Flag for Taxon: Eastern Beach Pricklypear (Opuntia macrarthra)
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| bouteloua | Eastern Beach Pricklypear (Opuntia macrarthra) |
synonym of Opuntia mesacantha subsp. lata (Small) Majure in POWO |
Jan. 25, 2019 14:26:15 +0000 | Not Resolved |
Comments
Sorry, I was unaware of the transition to POWO as the overall taxonomic authority, mistakenly thinking Weakley's was the authority for the southeastern United States.
To summarize the paper linked by cactus-d, Majure et al. 2017 "Taxonomic revision of the Opuntia humifusa complex (Opuntieae: Cactaceae) of the eastern United States" also treats O. macrarthra as a synonym of O. mesacantha subsp. lata.
7b. Opuntia mesacantha subsp. lata (Small) Majure, Phytoneuron 106: 1. 2014 (Fig. 15). ≡ Opuntia lata Small (1919: 26). Type:—UNITED STATES. Florida: [Alachua Co.,] pine-woods, 12 mi west of Gainesville, 13 December 1917, Small s.n. (holotype NY-00385985!, image available at http://sweetgum.nybg.org/science/vh/specimen_details.php?irn=649536)
=Opuntia macrarthra Gibbes (1859: 273). Neotype (designated by Majure 2014: 2):—UNITED STATES. South Carolina: within a few miles of Charleston (presumably destroyed in the US Civil War), South Carolina: Charleston Co., Isle of Palms, near Charleston, 14 Feb 1916, J.K. Small s.n. (US-00292752!, image available at http://collections.nmnh.si.edu/search/botany/; isoneotypes NY! US-00240569!, image of the US specimen available at http://collections.nmnh.si.edu/search/botany/)
good observation!
OK - here goes. I'm not entirely sure how best to approach this. This is rather uncomfortable for me. This is going to take more than one message for sure. I apologize for any redundancies, but I'm getting sort of sleepy now, and I'm not going to try and make it perfect.
I find this whole campaign to suppress use of names rather bizarre, at least it feels like that's what is going on. What is the point of trying to deny that something exists? I also find the whole methodology used here to be rather distasteful and unprofessional. I also don't appreciate incorrect statements such as those declaring that a valid, established, and correct name doesn't exist or isn't valid – the facts need to be straight. Following are some points regarding the discussion and the names. I am going to be blunt in the interest of saving time and space, but my intend is not to offend anybody, and I apologize beforehand if I do. I have been studying and growing Opuntia intently for over 50 years. It has been a life-long passion, and I know the plants in question here almost better than I know myself. I would rather share and exchange that knowledge, and to learn more from others in a positive interaction, than to debate and argue over silly semantics. However, I will not identify things incorrectly just to bow to pressure or to some false sense of "correctness" either. And, I can argue semantics when it becomes necessary. I will continue to provide the correct name on identifications (and to mention viable alternatives), and you all can choose to change them to something else if you so decide, but they will be recorded for people to look at this way too. If I do make an error (a real one), I'll be the first to admit it, and hopefully to fix it.
First, I agree, this got rather disjointed and was pushing being inappropriate under the species observations. I will be glad to delete some of my comments from the observations of this species, where clearly they are cumbersome and unnecessary, but I will leave the correct name suggestions on those posts as well. I will transfer the relevant information into further comments to follow here. I have already provided links to type descriptions, type specimens, and previous treatments for the species O. macrarthra there, but I will add them again here later.
Point one - the treatments cited above are all based on the same and one single study, and thus only really amount to just one citation. They do not provide multiple cases for one nomenclatural treatment but rather derive and copy from only the one study. They are based on the opinion a single graduate student. Lucas Majure does quality, highly professional, and good looking work, but there are issues with certain of the conclusions reached and nomenclatural details in his study; he states himself that certain conclusions are tentative. His study is a progressive step forward in many respects, but there are issues with it, and it should not be considered to be the end all of all ends. It is subject to interpretation and to further study.
