Flag for Taxon: Venus's looking-glass (Triodanis biflora)
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| oscargsol | Venus's looking-glass (Triodanis biflora) |
Triodanis perfoliata subsp. biflora in POWO |
Jul. 23, 2019 05:47:01 +0000 | Not Resolved |
Comments
There is a "Triodanis perfoliata ssp. perfoliata" on iNaturalist. If it is decided that the second subspecies of Triodanis perfoliata, Triodanis perfoliata subsp. biflora should be treated as species please make sure this ssp. is swapped back to Triodanis perfoliata.
http://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:258442-2
@ tagging a few other folks here for their thoughts. I have not looked at any primarly literature related to this change, as to whether or not we should deviate from POWO here.
I have also temporarily deactivated Triodanis perfoliata subsp. biflora so that we don't have two names for the same thing active at one time. https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/1060293-Triodanis-perfoliata-biflora
I personally would like to see it left at species level, but that's just for user clarity and has no specific taxonomic backing. :) When I looked it up last year, I saw that species level was the accepted name and ssp was the synonym, but I didn't record which sources. I'm not familiar with which sources are best for determining accepted status, so I'll leave that up to those who do.
I found this today, which supports ssp:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232683548_Validation_of_Names_at_Subspecific_Rank_in_North_American_Campanulaceae
Lammers, Thomas. (2009). Validation of Names at Subspecific Rank in North American Campanulaceae. Novon: A Journal for Botanical Nomenclature. 16. 69-73.
ITIS has it at ssp also referenced from "Campanulaceae of North America Update, database (version 2011)"
It's clear as mud!
I would like to see Triodanis biflora remain a species.
ugh - does this mean we have to split Triodanis perfoliata? by that I mean has the community been interpreting Triodanis perfoliata (as POWO does) to mean Triodanis perfoliata (sensu stricto) OR Triodanis biflora? If so thats a disruptive split since it will touch 3000 observations
But I'm happy to do whatever - I did reactivate Triodanis perfoliata biflora though because the lingering 'match' taxon framework relationship on the inactive Triodanis perfoliata biflora and the lingering Triodanis perfoliata perfoliata singleton were causing even more issues for me. I'd prefer we just curate everything to be consistent regardless of whether its in the direction of Triodanis perfoliata sensu lato or sensu stricto
If we go with POWO, it would not be a split of T. perfoliata. It would be 1) no change to T. perfoliata, 2) transfer of all current T. biflora to T. perfoliata var biflora, and 3) T. perfoliata var perfoliata to be added --or not-- (which could be used going forward but probably won't since T. p. p. is redundant but accepted). That gives me a headache just typing it out.
I can't speak for more than the DFW/TX area, but we've been interpreting it as T. perfoliata sensu stricto, based on the pore location on the fruiting receptacle. They are (generally) differentiated through photos, so they get ID'ed as such, even though they can technically hybridize (which is the original reason for the varietals.) Most general users pick T. perfoliata and those of us that know the difference will add the T. biflora ID and explain about the pores. A switch to POWO would mean going from sensu stricto to sensu lato, which is a loss in data if this ever switches back again.
I vote we leave them at species level.
I'm more inclined to deviate from POWO if you think that it would be safe to not-split (e.g. to assume that most existing IDs of T. perfoliata have been interpreting it as sensu stricto). FWIW looks like Jepson/Calflora out here in CA recognize T. biflora
I agree. I think it's safe(r) to not-split.
ok cool - so if we're going to deviate we'll need to:
1) swap T. perfoliata var biflora into T. biflora
2) swap T. perfoliata var perfoliata into T. perfoliata
3) make sure the there's not content associated with T. perfoliata thats out of sync with this sensu-stricto concept (conservation status, atlas, range map etc.)
4) make a deviation with T. perfoliata and T. biflora as internal taxa and with T. perfoliata, T. perfoliata var perfoliata. and T. perfoliata var biflora as external taxa with a link to this flag in the description
I'm fine with deviating if everyone else is
Can we move forward with this or dial in others for input? T. perfoliata var perfoliata is still being used on rare occassion, but T. perfoliata var biflora remains unused (presumably because those are being ID'ed as T. biflora.)
Weakley's Flora 2015 has it at species. and CalFlora too: https://www.calflora.org/cgi-bin/specieslist.cgi?where-genus=Triodanis
and USDA https://plants.usda.gov/core/profile?symbol=TRBI2
Perhaps a POWO deviation is warranted?