Flagger Content Author Content Reason Flag Created Resolved by Resolution
utchee Three-leaf ladybell (Adenophora triphylla)

Please add var. triphylla

Dec. 27, 2019 22:35:48 +0000 kitty12

varieties added

Comments

Posted by kitty12 about 4 years ago

Thank you for the confirmation, but please let me explain the missing information.

I'd like to add this var. to below observation.
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/36525394

And, this var. is supported by YList that consensus flora list in Japan, although not supported by POWO.
http://ylist.info/ylist_detail_display.php?pass=8503

Similar problems are seen with other taxa, so I discuss at iNatForum now.
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/additing-plant-taxa-not-included-in-powo/

Posted by utchee about 4 years ago

Thank you @utchee for the additional information and for opening your questions into the forum. Let's see what kind of consensus emerges.

Posted by kitty12 about 4 years ago

I see no problem with this. Autonyms like Adenophora triphylla var. triphylla are implicitly generated by the publication of other taxa (like var. japonica, which is active in our taxonomy here) and so systems like POWO have trouble capturing them. Since we apparently recognize var. japonica, no reason we shouldn't recognize var. triphylla.

Posted by choess about 4 years ago

@choess I've heard you express this before, and I don't disagree. But how do we account for it in our Taxonomy mapping?

Posted by kitty12 about 4 years ago

@choess I also want to know how can I explain the validity of these intraspecific taxon?
I've been found similar problems several times already...
(This problem are sometimes ignored in Japanese users, but it leads wrong scientific name - Japanese name correspondence.)

Posted by utchee about 4 years ago

I think what I would do is create a one-to-many mapping in the taxon framework, so we have A. triphylla in the external framework (POWO) corresponding to two iNat taxa, A. triphylla and A. triphylla var. triphylla. (I'm assuming a separate one-to-one match exists on A. triphylla var. japonica from POWO to iNat.) If POWO doesn't recognize any infraspecifics but we want to, to match local checklists like this, I would put both varieties in with the species and map all of them to the POWO species. Does that make sense?

Posted by choess about 4 years ago

There are no varieties accepted on POWO, so we wouldn't have a mapping to A. tripylla var. japonica. It's not mapped to the Taxon framework at all. It's currently sourced to eol.org. Additionally, it's not even recognized as a synonym on POWO. This isn't actually a case where we're "recognizing" var. japonica. It just seems to have slipped in during a bulk download.

Posted by kitty12 about 4 years ago

I found a taxonomic description about A. triphylla var. triphylla and A. triphylla var. japonica, although it is not accepted on POWO. (including taxonomic keys to 2 variations)
Hall & Harvey (1999) Curtis's Botanical Magazine. 16(2): 90-97
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8748.00203
Full text is available for free here.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/45065360

So, we can identify these variations from asian A. triphylla. I would like to request adding the var on this basis, for convenience of Japanese users.
But, keeping in mind that there is a curator guide's rule "iNaturalist is not a place to argue about taxonomy," I would like to hear again your opinion on how far local taxa can be acceptable by using other sources like this, especially as a curator outside countries. For example, some curators may point out that "such problems are beyond iNat's level."
My idea is that Japanese active users and curators should make consensus about how far should we add as names from other taxonomic resources, as a first step.

Posted by utchee about 4 years ago

We certainly can add species/ subspecies, on the basis of local community consensus. I suggest adding to this conversation experts in this particular taxon, and top identifiers for this taxon in Japan. It isn't an argument about taxonomy if there is broad consensus.

Posted by kitty12 about 4 years ago

@kitty12 Okay, I add the top Identifiers of genus Adenophora and Japanese top identifiers to this conversation.

