Created Object Flagger Reason Resolved by Resolve Comment
Fri, 01 Feb 2019 13:49:46 +0000 Complex Chrysoperla carnea-group bouteloua

remove -group from name

Not Resolved

Comments

Thumb

@jonathan142 I think the complex name is *just* supposed to be the oldest species name, not with any additional qualifiers. @loarie?

Posted by bouteloua 8 months ago (Flag)
Thumb

thats what @tonyrebelo suggested - I don't have strong feelings. I can see by listing out the names of 10 species is intractable, but its also less immediately clear from the name whats in the complex when its just one name

But yes, under current policy lets go with just the oldest name for the scientific name and something more elaborate for the common name

Posted by loarie 8 months ago (Flag)
Thumb

(( can someone please flag a request. This
Flags
astrobirder flagged A taxon because of: The species name is propinqua on BugGuide and MPG
0 sandralamberts flagged A taxon because of: Please add Plusiodonta calcaurea
0 sandralamberts flagged A taxon because of: please add: Eublemma crassiuscula
0 bouteloua flagged A taxon because of: will be lumped back into Hypericum in POWO
1 bouteloua flagged A taxon because of: remove -group from name

Can the flags please not give the name of the taxon, instead of "A taxon"
For instance this one was

1 bouteloua flagged A taxon because of: remove -group from name

How do I know if this is a Proteaceae that I can help with, or some other plant group that I am unable to help?
I am not going to spend my days opening hundreds of flags to see which ones are of taxa that I can help with.
If the actual taxon was given then I would be able see those that I could assist, might assist, or are not interested in.

Sorry for hijacking this flag, but the community forum is far away.

Ta
T))

Posted by tonyrebelo 8 months ago (Flag)
Thumb

Co-incidence!!
I did not realize that I was flagged on this one.

I dont think it will work to have
Erica
Erica pinea
Erica pinea
as genus, complex and species. It will cause confusion.
Where complexes do not have scientific names (e.g. superspecies) it makes sense to add "aggregate" or "complex" or "group" to the 'scientific name'. This also establishes them as not a formal scientific name (unless of course it is a formal, non-scientific group).
The common name would be good place to list all the constituent species in the group.
e.g.
Erica - Heaths
Erica pinea group - Eria pinea-grandiflora-aurea group
Erica pinea - Gold Heath
or
Rubus
Rubus fruticosus agg.
Rubus fruticosus

Sorry, if I mislead, but I agree that the oldest name should be used, but not without a qualifier ...

Posted by tonyrebelo 8 months ago (Flag)
Thumb

Rather than having curators enter in "group" "aggregate" or "complex" "-group" -"aggregate" "-complex" "species complex" "-species complex" "cryptic species" "superspecies" "swarm" "species swarm" "-superspecies" "-cryptic species" etc (nightmare of standardization) it would preferably display automatically as:
-Chrysoperla carnea complex
-Erica pinea complex
-Rubus fruticosus complex

It's already doing this, just backwards—Complex Chrysoperla carnea, so Complex Chrysoperla carnea-group is redundant.

Posted by bouteloua 8 months ago (Flag)
Thumb

But that requires changing the programming.
As I understand it this will not be a common occurrence: a few hundred cases across the entire system.
Why not let the user add the type of complex?

Posted by tonyrebelo 8 months ago (Flag)
Thumb

I'd prefer that we not program special formatting (e.g. order of the rank relative to the name) for this niche case. I'd also like the name to be standardized, but I don't have strong feelings if its just the oldest name within the complex or otherwise decorated. I agree though, going to be a nightmare to enforce the standardization

Posted by loarie 8 months ago (Flag)
Thumb

I’m fine changing this to whatever name is deemed best (there are few enough complexes that finding an established format wasn’t possible). I’d also want this to be a thought-out decision.

However, I would have qualms if we just used the primary species name and nothing more as that would always result in scientific name duplication. Cryptic species complexes already have issues in identification, and that will be especially confusing for those who use iNat mobile. For comparison, there are already some (minor) issues with nominate subgenera since we don’t use the typical parenthetical format.

In the literature, almost every complex does have a standardized form (at least in entomology). It also normally isn’t acceptable to refer to the complex by name alone (i.e. Chrysoperla carnea). There’s generally a most-used format (here Chrysoperla carnea-group; it’s use is well above other designations). Also, wouldn’t the Complex designation simply be considered the rank, as with all other taxa, and not part of the name? If standardization is done (which is probably a good idea), it really would be best to do so with awareness to how they’re used in the literature as opposed to blind standardization.

Regarding common names... I’ll just note that the present complex has at least 15 constituents in the literature (some are not formally named, and I want to say some were resurrected from synonymy since that count). I really don’t think anyone wants every one of those to be listed in a common name. Again, reason to avoid blind standardization.

Posted by jonathan142 8 months ago (Flag)
Thumb

I'm with Johnathan on this point. I'd rather go with the commonly used/literature-based names for species complexes rather than some arbitrary standardization. I also agree with Cassi's comment; having "Complex..." at the beginning of these taxa is awkward.

Posted by myelaphus 4 months ago (Flag)

Add a Comment

Sign In or Sign Up to add comments