Content Author Object Flagger Flag Created Reason Resolved by Resolution
ajwright clustered broomrape (Aphyllon fasciculatum) benbenton01 Tue, 24 Aug 2021 15:48:51 +0000

A. franciscanum was recently described to be a separate species from A. fasciculatum.

Not Resolved

Comments

Another problem is that the entire genus has been synonymized with Orobanche. http://plantsoftheworldonline.org/results?q=Aphyllon Will make separate flag.

Posted by kitty12 about 1 year ago (Flag)

Hard to tell given the closed-access literature, but I suspect this would be better addressed with a Taxon Split on iNat than by re-identifying existing records (which is what seems to be happening). If they are sympatric, at least all the records of A. fasciculatum in range will get bumped up to genus and it will allow manual identifiers to refine them to A. franciscanum or A. fasciculatum without having to persuade past identifiers to update their IDs. Since the literature is closed-access, a split would also provide an opportunity for iNat curators (who, in this case, might be the authors of the paper) to explain how to tell these two species apart in a single place instead of in comments on every single obs of A. fasciculatum sensu lato.

Posted by kueda 11 months ago (Flag)

Hi, I am one of the authors of the paper, (not to be confused with the similarly named commenter above). I requested curator status to help with this issue as well as others in the Orobanchaceae, but my application was rejected, so hopefully existing curators will have a chance to work on this soon. I did flag the new taxon yesterday for a possible split. While there is a large area of sympatric overlap that will have to be done manually, the ranges do not overlap west of the Californian Sierra Nevada (A. franciscanum) or east of the Rockies (A. fasciculatum).

Posted by acschneider 11 months ago (Flag)

Well, it's good news that they're not entirely sympatric. FWIW, you could help out curators a lot by posting a URL to the full text of your paper, e.g. on ResearchGate or on a personal website.

Posted by kueda 11 months ago (Flag)

Thanks for the suggestion. Ben and I actually indicated the paper should be open access, but this hasn't yet been processed by the journal. If a curator wants to work on the taxon split I'm happy to email them a copy in the interim.

Posted by acschneider 11 months ago (Flag)

@kueda Would you (or anyone else) be willing to do this split? I've been re-identifying them piecemeal as I run across them, but that is pretty inefficient...

Posted by graysquirrel 4 months ago (Flag)

On this specific issue, POWO does not yet support A. franciscanum, so strictly speaking, that taxon should not have been added to iNat until POWO picks it up. If we really want to support it, we could mark it as a deviation from POWO. Is that what you all want to do?

More broadly, I would not spend any time re-identifying observations that could be dealt with via taxon changes. As you say, it's not very efficient, plus it creates the inevitable mess in cases of sympatry where former IDs get replaced with coarser IDs which end up disagreeing with those manually-added IDs. I would instead consider whether a new taxon should have been activated via a taxon change, and if it should have been but wasn't, flag it to have a curator de-activate it until it can be handled with a taxon change.

Posted by kueda 4 months ago (Flag)

Ah, I didn't notice it wasn't in POWO yet. It looks like it's in IPINI, so it should go through whenever POWO next updates, but I suppose we may as well wait for it to go through there.

Posted by graysquirrel 4 months ago (Flag)

Ok, looks like someone else set up a deviation, so I guess we're deviating from POWO. I made https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/111802 and I tried to set up atlases for these two taxa:

https://www.inaturalist.org/atlases/17463
https://www.inaturalist.org/atlases/53671

@benbenton01, @graysquirrel, @jdmore, and @acschneider, I'd really appreciate it if you could take a look at those atlases and make changes if they're inaccurate, because those are what will determine whether observations get automatically re-identified to species or bumped back to genus.

Posted by kueda 3 months ago (Flag)

My detailed knowledge of their distributions are limited to the White Mountains along the CA-NV border. Otherwise it seems that the sampling map in the Schneider & Benton paper - unfortunately without state boundaries showing - is the best guide available. I wouldn't be able to interpret it any better than the authors themselves.

I did check some observations just outside the west edge of the A. fasciculatum Atlas in the Tahoe area, and it looks like the two near Truckee and South Lake Tahoe are good fasciculatum, so those two counties would unfortunately need to be added to the area of overlap.

On the east edge of the franciscanum atlas, the published sampling map doesn't seem to show any locations in Colorado or Wyoming. Even if the species is known in those states, I wonder if it would make sense to leave them out of the franciscanum atlas for taxon-split purposes, and then manually identify the very few franciscanum observations that might be missed.

For that matter, it bothers me that such a huge number of fasciculatum observations across the Intermountain West (mainly NV and UT) are going to revert to genus for the sake of very few franciscanum observations in that region. Wishing we could "selectively" atlas the taxa prior to committing the split, to get the biggest bang for the buck where franciscanum presence is significant or predominant, and afterward pick up the few stragglers in the east part of its range via manual identification.

Posted by jdmore 3 months ago (Flag)

Thanks, Jim.

I did check some observations just outside the west edge of the A. fasciculatum Atlas in the Tahoe area, and it looks like the two near Truckee and South Lake Tahoe are good fasciculatum, so those two counties would unfortunately need to be added to the area of overlap.

I added all the counties touching Lake Tahoe to the A. fasciculatum atlas.

On the east edge of the franciscanum atlas, the published sampling map doesn't seem to show any locations in Colorado or Wyoming

I was trying to use the localities in Appendix I of the paper, which is why Wyoming is there. Colorado comes from https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/122852899, so maybe that needs to be accessed by the experts.

For that matter, it bothers me that such a huge number of fasciculatum observations across the Intermountain West (mainly NV and UT) are going to revert to genus

It kind of sucks, but we really don't know what those A. fasciculatum IDs really mean right now, right? It's unfortunate that we activated A. franciscanum before executing a split that would automate a lot of this, but I think we were always going to have the headache of needing to reassess records in the range of sympatry.

