Flag for Taxon: Populus jrtyschensis
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| bouteloua | Populus jrtyschensis |
not in POWO |
Feb. 7, 2020 13:58:35 +0000 | kai_schablewski |
resolved, see my comment |
Comments
Hello,
Populus ×berolinensis is accepted name and should be used for it; name P. ×jrtyschensis is just a synonym of P. ×berolinensis and I fully agree to treat is as such. I don't feel like using Populus × berolinensis var. jrtyschensis is a good thing here in iNaturalist - it is most likely impossible to determinate the parentage of hybrid without molecular analysis.
We should swap it to Populus ×berolinensis.
Thank you for your answer.
I have committed the change:
It is a hybrid between P. nigra and P. laurifolia, so the correct spelling is Populus × jrtyschensis and not Populus jrtyschensis.
Populus × berolinensis is the older name (published in 1865) for this hybrid and is therefore accepted on POWO.
C. Shang (2016) however treats this taxon as a nothovariety of Populus × berolinensis. In this case the correct name would be Populus × berolinensis var. jrtyschensis.
https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:776607-1
https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/5QWQ4
https://bmcplantbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12870-016-0776-6
@mattkorbik @apseregin What should we do? Swap it to Populus × berolinensis or are there proposals to keep this taxon separate? If so we still need a taxonchange to correct the name to Populus × jrtyschensis.