Flag for Taxon: Greater stitchwort (Stellaria holostea)
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| bouteloua | Greater stitchwort (Stellaria holostea) |
synonymized in 2019 but still Stellaria holostea in POWO, please discuss before swapping |
Feb. 23, 2020 14:15:13 +0000 | bouteloua |
committed taxon change |
Comments
I made a series of name changes relative to this recent publication. Yes, we can wait to swap things out until people are aware of all this. The only species here that is relatively common and people may have problems with is Stellaria holostea, which is common and even cultivated. I assume POWO etc may be lagging, simply because its a recent publication. But for a paper to have been accepted and published in the journal Taxon means that its pretty good work!
Since other people seem to be picking it up too, I think we can go forward with it.
you guys got called out on twitter for this one https://twitter.com/SK53onOSM/status/1266081808992665603
also whats the POWO analogue for Nubelaria diversiflora? Is it Stellaria longifolia
http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org/?q=Stellaria+diversiflora
If so shouldn't Stellaria longifolia be wrapped up in the deviation?
Also I'm curious why you guys felt the need to deviate here given the costs of disrupting a taxon with 7k obs https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/72519 and the costs of communicating a taxonomy different from Kew and the costs of maintaining the deviation?
Its still Stellaria in http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=220012926 and my understanding from Weakley (@whiteoak) is that he doesn't mine the generic issues (he's mainly concerned about lumping at the species level)
I think deviating for the primary literature for common observose plants is a new direction I wasn't aware we were going down
Sorry I didn't realize this was committed in Feb - and sorry for being so negative looks like you guys did everything right here, I'm just personally increasingly down on deviations as they are such a bear to maintain and don't seem to have an average effect of keeping the community happy beyond strictly adhering to POWO since POWO seems to be gaining a lot of supporters
Is someone else arguing against the updated taxonomy? The tweet you linked to looks like someone mildly upset with having to remember a new name, not actually proposing it stay in Stellaria.
I just did a ctrl+f for longifolia in their paper and the only thing I find is:
"Some other discrepancies between our and their studies likely involve misidentifications. For example, we reidentified Stellaria longifolia Muhl. ex Willd. (sensu Greenberg and Donoghue 2011) to instead represent Stellaria borealis."
not upset but perhaps surprise that iNat has something different from their expectation. Just anecdotal so not representative of the whole community, but I'd argue deviations are necessary when POWO is enough different from people's expectations that they won't accept it which wouldn't be the case were that person representative of the whole community.
btw I updated the Wikipedia page, so it should at least start cascading throughout the internet / become expected
POWO sometimes takes some time to implement novel taxonomic changes. So iNaturalist is first this time, great!
Thanks @bouteloua for the Wikipedia page too.
Revised classification in:
Phylogenetic Relationships Within and Delimitation of the Cosmopolitan Flowering Plant Genus Stellaria L. (Caryophyllaceae): Core Stars and Fallen Stars. Mathew T. Sharples and Erin A. Tripp. Systematic Botany (2019), 44(4): pp. 857–876
also accepted in Weakley & Acta Plantarum
but POWO is lagging http://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:307758-2
should we go ahead or wait for POWO?