Flag for Taxon: blue elder (Sambucus cerulea)
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| susanfawcett | blue elder (Sambucus cerulea) |
the correct name for this taxon is Sambucus mexicana C. Presl. ex DC. Whittemore makes a compelling case: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/44858907.pdf?casa_token=eaBzTSTdnkMAAAAA:TDKSe8Sv43NyZauZiuXOsTQ5yDH2g3hsRFK4iHHnTrvDVswBVdl8Ek7ZArDU0VbQbCW_FslyWp |
Jan. 17, 2021 01:40:22 +0000 | Not Resolved |
Comments
@zdanko -- I noticed that -- I identified this https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/68180913 as S. mexicana, and it automatically replaced it with S. cerulea.
I agree this looks to be a problem. POWO has Sambucus cerulea and Sambucus mexicana both as valid distinct species separate from Sambucus nigra http://plantsoftheworldonline.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:227173-2
The Jepson flora here in California also treats Sambacus mexicana as valid.
Looks like here on iNat S. cerulea was previously split off from S. nigra https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/36658
@bouteloua is it time to split Sambucus mexicana off from Sambucus cerulea?
Looks like Whittemore is calling for S. cerulea to be recognized as S. mexicana subsp. cerulea (Raf.) A.E. Murray
I don't have access to a non-paywalled copy of Whittemore's article. From the abstract, though, it sounds like he has made a good case that the name S. mexicana should apply to the species that includes the Monterey area blue elderberries.
If he is also recognizing S. mexicana subsp. cerulea, then I guess he is saying that the "Oregon Territory" (as of 1838) blue elderberries are a different subspecies than the Monterey area blue elderberries. Would like to read more about that...
@jdmore pm me your email and I'll send you the PDF if you want it.
Thanks @susanfawcett, copy received! My take: unfortunately Whittemore does not offer specifics about the differences between mexicana and cerulea, and the cited Oregon Flora treatment (in prep.) also does not offer specifics, at least in the online version. Only one of the taxa (subsp. cerulea) is being recognized in Oregon. In review, the Flora of North America manuscript included a note to assess the two taxa also, so we may eventually get a key to the two taxa when that is published.
@loarie as I'm looking at the Jepson eFlora, S. mexicana is being treated as a synonym of S. nigra subsp. cerulea, not as a valid taxon.
So as to the original reason for this flag, whether or not S. mexicana is the correct name for S. cerulea still depends on whether we agree that the differences between the two merit subspecies rank and not species rank. As of now, I don't have enough specifics to be comfortable making that call. I would be comfortable adding S. mexicana to the iNat taxonomy as separate species (and removing it from synonymy under S. cerulea) to conform with POWO, since it is clear that S. mexicana is the correct name for some of the plants currently called S. cerulea. People who want to follow Whittemore could then comfortably identify the coastal California plants as S. mexicana. But where to stop calling things mexicana and start calling them cerulea (at whatever rank) is not yet clear.
@jdmore - I see you're right re: Jepson https://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/eflora_display.php?tid=80587 - not sure how i got that wrong
@jdmore -- there is a nice key in Munz, which recognizes both Sambucus mexicana and S. cerulea at species rank, which I have handy. Whittemore also references two other sources, Elias 1980, and Abrams and Ferris, 1960, which provide distinguishing features of the two taxa. I just sent you the Munz key, for your reference.
@loarie -- the Jepson eFlora will catch up with Whittemore, and ditch S. nigra. You're just ahead of the curve :)
my preference (which is mainly driven by simplicity) is to follow POWO. But I don't feel strongly about deviating as long as we clearly articulate what we're doing and how it differs from POWO
@susanfawcett thanks, I have all three of those references at my office, which I'm now visiting again once a week, so I'll check those next time I'm there. But thanks for sending the image from Munz! It will be interesting to find out if Whittemore is tracking those same distinctions.
So for now I went ahead and brought the iNat taxonomy in line with POWO for these two species by adding S. mexicana as a separate taxon, and updated the Taxon Framework Relationships. In Sambucus cerulea, POWO accepts vars. neomexicana and cerulea, both of which were already in iNat as such. Not sure how Whittemore would handle var. neomexicana. The current draft FNA treatment sinks it in S. cerulea.
