Flag for Taxon: African Coromandel (Subspecies Asystasia gangetica micrantha)
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| sutthikhun | African Coromandel (Subspecies Asystasia gangetica micrantha) |
has this subspecies been replaced with A. intrusa? http://plantsoftheworldonline.org/taxon/45747-1 |
Oct. 29, 2021 08:05:39 +0000 | jeremygilmore |
Swapped (see comments) |
Comments
I have no objection
No problem on my part, thank you.
All good on my side - I think (although I don't have any authority of course!).
The current observations of Asystasia intrusa (all from Southeast Asia) really confused me at first as they are most certainly not A. gangetica subsp. micrantha - and therefore also not A. intrusa.
After some digging I found Asystasia nemorum, which appears to be a good fit for these misfits, however there is limited reputable information on the species. The POWO page for A. intrusa makes sense, as it is effectively just A. gangetica subsp. micrantha [as we know it?]. The distribution of A. nemorum on its POWO page also somewhat matches the locality (Southeast Asia) of the current A. intrusa iNat observations.
Thoughts? Perhaps I've missed the boat on this one...
I don’t know where this decision on POWO has come from - no floras or other taxonomic accounts in Africa treat subsp. micrantha as a separate species, and the leading authority on Asystasia (Ensermu Kelbessa, who sadly passed away several years ago now) considered micrantha to be only subspecifically distinct - from memory, there are differences in ploidy between this and subsp. gangetica. Subsp. micrantha is introduced in Asia where it has become weedy in some places and there are some records of hybridization with true gangetica. That said, the two do look so different that I’ve always thought they could be treated as separate species. I am going to ask Rafael Govaerts what the source of the POWO decision was.
@jeremygilmore, your assessment of A. nemorum looks correct to me.
Asystasia gangetica var. krishnae Tandyekk., Pandur. & N. Mohanan is missing from the dictionary - should it be added: https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:77202362-1
Added
@iain_darbyshire have you reached out to Rafael yet?
Sorry @rynxs, yes I did talk to him and he based his decision on the recent Catalogue of plants of Costa Rica - a bit of a strange choice when all the African literature (where the Taxon is native) was united in treating it as an infraspecific taxon of A. gangetica. I’m hesitant to recommend following POWO here but it’s up to you really - it doesn’t make a huge difference I suppose.
We'll postpone the decision until later then.
If anyone has any resources to provide for POWO, sometimes they change their tune quite quickly after being shown otherwise. I would especially recommend showing them more relevant sources to Africa and Asia.
swap was just made
@galanhsnu Did you not see this flag???????
I am very sorry that I didn't notice this flag.
Hi all, it’s probably fine. But I don’t think this species should have the common name of Chinese Violet when this species is native to Africa and (to my knowledge) doesn’t even occur in China. That common name perhaps refers to A. nemorum.
Updated name priority
There were a massive number of disagreeing IDs created with this swap which bumped thousands of observations back to genus level. Can everybody help ID these as A. intrusa?
This link should have all of them
Me and galanshu got most of them. There are now only 285 left which need more IDs to make them the correct species
Lesson: when posting proposed taxon swaps, refer to the flag and discussion regarding it. And at least a note why it was not committed.
Still 130 needing pushing from southern Africa.
Please assist if you can.
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/identify?taxon_id=156146&place_id=113055
I just went though the remainder of the African observations of A. gangetica and added A. intrusa IDs to most of them, so there's a fresh batch of about 100 observations which need confirming IDs if anyone would be able to provide them here:
swap drafted: https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/106495
This is gonna be a big one, so I'm tagging some of the most affected users to see if there are any objections to this swap. Deviation is an option (if needed), but following POWO is always strongly recommended.
https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:979332-1
@sedgesrock @galanhsnu @jasonrgrant @iain_darbyshire @jeremygilmore @kokhuitan @jodyhsieh @igorazevedo @gancw1 @robertarcher397