Flag for Taxon: lesser celandine (Ficaria verna)
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| duarte | lesser celandine (Ficaria verna) |
as Ranunculus ficaria on POWO. Are we deviating here? |
Jan. 12, 2020 19:11:11 +0000 | Not Resolved |
Comments
Well I wired up a deviation from POWO for now
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_framework_relationships/256321
but looks like FNA doesn't follow Ficaria either http://beta.floranorthamerica.org/Ranunculus_ficaria
whats the plan here? Should we maintain this deviation (ie maintain Ficaria or lump it) - I'd like to not go back and forth since Ficaria verna has >10k obs...
FNA volume 3 (including Ranunculaceae) was published in 1997, so they're probably behind the curve as far as phylogenetics is concerned. Nowadays I'm used to Ficaria being segregated from Ranunculus, but it would be nice to hear from a systematist who knows the lay of the land in this group of dicots.
following this
See also the cladogram in this paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226142427_Phylogenetic_relationships_of_the_monotypic_Peruvian_genus_Laccopetalum_Ranunculaceae
I would recommend to keep both genera separate.
I've seen most authorities recognizing genus Ficaria over the past decade or so, and this is supported by Emadzade et al. (2010) in their phylogeny of Ranunculeae. Looks like POWO may be circumscribing Ranunculus more widely to take in (cladistically) neighboring genera such as Ceratocephala, Ficaria, etc.? (From comments at http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/research/Edge/apr18/apr18lit.shtml it seems that GLOVAP did indeed do so and that POWO has taken it up.)