Content Author Object Flagger Flag Created Reason Resolved by Resolution
Ladies'-tresses (Genus Spiranthes) matthewpace Wed, 22 Aug 2018 23:02:31 +0000

several new species need to be added: Spiranthes arcisepala, S. incurva, S. x kapnosperia, S. nikalsii. These names are all accepted on IPNI.

bouteloua

committed taxon change

Comments

Thumb

Hi Matthew! I've added them to the Vascular Plant POWO Deviations spreadsheet for consideration. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1X5c_cYX7S32UwEoZmk65rPYi9F_tsTc68vCnPp6clN4/edit#gid=0

Posted by bouteloua about 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb

As you know, iNat treats Spiranthes cernua in the broad sense. If iNat ends up incorporating these new species/hybrids, what exactly would the taxon split end up looking like?

Would it be: Spiranthes cernua (sensu lato) ---split into--->
-Spiranthes cernua (sensu stricto)
-Spiranthes arcisepala
-Spiranthes incurva
-Spiranthes × kapnosperia
-Spiranthes niklasii
or something else? (are more or fewer taxa involved?)

and
Spiranthes parksii ---merged into---> Spiranthes cernua (sensu stricto)?

Edit to add: actually that 2nd taxon change is already supported by Plants of the World Online, though we may want to hold off on committing it until we have Spiranthes cernua split up: http://plantsoftheworldonline.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:242780-2

Posted by bouteloua about 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb

Hi Cassi,

Thanks!

Yes, the split would be
Spiranthes cernua (sensu lato) ---split into--->
-Spiranthes cernua (sensu stricto)
-Spiranthes arcisepala
-Spiranthes incurva
-Spiranthes × kapnosperia
-Spiranthes niklasii

and
Spiranthes parksii ---merged into---> Spiranthes cernua (sensu stricto)

I'm actually the authority on the group and have authored a number of recent papers, often dealing with the S. cernua complex specifically. I know iNaturalist is moving away from regional floras, but these names were also incorporated into the new Orchidaceae treatment of The New Manual (replacement of Gleason & Cronquist).

I've been holding off on ID'ing most of the records currently set as S. cernua (s.l.). Of course, autumn is their bloom period, so I'm anticipating a wave of new observations to start popping up soon.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you for your time and assistance.
Matthew

Posted by matthewpace about 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb

Great, thanks for the clarification. I think the next step will be to wait for Scott Loarie to submit another round of requested changes to POWO based on our potential taxonomic changes on iNaturalist.

Do see the comments from from Rafaël Govaerts at Kew/POWO (from an email exchange Scott shared with us on this long thread):

"4. I know that the first thing anyone checks is to see if the new species they just published is in POWO and, no, it is not. That is because there is a lag time of 1-2 years from publication to displaying on POWO. This is partly intentional and partly technical & physical restraints. A name is published in a book on 17 August 2016. The book is brought to the attention of the Kew Library and they order one on 11 November 2016. It arrives on 22 December 2018. It then goes to IPNI where the names are added to the IPNI database on 15 January 2017. The names are then imported into WCSP on 1 January 2018 and edited (this is why we don't want it online immediately as about many names are synonymised within 1 year of publication and we also often ask expert advice on some groups) so that the fully edited name is online on 11 April 2018. POWO is updated every 3-5 Months so the name finally is online on POWO today. This is a long example and most names make it within 1 year.

The aim is to reduce this to 1 week, but this will need the support of the community and funding. The way that would work is: Names are registered in IPNI on 1 January 2018. The name is published and released on IPNI on 11 April 2018. On that day, the name is then also flagged as new in WCSP. The name is then edited (which is mostly quick but may need expert advise) and released to POWO on 18 April 2018. This does however require acceptance of name registration at the next nomenclatural conference and the creation of a new database system for IPNI/WCSP/POWO."

Posted by bouteloua about 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb

Matthew, would you be able to shoot me the shapefiles from Figure 14 of your 2017 paper? That way I can import the ranges into iNat. SHP or KML/KMZ would work. I haven't heard anything lately about any Plants of the World Online/iNat taxonomy updates, but will keep you apprised!

