Flag for Taxon: Fagonbushes (Genus Fagonia)
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| loarie | Fagonbushes (Genus Fagonia) |
Deviate from POWO? |
Feb. 25, 2020 00:52:23 +0000 | Not Resolved |
Comments
Sounds like maybe a GLOVAP-based change. Don't know of anyone else supporting that change (yet), so I say yes, deviate.
people are making taxon changes from Fagonia to Zygophyllum despite the deviation
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/116286
Any reason to keep deviating or can we just embrace POWO here
I give up.
@alberto_colatore has also made Zygophyllum paulayanum so I removed it from the deviation meant to preserve Fagonia https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/778959/taxonomy_details
jdmore any luck in getting POWO to embrace Fagonia?
@loarie I have no such plans. POWO seems to be swallowing GLOVAP taxonomy whole, and my impression is that one or more of its authors are affiliated there. I don't have the specific data that might argue for retaining Fagonia, and even if I did, I now doubt that it would be considered rationally. Sad to find myself saying that, but I've experienced some disillusionments with POWO lately, despite their quick responses to small fixes (generally no-brainers) in the past.
And yes, I do see that other curators are implementing Fagonia to Zygophyllum changes, either accidentally or intentionally ignoring flags like this one. Seems there is no resisting the tide at this point, though there is a good chance it will come back at us the other way eventually given its GLOVAP source.
So that's the longer explanation for my previous short comment above. For others encountering this flag, here is the extended GLOVAP discussion for reference:
"POWO seems to be swallowing GLOVAP taxonomy whole..." This is not completely correct, at least here in this case. What GLOVAP did is to lump several closely related and difficult to distinguish genera in the genus it always was for a very long time. It is actually both funny and tragic to see that there is one species with two names being fit into two genera depending it its position N or S of the border.
POWO has taken a step and taken an intermediate position between one cosmopolitan genus Zygophyllum in GLOVAP and recognising the more or less distinctive southern hemisphere Roepera. This is currently a good working solution and I think it should be followed in iNaturalist too. This is until someone can do a comprehensive phylogeny worldwide.
What is a problem is that there is no communication on the position POWO is taking. It needs to be published in the printed Botanical Literature and not second guessed.
I am finishing this comment just in time for four hour loeadshedding!
@robertarcher397 looks like you have more specific knowledge of this particular issue than I do, so I'm happy to defer to whatever you and others think best. My comments were based solely on knowing the source of the lumping that POWO is following.
Unfortunately, rereading the latest relevant literature I noticed that POWO is recognizing Paraphyletic taxa. It would be best to stick with the present Framework for a little while. Currently POWO is recognizing Melocarpum but sink the other genera, Augea and Fagonia in the same clade. Likewise, they accept Roepera which is in the Zygophyllum clade with Tetraena (lumped). There is no justification for this.
There are really only two choices. 1. Zygophyllum with Melocarpum Fagonia Augea, Roepera as well as Tetraena
or 2. Recognize 6 genera plus another undescribed monotypic genus.
POWO sinks Fagonia into Zygophyllum. Are we maintaining this deviation?
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_framework_relationships/411635