Flag for Taxon: Genus Lobivia
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| mrtnlowr | Genus Lobivia |
It has no Taxon Relationship but when I try to create one I get errors. @loarie |
Nov. 16, 2020 21:19:29 +0000 | mrtnlowr |
Huge deviation implemented |
Comments
Several different errors
Lobivia is a 'relationship unknown' meaning it is not active in POWO (treated as a synonym of Echinopsis ).
Can you first describe how you'd like to see the taxonomy treated in terms of how it would map to POWO?
For example, you might say something like: "Split Lobivia off from Echinopsis and bring along Echinopsis A as Lobivia A and Echinopsis B as Lobivia B"
Then I can help describe the steps to take to form the taxonomy this way and properly document it in a deviation
Hi Scott,
Thanks for your response. Your example is exactly what I understand the community would like to achieve for Lobivia. Effectively Lobivia (iNat) is a subset of Echinopsis (POWO). I'm beginning to think that this must be done as a single many-to-many relationship rather than as multiple 1-to-1s. What I was trying to do was to start at the top and first create a relationship that indicated the synonymy of Lobivia to Echinopsis.
I think it would be easier to capture your intent here in this flag before trying to represent it as a taxon framework relationship
Can you fill out the rest of the mapping to the POWO Echinopsis species listed here http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:30001009-2#children
as in
Lobivia arachnacantha = Echinopsis arachnacantha
Lobivia aurea = Echinopsis aurea
Lobivia backebergii = Echinopsis backebergii
...
for the Lobivia species you want (already represented here https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/429186-Lobivia or otherwise)?
Okay, here goes, it's a very long list:
Lobivia arachnacantha = Echinopsis arachnacantha
Lobivia aurea = Echinopsis aurea
ssp. aurea
ssp. shaferi = E. aurea ssp. shaferi
ssp. fallax = E. aurea ssp. fallax
Lobivia backebergii = Echinopsis backebergii ssp. backebergii
Lobivia breviflora = E. breviflora
L. bruchii = E. bruchii
L. caineana = E. caineana
L. callochrysea = E. aurea
L. cardenasiana = E. cardenasiana
L. chrysantha = E. chrysantha
L. chrysochete = E. chrysochete
L. cinnabarina = E. cinnabarina
L. ferox = E. ferox
L. formosa = E. formosa
L. haematantha = E. haematantha
L. hertrichiana = E. hertrichiana
L. jajoana = E. jajoana
L. kieslingii = E. formosa ssp. kieslingii
L. lateritia = E. lateritia
L. marsoneri = E. marsoneri
L. maximiliana = E. maximiliana
ssp. maximiliana
ssp. caespitosa = E. maximiliana ssp. caespitosa
L. minutiflora = E. minutiflora
L. oligotricha = E. oligotricha
L. pampana = E. pampana
L. pentlandii = E. pentlandii
L. pojoensis = E. rauschii
L. pugionancantha = E. pugionacantha
ssp. pugionacantha
ssp. haemantha = E. pugionacantha ssp. haemantha
L. rauschii = E. yuquina
L. saltensis = E. saltensis
L. schieliana = E. schieliana
L. silvestrii = E. chamaecereus
L. stilowiana = E. stilowiana
L. tegeleriana = E. tegeleriana
L. tiegeliana = E. tiegeliana
L. wrightiana = E. backebergii ssp. wrightiana
Additionally I think we'll need to split:
L. wrightiana into 3, viz:
ssp. wrightiana
ssp. winteriana Note orthography here, it's not 'winterana'
ssp. zecheri
L. formosa into 4, viz:
ssp. formosa
ssp. korethroides
ssp. randalii
ssp. rosarioana
and then to create:
L. densispina = E. densispina
Even then I suspect we've missed a couple of subspecies or taxa that people may want to consider distinct.
It looks like a big job. Can it be done in stages?
