Flag for Taxon: Narcissus elegans
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pdfuenteb | Narcissus elegans |
synonym for N. obsoletus. Please read the comments. |
Dec. 24, 2019 00:09:34 +0000 | pdfuenteb |
Taxon swap commited |
Comments
I would keep them separated.
Both names are reported as separated in recent papers from Spain so I would assume that botanists that really know well these taxa are convinced of their independece.
I want to stress that I know only N. miniatus
Could you show me those papers? I would love to give them a check.
Maybe then a deviation needs to be made for this species of Narcissus, I still do not know what the official names should be for this plants, but what I know is:
N. elegans meaning for Flora Iberica and Aedo (www.revistas.uma.es/index.php/abm/article/download/2860/2659) is the same that N. obsoletus for POWO and Koopowitz et al.(https://dafflibrary.org/wp-content/uploads/Nomenclatural-Notes-on-some-autumn-flowering-daffodils-Narcissus-Amaryllidaceae-Koopowitz-et-al-Phytotaxa-February-2017.pdf).
N. obsoletus meaning for Flora Iberica and Aedo is the same that N. miniatus for POWO and Koopowitz et al.
N. serotinus definition is the same for all of them.
A decision must be made, stick with POWO or make a deviation.
For me we should follow Aedo as far as N. elegans is concerned...
If we follow Aedo and Flora Iberica, then N. miniatus should be replaced by N. obsoletus (and a deviation should be created in response to this).
Eitherway some changes have to be done, the current species are confusing, N. obsoletus does not have a clear definition right now on iNat, because it cannot be defined until either N. elegans or N. miniatus are synonymized.
I am going to identify the obs. of N. obsoletus into N. minatus and N. elegans (at least the ones that I identified in the past), so that when the changes are made, my ID should be correct hopefully eitherway.
Also @kai_schablewski what do you think of this, and why did you grafted this into the section Tazettae, and not the section Serotini? Also thank you for creating the subgenus and sections, I think they are very helpful.
I made a pdf abstract to condense the information that I said and to help identify this plants. https://docdro.id/V7cWeRl
I hope it helps everyone to understand the problem (the idea comes from @finrod, that said that it was mind boggling, so I hope he also understands better with this pdf)
I am going to call also @mjcorreia @davidcb @trcarlisle because I used their images to illustrate the species (but I can delete or change any of them if you want).
PS: Nº of flowers means the number of flowers on each inflorescence stem. The parenthesis is used for unusual but posible numbers. This information comes from Flora Iberica, just as most of the other characters. The distribution comes from POWO.
ahah, thanks @pdfuenteb this sure helps! :-)
Already downloaded!
@kai_schablewski why did you grafted this into the section Tazettae, and not the section Serotini? What is your source?
There have been many attempts for a classification of Narcissus: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematik_der_Narzissen (Article is only in german)
I have followed the taxonomic classification from B.J.M. Zonnefeld; 2008:
According to this work Narcissus obsoletus should be treated best as nomen confusum or should be used for the diploid hybrid Narcissus elegans x Narcissus serotinus.
This paper from 2017 also accepts Narcissus elegans, but puts it in a separate section, Narcissus sect. Angustifolii:
Who accepts Narcissus elegans/Narcissus obsoletus:
https://wcsp.science.kew.org/acceptedRef.do?name_id=282677
https://wcsp.science.kew.org/acceptedRef.do?name_id=281989
POWO took their data from IPNI - The International Plant Names Index. I can ask Rafaël Govaerts from POWO what he actually thinks about Narcissus elegans/Narcissus obsoletus, because for me the taxonomy of Narcissus becomes more and more confusing.
@kai_schablewski I think that would be a good idea. Eitherway as I already said, N. obsoletus has to be synonymized with N. elegans or N. minatus (or N. miniatus into N. obsoletus).
Dear all, actually the problem is not taxonomical but nomenclatural.
Taxonomically there are 3 species of autumn, white flowering and thin Narcissus :
only one has V-shape leave and angulose stem : N. elegans = N. obsoletus auct. pro parte [a SW-Medit.]
the two others have cylindrical filiform leaves and stems : N. serotinus s.s. [another SW-Medit.] + N. miniatus = N. obsoletus auct. pro parte [a circum-Medit.]
I have no definitive opinon about the nomenclatural treatment of N. obsoletus, because for me it would be better to exclude it as a nomen ambiguum...
Nevertheless, if the trend taxonomy and nomenclature is accepted, the current N. obsoletus on iNat would be jumped with N. miniatus, and then AFTER we can create a new N. obsoletus name and jump N. elegans to this name (but POWO contains mistakes on the distribution that contributes to the confusion !).
Does everybody want that we do this or not ?
@pdfuenteb
I also think that N. obsoletus should be excluded as a nomen ambiguum.
I am happy to go along with whatever the curators decide as I have no specialist knowledge to contribute here.
Then can we do this, is everyone okey with this? Any people that can be called to talk about this? I think that what @abounabat said is the best option.
Okkey
We will do it after the no-taxonomical week just begun...
We will wait until then, so more time to think about it. The taxon draft is already done, so anyone can see the future change.
Excuse me for disturbing this wonderful discussion, but in Greece Narcissus miniatus is excluded (auct. fl. graec.), the name Narcissus obsoletus has been used since its description in 1849. It is a very historical name, it would be very sad swapping it with N. miniatus. I have no problem with swapping N. elegans with miniatus.
