yep that's the gist of it. I'm happy to deviate

@thebeachcomber re: your point in the original discussion as to any thoughts on why APC hasn't accepted the change. I don't know why they haven't made the change yet but I suspect they haven't gotten around to it yet due to a backlog and it being a slow process, slowed down even further by COVID-19.

Thanks Scott. Much appreciated.
Cheers, Patrick

Hi Patrick,

steps would be:
1) create an inactive Banksia cunninghamii grafted to Banksia
2) create a draft taxon swap with Banksia spinulosa var. cunninghamii as input and Banksia cunninghamii as output
3) commit the swap
4) delete the taxon framework relation ship on the now inactive Banksia spinulosa var. cunninghamii
5) create a deviation involving Banksia cunninghamii and Banksia spinulosa
If you do steps 1-3 I'm happy to help with 4-5
also happy to answer questions if 1-3 are unclear

@loarie I've successfully done steps 1-3 for Banksia cunninghamii. If you could help with 4-5 that would be great.

Thanks very much Scott.

OK I committed 2 additional swaps
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/92358
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/92357
(I also added a link to this flag to your swap https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/92036)
And I updated the deviation which also links to this flag/discussion https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_framework_relationships/116887

There may be now lots of existing IDs of Banksia spinulosa that intended to mean sensu lato and are now interpreted as sensu stricto (e.g. they weren't disagreements with Banksia spinulosa var. cunninghamii but are now disagreements Banksia cunninghamii)
Can you go through and take a look at the extent of this problem? If they can be dealt with by outweighing the existing IDs (e.g. adding a bunch of Banksia cunninghamii IDs to outweight the existing Banksia spinulosa) or getting the IDer who added the Banksia spinulosa ID to replace it through comments etc than great

If the problem is too extensive, we can split Banksia spinulosa which will remove Banksia spinulosa IDs and replace them with the proper child taxon (e.g. Banksia cunninghamii) if they can be determined based on ranges/atlases. Or Banksia otherwise (which will coarsen some data so not idea but probably better than lots of wrong data if your unable to clean up the IDs via manual interactions)

I know I've come in late to this, but I have a problem here.
In Australia the go-to plant name consensus is the Australian Plant Name Index and Australian Plant Census - APNI/APC. Which, in this case, gives the current (since 2005) name of this plant as Banksia spinulosa var. cunninghamii.
https://biodiversity.org.au/nsl/services/rest/name/apni/109265/api/apni-format

This consensus approach allows for different States and Territories in Australia to have a different interpretation in their jurisdiction, but the national agreement is APNI/APC. If you don't like what they've decided, then you can get it changed, and there is a formal procedure for that.

I know that POWO appears to have changed the name of some of the Banksias, but that seems to me to be a bit premature.

@loarie Thanks for your response, Scott.

Do you know the process by which IPNI and hence POWO select the best names to use? And who at POWO or IPNI would be a good person to contact about this? I guess they are open to mistakes being fixed, if need be.
The reference to Banksia cunninghamii on both POWO and IPNI websites is a bit opaque, and apart from the original author (Sieber in 1827) and cunninghamii as a variety (A.S. George in 1980) neither the rationale, nor the source, for using one name over the other is given.

Thanks Scott.