Similarly the POW database is just a listing of names. It's purpose is not to be a taxonomic authority. It is a good reference and starting point, but it is a compilation with omissions, errors, and includes certain improper synonymies. There is no authority that dictates what is "law" in botanical taxonomy. There are rules of nomenclature, but they only dictate when a name is considered validly published, how priority is determined, and how the names are published and formed correctly. They have nothing do due with the reality or existence of a population of plants. There are many valid names that are incorrect, and many uses of names that should be considered as correct, and yet that are invalid. I strive to use only botanically correct and valid names, and hope that I am approaching that goal. To state that something is invalid simply because it isn't on some list is close-minded, and not even useful. The study and interaction between botanists furthers knowledge and the science of botany, and only being open minded and exchanging ideas can get us closer to understanding the so-called "real picture". Dictating nomenclature, or declaring one or another listing or flora as the "authority" does not and can not work. Such a database or publication can be used as a base-line, and a starting point, but it cannot be used to say something is wrong simply because it says something different.
Point two - Lucas made some questionable, and perhaps illegal nomenclatural changes in resurrecting two nomen dubia [O. cespitosa and O. mesacantha]. He provided them with new and re-definied identities, new type specimens, but did not make a case for why the names apply, and why he used them as he did. There is nothing in the brief original descriptions of these names that allows them to be identified, to be distinguished from one another, nor from any number of similar species; there are no illustrations; there is no type locality for either; there is no type specimen for either; and they have in past been considered as undefinable and discarded. The identities intended by the original author cannot be defined, unless his specimens can be located, and this is not likely to happen. They can only be guessed at on the basis the rather broad and basically same regions mentioned in their original descriptions.
Since there is no provable link to the originally described concept for the names, the new usages may be considered as newly published later homonyms and deemed invalid. This is not necessarily so, but this has happened many times before, and there is precedent. Also, one of these names, if allowed to stand will have to displace a long-accepted and used name - O. macrorhiza, which is the same species as represented by Majure's concept of Opuntia cespitosa. However, it is the name "mesacantha" that has direct bearing on O. macrarthra as being discussed here.
Point three - Certain significantly distinct taxa are lumped (apparently with some hesitation). Majure lumps O. macrarthra with O. lata. However, these are the two well described and typified names that were described from two states apart. However, they do occur sympatrically in southern Georgia and northern Florida, where they maintain their distinction from one-another. They are clearly and easily distinguished and occur side by next in habitat. O. lata is a basically prostrate non-woody plant that shrivels in winter and has many spines. O. macrarthra is twice as large, is semi-woody, does not shrivel in winter, and has few or no spines. They have more differences, but that will suffice for here. He lumps those both as if single variety under the resurrected and perhaps illegal O. mesacantha (in his usage the coastal O. "mesacantha" mostly = O. pollardii). O. pollardii and O. macrarthra are frequently sympatric, are morphologically quite distinct and are easily distinguished; they maintain their distinctions; they have different ploidies, and have offset (but overlapping) flowering periods. He is basically re-defining already named and established species that have been long recognized by people who study Opuntia, by removing from consideration the ample differences which exist between them.
Point four - He uses incorrect names for certain taxa in the region. For instance Opuntia ["stricta"] var. dillenii is listed for the Carolinas, yet it does not even occur naturally there, and is only found there in gardens. He does not treat O. tunoidea as being present at all and only makes passing mention of the name. He apparently includes it somehow under the concept of unrelated O. stricta or O. dillenii. However, O. tunoidea is a well characterized species, and a potentially endangered south coastal endemic, and it is unclear where he considers the plants to belong taxonomically. It is most similar to Gulf Coastal O. bentonii and inland southwestern O. orbiculata.
The name O. macrarthra is a well-defined species that has been treated as such for nearly a century. The fact that some authors have ignored it's existence does not make it go away, and to deny it's distinction is not doing any service to anyone, but is rather creating or at least furthering confusion. These plants should be pointed out and clarified, their distinctions shown, and their existence not denied. I have been studying these plants for many years, and could go on and on with one detail on top of another, but I'll leave the plant discussion portion here.