Posted by bouteloua about 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb

i vote no. This is gonna be another huge mess for the community to untangle, based on a super recent paper, with no reason to rush into this. It's going to cause a lot of wasted effort and frustration on the community's part to untangle and i'm not seeing upsides that outweigh the downsides. I thought we'd be adopting POWO but this is turning into actually accepting primary lit to do big splits which i didn't think we were going to be doing.

Posted by charlie almost 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb
Posted by charlie almost 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb

Charlie, in case this split has you freaked out, just know that no one (including me) is rushing into this. To your 2nd to last comment, some of these taxa aren't in POWO yet and no, no one is proposing to directly follow the primary literature for all taxon swaps. I also responded at your link above.

Posted by bouteloua almost 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb

Thanks. This wasn't directed towards you directly at all, but i guess i was feeling mildly freaked out cumulatively by the taxonomy changes, like getting 50 diplacus related notifications every time i log on, and you know i log on often.
Maybe there's a 'section' that can be used here like diplacus, if we do have to do it.

Posted by charlie almost 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb

I realized I didn't have a link to the paper; here it is if anyone wants to take a gander:
http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.1600/036364417X696537
Pace, M.C. and K.M. Cameron. 2017. The Systematics of the Spiranthes cernua Species Complex (Orchidaceae): Untangling the Gordian Knot. Systematic Botany 42 (4), pp. 1-30

Posted by bouteloua almost 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb

Expert botanist Michael Hough and I have now looked at several thousands of plants across dozens of populations from northern NY to central PA where these three species are found (incurva, arcisepela and cernua). First though, a huge tip of the hat should go out to Pace and Cameron though for advancing the ball down the field on this very complicated complex! In short, the cryptic sister taxa S. arcisepala was a significant find in our opinions (genetically more closely related to arcisepala and casei)....the downward shaping lateral sepal shape is significant and consistent when trying to ID these apart! The rounder lip and therefore boxier look of the flowers mostly holds too....and so far we've only found it in wet habitat as described as well. Sure, you once in a while run into a plant here and there that isn't 100% straight forward, but this species is relatively easy to ID 95%+ of the time.

We haven't looked at as many "true cernua" plants, and telling these two apart (incurva and cernua) can be a little like trying to ID twins apart at times, but we can see differences. We do suspect disjuncts to the north of described range map (the same holds true for incurva and arcisepala range maps to a degree too) though, but as we all know, range maps are often best guestimates, and besides, we all know that orchids are known for disjunct populations too.

S. ochroleuca is a pretty easy plant to ID (as is closely related casei), and it's interesting to note that once upon a time that one had us all scratching our heads a bit -- we might look back at this moment similarly to that one in 20-30 years. There's a good 5-6 traits you can use for identifying S. ochroleuca. Lastly, S. magnicamporum is also an easy plant to ID, as is another cernua complex plant, S. ovalis.

I'm assuming any change in taxonomy in iNaturalist is of course dealt with with a batch edit tool, but if/when the changes are implemented it be nice to only be notified once as Charlie suggests above. Is there anyway to have just one notification with a list of affected records?

Posted by mattyoung almost 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb

Thanks for the comments, @mattyoung. Yes, it is all done in one batch automatic change. Users receive one only receive one notification of the change itself, but any follow-up refining or disagreeing IDs will be separate notifications.

In areas where the range maps of the new taxa do not overlap, previous IDs are automatically reassigned to a certain species. In areas where the ranges do overlap, the IDs are kicked up a level, in this case to Spiranthes (genus). So, it's important to have good range maps, if available, uploaded to iNat before committing the split. If range maps are suspect, we're better off keeping them very coarse (e.g. state-level rather than county level), so as not to reassign IDs to specific species inappropriately.

