Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
nathantaylor | loarie | spreading sida (Sida abutifolia) |
The proper spelling for this taxon is S. abutilifolia, but POWO lists S. abutifolia as the correct spelling. |
Aug. 16, 2019 14:57:27 +0000 | jeremygilmore |
Swapped into correct spelling (see comments) |
It's been corrected on POWO.
@loarie please correct spelling. https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:563387-1
I think you can't simply correct the spelling but that it needs to be done through a taxon swap. At least that is what is implied here:
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/species-names-with-spelling-errors-curation-guidelines/241/7
Here was the original swap from Sida abutilifolia to S. abutifolia: https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/64195
As Ryan said, usually it is not really ideal for a full taxon swap. The way I differentiate between whether to do a full swap or a simple edit is:
A) Was the spelling error a common mistake, in outside sources too >>> swap.
B) Was the spelling error a small one on behalf of the taxon creator >>> edit to correct.
In this case, Scott hadn't managed to do it either, with the flag being unresolved for at least four years now.
So can someone fill in the details here? I followed Nathan's link to Tropicos and then to BHL and found what appears to be the original reference and it uses abutifolia not abutilifolia. Did the original author get his Latin wrong or something?
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/394481#page/1075/mode/1up
And to answer my own question, apparently the type has abutilifolia on it. I guess that take precedence somehow?
http://legacy.tropicos.org/Name/19601906
@rymcdaniel I don't entirely know the answer, but I did find the type. It does say abutilifolia, but looks like a misspelling to me (the abuti- is disconnected from the -ilifolia making me think they had to look up the word mid writing): https://data.nhm.ac.uk/dataset/56e711e6-c847-4f99-915a-6894bb5c5dea/resource/05ff2255-c38a-40c9-b657-4ccb55ab2feb/record/4983524
Surely there's another code-related reason for the switch.
@nathantaylor Yes, I found that shortly after the above posts. I think the name was based on the genus Abutilon, so it probably depends on what the root was considered to be. At some point it seems Fryxell must have changed his mind because his 1985 work on Sida used abutifolia (while noting the discrepancy on the type specimen), but the FNA treatment he is listed as coauthor of uses abutilifolia. So I expect this is one of those weird cases where even though it appears abutifolia was validly published in the 1700s, it was deemed improperly formed and thus not actually validly published. That's my best guess. It will take me a while to get used to. Abutilifolia doesn't really roll off the tongue easily.
Tropicos is a more reliable source and the link can be found here: http://www.tropicos.org/Name/100370184. This is also supported by FNA, Flowering Plants of the Trans-Pecos and Adjacent Areas and Shinners and Mahler's Illustrated Flora of North Central Texas.