There is very little useful literature on Opuntia, beyond the original type descriptions, and scattered specialized studies of individual species or groups of species. Regional floras and large treatments of the Cactaceae have invariably fueled confusion, and have rendered proper identification of these plants confused at best and nearly impossible at worst. There is no good reference work or revision of the genus (yet). We can argue and debate, and never reach any conclusion, or we can try to get it as real and accurate as possible. I am willing to help with the second. However, I will not follow incorrect compilations of names, will not accept ridiculous synonymies of totally different plants as if the same, nor blindly follow flawed floristic treatments. I will post the correct name as best I can, so it is available for those who wish to learn about these plants, and I will reference alternate treatments. I will counter when a name that is totally legal and valid is said to be "not valid", because that is misinformation, even if the final usage posted differs from mine. If usage of the names is an issue, and if I understand how iNaturalist works correctly, there should probably be a list of exceptions posted for the genus Opuntia, or perhaps the entire genus Opuntia should be listed as an exception, because there are many such of these names, and Opuntia is a conflicted mess in the literature. In many cases the names will not match up with POW, nor any published flora - no author at POW, and few authors of regional floras have even studied Opuntia, and when they have to treat the genus, the usual procedure is for one author to simply follow another, which simply compounds an already huge mess. The treatment of this genus at POW is just a compilation of names and has no real authority behind what is listed and what is not. It is a thorough, but a flawed compilation, with many errors and many omissions. It is also a huge and valuable resource for information not to be totally ignored either. POW was never intended to dictate what name is valid and what is not. It is only a venue for making information available. Botany does not, and never has operated by decree, it is a science of opinions, disagreements, agreements, discussions, and collaborations. Sometimes it gets confrontational and loud, but it never should, and it does not have to.
I have provided links to most of the relevant type specimens and original descriptions here already for O. macrarthra, but I will add them to this discussion shortly. I will continue to use O. macrarthra as the suggestion for a proper name, because to do so would be a disservice to the taxon in question - in effect pretending that it is not distinct and does not exist – while in fact it is and it does. It also in effect promotes the idea that two very different things are the same, which also promotes confusion. If you all decide to change the names, that is your prerogative, but I think it behooves us to put the information out there for people to be able to use as they see fit.
So, here are some links. First, here are O. macrarthra and O. lata from the same place. However, the O. macrarthra plant is just a little bit of a thing, so I've added another from another place:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/13369889
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/11818895
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/16461526
These are clearly not the same thing, and to lump them together does not help anybody with identifying either.
Here are some involved type specimens, publications, web sites, etc.
Study on Opuntia in coastal South Carolina:
https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3471&context=all_thesesDiscussion of Opuntia macrarthra, with link to type description:
https://www.opuntiads.com/opuntia-macrartha/
Designation of neotype for O. macrarthra:
https://www.phytoneuron.net/2014Phytoneuron/106PhytoN-OpuntiaTypes.pdf
Britton & Rose plate showing pad with fruit:
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/100137#page/121/mode/1up
Britton & Rose plate showing pad with flower:
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/100137#page/181/mode/1up
Britton & Rose entry for the species:
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/100137#page/183/mode/1up
Neotype specimen:
https://learninglab.si.edu/resources/view/1253913#more-info - neotype
Isoneotype specimen:
https://learninglab.si.edu/resources/view/1311879# - isoneotype
Britton & Rose description of O. lata:
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/100137#page/298/mode/1up
Britton & Rose identification key including O. lata and O. macrarthra:
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/100137#page/176/mode/1up
@davidferguson, as I posted in one of the observations but will post here for consistency, my understanding of iNaturalist policy is that there has to be some "authority" or arbiter that manages the names of all the various organisms included here. This ensures that there is only one name per species so all the information, e.g. physical description, range, seasonality, etc., resides in one location, the species page for that organism. If there are multiple scientific names for a single species, information will be diluted and incomplete.
As bouteloua stated, for vascular plants, it’s POWO. It may be flawed, as you suggest, but it is the source that has been selected. You could redirect your efforts at correcting things there, if you think that would be a more effective use of your resources.
I do apologize for my choice of terminology when I stated that your identification was "not a valid species for SC." I should have stated it more clearly and said that it was "not an accepted name in iNaturalist." It doesn't mean that a different botanical name can't be used for a particular species somewhere else, just that in iNaturalist, where there can only be one name per species, POWO is the source for that.
Norm,
Please address the botanical and nomenclural evidence provided instead of worrying over a rule that is in effect a suggestion. And, please actually look at the documentation provided, particularly this one. I find nothing here that states one is required to follow POWO, if one has good reasons not to, just that it is recommended as a standard, and that alternate documentation should be provided if we deviate. You have made this an issue, nobody else, and I can't help wondering what is your motivation. You have ignored comments regarding recent studies of the species, and in fact have not addressed any of the comments or citations regarding the plant itself. This is apparently not about the plant itself?