Here is are some examples of what this kind of split can look like on iNaturalist:

Easy one species -> two species with very different ranges
One -> many species with minor overlapping ranges
Genus split
One -> many species with extremely overlapping ranges, the frustrating mess mentioned by Charlie above

Posted by bouteloua almost 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb

Cool, thanks @bouteloua . I'm pretty familiar with these kinds of taxonomic updates/cataloguing issues working at Macaulay Library, Cornell Lab of Ornithology. We've definitely found some tweaks to the range maps where incurva and arcisepala overlap (and a few cernua records that we should ask Pace about @matthewpace). I've been trying to add a comment for specimens I've identified. I have no problem trying to ID as many as possible upfront if that will help? Obviously Matthew Pace could/should be the one to do this, but I'm more than willing to help too. :-)

Posted by mattyoung almost 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb

In Western PA the two overlap like crazy - to the point that I've found S. incurva and S. arcisepala growing almost side-by-side. It will probably be best to kick everything to Spiranthes sp. and then let individual observers sort things out.

Posted by hlpgtf almost 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb

We have at least two sites in NY where they co-occur, and along one highway where they alternate site to site across 5 sites over about ~5 miles. Can't say I'd support kicking it down road since I really think S. incurva and S. arcisepala are pretty straight-forward ID's. I think in central PA to maybe Southern NY though where all three species rarely overlap some though.

Posted by mattyoung almost 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb

"It will probably be best to kick everything to Spiranthes sp. and then let individual observers sort things out."

This is exactly the sort of thing i don't think we should be doing... causes all kinds of confusion and frustration in the community that imho far outweighs any benefits of doing this. So if we decide to do this split we need to be able to make some kind of holding group for them all so they aren't thrown back to genus.

If this sort of thing starts happening a lot i'm probably going to have to disable automatic taxon updates which is a bummer. I have many thousands of observations and it's not doable to have to go back and fix them all.

So yeah hoping if this gets forced through we can find a compromise like a temporary 'holding bin' enbedded in the actual taxonomy. Or maybe you can create the new species without forcing the change on the old ones, and let people opt out? maybe we can already do that?

Posted by charlie almost 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb

Does iNaturalist have slashes, because it might be worthwhile to have a Spiranthes cernua/incurva option even though overlap is very rare?

Posted by mattyoung almost 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb

in the past, the admins have not wanted this to exist, but maybe given the changes in taxonomy we can make these changes too. it would alleviate a lot of my concerns, at least.

Posted by charlie almost 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb

I know you can find one's you've identified, but maybe someone here knows, is there a way of finding all the specimens one has commented on?

Posted by mattyoung almost 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb

This shows all your comments across the site. You can sort it by search queries too.
https://inaturalist.org/comments?mine=true
https://www.inaturalist.org/comments?mine=true&q=solidago%20rigida

But using a dedicated observation field would be scores better than searching comments. example:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observation_fields/7187

Posted by bouteloua almost 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb

@charlie, I can understand were you're coming from on this. It might be a rough start in the beginning—there will likely be some confusion and frustration. It'll be a lot of work to not only identify all of the plants, but to explain the identifications and get the observations to research grade. Despite this, I think the split is worth it in the end. There was, and still is a great deal of confusion over P. huronensis, P. aquilonis and P. hyperborea, but my impression is that these taxa have become normalized and our understanding of them has improved greatly since their description. They're still difficult to identify, but I've seen the mistake of confusing P. aquilonis or P. huronensis with P. hyperborea less and less as I've been on the site. It's important to note that (at least in my opinion) identifying S. incurva and S. arcisepala is far easier than the aforementioned taxa.

Like @mattyoung, I'd be happy to commit a good deal of time to making identifications. I think we'll get a lot of valuable information if we make the split on iNat. It's important to reflect changes in taxonomy, and I'd be disappointed if that were not to happen.

Posted by arethusa almost 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb

The thing is though that when you make all those identifications it sends a million notifications to a million people and the site doesn't handle it well. I think there must be some 'middle ground' where you can track these things without creating issues for everyone else. I also just feel steamrolled because this sudden rush into this new taxonomy scheme is just totally ignoring these concerns (or if not ignoring them, not making an effort to fix them). I appreciate your words and your commitment, i just am not convinced that the upsides outweigh the downsides without some further changes in how it works.

That all being said i'm just one person and this is probably another lost cause. I guess i'm just saying polease do keep these issues in mind. It's hard for me to imagine why it's necessary, but if others deem it is... i hope they do so knowing that all of us have to put in a lot of extra effort even those who don't want to make this a priority. And time and resources are always so tight.

