Flag for Taxon: Yukon Lodgepole Pine (Variety Pinus contorta yukonensis)
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| brucebennett | Yukon Lodgepole Pine (Variety Pinus contorta yukonensis) |
I am not sure why this was lumped, and the lump now makes it impossible to track var. yukonensis or raise awareness of its existence. It also misrepresents var. latifolia as being a Vulnerable taxon in Yukon @sydcannings @seanblaney. Don't know how to fix |
May. 29, 2020 17:21:19 +0000 | loarie |
see comments |
Comments
Hi brucebennett - Is this a duplicate issue as raised in this flag https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/491424 ? If so, can you resolve that flag and maybe paste any missing information over here?
I committed https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/38531 nearly 2 years ago as part of our efforts to bring iNat's vascular plant taxonomy in line with POWO http://plantsoftheworldonline.org/?q=Pinus+contorta+var.+yukonensis
If you'd like to deviate from POWO can you clearly describe the deviation proposal? e.g.
split Pinus contorta var. yukonensis off from Pinus contorta var. latifolia (sensu POWO)
and provide references supporting the deviation and comments on their relative distributions and how to distinguish?
copying text from previous flag:
"Variety yukonensis is a separate taxon from variety latifola (and var. contorta) as described by Strong (2010) & recongnized by NatureServe see http://data.canadensys.net/vascan/name/Pinus%20contorta%20var.%20yukonensis . This species is tracked in Yukon."
great thanks - well if no objections to deviating steps would be to:
1) split Pinus contorta var. latifolia (sensu lato) into Pinus contorta var. latifolia (sensu stricto) and Pinus contorta var. yukonensis
2) replace the 'match' taxon framework relationship on Pinus contorta var. latifolia (sensu lato) with a many-to-one deviation involving the two output taxa linking to this discussion
Thanks for correcting this error. I appreciate your help with this.
@loarie - doesn't sound like there are any objections
@jameskm says: "I think probably someone could just do this. How are latifolia and yukonensis to be atlased, though?"
There is a new entry for var. yukonensis I just saw: https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/1126767-Pinus-contorta-yukonensis
I have no idea how to atlas these, I know nothing of them.
P. c. yukonensis is only found in Yukon, but latifolia is also found there. Yukon doesn't have any county-level divisions, so it seems like we have to bump all latifolia IDs to species Pinus contorta in order to split off P. c. yukonensis.
@brucebennet Is this an acceptable solution? It means all Pinus contorta in Yukon need to be re-identified to subspecies.
Yes that sounds okay. The variety does occur in BC (I first saw it in Manning Park) and I have seen it in Alberta as well. But it think the vast majority would be var. latifolia.
@bouteloua @loarie
I set up a split, but yukonensis needs to be regrafted (from parent latifolia to parent contorta). You're the only ones with permission to re-graft and to commit the split.
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/82775
not sure why I'm a taxon curator here, I'm on my phone - deferring to Scott for this flag.
I regrafted, committed, and set up a deviation https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_framework_relationships/224656
Thanks!
@bouteloua @sydcannings @seanblaney @loarie
Hi everyone. I don't know how to fix this and wonder if you could help. I have at least one observation waiting for the taxon fix (reinstating Pinus contorta subspecies yukonensis as a valid taxon).
The change now flags all Lodgepole Pine as vulnerable. Once it is fixed I can add some photos of our pine to provide a little better understanding of its distribution. If anyone can help it would be most appreciated. Good work on the Arnica - bouteloua.