There was in actuality only one name provided for this taxon on iNturalist, which was imported from an online source, and no disagreement regarding it - until you made it an issue.
The following is the most recent publication that I'm aware of in which O. macrarthra is studied. In this study a great body of evidence is provided, while in Majure's study there is no quantifiable data provided, only a list of characters and a conclusion. The species O. macrarthra (along with others) is examined in great detail here. Apparently this irrelevant to you? You have only commented on the one rule while treating it as a hard line, not upon the case at hand, not upon alternatives, not upon what you might consider botanically. Do you even know this plant? There is no indication from what you have said so far? This seems to be about an issue, and not about a judgement involving the plant at hand.
2016, Kirk Holms, 'Morphological and Ecological Characterization of
Opuntia Miller on the Coast of South Carolina, Kirk Holmes, Clemson University, holmes7https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3471&context=all_theses
Here is some of what the curator's guide actually states:
<<< Note that Taxon Changes represent changes within iNaturalist's taxonomy. While this should approximately mirror the direction of changes implied by the authorities we follow, they don't have to. For example, if Authority A says Vulpes vulpes is valid, but there's a new paper that says we should call the species Supervulpes vulpes and somehow Supervulpes vulpes got added to our taxonomy, it would be ok to make a swap from Supervulpes vulpes to Vulpes vulpes, because Authority A says that's the current name. >>>
<<< While not required, we would like every change to be traced back to some publication or taxonomic authority. The ideal citation would be to the paper that introduced the change, along with a URL to that paper, but since that's often difficult / impossible to find without extensive library research, sourcing the change to a website or database is cool too. Since it's a pain to add a new Source record for every single page, it's often easier to set the Source as the website and include and specific URL to the page on that website that describes the change on the description. The goal is to ensure that anyone who wants to figure out why a particular change was made can trace it back. Keep in mind that the Encyclopedia of Life is not one of our taxonomic authorities! If you must cite them, perhaps because one of our authorities doesn't include an older synonym, please link directly to the relevant content, e.g. http://eol.org/pages/330496/names/synonyms. >>>
And so on.
@davidferguson, I'm not disputing your evidence, in fact the most recent research you reference by Kirk Holmes is very compelling and I agree that these other species likely exist here in SC. The motivation I have for raising this issue is the integrity of iNaturalist. There have to be guidelines for an entity like iNaturalist to function effectively. It is a monumental task to keep nomenclature current for what really represents all living organisms.
It seems like you have now provided the needed documentation for this Opuntia species to be accepted here. That documentation appeared to be lacking when you began your recent identifications and the source I referenced, Weakley’s Flora, did not recognize the species. Admittedly not being familiar with this species of Opuntia but having it never be documented in our area in iNaturalist until 3 days ago, and then suddenly having numerous observations identified as that, gave me concern. It appears that concern was unfounded.
Thank you,
Your concerns are understood. Admittedly, I would likely react similarly.
Hi all,
I'm just tagging in to watch this flag. Because I got scooped in making it for this: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/19069748
I'm of course willing to go with the available long practiced expertise that David can so clearly provide. What names should we keep and delete?
It looks like there has been a bit of back-and-forth about whether this name/taxon is accepted.
*Plants of the World Online treats it as a synonym of Opuntia mesacantha subsp. lata.
*Weakley 2018 lists it as a synonym under both O. mesacantha subsp. lata and O. humifusa
*Majure et al. 2017 lists it as a synonym of O. mescantha subsp. lata (see below)
*It is not included in Flora of North America
As of August 2018, Plants of the World Online is our taxonomic authority for vascular plants on iNat. Following our currently guidelines, we should create a taxon swap merging O. macrarthra into O. mescantha subsp. lata. But, we have latitude to deviate from POWO, with evidence, if it is wrong. And by just reaching out to them via email, they frequently correct inaccuracies in their database too. You can read more about taxonomy on iNaturalist, and the reason we usually defer to taxonomic authorities, here: https://www.inaturalist.org/pages/curator+guide#policies
And as a note, it's better to use this flagging system to discuss taxonomy rather than doing so on individual observations. Doing the latter leads to many scattered conversations, and can lead to excessive notifications for users who aren't at all interested in the conversation.
pinging potentially interested parties: @davidferguson @norm_shea @whiteoak @rpmundo @cactus-d @ug56bdi