What's this? https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/80174
POWO: https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:330144-1

EDIT (February 2024): Both links broken and/or unoriginal.

No - this is silly.

Erica lanata is a good concept, and the IDs are all to the same species - making them Erica is just ridiculous.

The concept we are all using is
Erica lanata Andrews
First published in Col. Engr. Heaths, ed. 2, 3: t. 121 (1845), nom. illeg.
This name is a synonym of Erica flaccida

So ALL the IDs are for the Erica flaccida version of Erica lanata - to sink this to the genus just makes no sense whatsover. It needs to be swapped into Erica flaccida

How can I be sure? Because I have been working with the genus for 40 years.
These issues are all academic.

For the past 100 years what we have been identifying as Erica lanata in southern Africa, is now going to be called Erica flaccida.
Because after 100 years of use, someone discovered that there was an older name in the literature that no one locally had known about.
So there is no issue. The name we have been using for 100 years has an older name, and the current oldest name known for what we have been calling lanata for 100 years is E. flaccida.
And all records on iNat have been made in the last 100 years, so it applies to them all as well.

I am moving discussion on this to the swap at https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/139441

I scanned all three pages of observations and there are no obvious ones that are not Erica lanata = E flaccida.

Have you read my comment above ?
https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:328962-1

Erica lanata J.C.Wendl.
First published in Bot. Beob.: 45 (1798)
This name is a synonym of Erica conspicua subsp. conspicua

From the SWAP:
OK: but let us move the discussion here then.

https://phytokeys.pensoft.net/article/110498/

10. Erica lanata J.C. Wendl. (1798), non Andrews (1806)
Messrs Lee & Kennedy had employed the name “Erica lanata” in the manuscript list, mentioned previously (see Nelson and Oliver (2004: 138)), of species that had been introduced into cultivation by the firm before 1808. Andrews (1806: t. 121) was undoubtedly using this binomial for the same plant. However, the binomial had been published eight years earlier by Johann Christoph Wendland (1755–1828) for a different species (Wendland 1798: 45). The persistent use of Andrews’s binomial, despite the priority of Wendland’s, is inexplicable. As noted by Dulfer (1965: 44), Wendland’s name was a synonym of Erica conspicua Sol., which Dulfer relegated to a variety of E. curviflora L. (var. splendens (J.C. Wendl.) Dulfer = E. splendens J.C. Wendl., non Andrews), but is currently regarded as a distinct species (Oliver and Oliver 2000, 2003; Oliver 2012). There is a later name available to replace Erica lanata Andrews and that is E. flaccida Hort. ex Link; Sinclair (1825: 10) was the first to make this equation in print. Erica flaccida has been traced in print in several publications (e.g. Anonymous (1808: 191); Cushing (1812: 224; 1814, 224)) and in Conrad Loddiges & Sons’ catalogue for 1811, before it was taken up by Link (1821: 1: 367), who cited English gardeners as his source. None of the sources published prior to 1821 included a diagnosis or description.

So please redo this SWAP to
Erica lanata will become Erica flaccida
and execute it.

I have read your comments above.
Erica lanata Andrews is an illegitimate name.
The problem is that you have been using an illegitimate name for over 200 years.
How can you be sure that all iNatters use the same name as you for their identification ?

The smart thing to do is to re-ID now all observations as either Erica conspicua subsp. conspicua or Erica flaccida, and then swap Erica lanata to the genus.

@erickmunro @outrampsjenny @kenneth_oberlander @tonyrebelo @nicky @evieb @outramps-tanniedi @sandraf @elmarvrooyen @ludwig_muller

please try and convince @t_e_d

Do you understand that my main point is not about the names, but about the identifications on the observations ?
POWO doesn't agree with you : POWO has two homonyms, both are synonyms, but to two different current names.

No need to cite the same reference twice.

To move forward :
@erickmunro @outrampsjenny @kenneth_oberlander @nicky @evieb @outramps-tanniedi @sandraf @elmarvrooyen @ludwig_muller : can you help with the re-identifications ?

@jeremygilmore - do you mind weighing in here and making the correct swap?

There are not 400, only 216 - and yes I checked them all.

so can you:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=113055&preferred_place_id=113055&taxon_id=566703&verifiable=any

There is no "destructive" issue at all. The other name - Erica lanata J.C. Wendl. - has not been used in southern Africa Ever!!!!
On the other hand, sinking it to genus Erica Would Be Destructive for all 216 instances on iNaturalist!!

@tonyrebelo Please don't use all caps and strings of exclamations points, it comes off as screaming

https://www.inaturalist.org/pages/community+guidelines

Don't write in ALL CAPS. On the Internet, ALL CAPS is the equivalent of screaming at someone a hand's breadth away from their face. You might think you are being emphatic, but most people think you're screaming. A more polite way to add emphasis is to add an asterisk on either end of the word (or words) you would like to emphasize, like this.

That is the point: not a single one needs to be re-identified. We just need the appropriate Swap.

Do I need to cite the same reference a third time?

if I understand this correctly, Erica lanata is an invalid name that is a synonym of both Erica conspicua conspicua and Erica flaccida

@t_e_d wants to re-ID all Erica lanata obs as either E. conspicua or E. flaccida and then swap E. lanata into into genus Erica

@tonyrebelo wants to swap Erica lanata to E. flaccida, arguing that all iNat records of E. lanata are Erica flaccida, and that none of them are E. conspicua

Is this correct?

Then you should agree to all 216 observations.

I will after the taxon swap has been done. No need to agree to a synonym, when I can agree to the current name ...

@insectobserver123 Your summation is correct.

Unfortunately, @t_e_d has not read the quoted paper, which clearly says that after 200 years of using E. lanata - it is now established that the name is not valid for this taxa, but applies to E. conspicua, and what we have been calling for 200 years now needs to be called Erica flaccida, The paper is quite clear.

