Flag for Taxon: Blue Pigroot (Sisyrinchium micranthum)
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| chrise | Blue Pigroot (Sisyrinchium micranthum) |
There seem to be two different species under this name. |
Nov. 9, 2019 20:45:08 +0000 | Not Resolved |
Comments
I agree with this comment from Eric Keith "It appears New Zealand has three entities in that group of Sisyrinchium. S. rosulatum with large flowers that are rose or pale rose with dark purple streaks, S. micranthum with smaller pale rose or blue flowers (also campanulate), and S. iridifolium that are large like S. rosulatum, but have more white flowers with wider petals and scabrosities on the spathe. Inaturalist won't currently let you enter S. iridifolium, however since it is lumped with S. micranthum on Plants of the World Online."
The "lumping" is also done by the NZ Plants database: https://nzflora.landcareresearch.co.nz/default.aspx?selected=NameDetails&NameId=FAFBB573-267B-4454-9512-1CB63C4C636C&StateId=&Sort=0&TabNum=2 But it looks like way more than 3 Sisyrinchium species to choose from there.
I am flagging the issue but not suggesting how to resolve it as I don't know enough about the genus.
my preference is to follow POWO. But if you want to deviate we'd need to have a clear sense for what you're proposing and how it differs from POWO http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org
@chrise do you have a clear idea for what specific changes you want? Can this flag be resolved?
Sorry, I can't suggest a good way to resolve this flag. It is a difficult group.
Recent work suggests that the two/three species in question (S. micranthum, S. iridifolium, and S. rosulatum) are conspecific (Weakley et al. 2023. STUDIES IN THE VASCULAR FLORA OF THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES. IX. J. Bot. Res. Inst. Texas 17(1): 191–257. https://doi.org/10.17348/jbrit.v17.i1.1293) with S. micranthum being morphologically and cytologically very plastic. Would perhaps recognizing these as a species complex be warranted?
@kschoon: From an iNat perspective, we have to follow a published taxonomy, so we can either follow Bruce Sorrie's recent synonymization of these species (which is now in POWO) or we can consciously choose to diverge from that and stick with the earlier taxonomy that recognized S. micranthum and S. rosulatum as separate species. I don't believe iNat policy supports creating a species complex where that concept has not been published.
I think Sorrie makes a good case that these are different polyploid forms of the same basic species and (based on molecular analysis by Chauveau et al from 2012) that S. rosulatum is nested firmly within the clade of S. micranthum forms. These annual plants have spread widely (via trade routes?) and particular forms may predominate in certain areas. Is there any value to distinguishing these forms? Morphologically people keyed these separately in the past, but are we really saying anything useful about the plant by applying distinct IDs?
Can you clarify @chrise? I'm only seeing one species under the common name and one under the scientific name? Are you seeing observations that you think are misidentified?