Flag for Taxon: Gold Specklebelly Lichen (Crocodia aurata)
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| tonyrebelo | Gold Specklebelly Lichen (Crocodia aurata) |
jurga_li For some time it has been bothering me: on inat and specifically in SA species list there is a lichen going under two names and appearing as two species: Crocodia aurata and Pseudocyphellaria aurata. It is indeed one and it should be Pseudocyph |
May. 20, 2019 07:58:36 +0000 | tonyrebelo |
done - but with Crocodia as the current name |
Comments
I agree that there are two names but I am not sure why Crocodia aurata should be subsumed back into Pseudocyphellaria as the chemistry, morphology and DNA data strongly supports it segregation - and indeed a major split of the currently unwieldy Pseudocyphellaria - I was asked to comment on this, and I do so in haste, because I am away for the next few days in the field. However, when I return I will fish out the literature and provide some contacts in the world's lichenologists who you should discuss this matter with further - the key players are Dr(s) Thorsten Lumbsch, Robert Luecking, Bibiana Moncado, Jack Elix - many of whom are not on iNaturalist. As I work with these people and I am involved in a revision of 'Pseudocyphellaria" in New Zealand with some of them I have seen data sets that are as yet not freely available that also support this generic segregation.
I might add that the late Dr David Galloway who monographed Pseudocyphellaria and Sticta and who was regarded as the world authority on them (consider his numerous papers on the genus) also supported the generic splits, indeed he and Jack Elix published the necessary combinations in Crocodia for those without valid names there and resurrected C. aurata, he also split off Pseudocyphellaria colensoi and P. coronata into a new genus Yarrumia.
iNat is supposed to follow Mycobank, which has it as a synonym.
@jurga_li - any comments.
Can we please have the literature? Why should the name not be changed if both Mycobank and Speciesfungorum suggest that they should be sunk.
Either way, both names are on iNaturalist, and one has to be synonymized: which one? Without any other evidence, we will need to follow Mycobank.
Yes, it seems to be a lot of cautiousness about Crocodia matter among lichenological references. Both Mycobank and Index Fungorum do not accept the name, British Lichen Society is also very cautious about it. In the latest literature this segregation is mostly accepted, but there must be the reason (I do not know it) why two main nomenclature resources are so unwilling to accept. Here on inat, however, the biggest problem is not even which name to choose - the problem is that the system allows same species to occur as two which is very confusing for users, projects' stats, etc.
We really have two issues here.
One is fixing the synonymy. I dont really care which way it goes. In fact, it does not really matter (unless there are two species with the same name, which I doubt). This problem should be fixed. I dont think that there is an issue here. We follow Mycobank.
The other is deciding which name is current. Should it be Crocodia or Pseudocyphellaria? That is merely a matter of opinion or preference: it is the same species, and just the placement is an issue. Why is Mycobank reluctant to change the name: perhaps we should be too?
@loarie - can we have some guidance here please.
There is a duplicate swap on this topic - see here:
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/57651
As to the comment about authorities on lichen genera... Nobody will ever doubt that David Galloway was the greatest authority on Sticta and Pseudocyphellaria, same as Mason Hale was on Parmelia. But look, where are Hale's Namakwa and Xanthomaculina now? Jack Elix and Theodore Esslinger are the greatest authorities on parmelioids. Where are their Neofuscelias now? The reason for the present reluctance to accept this particular split (Crocodia) might stem from the fact that splitting now needs to be very well substantiated by elaborate molecular studies (not just simple sequencing of couple of ITS) with good addition of sound morphological and ecological data. For me, the best example of the new attitude is a recent study from the group of Thorsten Lumbsch (Kraichak et al. 2015) in which seemingly very reasonable splitting of Graphis scripta species was aborted.
I was never a player in the taxonomy of Lobariaceae but there is easily accessible literature (Phylogeny of the Lobariaceae (lichenized Ascomycota: Peltigerales), with a reappraisal of the genus Lobariella) that supports the preservation of Crocodia as well as other previously rejected genera. This is accepted among most sources pertaining to North American lichens at leas including Esslinger’s checklist and the CNALH. I don’t think there is a rule that iNaturalist must adhere to Mycobank, especially when the page is clearly out of date and doesn’t address literature beyond the 1800s. That sound made up. The taxon Crocodia itself on iNaturalist should site more recent sources that do support the switch.
I suggested that Pseudocyphellaria aurata be merged with Crocodia aurata.
Excellent comment Tomas.
As I said before –in the end, it is not so important, which name - Crocodia aurata or Pseudocyphellaria aurata is accepted by inaturalist. Most important –it must be one name for one species. Taxon swap can be always done, as it was done recently for a seemingly good split Dolichousnea.