We have been discussed about adding variation Adenophora triphylla var. triphylla.
@sergeyprokopenko @julia_shner You are the top identifiers of genus Adenophora. So I would like to hear your opinion on adding this variation. If other experts are existed, please add this conversation.
@naturalist_kobe @harumkoh @keitawatanabe @yzi You are the top identifiers of genus Adenophora in Japan, gave others ID 4 or 5 times. So I would like to hear your opinion on adding this variation.
@sunakawa I would like to add ID your observation about Adenophora triphylla var. triphylla (https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/36525394), but this var is not recognized in worldwide databases. So we have discussed can we add this variation. If you have any comments, I would like to hear your opinion.
(Summary for Japanese)
突然で失礼します。ツリガネニンジン属にサイヨウシャジン(Adenophora triphylla var. triphylla)を加えたいため、こちらで議論をしています。日本の上位同定者の皆様からも意見をいただきたく@を送りました。
変種var. triphyllaを加えることが妥当かどうか、こちらにコメントをいただけますでしょうか?(英語でいただけると有り難いですが、難しければ日本語でもかまいません。)
<参考:上記の要約>
・この観察記録にサイヨウシャジンの学名を加えたいが登録されていないので、フラグを立てた。
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/36525394
・iNaturalistへ学名を登録するために使われている外部データベース(Catalogue of Life)や、こうした際の確認に使われるデータベース(Plant of the World Online)にも登録が無いため、海外の管理者としては追加してよいか判断できない。
・一方で、日本の学名チェックリスト(YList)や図鑑では広く使われている。
http://ylist.info/ylist_detail_display.php?pass=8503
・本変種を追加するには、A. triphyllaがA. triphylla(基準種), A. triphylla var. japonica, A. triphylla var. triphyllaの3つに分けられることが必要。
・A. triphylla var. japonicaとvar. triphyllaの分類に関してwebで閲覧可能な文献を発見(日本の図鑑と同様に、花柱の長さなどで識別するとの内容)。
https://www.jstor.org/stable/45065360
・この分類群に精通している方、日本のトップ同定者をここに加えて、広く共通見解を持ちましょうということに。

@sunakawa
サイヨウシャジンの記録を拝見して、学名を直せないものかと気になり、誠に勝手ながら議論をさせていただいておりました。学名を登録しようとしたらできなかったという状態ではないかと推測していますが、もしコメントなどありましたらお願いいたします。

Posted by utchee about 4 years ago

A. triphylla var. Japonica is a very famous plant in Japan. It is morphologically identifiable from A. triphylla, is widely used in literature, and is considered to have consensus in Japan.
On the other hand, the type specimen of A. triphylla and A. triphylla var. triphylla is same. If A. triphylla var. triphylla confuse overseas users, it may not be necessary to add.
As an implicit consent, people who know A. triphylla var. Japonica recognize A. triphylla as A. triphylla var. triphylla.

Posted by keitawatanabe about 4 years ago

If A. triphylla var. japonica exists in the database, A. triphylla var. triphylla also exists automatically, becuse it is based on the type specimen of A. triphylla, If we have A. triphylla complex and A. triphylla var. triphylla - that might be logical, but A. triphylla and A. triphylla var. triphylla is the same. I don't understand the existanse of type infraspecific taxa in the database.

Posted by julia_shner about 4 years ago

The difference is in precision of identification, I think. An observation identified as "A. triphylla" might be typical A. triphylla or it might be A. triphylla var. japonica. An observation identified as "A. triphylla var. triphylla" is definitely typical, and is not A. triphylla var. japonica.

Posted by choess about 4 years ago

Although it is a small number of users, we have added Adenophora triphylla var. triphylla with the support of the Japanese community. https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/1020896-Adenophora-triphylla-triphylla

In Japan A. triphylla has several morphologically distinct intraspecific taxon like A. triphylla var. japonica, and the addition of A. triphylla var. triphylla benefits Japanese users. The source is http://ylist.info/ylist_detail_display.php?pass=8503.
Previously I thought that it might not be necessary to add the variety, but I thought it needed, to recognize accurate taxa.

Posted by keitawatanabe about 4 years ago

Taxonomy still needs to be updated to reflect the deviation from POWO.

Posted by kitty12 about 4 years ago

@kitty12
I'm sorry. I am not used to operating iNaturalist. Did you mean iNaturalist operation is required?

Posted by keitawatanabe about 4 years ago

Yes. If you go to the Taxonomy tab on each subspecies page, you can click on the "Taxonomy Details" link to the right.
Then you given this page: https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/1020896/taxonomy_details Choose the Add Relationship link to the right.
You then choose the link "Add an external taxon" and enter the information for the taxa and source.

Posted by kitty12 about 4 years ago

I'm sorry, but I don't know what it looks like in Japanese... Perhaps links are to the left.

Posted by kitty12 about 4 years ago

@kitty12
Thank you! I tried it.

Posted by keitawatanabe about 4 years ago

Thank you so much for your comments and adding variations!
I also agree adding these variations, because of above discussions.

Posted by utchee about 4 years ago

Add a Comment

Sign In or Sign Up to add comments