So my point is letting N. miniatus and obsoletus be seperate species or at least make the taxon swap the other way round. Narcissus obsoletus should rather be used than N. miniatus.
I consider the Hellenic Botanical Society a very reliable source.
http://portal.cybertaxonomy.org/flora-greece/cdm_dataportal/taxon/52f65b51-9259-4d77-ace2-7bb3df62d87a
Hi @greek_cicada_project thank you for entering the discussion, but I think that you do not fully understand the actual nomenclatural problem. Maybe check the summary that I made with the names and the species: https://docdro.id/V7cWeRl
The problem is that there are 3 names (N. elegans, N. obsoletus and N. miniatus) for only two species (N. elegans or obsoletus AND N. miniatus or obsoletus).
Swapping N. elegans with miniatus does not make sense because they are indeed different species. So there are three options:
· Accepting N. miniatus and obsoletus, and making N. elegans a synonym for N. obsoletus; following POWO and Koopowitz names.
· Accepting N. elegans and obsoletus, and making N. minatus a synonym for N. obsoletus; following HBS, Flora Iberica and Aedo names.
· Accepting N. elegans and miniatus, and making N. obsoletus a synonym for both N. miniatus AND N. elegans; which is the truth because it is a synonym for the two names depending on the authors, and it breaks the confusion right away; but this also means not following any of the authors.
I think that the last two options are the best ones, and I am in favour of the last one even more, because it does not compromise any author priority, creating a middle ground with no confusion possible.
Thanks for the summary. I am no Narcissus expert, even if I am dealing with them for many years (and that only in Greece) so I'll just agree with you.
Now I understand whats going on in this discussion.
For me the most important thing is to solve the confusion about nomenclature (as you said), then comes what I personally prefer ;)
Then everyone is okey with the taxon swap? : https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/91865
yes
ok
Sure, yes, many thanks!
ok
@pdfuenteb re: this taxon change https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/91865, since N. obsoletus is in POWO http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org/?q=Narcissus%20obsoletus this implies that we're deviating. Can you add a deviation linking to this flag that maps what we're doing here with whats on POWO as a signal to curators? I'm happy to help if you can explain the mapping between whats on POWO and how this clade is intended to be maintained on iNat? Many thanks!
Done
@abounabat do you mean this one? https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_framework_relationships/373651
Deviations should include all the taxa on iNat and all the taxa in POWO that are involved in the deviation
You've set https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_framework_relationships/373651 up as a "one-to-one" with:
Narcissus miniatus (iNat) <-> Narcissus obsoletus (POWO)
But this would imply that Narcissus miniatus is not an active taxon in POWO. However, it is
http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:77079958-1
Can you describe the mapping you're trying to achieve and I can help you troubleshoot how to capture it in a deviation? Do you mean that on the iNat side you want to lump Narcissus miniatus and Narcissus obsoletus together as Narcissus obsoletus whereas POWO treats these as a separate taxa (Narcissus miniatus and Narcissus obsoletus)?
If so the deviation should be a "one-to-many" with:
Narcissus miniatus (iNat) <-> Narcissus miniatus, Narcissus obsoletus (POWO)
meaning you'll need to add another external taxon (Narcissus miniatus) to https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_framework_relationships/373651
Thanks
OK, I see. You're right, POWO consider N. obsoletus as our N. elegans, not as our N. miniatus (both nomenclatural opinions exist). It was the source of the confusion and why we didn't want to use this name.
So I just modified the deviation relationship. Indeed it would have been better to just inactivate the name obsoletus than to swap it into another one, because there were no observation under it. But nevertheless I think all is OK now : https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_framework_relationships/373651
ok looks good thanks
I edited the link on the external taxon which was still pointing to N. minatus to point to N. obseletus on POWO, and I added a link to this flag for reference
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_framework_relationships/373651
I also made a separate 'match' for N. minatus
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_framework_relationships/476252
The N. obsoletus name had at least 10 observations on research grade level at the time that I commited the taxon swap.
The deviation is OK now, thank you @abounabat, I was going to make it ASAP, since I recived a notification yesterday, but you made it quicker.
Olympique de Marseille 1 - Real Madrid 0 !
:-)
I do not like football, but I liked this comment a lot 😂
tampoco para mí! Solo quería empezar a contar... :-)
Thank you for all the interesting contributions from the experts and your altruistic work on the iNaturalist platform.
A couple of questions:
In another forum they have said that the correct name would be N. deficiens for what is called N. miniatus in iNaturalist. What is your opinion?
Some of you would be so kind to identify my observation so that it is well indexed?
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/33140881
Thanks a lot
Yes, option now followed by POWO :
https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:77079958-1 (change proposed now and to be voted here)
and also https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:66133-1#synonyms
I still consider that, at least provisionally, it would be better to not use the name obsoletus for designing N. elegans, because the use of obsoletus has changed a lot these last decennials and the appears still to be a bit "confuse" for several botanists...
This is a synonym for N. obsoletus according to POWO (http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:66009-1). This might seem to be a simple task at first but there is a problem with this taxon, or rather N. obsoletus is the problem. The thing is that most of the observations identified as N. obsoletus use an old definition of the species, and now for POWO that definition is a synonym for N. miniatus. So I am not sure how to make this changes. Should we change something about N. obsoletus first? Should the observations first be reviewed and changed to N. miniatus (obviously only if necesary in that specific situation)? . @bouteloua @blue_celery what do you think/recommend?