Another question remains as @tonyrebelo asked indirectly: what database then should be used for fungal nomenclature in inat? Concerning Mycobank, I wonder – if, as @tcurtis states that the page is clearly out of date and doesn’t address literature beyond the 1800s, why no journal will accept publication of new species without prior acquiring Mycobank number? As to the 19th century -well, explanation is very simple: in the case of Crocodia aurata, first one to make this combination (and coin the genus name) was Link, not Galloway. Galloway just resurrected the genus and Link‘s combination. This is why Galloway‘s name nor the paper aren‘t mentioned in the nomenclature data base.
Ata marie,
As I pointed out earlier in this discussion as far as those people working on Lobariaceae are concerned Crocodia is mostly accepted as the correct genus. I agree with you though, there are two names and a decision is needed. To me however, it does not matter which name you wish to use, i.e. Crocodia or Pseudocyphellaria for the purposes of iNaturalist which is not a taxonomic / nomenclatural website / database but a place for people of the world to log observations. Use one or the other - both Crocodia aurata and Pseudocyphellaria aurata are valid and effectively published names. As a biosystematist it took me a few years to appreciate the distinction of what iNaturalist is trying to achieve, once I did, I no longer worry too much about these sorts of issues. I will happily use Crocodia in my own research and publications because, as far as I am concerned that, for now is the correct genus. If others wish to use Pseudocyphellaria then fine. For iNaturalist someone needs to pick one and merge the other. However, what I refuse to do is merge Pseudocyphellara aurata into Crocodia as C. aurata because it is an cosmopolitan taxon with a European type. In these sorts of situations, I as a New Zealander prefer to leave this for someone from that part of the world from where the taxon was described to make a decision on. These days I prefer to only work with New Zealand endemics because obviously they occur where I live and so I know more about their taxonomy and nomenclature. So I can argue my position better if I do make changes on iNaturalist.
I also appreciate that iNaturalist needs to use some sort of global standard, and that they have elected to use such databases as POW etc - while I don't necessarily agree with the names 'preferred' in these databases I understand why it has been chosen. Where I don't agree with the name used by iNaturalist I now point out the name I prefer to use in my comments appending my posting and leave it at that, rather than try and change it.
As for Mycobank and Index Fungorum I gather from @cooperj that Mycobank is not set up to make decisions as to which name should have precedence and I know from talking to Paul Kirk that Index Fungorum does not serve that function either. I gather that the primary function of both now at least is to register taxonomic / nomenclatural acts in accordance with the requirements for name registration outlined in the ICN. So tying the names used in those databases to iNaturalist is potentially problematic. However, I like you don't know of any alternatives, i.e. widely accepted world lists of preferred names to use for lichenized mycobiota and I can see why people would be uncomfortable if precedence on names was set by regional databases, e.g., Crocodia is preferred in New Zealand on the Landcare Research Administered "New Zealand Plant Names Database' but does tat regional decision truly reflect global opinion?
So my suggestion is that someone else makes a decision.
If I had to vote on this though it would be to use Crocodia because that to me at least makes more sense because it aligns with the usage meted out by the majority of those people working on the systematics of Lobariaceae.
Heoi ano
Peter
I agree about the roles of Mycobank and IndexFungorum/SpeciesFungorum (as the architect of, and partner in the latter). Neither resource is mandated, or has the financial/people resource to track global taxonomic consensus opinion on preferred names. There is no such resource for mycology as a whole. The primary function of MycoBank/IndexFungorum is name registration and nomenclatural status (not taxonomic status). IF/MB should not be followed blindly by iNat. In mycology we have little choice but to follow the primary literature, but even that needs to be implemented by those with knowledge of the groups concerned and access to the global literature.
I recall when I was involved in the Catalogue of Life (which is an attempt to maintain global concensus taxonmy) then LIAS was the preferred provider for lichen taxonomy as a 'global species database'. I don't know if it still is.
It is unfortunate that the iNat name infrastructure isn't capable of maintaining multiple taxonomic opinion. It should not matter which of these names people use to record observations - it is the same taxon (in this case at least). The name people choose to record under should be their choice, and preserved, whatever the 'consensus preferred name'. How the user's records are reported, aggregated into maps etc, is a different process where a particular taxonomic view can be requested, and that view can change with time, region etc.
Kapai Jerry much appreciated - thanks for clarifying the role of Mycobank and Index Fungorum.
@cooperj
Hi all,
Thanks for an interesting and useful discussion. However, sorry for droning on the same subject, but the most important matter is still unresolved. Crocodia/Pseudocyphellaria aurata still occurs as two species on inaturalist. Same situation as it was (until recent) with Bromus hordaceus/mollis in plants. The situation is confusing general users, it is affecting ID grades and statistics. Whichever name is finally selected, is OK. But one species, one name!