Posted by kueda 3 months ago (Flag)

Thanks, I inexcusably glazed over Appendix I. That Colorado observation looks like A. fasciculatum to me, but I'll let the experts weigh in. Even if it were franciscanum, is it worth reverting all the other Colorado fasciculatum observations for just that one?

we really don't know what those A. fasciculatum IDs really mean right now, right?

Collectively no, but we can assess where the ratio of fasciculatum to franciscanum is extremely high. Reinforcing the map, Appendix I only cites single specimens for Wyoming, Utah, and New Mexico. The map shows zero iNat observations (at time of publication) for Wyoming and Colorado, if I'm eyeballing the borders right.

I think we were always going to have the headache of needing to reassess records in the range of sympatry

Agreed, I'm just suggesting that this can be done much more efficiently for Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and maybe Nevada, by assessing them via the Identify modal outside the split while they can still be filtered as A. fasciculatum, instead of including those states in the franciscanum atlas and having to go through all Aphyllon observations in those areas after the split. The vast majority in those states are, and can remain, fasciculatum.

Alternately, if equivalents exist in Aphyllon for Orobanche sect. Gymnocaulis (fasciculatum + franciscanum + purpureum + uniflorum) and Orobanche sect. Nothaphyllon (most of the rest in this region), we could add those nodes before the split, so that things only get reverted to Section instead of all the way to Genus. Again, we'd need the Aphyllon experts to weigh in on whether equivalent Aphyllon section names are available.

Posted by jdmore 3 months ago (Flag)

Agreed, I'm just suggesting that this can be done much more efficiently for Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and maybe Nevada, by assessing them via the Identify modal outside the split while they can still be filtered as A. fasciculatum, instead of including those states in the franciscanum atlas and having to go through all Aphyllon observations in those areas after the split. The vast majority in those states are, and can remain, fasciculatum.

If you want to remove those states from the franciscanum atlas before committing this and then add them back after, go right ahead. IMO that's pretty fussy, but I'm probably not going to be doing much of the cleanup work outside of CA, so if that helps you and others out, go for it.

Posted by kueda 3 months ago (Flag)

I'll wait to hear from the other folks that were tagged on this.

Posted by jdmore 3 months ago (Flag)

1.- Appendix 1 in S&B is only meant to capture the range at the state level. We did miss Colorado, but there is now ample evidence that A. franciscanum is present there, too:

https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/120544801
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/122718840

2.- Atlas changes to A. fasciculatum
a) exclude from Arizona: Pima, Santa Cruz, Cochise counties
b) exclude from Texas entirely, or limit to northeastern Texas. See S&B:

"The presence of A. fasciculatum in Texas is uncertain. Reports from Montague County (BONAP, Kartesz 2015) and Ellis County (USDA, NRCS 2020) in northeastern Texas do not appear in Turner et al. (2003) and could not otherwise be verified. If present, such populations likely would be Aphyllon fasciculatum due to the similar habitat and geographic proximity to confirmed Oklahoman populations parasitizing Artemisia in dry prairie."

c) expand to include Klamath county (Crater Lake, OR observations are A. fascic.)
d) San Bernardino Co: only the two Mojave desert observations are fascic-- is there a way to more finely divide this area to split these off from the pops around the LA basin, which are all franciscanum? The two species split along biogeographic lines here that are not reflected in political boundaries.
e) add to California: Tulare county (see https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/48506917)

And a couple suggestions for outside the area of range overlap, where the plans are known from a very specific or ecologically unique portion of a much larger state:

f) exclude from Alaska all but "Southeast Fairbanks County, US, AK"
g) exclude from Indiana all but Porter and Lake Counties
h) exclude from Illinois all but Lake and Cook Counties

3.- Atlas for A. franciscansum looks fine to me. The species is known from the Franklin Mountains in El Paso County, TX, but there are no iNat obs from the state yet. Same for New Mexico- known but not on iNat

4.- "selectively" atlasing the taxa makes sense to me if someone wants to do it-- its really California, and to a lesser extent, OR, WA, and BC where the sympatry problem is the worst. In the intermountain region, the vast majority of observations seem to be A. fasciculatum. For example, looking through herbarium specimens at UN-Reno, I'd say 3% or less of A. fasciculatum records from the state were actually A. franciscanum. Alternatively, there are fewer than 10 iNat RG observations from the intermountain states that are A. franscicanum, so you could just make a list of those, and re-ID them manually after the split

5.- Adding section-level nodes would be great. There are names available:
Aphyllon sect. Aphyllon = purpureum, uniflorum, franciscanum, fasciculatum, and epigalium
Aphyllon sect. Nothaphyllon = everything else

Hope this helps- let me know if I missed anything

Posted by acschneider 3 months ago (Flag)

Thanks much @acschneider, all very helpful. I'm about to be in the field for a couple of weeks. If this is still pending when I'm back, my inclination would be to

1 - Add the two sectional nodes to the taxonomy (I'll get warnings for a few species with over 1000 observations),
2 - Revise the atlases as you indicated,
3 - Temporarily remove CO, NM, NV, UT, and WY from the A. franciscanum atlas (fussiness notwithstanding), and restore after committing the split,
4 - Commit the split,
5 - Review and identify any remaining A. franciscanum observations in CO, NM, NV, UT, and WY (should be very few).

I think the sectional nodes are worth having, both to help streamline clean-up after this split, and because in my experience several observations within each section have been hard to agree on at species level.

I'll check back for further thoughts or comments when I return.

Posted by jdmore 3 months ago (Flag)

Add a Comment

Sign In or Sign Up to add comments