Flag for Taxon: Nonea rossica
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| apseregin | Nonea rossica |
I'd like to propose a deviation from POWO where N. rossica and N. pulla are accepted as separate species. I follow EuroMed treatment (http://ww2.bgbm.org/EuroPlusMed/PTaxonDetail.asp?NameCache=Nonea%20rossica&PTRefFk=7100000). |
Jan. 16, 2021 17:34:25 +0000 | kitty12 |
Swap done |
Comments
Another link, where two accessions of N. pulla are cited from Belgorod Oblast and the Urals, and no N. rossica studied among thorougly sampled Nonea species from Caucasus is here: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/ultraskulptura-poverhnosti-plodov-vidov-nonea-boraginaceae-juss-flory-azerbaydzhana/viewer (in Russian)
Thanks for the extra information with the request @apseregin. Might I suggest that you send a modified version of this to Kew (bi@kew.org), if you have not done so already?
The difference between the species according the Flora of the East Europe seems to be within the limits of modification variability - the form of inflorescence and the thicknes of indumentum
I totally support the proposed merge as the two seem to be completely inseparable. I have failed to find any more or less recent publication where the existence of two separate species is argued (apart from the account in the Flora of Eastern Europe, which dates back to 1981, the characters in which do not seem to be consistent and satisfactory)
I have drafted the swap but won't commit it for some time, although the community seems to support the merge of taxa
@convallaria1128, I think it's time to commit the swap. A long-awaited swap
Committing the swap will not create more problems in case of an unlikely though possible future decision of separating the two taxa, as the current IDs were made with no visible systematic approach. This unlikely future separation of the taxa will in any case require a complete review of all the IDs under both species names [or one, after the swap is committed], should they be distinguishable by geography or morphology
This makes the merge rather safe
Will do today
I want to add a comment to ground my proposal. An acceptance of both N. pulla and N. rossica lead to annoying conflict of identifications. This could be also illustrated by a fact that general ditribution of N. rossica and N. pulla in POWO and in iNat are not corresponding, although these taxa are assumed to be geographical races.
POWO could not be treated as a reliable source here, since even photos of both Noneas in POWO (http://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:119406-1) and (http://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:119401-1) represent Cynoglossum officinale photographed in the same place!
Nonea pulla is accepted as a single species in the standard flora for Middle Russia (Mayevsky 2014), where both N. pulla and N. rossica should occur. In Siberia, the name of this taxon is usually accepted as N. rossica as a tradition, because the second one (pulla) is believed not to grow here.
I hope that my proposal will be discussed and finally supported by the community as a wiser solution in this group. It seems to me that it is impossible to split clearly records of these two Noneas on iNat.
Tags of top-experts for N. rossica:
@convallaria1128 248
@julia_shner 86
@allaverkhozina 64
@kastani 64
@apseregin 55
Tags for top-observers for N. rossica:
@tatyana-omck 32
@pavel_golyakov 30
@alzov 28
@smsergey 20
@divitre 19