Flag for Taxon: Century plant subfamily (Subfamily Agavoideae)
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| jf920 | Century plant subfamily (Subfamily Agavoideae) |
Please add hybrid Genus ×Mangave (Manfreda × Agave) |
Nov. 25, 2021 20:39:26 +0000 | Not Resolved |
Comments
in not sure what a synopsis is so i think i dont have that
a list of the taxa blonging to a genus, in this case a nothogenus
Im sorry i dont have that. Im not sure if any species names have been described, but there are countless recorded crosses of agave and manfreda species that have meen made. I can tell you some of those crosses if that helps.
Powo and GBIF list Mangave as a Synonym of Agave. Thats probably since they have Manfreda as a Synonym of Agave aswell. Since iNaturalist deviates from them by accepting Manfreda, the hybrid between Manfreda and Agave should also be accepted.
It would for example be needed here: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/98427563
I need it here again: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/85600328 Can someone please add it?
@bouteloua @kitty12 @thomaseverest Can you help?
I'm not familiar with plant taxonomy so I'd prefer someone else work with this.
Do you know a curator who may be more experienced with this?
@blue_celery sounds like they know what's up. I think they're saying that it doesn't make a ton of sense to add a genushybrid if there's no species to put in it. Even if we don't know what that particular observation is, I'm not sure it makes taxonomical sense to have a genushybrid if we don't know what the descendants are. But plant hybrids get really weird so I'm not sure what the best course of action is.
In the case, I could add something to the site taxonomy but I would need to know what to add
I see no problem with that. Look at ×Graptosedum or ×Sedeveria for example. Its the same. Those hybrids exists, they just havent been described on a species level yet (and probably arent going to be because the possible combinations are endless). Those hybrids are mainly known from horticulture where cultivar names are used. But that dosent make the Hybridgenus invalid. The current situation is that those plants have no place on iNataurlists tree of life to fit in, which is way worse.
Just call it ×Mangave https://www.gbif.org/species/9818745
have they been formally described? I mean with a type species.
I dont know
Here is the source according to POWO, but I can't find the publication online
KLEIN, D. (2010): × Mangave‘Bloodspot’ und × Mangave‘Macho Mocha’. Kakt. and. Sukk. 61(8): 211-215.
I dont think we need to make sure it has a type species. We dont do that for other taxons aswell, do we? Lets just assume the author did everything correct. If youre so doubtful about the name ×Mangave, then please add it as "Manfreda × Agave". I just found 3 more observations of this taxon and i want to id them all.
We only add valid taxa, as per whatever body is governing taxonomy (ICZN, ICBN, etc.). I don't know how they handle hybrids, but every other taxon needs a type.
And is there any information that it lacks a type? We just dont know the publication ad i dont think it is necessary to review it since we dont really do that for other taxons.
We do know the publication it's just not accessible that I found. We go to the primary literature for every taxon where we establish a deviation. This is considered a synonym in POWO so we need to add a deviation, sourced to some primary literature, if we're going to have something different.
Thats what i ment to say that its not accessible. I think the deviation is mainly on the segregation of Manfreda from Agave. Since this is accepted here, we should accept the existance xMangave aswell, since it is a direct consequence of that split. We cant accept only Manfreda while still having Mangave as a Synonym of Agave. That makes no sense
Given my lack of familiarity with this group (and with plant taxonomy in general), this is where I think it's best that someone else takes over. See the comment and flags here.
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_framework_relationships/411192
Hi @jf920. Thanks for adding a comment to the earlier flag on Agave which is how I found this discussion.
I agree that iNat's decision to treat Manfreda as a separate genus from Agave means that precisely identifying a hybrid between species from the two genera would require us to add the "nothogenus" × Mangave (and possibly some subordinate taxa). Before we do that, I think it's worth considering that iNat is primarily meant for wild organisms. If these cross-genus hybrids occur regularly in the wild, it would certainly be good to have a specific genus hybrid taxon. If they're really only encountered as deliberate crosses in cultivation, the case for a separate taxon (rather than Subfamily Agavoideae) is less strong.
iNat's guidelines on hybrids say that:
[...] use of hybrid taxon concepts should be avoided whenever possible. Adding IDs of higher-level taxa is usually sufficient. In those rare cases when some external authority actually supports a named hybrid, we will tolerate it [...]
