Flag for Taxon: bushmallows (Genus Malacothamnus)
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| bouteloua | bushmallows (Genus Malacothamnus) |
some species are lumped in Plants of the World Online; please discuss before swapping |
Jan. 16, 2019 20:56:26 +0000 | bouteloua |
deviations entered for now |
Comments
Keir - few if anyone know more about this genus than you and Tom, so I'm inclined to resolve this flag for the time being unless you have any current updates.
If the goal is the status quo on iNat, you would need to establish deviations from POWO before the flag can be closed.
I'm not sure there is a status quo for plant and some other taxonomy (on iNat or otherwise) due to the fragmentation of authority and constant taxonomic flux. I just saw a two-year-old flag sitting out there that probably has no true end resolution in sight...perhaps not ever. Perhaps Keir can shed some light on this at least within Malacothamnus.
All or most taxa in the genus will probably be resolved in the next couple years and then many will probably deviate from POWO for a few years until they can get things updated. I'm currently writing up the morphological analyses for the full genus. After that I'll do the DNA analyses and a new treatment. The current taxa on iNaturalist are mostly confirmed by the morphological analyses, though a couple are currently missing from iNat and some definitely need further clarification with DNA. I think I have all deviations to POWO flagged on the taxa, so maybe not necessary for the genus? I guess having the genus flagged is one more thing to get peoples attention before they lump taxa and making a big mess. I think I had to fix one lumped species but otherwise people have left it alone.
It's convoluted, but each species on iNaturalist needs to be part of a taxon framework relationship to map how it compares to Plants of the World Online. For example M. abbotti here: https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/77926/taxonomy_details shows that it is a 1:1 match to a taxon on POWO.
But M. arcuatus has no match to POWO. https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/181517/taxonomy_details
On POWO M. arcuatus is listed as a synonym of M. fasciculatus: http://powo.science.kew.org/?q=Malacothamnus%20arcuatus
so you would go to the M. fasciculatus taxon framework relationship, edit it, and and add M. arcuatus to it under the "Internal taxa": https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/57137/taxonomy_details
So, does that mean I need to do anything? M. abbottii has never been lumped in other taxa, so it is easy. M. arcuatus is flagged as a deviation from POWO. It was lumped in M. fasciculatus in the Flora of North America treatment and is completely unrecognized in the current Jepson treatment whose author thought the specimens fit in about 7 other species. It's a listed rare plant in California and is morphologically, phylogenetically, and geographically distinct from all other species in the genus. So, connecting M. arcuatus to M. fasciculatus at all is something we definitely want to avoid as that would just create a giant mess that will need to be put back to the way it now is in a year or so. It will be shown as distinct in my next paper. M. arcuatus follows the taxon framework of Kearney which was mostly followed by Munz which is mostly followed by CNPS who lists the rare taxa in California. Sounds like the genus definitely needs to be flagged as a deviation from POWO unless only its position and not the taxa under it matter. Does the genus perhaps need a referenced taxon framework other than POWO then? Or do the individual taxa under the genus? Looking at M. arcuatus, it's source is currently Calflora, which mostly follows CNPS in regards to rare taxa not recognized by Jepson.
A deviation is created by ensuring the taxon is part of a taxon framework relationship, which maps the differences between iNaturalist and Plants of the Word Online. Flags play no role/do not establish a deviation, but can serve as useful places to discuss deviations. More info at the link above https://www.inaturalist.org/pages/curator+guide#frameworks after reading through please let me know if you still have specific questions
Does this look right? If so, I'll do the same for the rest.
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_framework_relationships/254036
There's one variety of M. fasciculatus missing from iNat that is also missing from Calflora but it seems possibly best to ignore that until I sort it out. It's generally considered lumped under M. f. var fasciculatus at the moment, so maybe I should add it as a synonym to split back out later. Though maybe it is easier to just add it later at whatever rank I end up recognizing it at.
That looks correct! Thanks : )
Okay, I updated for all Malacothamnus. Thanks for showing me what should be done. Definitely convoluted to a beginner but makes sense now, I think.
For sure confusing. I think the end result is a pretty useful little reference to show the differences in taxonomy - thanks for that!
Yeah, I've seen similar diagrams in some papers. It illustrates the differences nicely.
Nice work Keir
Taxonomy in this genus currently follows three conflicting treatments: CNPS (Kearney), Jepson 2nd Edition, and Flora of North America. I am currently working on resolving the taxonomy with molecular and morphological approaches. In the meantime, I am following the most conservative treatment (Kearney) which is mostly followed by CNPS. This treatment best fits my current hypothesis on taxon delimitation and retains CNPS listed rare taxa that the other treatments lump.