Jurga
@jurga_li - As I said above I don't like making changes to cosmopolitan taxa whose type locality falls outside New Zealand. However, if by tomorrow morning NZT no one has made the necessary merger then I will do it, and if I do end up doing it I will be merging Pseudocyphellaria aurata into Crocodia.
Thank you, @pjd1 The reason why I raised this dust was that in SA, where I do a small help with lichens (as much as I am able to), Pseudocyphellaria aurata and Crocodia aurata emerge as two species. It would not bother me if, say, it was C. aurata in NZ and P. aurata in Canary Islands, as these might be proved to be different species, but in the case of SA it is wrong. At least on inaturalist.
Whether it is right or wrong depends on the type specimens, not the locality. But having two names for the same beast is clearly wrong, no matter where it might be. the reason for our using both names, is probably simply a result of which keys and lists we individually use.
The concensus is thus to retain Crocodia and so this must be fixed. Rather than create a new taxon swap I iwill try and reverse engineer this one.
So instead of from Crocodia to Pseudocyphellaria it will become Pseudocyphellaria to Crocodia >
Let us hope it works.
I will commit it too. There have been no strong calls to sink Crocodia.
Oh: there is a complication.
There are two
Pseudocyphellaria aurata - one of which is already a synonym for Crocodia aurata!
Pseudocyphellaria aurata (=Crocodia aurata 461903) View
Pseudocyphellaria aurata 229108 View
Has anyone checked if there are additional duplicate names that need to be resolved?
It will have to be someone who knows the genera.
I also wish that iNat maintained the ID of synonyms that people might insist on using. It is OK when one author sinks a species to a subspecies: then the taxonomic concept remains and can be used. But some authors refuse to recognize subspecies and sink good species into others and the concept vanishes on iNat, and there is no way to record (other than with Observation Fields or comments) that this is one or other of the possible two taxa.
[[A potential problem with this approach though is that many Africans would use "Acacia" instead of "Vachellia" and "Senegalia" (feelings about this still run high), and this would retard the progress in taxonomical understanding of the Acacia sensum latum concept. (i.e. strictly only Senegalia would be "Acacia" - the majority of African Acacias would still have to change to Vachellia). It would not matter to the iNat taxonomy though: it would present the current status. However, people who insist on extracting data for the old Acacia names - should they get only the observations with the Acacia IDs? or for the current concept of the taxon? For instance in Acacia/Vachellia karroo - the two names are the same taxon, but in the case ofErica gilva/mammosa these are different taxa and supplying Erica mammosa for an Erica gilva request would defeat the purpose of being able to recordErica gilva as an ID]]
@tonyrebelo - thank you for fixing that. My point about type localities has nothing whatsoever to do with nomenclature, obviously I did not explain myself clearly enough. I will try and put it this way. In New Zealand we have a lichen we call Crocodia aurata because our best evidence suggests it is the same as the taxon described from northern Europe. However, we cannot be 100% sure our lichen is truly the same (it may well be, we think it is but...) and what the view is of that name (Crocodia vs Pseudocyphellaria) elsewhere in the world. I am happy in my own research to use Crocodia but I am not happy potentially enforcing my view on the rest of the end users of this website. So I want to see opinions from the place where the species was described from. Because of this I was not happy about curating that name on iNaturalist, I would much prefer someone who knows that species from where it was described did so - that way I can be certain that the decision made is the best it can be. To that end I much prefer what has happened here, where the issue has been discussed and then resolved through that discussion. Call me 'gun shy' but in 2017 I got hammered for switching Fragaria to Potentilla because that was what Australasian's were using and so I was asked down here to make that change - world opinion, quite correctly differed. Since then I am way more careful about making mergers and adding new names.
Well said. I will echo that for the groups I work on. I am happy to curate the taxonomy of NZ endemic fungi, and some global groups where I know there is a consistent opinion underpinned by solid research. However, for many fungal groups there are disparate views, especially between North America and Europe. The issues are compounded by the large-scale historic use of names across the globe based on old European types. There are relatively few global-scale, phylogenetically well supported studies, incorporating appropriate topotypes/epitypes to fix and stabilize many older names. Studies incorporating named material collected distant from the type localities must be treated with caution - and there are an increasing number of them appearing in poorly peer-reviewed publications. The latest publication is not necessarily correct - in any sense. It will be a long time before the use of many older names is appropriately stabilized. For iNat then discussion here before committing such changes is the best we can achieve.
from jurga_li by mail.
For some time it has been bothering me: on inat and specifically in SA species list there is a lichen going under two names and appearing as two species: Crocodia aurata and Pseudocyphellaria aurata. It is indeed one and it should be Pseudocyphellaria aurata (according to Mycobank: http://www.mycobank.org/name/Crocodia%20aurata&Lang=Eng and Index fungorum: http://www.speciesfungorum.org/Names/SynSpecies.asp?RecordID=122030)