Taxonomic Swap 13826 (Committed on 2016-03-15)

Nama demissum is now characterized as a misspelling and a synonym for Nama demissa

Yes
Added by sanguinaria33 on February 5, 2016 05:22 PM | Committed by loarie on March 15, 2016
replaced with

Comments

@sanguinaria33 Thanks for making this swap. I agree, looks like Calflora still has both http://www.calflora.org/cgi-bin/specieslist.cgi?where-genus=Nama, but in Jepson, both clearly point to Nama demissa as the valid taxon http://herbaria4.herb.berkeley.edu/eflora_display.php?tid=34371
I just committed it

Posted by loarie about 8 years ago

According to which of our taxonomic authorities? Calflora was listing both. We don't follow ITIS for plant taxonomy.

Posted by kueda about 8 years ago

Calflora is listing both but clearly in error since they are both sourced to the same taxa: N. demissa acc. Jepson. This is a case of erroneous duplication in Calflora, not a taxonomic stand

Posted by loarie about 8 years ago

also why would we follow Calflora and not Jepson, since Calflora tracks Jepson and all the relevant taxonomic notes are on Jepson not Calflora?

Posted by loarie about 8 years ago

Calflora doesn't just track Jepson. They also include concepts from CNPS that Jepson may have rejected or altered. They also change less frequently and less incrementally than Jepson which makes the pace of taxonomic churn less maddening, which I admit is subjective, but seems closer to what I think the ideal taxonomic authority should strive to be (i.e. regularly versioned), if not quite exactly there.

I don't really care what authority we follow in CA, though. What I do care about is that we have an authority we're trying to track according to the rules we're all trying to follow. We can change that authority, but until we do, we should base changes of our own taxonomy according to those authorities.

Ideally, this change should have pointed out that the relevant authority, Calflora, doesn't have their act together for the taxa in question, but would point out that the in global plant name authority we recognize, The Plant List, they don't even list N. demissum, and thus the weight of opinion seems to lie with N. demissa. For bonus points they might have pointed out that when Asa Gray originally described this species he used the name Nama demissum, but that Jepson, in their infinite quest for gender agreement, decided that was not in keeping with ICPN nomenclatural rules and changed it to Nama demissa.

Posted by kueda about 8 years ago

sounds good to me

Posted by loarie about 8 years ago

I had intended to do some more work on this before committing the change, but Ken-Ichi provides more than adequate background and saved me some research.

For your continued entertainment, you may see that d_kluza resolved the original flag saying "Nama demissum is the accepted name, Nama demissa is the misspelling."

Posted by sanguinaria33 about 8 years ago

sorry for jumping the gun

Posted by loarie about 8 years ago

Don't worry about it. I am just amused.

Posted by sanguinaria33 about 8 years ago

Add a Comment

Sign In or Sign Up to add comments