Flag for Taxon: Crimson Berry (Leptecophylla oxycedrus)
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| rfoster | mftasp | Crimson Berry (Leptecophylla oxycedrus) |
Not yet accepted by POWO but if adopted needs to be split from L. juniperina |
Mar. 1, 2020 02:19:50 +0000 | mftasp |
Simple swap. Was already a validly acepted subspecies. |
Comments
If you guys want to maintain this genus https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_framework_relationships/411215
we need to swap the duplicate Leptecophylla juniperina subsp. oxycedrus into Leptecophylla oxycedrus and get rid otf the singleton Leptecophylla juniperina subsp. juniperina (which has 114 obs).
Do we need to maintain this deviation or can we go with POWO in treating Leptecophylla oxycedrus as Leptecophylla juniperina subsp. oxycedrus?
That is a really weird taxon relationship.
The situation is that there never has been Leptecophylla juniperina in Tasmania, the name was misapplied to L. oxycedrus, L. parvifolia and L. pogonocalyx subsp. decipiens. I don't think there is a clean way of doing this as a whole for the species, as observations each observation that previously lacked a subspecies still needs to be identified correctly. I've got most of the way in doing this.
I think the better way is to have simple deviations: Leptecophylla juniperina subsp. oxycedrus = L. oxycedrus, Leptecophylla juniperina subsp. parvifolia = L. parvifolia.
I'm not sure I understand that. Are we deviating from POWO or not?
My preference is not to deviate.
If we're deviating someone needs to swap Leptecophylla juniperina subsp. oxycedrus into Leptecophylla juniperina oxycedrus, Leptecophylla juniperina subsp. juniperina into Leptecophylla juniperina and potentially split Leptecophylla juniperina depending on how big of a mess it is. And curate the taxon framework relationship/deviation accordingly
If we're not deviating, someone needs to swap Leptecophylla oxycedrus into Leptecophylla juniperina subsp. oxycedrus and And curate the taxon framework relationship accordingly
right now there's duplication since both are active
I thought I had already done all that.
Sorry, I'll check.
I had. It has been re-created recently by the look of it. Look at the taxon number.
are you proposing to deviate from POWO or not?
regardless Leptecophylla juniperina subsp. juniperina was not recently added
I think I'm maybe not articulating myself well.
I assume from your comments you do want to deviate from POWO by splitting Leptecophylla juniperina (sensu POWO) by elevating Leptecophylla juniperina subsp. oxycedrus (senus POWO) and Leptecophylla juniperina subsp. parvifolia (sensu POWO) to species status.
Step 1: can you confirm that is the case
Assuming it is
Step 2: the taxon framework relationships describing this deviation aren't properly constructed. If you confirm step 1 I can fix them to explain what I mean.
Step 3: as @rfoster says, Leptecophylla juniperina may need to be split if elevating oxycedrus and parvifolia misspecified a bunch of IDs. To do this we need atlases/distributions for juniperina sensu stricto, oxycedrus and parvifolia. Can you provide these distributions
My preference is still not to deviate as it will eliminate the work required in Step2 Step3. But if you are set on deviating it can be done
Thanks @loarie, I think we're talking at cross-purposes, I'll be as concise and clear as I can:
Step 1: yes
Step 2: For those two taxa, taxon framework relationships should be as I had above: L. oxycedrus (internal) = L. juniperina subsp. oxycedrus (external). L. parvifolia (internal) = L. juniperina subsp. parvifolia (external). As far as I can tell, they are already set up like this.
Step 3: The only distribution that is useful is that L. juniperina is endemic to New Zealand and the other two to Tasmania. Strictly speaking Leptecopylla juniperina subsp. juniperina is a dangling autonym and should be deleted. It is impossible to know, based on geographic distributions, whether something previously IDd only to species as L. juniperina should now be L. oxycedrus or L. parvifolia so Tasmanian records would have to be sunk to genus, which is not a great situation, and why I said above that using a one-to-many split is not the way to go.
OK I think this is sorted. The iNat taxonomy seems to properly reflect whats intended by this deviation https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_framework_relationships/411215 and I don't think L. juniperina needs to be retroactively split since there don't seem to be alot of obs/IDs of L. juniperina outside of NZ (which would imply L. juniperina sensu lato) so I think its all set
Thanks for your help @loarie!
@rfoster, I don't think it does. It is a 1:1 swap from previously existing Leptecophylla juniperina subsp. oxycedrus to L. oxycedrus.