Since no one knew, that Erica conspicua had a synonym E. lanata, no one has ever used the synonym of E. conspicua for E. conspicua. Why would they when it is not a current name?

E. lanata has only ever been used in southern Africa for what must now, by the rules of taxonomy, be called E. flaccida.

So we need a simple swap. Erica lanata becomes E. flaccida.

(the synonym E. lanata for E. conspicua is already on iNat, so other than a minor edit to the lexicon, nothing more needs to be done there).
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/search?is_active=any&q=erica+lanata&utf8=%E2%9C%93

((sorry: typo: text edited))

@ t_e_d

You can agree to the current name now. That is what I am asking from the beginning.

But if I do then I would be disagreeing to Erica lanata, which is ludicrous: it is the same thing! I will wait for the swap before agreeing, rather than disagreeing with the current ID.

Nelson EC, Oliver EGH, Pirie MD (2023) Erica L. (Ericaceae): homonyms amongst published names for African species and proposed replacement names. PhytoKeys 236: 157-178. https://phytokeys.pensoft.net/article/110498/

Change #10!

Erica lanata J.C.Wendl. 1798 = Erica conspicua subsp. conspicua is utterly irrelevant.
It has not been used in southern Africa e!v!e!r!
It has never ever been used on iNaturalist in this context.
It has not been used in this context for over 200 years.

Read the paper!

@tonyrebelo

It has not been used in southern Africa e!v!e!r!
What about use in other places?

@insectobserver123

It is endemic to the Cape Flora
The iNaturalist data is representative of the global distribution:
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/map?taxa=566703#9/-33.929/20.523
(add GBIF if you want).

see also: http://redlist.sanbi.org/species.php?species=1820-491 (there is even a picture there if you please).

@t_e_d I just reread this whole thread again and what he is actually saying is that no one used it for anything but Erica flaccida in the last 200 years, not just that he didn't use it for anything else

@t_e_d
I think that you are confused by the synonym. Forget the synonym for Erica conspicua: it is a red herring.
No one knew about this synonym (Erica lanata J.C.Wendl. 1798), so no one could have used it. It is irrelevant.

So what we have here is a simple misapplied name.

In southern Africa we have been using Erica lanata Andrews 1845 since 1845, based on the type of Andrews. All our records on iNaturalist (and in all our herbaria and guides) are based on this use.
Now (2023) some taxonomists have discovered that they name was already published by J.C.Wendl. in 1798 - so our use is wrong, and we cannot call it that. This is not a confusion between the type of Wendle and the type of Andrews: we are using Andrews concept. But we can no longer call it by the name "lanata". Going through the literature we find that there are various other names for Erica lanata Andrews 1845 , and the earliest valid name we can use is Erica flaccida Link 1821.

(Note that even if Wendle had not published the name, Andrews name would still be incorrect as Erica flaccida precedes it.)

So synonymy is irrelevant. This is a misapplied name that needs to be fixed.
So we need a swap from Erica lanata [as per Andrews, but iNat does not follow the botanical taxonomy rules of including the author, so that is not obvious), to Erica flaccida to transfer the current IDs on iNat to the current valid name that we all now need to use.

@insectobserver123 : again and again :
Two different homonyms, both synonyms, but synonyms of different current names :
Erica lanata J.C.Wendl. 1798 = Erica conspicua subsp. conspicua
Erica lanata Andrews 1845, nom. illeg. = Erica flaccida

@insectobserver123 : its claims, not mine. He has to prove it. I don't.

Great: the swap has been made at last.
Many thanks.

Oh, I see @t_e_d has now blocked me. Is it ethical for curators to block someone and then address flags that the blocked person has posted? (or does it work both ways, and so he wont be able to?).
Either way he wont see these comments, but more pertinently, he also will no longer be able to reply to the queries to him above.

Thanks. Appreciated.
Yes, I was unable to comment on his Swap (the red explanation was briefly displayed too short to read: it just said not allowed to do this, so I assumed a block). And I assume that he cannot comment here.
But then he resolved this, but perhaps he did this before he blocked me?
It just does not make sense that a curator can block someone, and then deal with flags, which more often than not require some discussion.

@insectobserver123 : I was either going to keep on having pointless discussions for hours and days on end, or I was going to act in a matter of minutes. It would have been much quicker and simpler if he had agreed to re-identify all the observations from the beginning. I did so (it took me less than half an hour, even though I don't know the species well), and set aside all the observations that weren't Erica flaccida for re-identification afterwards.
For having kindly tried to resolve a flag that had been open for years, I was shouted at and insulted... so yes: I have blocked this user for the time being.

Wish I saw this earlier, late to the party. Swap to Erica flaccida makes perfect sense. Anywho.

The swap did that - you just wasted your time. It made no difference.
As testament to that they now all say that you disagreed that they were Erica flaccida!
see 216 x https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/197318492

Here are the records that had Erica lanata that are not currently Erica flaccida and you did not do anything on them.
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?verifiable=any&without_taxon_id=1035335&place_id=113055&preferred_place_id=113055&ident_taxon_id=1035335

@tonyrebelo : please, can you stop now and leave me alone ?

@insectobserver123 : I don’t understand your comment. I closed this flag hours before I blocked him (because he kept insulting me after the flag was closed).

Hi . I am a member of the Outramps CREW group from George in the Southern Cape. We have been I natting the local plants since the inception of i Nat. We know Erica lanata very well. It is very common in our area. It is not remotely like E conspicua which does not occur here There is no confusing the two..I cant weigh in with historic discussion but I support Tony completely .If he says is to be be E flaccida then I will go with that. To take it back to Genus level seems ridiculous.
Jenny Potgieter
George.
South Africa.