Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
bouteloua | loarie | crisped pincushion (Ulota crispa) |
overconfident computer vision suggestion? |
Jan. 18, 2019 18:51:04 +0000 | Not Resolved |
Just to save some work, in case it was not clear which observations Cassi is referring to, i assume she means the ones in western North America or going down into Central America.
The species is found natively in northern Europe, I've seen it myself there when living there, so those records should be fine (or at least not guaranteed to be inaccurate based on range).
I recently had a discussion with Bill Buck, retired curator of bryophytes at NYBG, about U. crispa complex. Rather than go into details of that discussion, I share with you a recently published paper that provides some clarity to this suite of species. Take home message is that there is no U. crispa in eastern NA, but we do have U. crispula and U. intermedia, while western NA has U. crispa and U. intermedia.
https://academic.oup.com/botlinnean/article/180/4/427/2416569
iNat's current "authority" for North America has only the species below accepted. Unlike vascular plants, we don't yet have a "process" for deviating from this. If we do, we should probably atlas the existing taxa and draft a split before any new species are active/available on iNat.
Ulota barclayi
Ulota coarctata
Ulota crispa
Ulota curvifolia
Ulota drummondii
Ulota hutchinsiae
Ulota megalospora
Ulota obtusiuscula
Ulota phyllantha
Thanks @mossman2000 for noting the Caparros et al. article. I went through my observations of U. crispa that included leaf microscopy and (provided that the leaf base shape is sufficiently diagnostic on it's own) was able to differentiate both U. crispula and U. intermedia in two entries. I wouldn't say they appeared particularly different in terms of leaf crispiness, but mature sporophytes are probably necessary for confirmation anyways. As Will mentioned the vast majority of U. crispa entries should be placed in Ulota or Orthotrichaceae either way.
This split is a shame since "U. crispa" is/was fairly field identifiable as bryos go and is super common in some areas. I suppose phylogenetic accuracy is more important than field-identifiability, but still I lament.
ulota crispa does in fact exists west of mississippii, it is quite common in the pacific northwest but definately not seen in soutehrn california. the consortium states no collectiosn in northern california but i suspect its probibly there sporadically and then nothing for the rest of California. i used to see all the time in oregon and washington
From Flora of North America:
http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=200001670
Can some folks who are moss-literate take a look at the observations that fall outside of its known range?
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?&taxon_id=170060&verifiable=any
@seanhaughian @srall @wdvanhem @erikamitchell @mossman2000 @leannewallis