Content Author Object Flagger Flag Created Reason Resolved by Resolution
dwarf bayberry (Morella pumila) williammcfarland Mon, 08 Apr 2019 16:57:20 +0000

Listed as a synonym of Morella cerifera in POWO. Should we deviate from POWO?

williammcfarland

For now, it appears that Morella pumila will be maintained in iNaturalist as a deviation from Plants of the World Online

Comments

Thumb

@edwinbridges @jayhorn @adiamond @jkspooner In your opinion, should Morella pumila be maintained as a deviation from Plants of the World Online? Opinions are welcome.

Posted by williammcfarland over 1 year ago (Flag)
Thumb

I think it is distinct. However a lot of observations and collections of this species are really just sprouts from Morella cerifera.

Posted by adiamond over 1 year ago (Flag)
Thumb

so ok to lump into M. cerifera?

Posted by loarie over 1 year ago (Flag)
Thumb

@loarie I don't think it has been decided yet. We may decide to keep it as its own species, and thereby deviate from Plants of the World Online.

Posted by williammcfarland over 1 year ago (Flag)
Thumb

@loarie Personally, I agree with @adiamond and think that it should be maintained as its own species, but I was hoping others would comment.

Posted by williammcfarland over 1 year ago (Flag)
Thumb

So far opinion seems to be leaning toward a deviation, so to move discussion along I added the appropriate Taxon Framework Relationship at https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_framework_relationships/332027

Posted by jdmore over 1 year ago (Flag)
Thumb

@jdmore Thanks! @janetwright @heathersullivan2 @whiteoak @norm_shea @cosmiccat @txlorax @marykeim Do you guys have an opinion about this taxon?

Posted by williammcfarland over 1 year ago (Flag)
Thumb

I don't have an opinion; I'll go with whatever you all decide.

Posted by janetwright over 1 year ago (Flag)
Thumb

All I can add is that USF's plant atlas says: "The xeric form with smaller leaves is sometimes recognized as M. pumila, but the seeming intergradation with typical M. cerifera has so far favored the recognition of one variable species in the group, M. cerifera s.l. (Thieret 1966; Wilbur 1994; Ward 2000)."
from - http://www.florida.plantatlas.usf.edu/Plant.aspx?id=3942

Posted by marykeim over 1 year ago (Flag)
Thumb

So now POWO has moved this to Myrica cerifera (http://plantsoftheworldonline.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:166220-2). Currently in iNat as a deviation (https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_framework_relationships/332027).

Are we leaving it this way? Should we be calling it Myrica pumila instead?

Posted by jdmore about 1 year ago (Flag)
Thumb

I think that for now, Morella is the preferred treatment of this group by most sources, unless new information about its taxonomy has come to light. As far as treating this taxon in Myrica, I am not sure on that score. Weakley's Flora of the Southern and Mid-Atlantic States lists Myrica pusilla and Myrica cerifera var. pumila in the synonymy of Morella pumila, but it doesn't list Myrica pumila as a synonym. If we maintain it as a distinct species and shift Morella back into Myrica, I think(?) that Myrica pusilla would be the correct name. For my part, I would leave it the way it is.

Posted by williammcfarland about 1 year ago (Flag)
Thumb

The bibliography used for POWO's circumscription of Myrica cerifera is here:
http://plantsoftheworldonline.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:166220-2#bibliography

Two separate questions that need to be addressed:

Should genus Morella be kept separate from Genus Myrica? (sounds like you are in the Morella camp)
Should species M. pumila/pusilla be kept separate from M. cerifera? (sounds like you are in the separate camp, but there is mixed opinion on that so far)

We are currently set up to deviate and leave as-is in iNaturalist. Other opinions?

Posted by jdmore about 1 year ago (Flag)

Add a Comment

Sign In or Sign Up to add comments