Flag for Taxon: Waxlip Orchid (Caladenia major)
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| mftasp | neontetraploid | Waxlip Orchid (Caladenia major) |
can we have some discussion on this one please? |
Sep. 12, 2019 00:31:44 +0000 | mftasp |
taxon change committed |
Comments
@mftasp looks like your plea has gone unheeded and it's been committed...
@neontetraploid don't forget to put in the relationship details now that you've committed the change. At the moment the relationship is still listed as 'unknown' for both taxa.
I added this after it was committed... apparently without flagging or comment.
I am tempted to move ahead and create a revert commit, leave it open for discussion...
Edit: for some more context, the major Floras covering the geographic distribution of Glossodia major ALL treat is as Glossodia rather than Caladenia:
https://vicflora.rbg.vic.gov.au/flora/taxon/f60fd9f0-dadb-49e1-b2e8-9bd5890b9ab4
http://plantnet.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/cgi-bin/NSWfl.pl?page=nswfl&lvl=sp&name=Glossodia~major
https://flora.tmag.tas.gov.au/census/2019_Census_of_Tasmanian_Vascular_Plants.pdf
@neontetraploid can you please provide some references to back up your change?
Taxon swap to undo this change is at https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/62499
Please do not commit without discussing here first.
@eremophila brought this to my attention earlier.
I wasn't aware of POWO being incorrect on these, so the changes should probably be reverted
Hi @neontetraploid, I can't really say whether POWO is wrong or not on these ones: as frequently happens, they don't cite any justification for their choice of nomenclature, so it's kind-of impossible for anyone to know.
In any case, here they are contradicting all Australian Floras, so I vote to stay with Glossodia until presented with a solid argument as to why we shouldn't.
POWO have admitted that a lot of their Australian content has not yet been updated and that for most things they will be following the APC. I've just searched the APC, however, and can't find either Glossodia major or Caladenia major as accepted names though, interestingly, "Glossodia" is listed as an accepted genus name so I'm not sure what's going on.
This is the paper the name change has resulted ffrom
https://bsapubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.3732/ajb.1500021
Edit - in my quick skimming of it it looks sound enough. It means we'll be lumping other things like Pheladenia into Caladenia, too.
On the face of it it seems that the Botanical Taxonomy in Australia has rejected these changes to Caladenia as proposed in the paper. However Im checking on this with an Orchid Taxonomy friend and have asked for a reference to confirm the rejection.
Thanks @rfoster, that clarifies things a lot.
I do note from their discussion: "Our results generally provide only weak support for recognition of taxa at generic rank, but a case could be made to recognize the monotypic segregated genus Pheladenia and to continue to recognize Glossodia and Elythranthera, either together under Glossodia or as two separate genera. These are monophyletic taxa outside the main body of Caladenia, and Glossodia and Elythranthera are well known and recognized and therefore might warrant treatment as segregate genera..."
So it looks like a matter for interpretation. Based on this I'm closer to sitting on the fence, but I think I still decant for following the usage of Australian herbaria and floras.
Finally: one of the main conundrums seems to be that the split between Glossodia and Elythranthera is not well supported. Out of these two, Glossodia has nomenclatural priority (R.Br. 1810 vs Endl. 1839).
What about Cyanicula?
Sorry @neontetraploid, do you mean where does it sit in regards to nomenclatural priority or generally?
In general, I would regard that the results of the paper show Cyanicula to be well-supported as a monophyletic clade that is basal to core Caladenia, and if you regard Glossodia as a valid genus, you might as well regard Cyanicula as one. I hadn't asked myself the question because they don't occur in my area of interest (Tasmania).
