Flag for Taxon: Grapefruit (Citrus paridisi)
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| philodendronjoe | Grapefruit (Citrus paridisi) |
i don't know the source for this taxon, but i'm guessing Citrus paridisi is a synonim or even just a typo for Citrus paradisi, which inat taxonomy includes into Citrus x aurantium. Or either it's a whole other taxon that is not acually the grapefruit? |
Dec. 28, 2020 18:33:08 +0000 | craig-r |
See comments |
Comments
as i thought, so this taxon should be merged with Citrus x aurantium right?
@philodendronjoe I'm not sure and am waiting for others to comment. Technically -- according to POWO -- it should be merged with Citrus x aurantium, yes. However Citrus × paradisi, despite being a synonym, has the advantage of clearly being a grapefruit. Whatever the best course of action turns out to be C. paridisi clearly needs to change (the original EOL citation link no longer exists maybe because it was a typo)
Edit: My personal choice, despite my (weak) argument for Citrus × paradisi, would be to merge with Citrus x aurantium as you suggest
the fact is, "Citrus paradisi" and "Citrus x paradisi" are already listed as synonims for Citrus x aurantium on iNat, with Grapefruit also added as a common name for the taxon, so it's likely that this one wasn't merged because, being a typo, wasn't recognized in the process. Anyway let's wait for other opinions on the matter
Wow I was trying to look up the taxonomy on Wikipedia and it's all over the place. Sweet oranges and bitter oranges have different scientific names even though they're hybrids of the same species (C. maxima and C. reticulata), and then grapefruit is a hybrid of sweet orange and one of the original species, and has its own scientific name too.
I feel like the good solution for iNat might be to have them all as varieties of C. x aurantium rather than complete synonyms or separate "species"-level hybrids?
iNat taxonomy relies on external sources so i don't know to what point a taxon can be modified by curators, anyway my uderstanding is that each fruit got initially described individually, then understood to be a hybrid of some sort, and then with more recent analysis it was established that x, y and z do not differ enough to be considered separate species and are in fact all part of one species, hence way Citrus x aurantium became the default name (supposedly it was the first described name) and the name of all the other varieties are now considered synonims by more updated and sectorial sources, while sources like wikipedia still uses the various scientific names (which anyway to me seems the best option to provide basic information to, say, normal people reading the grapefruit wikipedia page out of curiosity).
personally i think having the various fruit as separate taxon to variety level (does a variety level exist on inat?) would be good, like, the various fruit are indeed very different from each other, but i dunno how consistent with the official taxonomy this would be
i have to say, from a data perspective, having them separate is probably not very important since we're talking about domestic plants and probably even most of the RG obs are cultivated plants (maybe there are semiwild individuals/populations?), but could be useful for profane users that don't know much about this taxonomy chaos and try the app with cultivated plants
having all the fruit names (like orange, grapefruit etc) listed as common names for the taxon is sufficient for it to show up when you search one of this names, so a good thing would be to add all the common fruit names in most languages possible
Once it is merged, it is worth deleting the name as a synonym (since it is a typo and not a synonym).
i agree, but would deleting it affect the observations identified with this name? could it be edited already to Citrus paradisi and then kept as synonim after merging?
Deleting the name would not affect the observations if the the observations have been automatically re-identified in the merge/ swap already. The name can only be edited by the curator who originally added the name, and it looks like it was an automatic rather than a manual addition, so only admins could theoretically change the spelling. But there's little point in asking for a taxon we're not planning on keeping as a primary name.
Well, after six months, the misspelled name remains, so whatever is going to be done, shouldn't we get on with it?
Pity this discussion didn't lead to anything.
I think the arguments are clear:
Citrus paridisi is a typo and can't be corrected
Citrus x paradisi (which would be the correct spelling) is a synonym of Citrus x aurantium
all varieties described in the past to identify the "grapefruit" are all synonyms of Citrus x aurantium, see the long list on POWO: https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:59600-2
since POWO is our point of reference the taxons have to be merged.
Taxon swap commited
Thanks @martinwettges
Well, unless we change the default name to "Orange and Grapefruit" or something similar, I foresee problems when people try to identify observations of grapefruits. They will say, "But it isn't an orange."
We do have all vernacular names in the system, which means when typing "grapefruit" you end up with C. x aurantium. iN doesn't allow two common names in one text field. I understand that the taxonomic situation doesn't feel satisfying for every day life, but we have probably done all we can do here.
Grapefruit currently comes up with genus citrus, not this species. The name was removed ( posted reason used an EOL link) ...alongside many other common names for this species.
I am adding back in, but thought I would log it here that this became an issue again. Will remove common name from genus also.
Also, shouldn't this binomial have been merged not removed?
When typing in C.paradisi - don't we want it to show it as a synonym for C.aurantium? At present it just appears to be absent from system when you type it in.
I have removed it. It is Citrus × aurantium f. aurantium.
Is it possible to cancel this taxon change : https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_swaps/127412 ? And to change Citrus × paradisi to Citrus × aurantium f. aurantium ? See : https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:772019-1
I think that taxon was deleted as it was a misspelling in any case.
What you have done, adding the synonym Citrus x paradisi to Citrus × aurantium f. aurantium seems sufficient here ?...to me at least... :)
No it is not sufficient. All previous identifications have been moved to the wrong taxon.
It was more than 800 observations : https://www.inaturalist.org/identifications?taxon_id=872427¤t=any
@loarie ?
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_swaps/127412 was committed on 2023-06-21. Reverting taxa is a partial solution reserved for mistakes as soon as they happen. I recommend just making additional swaps as needed
@loarie : a swap is not possible : all identifications from different taxa have been merged to Citrus × aurantium (See https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes?taxon_id=331122). A split is not possible either.
The taxon page cites https://eol.org/pages/49925980 as the source of the name, however that page doesn't exist on EOL. EOL does, however, have https://eol.org/pages/582202 Citrus paradisi Macfad. as grapefruit. POWO has Citrus × paradisi Macfad. as a synonym of Citrus × aurantium L.
https://eol.org/pages/582202
http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:772019-1
http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:59600-2
So it looks like C. paridisi is probably an error