy - in all classes of life?
Monica
Unfortunately there is a conflict over the placement of the name P. inserta. Pringle states that it is the correct name for what has been called P. vitacea while Wen refers (obliquely) to a "P. quinquefolia - P. inserta clade". Apparently Wen in her more recent monograph accepts Gleason's interpretation of P. inserta as a synonym of P. quinquefolia (as referred to in Pringle's paper). Personally I side with Pringle, and would love to know whether Wen has read his paper. Since her work is focused on the Asian taxa, perhaps not.
I also pause due to the ITIS and USDA classifications of these taxa being in conflict with the Plant List/Jepson interpretations.
You make a good point in noting that the iNat observations of both appear to be of the same ("northern, western" in Pringle) species. Given that and Pringle's strong argument (and using it as the source), I'll commit the merger and let the dust settle where it may.
Great! The "curator's guide", http://www.inaturalist.org/pages/curator+guide under Vascular Plants specifically states that for the United States iNat uses CalFlora and GoBotany with The Plant List as the "referee" if there are conflicts between the two.
Both these sources list P. inserta:
https://gobotany.newenglandwild.org/species/parthenocissus/inserta/
http://www.calflora.org/cgi-bin/specieslist.cgi?countylist=any&namesoup=parthenocissus&plantcomm=any&format=photos&orderby=taxon
You would really only need to use one of these as the citation for the merge.
Since Pringle's paper is the primary source (and is available online) I used that as the source. Thanks for the help!
I know both Jim Pringle and Jun Wen, and I think she simply overlooked Jim's paper. Both are very good botanists, but Jun Wen works more in phylogenetics than in nomenclatoral intricacies, which is Jim's speciality. Has someone just tried to e-mail Jun and ask her? /Lena Struwe
No, Lena, I did not. I did begin composing a letter to her but the tone seemed a little impertinent; I did not find the right words. And then I got busy with other things. But I am willing to try again given your encouragement.
Lena,
I sent this to wenj@si.edu on 16 September but received no response:
Dr. Wen,
In some recent research into the systematics of the American members of the genus Parthenocissus, I found this paper by James Pringle. It argues that Gleason (1947) misinterpreted the nomenclature by naming P. inserta as a synonym of P. quinquefolia. Your more recent monograph refers to a “P. quinquefolia - P. inserta clade” but does not mention the level of the clade. I am trying to gain a more complete understanding of the American members of this genus and would appreciate any help or advice that you are willing to offer.
Best regards,
Steve Jones
Scottsdale, Arizona
Hi Steve - let me e-mail her. Can you send me an e-mail to lena.struwe@rutgers.edu so I have your address? I will copy this threaded discussion to her and ask her for more information on our behalf.
Best
Lena
POWO is following FNA in accepting this as P. vitacea. Any response from the above email(s) sent out?
See also comments on newer flag: https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/278985
No reply on my end. I see POWO now recognizes P. inserta as a synonym of P. vitacea rather than a separate species. As Cassi notes that lines up with FNA as well. @elacroix-carignan is correct in the other flag that a taxon swap for P. inserta to P. vitacea (reversing the 2016 swap here) should resolve the problem. I'll set up a draft. The only remaining problem is discerning P. vitacea and P. quinquefolia using the FNA key - tough to do by photo. Not much geographic help either, except for me here in Arizona.
Here's the article correcting the nomenclature. The Plant List and Jepson agree. However, ITIS lists P. inserta as a synonym of P. quinquefolia and lists P. vitacea as an accepted name. USDA agrees (see Synonyms tab and here).