Flag for Taxon: Hairy Beggarticks (Bidens pilosa)
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| durling | Hairy Beggarticks (Bidens pilosa) |
Distinction between B. piles and B. alba. See comments. |
May. 7, 2019 18:47:55 +0000 | bouteloua |
committed taxon change |
Comments
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes?taxon_id=50203
The rival taxonomies are certainly frustrating. I have chosen to ID based on iNat’s preference as noted above until consensus is reached or iNat changes its preference.
https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/inaturalist-vascular-plant-working-group/journal/18353
According to the above posting, iNat previously used The Plant List as the tie breaker for resolving rival taxonomies on the site. However, as of last August they made a change to using Plants of the World online as the default.
The merger of B. alba into B. pilosa appears to have been made based on the previous default to The Plant List. It would then seem that a change should be made to split based on the new default authority.
@loarie With over 6600 observations impacted, this seems like a good candidate for you to weigh in on.
ryan that post is a bit old - iNat now uses the TaxonFramework system
https://www.inaturalist.org/pages/taxon_frameworks
for describing external sources and managing deviations
For vascular plants, POWO is the external source:
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/211194/taxonomy_details
but disruptive changes should be discussed first and we can always deviate from POWO.
Nevertheless, there appears to be a problem with Bidens pilosa. It appears that POWO and the Plant List do not agree on its taxonomy. Images and ranges for these species in POWO indicate that many of the species identified as Bidens pilosa should be identified as Bidens alba. Also, note that Bidens pilosa var. alba (https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/556858-Bidens-pilosa-alba) does not appear in POWO and the Plant List. Bidens pilosa var. albus is listed as synonymous with Bidens alba.
As @ryancooke pointed out, it appears that Bidens alba was lumped into B. pilosa back in 2017 based on The Plant List. @japlaca
The question here is, what authority do we want to align with?
Clinging in.
In Mexico, CONABIO chooses to maintain the Bidens pilosa complex as separate species:
B. alba: Up to 8 ligules that are notably longer than wide. Relatively short external (green) bracts. See http://www.conabio.gob.mx/malezasdemexico/asteraceae/bidens-alba/fichas/ficha.htm
B. pilosa: Absent or reduced ligules. At least some fruits with three awns instead of two. See http://www.conabio.gob.mx/malezasdemexico/asteraceae/bidens-pilosa/fichas/ficha.htm
B. odorata: 5 ligules that are barely longer than wide. Longer external bracts. See http://www.conabio.gob.mx/malezasdemexico/asteraceae/bidens-odorata/fichas/ficha.htm
See also: http://www1.inecol.edu.mx/publicaciones/resumeness/ABM/ABM.32.1995/acta32(85-89).pdf
At present one cannot identify a plant in iNaturalist as Bidens alba, iNaturalist will automatically submerge a Bidens alba identification in Bidens pilosa. PoWO has these as distinct species. PoWO is the authority, these should be split, although how to handle the split escapes me as the introduced ranges include the other species.
http://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:184711-1
http://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:32564-2
If nothing else, Bidens alba should be resurrected so that plants can be identified to Bidens alba. For now perhaps the only option is to ID to Bidens pilosa ssp. alba.
Hi there,
I recently made some new observations of this Spanish needle species in Broward County, Florida, USA.
Noting the problems with the species classification, I've for now just listed them under the "Bidens" genus.
Has there been any update on this issue?
Bidens alba has now been added to POWO, so I've added it to our collection.http://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:184711-1
Soooo... Gotta change all false Bidens pilosa swaps back to Bidens alba. :-/
@kitty12 before Bidens alba is activated, a taxon split should be drafted for Bidens pilosa split into a new Bidens pilosa taxon + Bidens alba (and any other species formerly considered part of it on iNat).
Yikes - it looks like a lot of stuff has already been added.
Sorry if that was done too precipitously.
With over 12,000 observations this is going to be one of those disruptive changes @loarie mentioned above. Are they all going to be dumped back into Bidens for people to sort from there?
if B. pilosa (sensu lato) is split and there's no way to separate observations of B. pelosa (sensu tricot) and B. alba by range (ie atlases), then yes they will all get rolled back to Bidens and have to be manually re ID'd to species.
Range is overlapping, so we'll have to organize an ID-swapping marathon or something.
yep, after the split
okey dokey, guess I'll do it.
@loarie, when you get a chance can you take a look at this and hit commit when it makes sense to as far as affecting the iNat infrastructure? https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/85807
(see other flag I just made for B. odorata: https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/512666)
Sounds great. I'll definitely help with the ID-swapping marathon when/if needed.
I suspect I can only help for those few observations on Pohnpei where we have herbarium sheets to back up our identifications.
Hello everybody. Have it an overlap of this two species in South America?
Here in SE Asai Bidens sp is a common and major invasive species. My understanding is that the majority of it here is B. pilosa not B. alba, but if anyone has better info it would be appreciated.
According to the Atlas of Florida Plants, B. pilosa does occur as an introduced species here in Florida, USA: https://florida.plantatlas.usf.edu/plant.aspx?id=1988. Yet, every B. pilosa observation in FL was changed to B. alba. I fully support the move to change Florida observations of B. pilosa to B. alba, but I question whether B. pilosa has truly not made it to FL. I would greatly appreciate any input on this!
@jayhorn - Can you confirm or deny that B. pilosa is present in FL?
re Asia, from the Nov 2020 Kong Kong bioblitz, I got the impression that much of the Bidens being id'd as pilosa there were maybe alba instead; herbarium ref https://www.herbarium.gov.hk/Search_Form.aspx appears consistent with that?
Yes, much of the Asia B. pilosa was actualy B. alba.
Weren't both B. pilosa and alba already existing as separate taxa on iNat? I'm not sure why this taxon adjustment was needed if so.
@lotteryd - according to that link both B. pilosa and B. alba are widely naturalized in the region.
B. pilosa: Locality: Naturalized and widely distributed in Hong Kong. H. C. Tang 2357; Y. S. Lau 85; S. Y. Hu 5293 (CUHK).
Distribution: S to C, E to SW China; widely distributed in Asia and tropical America.B. alba: Locality: Naturalized and widely distributed in Hong Kong. Y. S. Lau 3191; Y. W. Lam 21.; S. Y. Hu & Y. C. Kong 050 (CUHK).
Distribution: Native to tropical America, widely naturalized in the tropics.
The CABI database indicates that B. pilosa has a wider distribution.
B. alba: https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/119783#tosummaryOfInvasiveness
B. pilosa: https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/9148#tosummaryOfInvasiveness
It appears that there is some confusion between B. pilosa and B. alba. Images and ranges for these species according to POWO and Atlas of Florida Plants indicate that many of the species identified as B. pilosa should be identified as B. alba.
B. pilosa
http://www.florida.plantatlas.usf.edu/Plant.aspx?id=1988
http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:32564-2
B. alba
http://www.florida.plantatlas.usf.edu/Plant.aspx?id=3604
http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:184711-1