Flag for Taxon: Mojave Mound Cactus (Echinocereus mojavensis)
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| bryanto | Mojave Mound Cactus (Echinocereus mojavensis) |
This taxon seems invalid and should be placed within E. triglochidiatus, see http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=242415252 |
Dec. 22, 2017 16:55:40 +0000 | bouteloua |
see comments |
Comments
However, even the iNaturalist page does not list E. mojavensis as a valid taxon, follow the link for that taxon and then go to 'About', it only list info for E. triglochidiatus, and doesn't even mention E. mojavensis as a variety within that taxon. At least some consistency would be helpful so when someone invalidates my record, that has been researched with the best available data for my region, I can at least understand where they are coming from without having to look it up from outside sources. If you think E. mojavensis is valid, write an article on it to include in the description for that taxon, if you don't have a strong enough opinion to write that article, then don't have that taxon available. The current system only creates confusion. Meanwhile iNaturalist only shows my record a Echinoceres sp.
That is definitely a limitation to using an external source for species descriptions. I don't disagree that triglochidiatus is the better name, but as long as iNaturalist continues to prioritize California regional floras over national or continental floras, there are going to be name conflicts. See the curator guide for the current rules. https://www.inaturalist.org/pages/curator+guide#policies
I have asked several times to have Flora of North America added as an authority but it just hasn't happened yet.
"even the iNaturalist page does not list E. mojavensis as a valid taxon, follow the link for that taxon and then go to 'About'"
The About tab on the iNat taxon pages simply links to Wikipedia or Encyclopedia of Life. In this case, Wikipedia. iNaturalist does not pull in the side "box" information from WP, but yes--WP does list E. mojavensis as a synonym of E. triglochidiatus on the right side of the page.
iNat's taxon page for E. mojavensis shows the Wikipedia page for E. triglochidiatus because Wikipedia's page for E. mojavensis actually auto-redirects to the page for E. triglochidiatus.
Yes, the iNaturalist taxon page does show E. triglochidiatus as a synonym. Go to the Taxonomy tab of the taxon page and scroll to the bottom: https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/68188-Echinocereus-mojavensis. You can also view all previous "taxon changes" on iNaturalist by going to the Taxonomy tab and clicking Taxon Changes, where it says "Calflora (but not the FNA) splits Echinocereus triglochidiatus mojavensis off from Echinocereus triglochidiatus as its own species Echinocereus mojavensis"
For now, iNaturalist does defer to broader authorities like The Plant List when regional authorities differ, but for what it's worth, SEINet does also call it E. mojavensis...
Sorry for the trouble you're experiencing, that user was sort of rude... It's silly when everyone's talking about the same plant with different names that won't line up.
Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude, I was just trying to point out some of the limitations and biases of the current system. In cases like this where there are several authorities with different names for the same taxon concept, it would be nice to somehow show that the two names are equally valid and refer to the same organisms.
Didn't say that you were rude -- it was another user on this observation: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/6235297
There is significant disagreement between taxonomic authorities and iNaturalist currently chooses to follow the regional California floras (iNat is pretty California biased) over the continent level floras. This is an excellent argument for adding the ability to have synonymous names.