Thanks @mrtnlowr - this is excellent. Thanks so much for taking the time to map these.
you mean pugionacantha not pugionancantha, right (note no 'n')?
So re: the current iNat taxonomy, it sounds like you want to demote 'winteriana' to ssp status?
If so, can you:
1) create Lobivia wrightiana ssp. winteriana
2) swap Lobivia winterana -> Lobivia wrightiana ssp. winteriana
And it sounds like you also want to elevate Lobivia haematantha ssp. densispina to species status?
If so can you:
1) create Lobivia densispina
2) swap Lobivia haematantha ssp. densispina -> Lobivia densispina
3) swap Lobivia haematantha ssp. haematantha -> Lobivia haematantha
4) optionally we may want to split Lobivia haematantha into Lobivia haematantha and Lobivia densispina, but we would only do this if there's alot of obs currently ID'd as Lobivia haematantha that need to become Lobivia densispina and manually reIDing them will be too much work. I don't think this is the case, correct? But can you confirm?
Re: the POWO taxonomy, I count these ssp that you haven't accounted for in your mapping. Can you account for these (e.g. Lobivia arachnacantha densiseta = Echinopsis arachnacantha densiseta) or clarify that you want iNat to consider the parent species (e.g. Lobivia arachnacantha) monotypic?
Echinopsis arachnacantha densiseta
Echinopsis arachnacantha sulphurea
Echinopsis arachnacantha torrecillasensis
Echinopsis ferox potosina
Echinopsis saltensis schreiteri
Echinopsis maximiliana westii
Echinopsis pugionacantha rossii
Once this is done, I can wire up the deviation since it is a pretty complicated one involving a lot of taxa
Also I closed to related flags
https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/451365
https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/472034
and redirected them here
Hi Scott,
Thanks for taking this on. I was struggling :)
Here's some comments and answers:
Yes, I meant pugionacantha not pugionancantha. Lots of typing in that list!
Lobivia winteriana:
Personally I fall between POWO and Lode on this one as I consider it a subsp. of L. wrightiana but if we are to follow Lode to the letter we should keep it separate. However it will have no taxon relationship since there is nowhere in POWO at which to point it.
Lobivia haematantha ssp. densispina:
Yes, we should elevate this. I'll deal with it as per your steps 1-3. I think the only observations are mine so I can deal those too.
Lobivia arachnacantha:
Although I made those subsp. combinations it's probably best to keep it 'monotypic'.
Echinopsis ferox potosina:
No need to create this in Lobivia. I now accept it as a synonym of Lobivia ferox.
Echinopsis saltensis schreiteri:
This needs adding as a subsp. of L. saltensis, although Lode doesn't recognise it.
Echinopsis maximiliana westii:
This needs adding as a subsp. of L. maximiliana
Echinopsis pugionacantha rossii:
Lobivia pugionacantha is at the moment a bit of a ragbag, multiple elements with no clear relationships. I'd prefer to keep the name for those plants matching the original intent. That will leave elements like salitrensis, culpinensis, versicolor and rossii without homes. (not sure why POWO places the first 3 under subsp haemantha, as that was never my intent).
Having seen many populations of L. rossii I now consider it better placed as a subsp. of pentlandii since their habit, flowers, fruits and seeds are similar and quite unlike L. pugionacantha.
L. versicolor is probably distinct as is L. culpinensis (syn. L. salitrensis). If the latter is accepted then haemantha is probably best there but that would need a formal comb. nov.
Hope that helps :)
ok great - if you want to keep Lobivia winterana then can you do steps 1-3 re: densispina and when thats done I'll do the rest (create a few taxa and create the deviation)?
Ok, I'll do them tonight.
OK, taxon swaps all done.
OK - we now have a massive deviation here https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_framework_relationships/285792 which accounts for the fact that we are following Lode in keeping Reicheocactus, Setiechinopsis, & Lobivia distinct from Echinopsis sensu POWO (unfortunately Trichocereus is also untangled because of Echinopsis × cabrerae sensu POWO and Trichocereus cabrerae sensu Lode)
We now have every Echinopsis sensu POWO accounted for in iNaturalist except Echinopsis torrefluminensis. Whats the status of this species? Its not in Lode.
