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)

Comments

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.

Posted by nathantaylor over 4 years ago

I emailed POWO and they said "We will follow IPNI in correcting the original spelling." So, it will presumably be updated on POWO soon.

Posted by keirmorse about 2 years ago

Great!

Posted by nathantaylor about 2 years ago

It's been corrected on POWO.

@loarie please correct spelling. https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:563387-1

Posted by rynxs about 2 years ago

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

Posted by keirmorse about 2 years ago

Staff can edit anything, which is why I tagged a member of iNat staff. Apparently small changes like this one are considered "frivolous." Some people don't like when I do swaps to correct spelling, notation, etc. so I try to get staff to fix it first.

Posted by rynxs about 2 years ago

Good to know.

Posted by keirmorse about 2 years ago

Here was the original swap from Sida abutilifolia to S. abutifolia: https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/64195

Posted by jeremygilmore 9 months ago

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.

Posted by jeremygilmore 9 months ago

Only the staff and taxon creator (in this case Scott is both) can edit the taxon spelling, so usually it's best to call on them first if it's a small mistake.

Posted by jeremygilmore 9 months ago

The version of Shinner's and Mahler's Illustrated Flora of North Central Texas that I have has it as Sida abutifolia, and I have been using that for 15 years. Ugh.

Posted by rymcdaniel 9 months ago

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

Posted by rymcdaniel 9 months ago

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

Posted by rymcdaniel 9 months ago

@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.

Posted by nathantaylor 9 months ago

@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.

Posted by rymcdaniel 9 months ago

Isn't taxonomy fun!? For a while this entity went by the name Sida filicaulis Torr. & A. Gray (in 1838 -- and this is the name found in Correll & Johnson's 1979 version of the Vascular Plants of Texas and still used in the 1996 4th publishing of that tome!). So, 'abutilifolia' it is!

Posted by sbdplantgal 9 months ago

Add a Comment

Sign In or Sign Up to add comments