OK- if thats the pan we'll need to retroactively split some taxa though. I'm not sure exactly how to untangle this though. Here's current obs of S. cerulea, S. nigra, and S. mexicana
It could be years before we have enough information to intelligently atlas and split S. cerulea, and even then, I suspect we would be looking at a majority of the observations getting kicked back to genus level. Seems like a borderline case where maybe just letting the community sort out the two taxa going forward would work better in the long run. But if you think it would be better to deviate and keep everything in cerulea for now pending enough information for a split, it should be easy enough to undo what I just did.
I don't think its wise to just add S. mexicana and leave it at that since there are 22,762 existing IDs of S. cerulea and I suspect the majority of those are IDs where the IDer meant S. cerulea sensu something that would encompass what POWO is calling S. mexicana. We try to avoid changing what we mean by taxa when it impacts what was meant by lots of existing IDs unless we address these IDs.
If you don't think addressing these ID's in a sensible way is feasible then my preference is just to stick with what we had ( S. cerulea contains S. mexicana) and be clear about why we're deviating (because there's not enough information for people to distinguish taxa sensu POWO)
Alternatively we could just split S. cerulea into S. cerulea and S. mexicana with no atlases which would replace all existing IDs of S. cerulea with IDs of Sambacus. And then let the community role things forward from there. Very destructive, but would allow us to get in line with POWO while avoiding misinterpreting all the existing IDs of S. cerulea that meant what you mean by S. mexicana.
My preference would probably be the former unless anyone can provide insight on how S. mexicana and S. cerulea can be distinguished and what their general distributions are
@loarie --At species rank, Sambucus mexicana is the earliest name, and has priority over the name S. cerulea (considered a synonym). This is also a synonym of S. nigra subsp. cerulea (as treated in the Jepson eFlora). The simplest thing would be a taxon swap to recognize all S. cerulea observations as S. mexicana (and allow them to be treated as subspecies S. m. mexicana or S. m. cerulea if desired by the community).
Taken at species (or subspecies rank) there are some morphological differences between S. mexicana and S. cerulea, but they intergrade, and ranges overlap. S. mexicana (subsp. mexicana) occurs at lower elevations, and S. mexicana (subsp. cerulea) occurs in conifer forests at higher elevations, and extends further north. The Jepson eFlora recognizes a single taxon (equivalent of S. mexicana), but this taxon encompasses the concepts of S. mexicana and S. cerulea in California (sensu Munz), but the name S. mexicana has priority.
As far as how to clean up the iNat taxa below species rank, I don't know what the best approach is. I know I added my observation as S. mexicana initially, but it was converted to S. cerulea by iNat (as a synonym). Is the original name data stored somewhere? This could be helpful for understanding what subspecies would be appropriate, or the intent of the observer.
This provides some helpful background: https://www.actahort.org/members/showpdf?booknrarnr=1061_1
@loarie fair point, I can just swap the new S. mexicana back into S. cerulea. The only ID added so far is one just added by @susanfawcett.
@susanfawcett if we were to swap all of S. cerulea into S. mexicana, it would only be a temporary fix since it looks like we eventually want to recognize both taxa at some rank, and would add intermediate ID changes to all those 22K+ observations. Also, we would have to sink S. cerulea var. neomexicana into S. mexicana, since according to IPNI there is no valid combination under the latter.
I don't think iNat necessarily has to use the correct name (though that's always preferable), as long as it uses a valid name and documents why.
@jdmore. - that's the simplest thing, I suppose. I'm sure this will have to be dealt with at some point, and there is no easy fix for parsing subspecies (if you want to recognize them). It's just in my nature to want to use the correct name.
I can just swap the new S. mexicana back into S. cerulea
that sounds good to me
@loarie ok, swap done, sorry for the false start. Deviation documented here:
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_framework_relationships/251581
great - thanks!
This still appears to be the current taxonomic revision and supersedes the other publications discussed above having been published in 1994..
https://www.schweizerbart.de/publications/detail/isbn/9783443641351/%23
If Kew has newer information in conflict with this I'm open to it. Please show me, I'm here to learn. If not iNat tarnishes their reputation by using obsolete information as does Kew. You are serving a double standard to the public.
@little_mousie See the Flora of Oregon and Flora of California: https://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/eflora_display.php?tid=43127
Strangly enough, typing in "sambucus mexicana" into the iNat search box makes S. cerulea show up.