Posted by charlie almost 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb

I will say that aquilonis/huronensis is a decent amount more straight-forward than cernua/incurva IMO -- those two are separable 95+% of the time depending on how fresh the specimens are. If you have fresh specimens it's nearly 100%. Arcisepala is fairly easy ~95% of the time too....ochroleuca 98%.......magnicamporum 99.9%......I do have some fear that cernua/incurva are below these thresholds. Again, it's an endlessly fascinating complex, and I don't mean to throw a wet blanket on separating incurva/cernua at all - Pace and Cameron deserve major kudos for their work! Very very cool stuff!

Posted by mattyoung almost 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb

I think a strong argument can be made for recognizing S. arcisepala as it seems to be consistent in several characters across its range (truncate lip, mostly white color, downwardly falcate sepals, thick conical basal callosities, preference for wet habitats).

I am not seeing the same consistency with cernua/incurva. This is evidenced by many of the comments under observations of S. cernua, with users seemingly more confident in identifying S. arcisepala than incurva (and relying strongly on the location of the observation for the latter). I am also not confident that the ranges of cernua/incurva do not overlap as we have found populations in the gap in the range map and I'm sure there are observations on this site in the same area. In dissecting flowers and looking at some of the more obscure features it also appears there may be some introgression of the two taxa in NY, PA, and NJ where we have primarily been looking. The lip seems to get thinner and callosities more narrow as one moves south however there is considerable overlap. In addition, I have yet to see an "incurva" with the low mounded callosities described and illustrated in the paper. They can be somewhat reduced in some plants but are always conical. The low, rounded callosities are consistent in magnicamporum but that taxon is distinct in several other characters as well. We wonder if this starts to become evident in incurva as one moves further west but have not yet been able to examine plants from outside our region.

Posted by mhough almost 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb

does anyone know why these two 'species' that smoothly intergrade like that are not subspecies? do people just classify all subspecies as species now?

Posted by charlie almost 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb

That's a reasonable question. As mhough and I were discussing today, he said it might be a case very similar to the Nymphaea odorata complex.

Posted by mattyoung almost 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb

i feel like a large portion of newly split out species are things that could easily be covered in subspecies or have been in the past, it's not to pick specifically on this one. But the nice thing about subspecies is it gives you the option to go to species level instead if you can't tell, an option that goes away when these sorts of things are species.

Posted by charlie almost 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb

A stepwise approach of some sort might be prudent and warranted. I get very queasy just using locations to assign species rank here, at least when your close to areas where overlap likely occurs.

Posted by mattyoung almost 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb

true

Posted by charlie almost 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb

To be fair we've been looking at these plants in an area where the two ranges essentially meet. I am still open to the possibility that at the extremes of their ranges the plants can look quite different. Some species are known to intergrade and have been treated in various ways by various authors. An example would be Nymphaea odorata and N. tuberosa which intergrade in the Great Lakes region and possibly elsewhere. Some authors treat them as different species, others as subspecies, and a few even as a single species. Flora of North America went the subspecies route and that was probably the most sensible compromise. But that was kind of the point of my post, that cernua and incurva may need a little time to be sorted out. How this would work for this site is an open question. On the one hand you want people out there taking a stab at identifying them and seeing if the species as described can be identified reliably in the field (or perhaps devise a better means of describing them). On the other there is the question of whether or not this site is a useful means to accomplish this goal.

Posted by mhough almost 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb

True. Yeah, could be that cernua in Georgia looks like cernua and incurva in Michigan looks like incurva. In some locations in between there's some intergrades.

Posted by mattyoung almost 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb

hmm, and yeah if they are distinguishable via photo iNaturalist is a really good way to tease that out, too...

Posted by charlie almost 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb

I am still trying to convince myself that could be the case with incurva/cernua but am not there yet. I feel quite confident that arcisepala is easy to ID via photo provided the picture is reasonably good.

Posted by mhough almost 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb

How much contemporary "splitting" is due to new advances in genetic research vs. field work? Reading over Pace's paper, it seems like he's going deeper than just (admittedly very close and often overlapping) field characteristics in this particular speciation decision.

