Flag for Taxon: Genus Phelipanche
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| tonyrebelo | jakob | Genus Phelipanche |
POWO has all these species as synonyms of Orobanche - surely we should follow POWO and swap them appropriately |
Oct. 15, 2019 12:25:43 +0000 | Not Resolved |
Comments
Would love to reach a rough consensus here - follow POWO (ie recognize Aphyllon and Orobanche) or what @blue_celery is proposing here https://www.inaturalist.org/posts/13371-orobanche-one-genus-or-more-genera (ie recognize Aphyllon, Orobanche, Phelipanche and Boulardia)?
Has anyone asked KEW why IPNI and POWO are using the sensum latum concept for Orobanche.
They usually give very explicit reasoning for their decisions (although their primary focus is Old World).
I'll email Rafaël Govaerts and point him to this flag
Asking the mentioned institutions why they do not separate these genera could be helpful but, fortunately, this treatment is well supported by recent literature and the fact that this new taxonomic view is adopted by recent national checklists. So, I think that it is necessary to ask the authors of this database:
http://www.farmalierganes.com/Otrospdf/publica/Orobanchaceae%20Index.htm
that is focused only on tribe Orobahcheae and the authors of the checklists and floras where these genera are kept separated. In science it is always common sense to hear both sides...
The truth is that this is just a viewpoint. Orobanche sensum latum as one genus with subgenera, or Orobanche sensum strictum as one genus with several related genera. The decision one way or the other is arbitrary. The two are totally equivalent.
There will always be lumpers and splitters.
What makes sense is to go with the master taxonomy that causes the least disruption. If their reasoning is coherent, then stay with it.
It may well be they will follow the splitting trend. In which case their is no issue.
But if they have a reason not to go with this trend, we need to consider further.
In the end, it is always a decision made by humans when taxa are separated. Phylogeny can only suggest what to do. But let's be objective. Among many cases in which certain choices could have resulted a little bit questionable, it is bòatant that Orobanche s.s., Phelipanche, Boulardia and Aphyllon are separate genera and this treatment is better than keeping them as subgenera.
NB: if you cite IPNI you should know that it is an exhaustive database of published name that anyway, in many cases, does not shouw any taxonomic treatment.
Rafaël Govaerts respinded to my email, main take away is that because its unclear which genera should be accepted (Orobanche, Phelipanche, Boulardia, Orobanchella, Aphyllon, Diphelypaea...) they're taking a conservative Orobanche s.l. approach until things settle. The main caveat is that they accepted Aphyllon because of the influence of the Flora of N. America, but I sensed a bit of regret about splitting off Aphyllon.
They also raised an issue which resonates with me which is that on within a narrow geographic scope (e.g. Europe, N. America etc.) its often clear that there are 2 distinct groups and pressure to split, but when taking a global perspective, accommodating that split leaves a lot of unclarity about what to do with taxa from other parts of the world or new less supported genera carved out just to support the those 2 groups. In these cases, its more elegant to retain broader s.l. genera, but invariably invites pushback from regional floras. I definitely understand that predicament.
My preference on this is to follow POWO since it requires less work creating/maintaining deviations on our end and since Kew is being so responsive and engaged re: POWO at the moment (its not like a static out of date assessment). But the most important thing is that we reach a rough consensus here - so I'm happy to accomodate whatever viewpoint the most people can live with given the arbitrary nature of whether to split-or-lump.
Would be great to make a decision one way or another though to remove the current duplication of species on the site
Southern Africa is barely affected, with only a very few species, apart from issues with the same species having two different names. (15% of our observations hung as a consequence.)
Personally I would prefer sensum latum, as it appears to be less divisive in the community.
@loarie I invite you to ask the researchers who accept that separation. It cannot but be helpful to get a clearer idea inside iNat.
Just a general comment : I am not against recognising the genus Phelipanche (a good genus it seems), but I see no advantage to distinguish it and no inconvenient to include it within Orobanche, as far as we can consider all its species under Orobanche sect. Trionychon (syn. of genus Phelipanche). And the same I presume for other genera/subgenera...
I find we regularly loose a lot of time discussing about these kind of nomenclatural changes that are not influencing, neither mapping nor taxonomic recognition ! And more again about the numerous swaps of one species / genus into another and back again into the starting name.
My position : following POWO as much as possible, and deviating only if very useful, I mean when ameliorating the taxonomic identification and/or the mapping processes (to not confuse 2 taxa, mainly if sympatric). Don't forget the synonymy is included in order to help everybody to find what he is looking for evenunder another name !
Errol.
I tend to agree - particularly since POWO is so active. I noticed this week they included thousands of missing nominate ssp and varieties folks have mentioned (e.g. Madeup taxon var. taxon). If POWO was stale and static I agree we'd need to take on maintaining the taxonomy, but given that they're dealing with this issue of how to make and maintain a global plant taxonomy with broad buy in, I'd prefer to support amplify/improve their efforts rather than reinvent the wheel
Great.
Nevertheless, when a deviation has been done and complete (like here with Phelipanche), it would be another waste of time if we do it back again only in order to follow POWO...
continued from https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/347514 - I'll go ahead and sink this into Orobanche