But we still have 17 Echinopsis taxa in iNat that aren't accounted for in POWO. Can you advise on what to do with these taxa? e.g. can we swap them into some other taxa or if we need new deviations how do they map to POWO? (here's an example of a simpler deviation to account for a Echinopsis discrepancy with POWO)
Wow - that is massive!
We can make it a tiny bit smaller by removing T. x cabrerae and I'll do a 1-to-1 for that like I have with the other members of iNat's Trichocereus. (I guess I could have done that as a many-to-many too.)
I'll now take a look at the remaining 17 Echinopsis and get back to you.
BTW the example simple deviation you linked to is a little misleading. E. tubiflora as to type is actually a synonym of E. oxygona but now confusingly also gets missaplied to plants far from its type locality which should be called E. albispinosa. E. werdermannii is also a very old, now effectively forgotten, name that is again a synonym of E. oxygona.
The 17 remaining Echinopsis without taxon relationships (only 16 found)
iNat............................................ POWO
E. adolfofriedrichii...................synonym of E. oxygona (deviation from Lode)
E. boyuibensis...........................to be split from E. ancistrophora = Not External
E. bridgesii bridgesii................nominative subsp. = Not External
E. comarapana..........................synonym of E. bridgesii subsp. vallegrandensis (deviation from Lode)
E. coronata................................synonym of E. bridgesii subsp. vallegrandensis (deviation from Lode)
E. eyriesii....................................synonym of E. oxygona (deviation from Lode)
E. hammerschmidii..................synonym of E. callochlora (deviation from Lode)
E. klingeriana.............................synonym of Acanthocalycium rhodotrichum (E. klingeriana sensu Lode)(deviation from Lode)
E. leucantha...............................synonym of Acanthocalycium leucanthum (E. leucantha sensu Lode)
E. leucantha aurea...................synonym of Acanthocalycium leucanthum (E. leucantha sensu Lode) (-> inactive)
E. leucantha salpingophora...synonym of Acanthocalycium leucanthum (E. leucantha sensu Lode) (-> inactive)
E. minuana.................................synonym of Acanthocalycium rhodotrichum (E. minuana sensu Lode)(deviation from Lode)
E. rhodotricha............................synonym of Acanthocalycium rhodotrichum (E. rhodotricha sensu Lode)
E. semidenudata.......................synonym of E. bridgesii subsp. vallegrandensis (deviation from Lode)
E. subdenudata.........................synonym of E. ancistrophora (deviation from Lode)
E. sucrensis................................synonym of E. bridgesii subsp. vallegrandensis (deviation from Lode)
Depending on whether this is acceptable or not many of these can be dealt with via taxon swaps which I am happy to implement.
Cheers!
Re Echinopsis torrefluminensis (& E. krahn-juckeri)
See: http://www.cactusexplorers.org.uk/Explorer22/Cactus%20Explorer%2022_complete.pdf page 26
The names were published after Lode's update.
I think someone else will have to make a decision here since I have a conflict of interest.
thanks for this - re: the remaining Echinopsis without taxon relationships can you clarify if you want to get rid of the iNat taxa (e.g. swap them into the POWO taxa you listed) or keep them and deviate (by mapping to the POWO taxa you listed)?
For most of the ones I've listed as synonyms I prefer to swap them into the POWO taxa but that would necessitate deviating from Lode. Very few of them are used and I suspect they wouldn't be missed.
The two exceptions are E. leucantha and E. rhodotricha which I suspect the community would prefer to stay in Echinopsis (a la Lode) rather than having them under Acanthocalycium (which is where their genes and POWO put them).
@loarie
Can we consider this resolved?
(@ tags don't work in the flag reason by the way)
What's the error you see when creating a the taxon framework relationship?