Posted by hlpgtf almost 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb

Yeah, I'm trying to stay open about this since It does look like as you move west the plants take on a more classic "incurva" look. We've seen plenty of plants even in upstate NY that appear to be solid incurva across most traits. The lines appear to blur more and more as you get closer to the area of contact though.

Posted by mattyoung almost 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb

True, however we noticed that the samples used in the phylogenetic analysis that fell out as incurva were from WI, OH, IL, Ontario, and VT. That is why we're thinking incurva may be more distinct in those regions. Also the genetics show evidence that incurva resulted from hybridization of cernua with magnicamporum but wouldn't introgression also show something similar?

Posted by mhough almost 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb

Well, part of my question is, should we change things from subspecies to species due to genetics without there being outward differences? If so, how the heck do we deal with it from an applied standpoint? Not just iNaturalist but all applied ecology ever. There are probably millions of cryptic plant 'species' with no discernible outward difference at all. Trying to classify cryptic species without some mitigatingmeasures... will not only make inaturalist impossible to use but would literally cripple all applied ecology and management to the point where you'd hvae to either ignore or heavily tweak the new taxonomy (which if done in an unofficial way won't be consistent between people, runing data sharing) or else just stop monitoring at all, which would be a disaster. I think peple get really caught up in their silos (not about anyone here in particular, but all scientists really). Species are a human construct, for our use. The plant doesn't care. Is classifying these cryptic species worth literally giving up on all monitoring and thus conservation work, resulting in a bunch of them going extinct? it seems reallyodd to argue yes.

Posted by charlie almost 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb

I'm generally fine with the splitting based on the new advances in genetic research as long as there's at least one solid, good, discernible outwardly expressed characteristic to go on.....and that IMO is actually a very low threshold to use (1 characteristic). With ochrolueca and magnicamporum you have 5-6 good characteristics, with arcisepala the lateral sepal is huge, and then there's another 2-3 supporting characteristics -- To the keen observer that one is identifiable the vast majority of the time. There's definitively "incurva" that looks good too, but there's definitely places where you scratch your head with incurva/cernua. Using a slash (i.e. incurva/cernua) to show where the introgression appears to be the strongest, and the "defining" traits a good bit less than clear, would perhaps be a solid compromise.

Posted by mattyoung almost 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb

That line of S. cernua s.s. and S. incurva that is stark/clearcut in Figure 14 of Pace & Cameron 2017 will by necessity be a bit blurry on iNaturalist since the lowest area we can define atlases by in iNat is county. We could make it a bit blurrier if we wanted, but would need some reference for doing so. As mentioned above, "slash taxa" like Spiranthes incurva/cernua haven't been previously accepted on iNaturalist, so that would have to be discussed on the Google Group. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/inaturalist

All the links to the draft atlases (rough range maps) for this proposed split are here:
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_splits/71331

Posted by bouteloua almost 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb

I'm a big supporter of the slash taxa. Given that we can't do much on iNat to stop the splitters (and many here agree with them) it would be a way to keep the integrity and usefulness of this database for multiple user groups while also allowing the split taxa to be tracked.

The admin were very hesitant in the past though, i'm not sure why. I think maybe if more people spoke up on why this is important, we might be able to convince them?

Thanks for all your work on this cassi

Posted by charlie almost 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb

Actually Scott did hint that slash spp. might be fine if they're actually monophyletic groups,[1] I would think we would just want some additional community buy-in before doing it. Maybe a journal post on the Working Group and a mention on the Google Group (directing discussion to occur on that journal post)?

Scott said,

One edge case here with the current system is that if there was a taxonomic grouping between genus and species that was some clade with 2 species in it Selasphorus rufus & Selasphorus sasin one could argue that you could create such a taxon and graft it below Selasphorus and above the Selasphorus species. (this is the same sort of argument behind subclades like 'Subgenera' and 'Subfamilies'). This, at least wouldn't break things like the Community ID. But people would have to back up that the taxon (Selasphorus rufus+ Selasphorus sasin) is a natural grouping phylogenetically speaking to justify such a group. But beyond that my personal opinion is that there's a cost associated with all these subclades in terms of making navigating the tree more confusing and difficult to curate so I would hope people would balance those costs against any perceived benefit which aren't totally clear (whats the marginal gain over having these observations sit at some super-species clade rather than just at the Genus Selasphorus?). This might warrant a separate thread on the cost/benefits of maintaining all sorts of subclades in the taxonomic tree (see discussion on Sections here https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/inaturalist/mPn2PLBaNK4/t15LoxEUAgAJ)
Posted by bouteloua almost 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb

So given Rufous and Allen's Hummingbird are monophyletic you could use the slash and set up the hierarchy as:

Selasphorus Sp.
Rufous/Allen's Hummingbird
Rufous Hummingbird
Allen's Hummingbird

Sounds like this really couldn't be applied to cernua/incurva with the current thinking though.....

Posted by mattyoung almost 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb

@bouteloua thanks, that makes sense. I don't have time to do a big writeup for the journal now but can later (in the next day or two) if no one else gets to it first. Or we could go to Google Group if that's better.

I don't really understand what possible downside Scott is seeing there, i guess they just want to reduce complication but taxonomy is really complicated and trying to jam stuff up to genus when you know it between two species seems way worse (except in cases where there are very few species in the genus maybe).

Posted by charlie almost 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb

@samuelbrinker says,
"I see the taxa have been prepared but not committed. Could the new taxa at least be made active (without swapping yet?). We no longer recognize Spiranthes cernua as occurring in Ontario with recent the taxonomic split, so it would be nice to start using the proper name, S. incurva."
(just moving your comment to the discussion here)

Posted by bouteloua almost 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb

We've done a first pass through all the "cernua" and "Spiranthes" records and ~20% can be assigned to a species with a high level of confidence. We came up with 45 cernua s.s. and 111 incurva out of 750-800 records. S. arcisepala is much more straight-forward though. And there's overlap, at least when phenotypically identified, in ranges of the species.

Posted by mattyoung almost 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb

Any updates on the status of this taxon split?

Posted by hlpgtf about 1 year ago (Flag)
Thumb

IMO it would be good to have S. arcisepala added since it seems to be fairly straightforward to ID from photographs and from what I have seen on inaturalist it has a range that extends far outside what was originally published. With the blooming season just getting underway it would be nice to get people out there looking for it.

I have less confidence that S. incurva will be identified morphologically and that observations will end up being changed based on geography, which could lead to more confusion.

I don't feel strongly one way or another regarding S. x kapnosperia and S. niklasii since they are so limited in distribution. Since the former is a hybrid that was suspected by previous botanists it is not really a new concept, just a new name.

Posted by mhough about 1 year ago (Flag)
Thumb

My notes say the following info is required before any taxon change can be committed:

S. cernua sensu stricto - waiting for shapefile from Matthew; need to refine @matthewpace
S. arcisepala - waiting for shapefile from Matthew so that the atlas can be created
S. incurva - waiting for shapefile from Matthew; need to refine

QC the atlases, then

Commit swap

Move other taxa under new complex S. cernua taxon https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/931407-Spiranthes-cernua — we need a list of these taxa (@matthewpace?)

Posted by bouteloua about 1 year ago (Flag)
Thumb

@matthewpace any chance you can email me this GIS data and confirm the complete list of species that falls under a S. cernua species complex?

Posted by bouteloua 11 months ago (Flag)
Thumb

Taxon split committed, now in the process of transferring IDs, many of which will be to the species complex taxon due to range overlaps: https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/931407-Spiranthes-cernua

Posted by bouteloua 8 months ago (Flag)
Thumb

This is exciting! Thanks for all your work on this @bouteloua.

Posted by arethusa 8 months ago (Flag)
Thumb

Sorry for the delay! The range maps in the atlases are pretty coarse so there will be a lot at rank=species complex

Posted by bouteloua 8 months ago (Flag)
Thumb

Thanks!!

Posted by hlpgtf 8 months ago (Flag)
Thumb

Yes, I noticed that after making some of my first IDs. Is there any way I can filter out observations that are at the species level without just including the entire genus? There doesn't appear to be a filter option for species complexes.

Posted by arethusa 8 months ago (Flag)

Add a Comment

Sign In or Sign Up to add comments