Flag for Taxon: Bosom Orchid (Ophrys mammosa)
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| abounabat | abounabat | Bosom Orchid (Ophrys mammosa) |
Draft deviation to be discussed... |
Apr. 25, 2021 16:42:52 +0000 | abounabat |
change done by deviation from POWO |
Comments
Yes, see http://www.orchidsofbritainandeurope.co.uk/Ophrys%20mammosa.html
subspecies
ssp. mammosa
ssp. transhyrcana
ssp. ciliciana
..?
Ophrys mammosa subsp. caucasica (Woronow) Soó
Ophrys mammosa subsp. ciliciana Kreutz
Ophrys transhyrcana Czerniak.
Ophrys transhyrcana subsp. morio (Paulus & Kreutz) Kreutz
Ophrys transhyrcana subsp. mouterdeana (B.Baumann & H.Baumann) Kreutz
Ophrys transhyrcana subsp. paphlagonica Kreutz
Ophrys transhyrcana subsp. sintenisii (H.Fleischm. & Bornm.) Kreutz
@naturalist : any opinion ?
I suggest to elevate O. mammosa at species rank, it would be easier now to sort it in several subspecies.
I am totally favorable to this. Ophrys mammosa species group is very speciose, it will be obscurantist to let it as a subspecies.
Oh my god, it is again the same taxon split to two entries: https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/460234-Ophrys-sphegodes-mammosa
@fateryga yes but it is undergoing a taxon change
@fateryga : and yourself, what is your preference ? and why ?
I don't know, any solution will be OK for me. The system of the genus on iNat is a mess. I personally use the name O. mammosa mostly due to the tradition but I feel that Bateman is more correct than Delforge.
Yes, but do you prefer a compromise between Bateman (all taxa within O. sphegodes ssp. mammosa) and Delforge (each taxon as a full species O. mammosa, O. morio, O. moutrdeana, O. transhyrcana, O. leucophtalma, etc.) ?
If yes, the O. mammosa s.l. with subspecies (ssp. leucophtalma, ssp. mouterdeana, ssp. transhyrcana, etc.) would be the less worst compromise...
And it is exactly what I suggested here !
Yes, your suggestion is OK!
OK I will do it, and I will take the wrath of some opponents...
:-)
@aztekium you may be surprised but any specific source is also finally based on somebody's personal opinion.
The point is that there is no consensus on these issues, so what @abounabat did is a good compromise between two extreme views IMO.
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/1237704-Ophrys-mammosa
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/91811
According to recurrent claims by iNat users, I suggest to elevate O. mammosa at species rank, it would be more easy now to sort it in several subspecies...
Nevertheless, I just discovered that a lot of species considered belonging to the mammosa group by orchidologists, have never been combined at subspecies rank under O. mammosa !
What do you think about ?