Ah I see. Thanks for clarifying
Yes, given their ambivalence, I'm inclined to stick with the name(s) the Australian herbaria use (seems only fair on the Australian iNat user). I wouldn't be at all surprised if POWO defers to that view, anyway, when they get around to updating their Australian content or if approached about it (I've found them quick to respond).
http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:620695-1
http://www.catalogueoflife.org/annual-checklist/2019/details/species/id/b0a6b699433dc34af228514d5df883f4
Quote: "Glossodia and Elythranthera are shown to be a specialist group embedded within Caladenia.• Based on our results, none of the current systems of classification of the subtribe is satisfactory. Instead our results point to Lindley's 1840 interpretation of Caladenia, but including Glossodia and Elythranthera, as being the most accurate reflection of the group. "
I think you have all jumped to the wrong conclusion from that publication. It was after all only a proposal based on their phylogeny. As most Herbaria in Australia have not changed their names in accordance to the proposal it is highly likely that this proposal was rejected. Im chasing a reference from an orchid taxonomist who works on Caladenias to reconcile this interpretation based upon a scientific paper.
POWO, however, has accepted it and that's the authority that iNat has chosen to follow - unless it's decided amongst users to deviate from it. Since it affects Australian users, only, it seems reasonable to follow the taxonomy they are most familiar with in this instance and stick with the name(s) that the Australian herbaria use.
Thanks @kai_schablewski, @rfoster, @eremophila.
I'm aware there are various possible interpretations, my point is that, in this case, POWO has chosen to follow a different classification than all the Herbaria in the area where this species is native.
Accepting the name Caladenia major will essentially be the opposite of what every user who uploads observations will expect to find.
Agreed!
in parallel with this flag
https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/406865#activity_comment_3436980
Thanks @mftasp and @rfoster for your support of Australian users of iNaturalist. I've been following this closely but wasn't sure whether a relatively new and ordinary user/non-curator should comment. The suggested changes from Glossodia and Cyanicula to Caladenia will also mean that records from iNaturalist won't be uploadable to the Atlas of Living Australia which has the relevant species as Glossodia and Cyanicula. The ability to contribute to ALA was a major reason for many users of BowerBird (which is closing down) joining and transferring their records to iNaturalist.
Thanks @oneanttofew - never hesitate to to put your view. iNat exists for, and is largely maintained by, its users.
As for the ALA, iNat records of both species can still be imported and incorporated into the database. The ALA will just run them through their "taxonomic filter" and post them under the name they use. This is routine for them as even the Australian museums and herbaria differ in the names they use for things so all the records the ALA imports from them have to be homogenised to a uniform taxonomy. Mention of the ALA, however, does remind me that they are now hosting the Australian node of iNaturalist and that maybe that is another reason to stick with the names they use, if only on principle. However, I would only advocate that for taxa that are restricted to Australia for which deviating from POWO would have no direct impact on users elsewhere.
Just curious, is this going to be resolved?
@oneanttofew, the flag has only been up for comment for 2 weeks. I was hoping for a bit more comment on this before committing the changes. If nobody objects I will go through and commit them in 7 days (3 Oct 2019).
Hi
I contacted Andrew Brown who is an orchid taxonomist in Western Australia and here is his reply
"The website you refer to is following the Australian plant census which has also adopted Mark's paper. However, the WA Herbarium (PERTH) is awaiting the formal publishing of a paper by Steve Hopper and myself where we provide reasons for the retention of Elythranthera etc. Hopefully our paper will be out later this year."
As usual taxonomy can get complicated sometimes when various scientists don't agree with each other. Not sure how these things get sorted out or who/what has the final say.
Bevan
Hi @eremophila, I have to disagree with Andrew, as I am in the APC (Australian Plant Census) working group and provide official advice on behalf of my Herbarium. The orchids list is still in preparation and has not been accepted (or even considered) by the APC working group. I am not sure what his advice is based on.
If you go to the APC website, you will find the entry accepting Glossodia as a valid and accepted genus, with a date of its last formal consideration in 2008: https://biodiversity.org.au/nsl/services/search?product=APC&tree.id=51209179&name=glossodia&inc._scientific=&inc.scientific=on&inc._cultivar=&max=100&display=apc&search=true
If you search for Glossodia major, you will get no result since it has not been formally considered by APC.
Hi @mftasp, if that's the case then all those orchid genera that have been changed to Caladenia on iNat should be reinstated. I hope this is the case.
Cheers
Hi @eremophila, at least Cyanicula and Glossodia are in this boat, I don't know about the others, as I only normally work on Tasmanian stuff.
I have created draft swaps for both of those back to their genera from Caladenia. I'll re-instate them next week unless we get some strong opinions to the contrary.
Hmmm, I collected Caladenia flavovirens for Mark Clements but it looks like it did not make testing or failed to produce results.
Nevertheless I'm unsure and tired and will sleep on it. I'm unclear of what "Glossodia and Elythranthera are shown to be a specialist group embedded within Caladenia" actually means.
Hi @reiner,
I think I interpret this to mean that Glossodia and Elythranthera form a well-supported group genetically (as well as being distinct morphologically), but the authors chose to treat it within a broader concept of Caladenia because they weren't able to decide what to do with the rest.
Following on discussion from flag https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/485078 @reiner, @oneanttofew, @eremophila, @rfoster, @neontetraploid, @kai_schablewski.
I have added a deviation to include internal Caladenia, Glossodia and Cyanicula linked to external Caladenia. https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_framework_relationships/187579
The main question now is what to do about Elythranthera. Should we add it to the deviation and re-transfer Caladenia brunonis and C. emarginata back to Elythranthera?
Elythranthera is still used by Australian herbaria, including the Western Australian Herbarium, and most orchid enthusiasts who encounter them, I suspect, so it would make sense. There seems no reason to believe that they won't be resurrected from synonymy with Caladenia when somebody eventually does a full revision of Caladenia S.L. and renames the paraphyletic clades.
OK I'll create some draft transfers and link back.
Here they are:
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/78563
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/78561
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/78562
The taxon framework relationships have to wait until the output taxa have been activated, at swap time.
@oneanttofew I'm not sure what you're referring to as loarie's flag of Apr 2020. Would you provide the link, please? There are no plans to shift Glossodia or Cyanicula back to Caladenia at present - just to remove another genus, Elythranthera, that was also sunk into Caladenia.
@rfoster I started this because I was looking at Glossodia and found https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/485078. It worries me that iNat curators looking at and accepting POWO without knowing what is recognised in Australia are going to revive this merger endlessly. I don't know why @loarie flagged the merger but rereading the flag I think I can understand what the deviation means?
Once we have them set as deviations in the taxonomy framework, any (attentive) curators should realise that we have made a decision regarding deviating from POWO.
OK, good catch @oneanttofew! Got rid of it, so it didn't cause further probs.
It's been a month, I'm committing the change.
I'm having trouble committing the changes and getting 404s... I'm about to leave, so I'll look into it tomorrow.
They look like they've gone through already
Yes, I finally worked out there was an issue with the genus entry for Elythranthera having been inactivated that stopped the species from transferring. All done.
Good work!
There are still a number of taxa that need to be swapped from Caladenia into Cyanicula, e.g., and have the agreements with POWO deleted and deviations instated. Is there a list for how to do this?
Ah, thanks for that @jameskm, I'd missed them. I've gone by the combinations listed in PANI: https://biodiversity.org.au/nsl/services/search?product=APNI&tree.id=&name=cyanicula&inc._scientific=&inc.scientific=on&inc._cultivar=&inc._other=&max=100&display=apni&search=true
Here are 4 proposed taxon swaps with deviations:
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/82911
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/82910
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/82909
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/82908
I think this can be added:
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/82912.
What about Pheladenia deformis?
Well spotted!
I think more Herbaria treat P. deformis in Pheladenia than anything else. We do, as does Vic., SA & NSW.
I know POWO in their usual un-cited obscurity are now using this combination:
http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:620695-1
However, this is an endemic Australian taxon, and the Australian Plant Name Index and the Australian Plant Census still have this as Glossodia major.
Can we please have a reference that shows that this taxon should be treated as Caladenia rather than Glossodia before moving ahead with this? Also I couldn't find a flag for this. Was one set?
Just to be clear, I'm not decanting myself onto one camp or the other, I'm perfectly happy to accept that this belongs in Caladenia if I read a reference that makes a good case. Otherwise, this change involves a lot of records and I am against changing the name for the sake of change.