My understanding is that one goal is to avoid cluttering up the taxonomy with a very large number of hybrids (at species or genus level) that exist only in cultivation. If such hybrids occur naturally with reasonable frequency, or if a hybrid is known to naturalize, those would seem to be good reasons to include the hybrid taxon in iNat.
If the decision is ultimately not to create an × Mangave genus hybrid then those cultivated observations should be IDed as Subfamily Agavoideae. If you're interested in tracking them, you could add an observation field to help you find them. There are already several similar fields:
Hybrid name: https://www.inaturalist.org/observation_fields/7126
Hybrid (yes/no/not observed): https://www.inaturalist.org/observation_fields/14064
Natural hybrid: https://www.inaturalist.org/observation_fields/12135
Cultivar Name: https://www.inaturalist.org/observation_fields/7618
Name of Cultivar: https://www.inaturalist.org/observation_fields/6311
Cultivar: https://www.inaturalist.org/observation_fields/301
Cultivar? (yes/no/maybe): https://www.inaturalist.org/observation_fields/11009
I wonder if @loarie could take a look at this thread and help figure our whether an × Mangave genus hybrid is justified? Here's some additional info that @jf920 shared in another thread:
Most of them are horticultural hybrids, but i know of one, which is supposed to be a natural one. Possibly there are more that I don't know of. × Mangave ‘Macho Mocha’ was grown from seeds collected in the wild on a Manfreda variegata. It was most likely pollinated by Agave celsii growing nearby.
BTW, iNat currently treats Agave celsii as a synonym for Agave mitis.
One more data point... Here's the description of Mangave from the website "Mad about Mangave".
Agave and Manfreda are native from the Southeastern United States through to South America. You will probably never find a Mangave growing in the wild because of how infrequently both Agave and Manfreda flower, making cross pollination unlikely. It is thanks to the collectors and hybridizers of unique plants that this original cross was possible.
I have contacted the publishers of "Kakteen und andere Sukkulenten", asking for the article on Mangave, but unfortunately didnt get any reply.
I have some further thoughts to consider:
While originaly created in culture, those plants have become very widespread recently beeing even available in supermarkets here in germany. Ive seen many people in warmer climates using them as garden plants. Therefore is very likely that there will be widespread naturalization, like we see with genus Agave in southern europe for example, likely making it relevant as a wild taxon.
The rules require a external authority to support the hybrid. While this is not the case, the rejection by GBIF and POWO is more on the base of their taxonomic concept of integrating Manfreda within Agave, not about a problem of a valid description. So the rejection shouldnt really count i think as we have decided to deviate in that regard.
Also there are many examples where the strict requirements are not met. I dont think we need to be more strict here than what is established for other cases (Some examples: Cultivar ×Graptosedum bronze, Agave ×, Genus ×Graptosedum, Drosera trinervia × cistiflora)
Thanks for providing all that additional detail @jf920. As iNat's remit is to support people in observing organisms in the wild, it doesn't seem like it would make sense to add a genus hybrid taxon for × Mangave when this occurs almost exclusively in cultivation. Many similar intergeneric hybrids have been created by horticulturalists, but iNat isn't focused on identifying and classifying cultivated organisms.
To be clear, I'm not making a value judgement. Quite a few iNat users are interested in identifying cultivated plants, and having these genus hybrid taxa available would allow them to make more precise IDs. However, there would also be a couple of non-trivial consequences. Adding these genus hybrid entries would significantly expand the taxon tree, making the process of selecting an ID more complex for an average user who observes a wild plant. Also, every decision to deviate from iNat's external authorities (in this case POWO) creates an additional point of divergence that has to be treated as an exception. When we're basing that deviation on well accepted peer-reviewed research that's one thing; when we're basing it on the current state of art within a group of plant breeders that becomes much more tricky.
As to the other hybrid taxa you listed, several are likely also seen only in cultivation and probably are not appropriate for iNat:
Cultivar × Graptosedum bronze — A cross created by plant breeders, and probably not appropriate for iNaturalist.
Hybrid species Agave × — This was already flagged by another curator for not following iNat's nomenclature.
Genus × Graptosedum — A whole nothogenus of artificial crosses. Probably not appropriate for iNaturalist.
Drosera trinervia × cistiflora — The distribution of the parent plants overlaps, and the 9 observations are all in the same area near Cape Town. It seems this is a known natural hybrid that should probably be retained.
One more thought... I believe the requirement for a published reference is focused on documenting a valid published name for a naturally occurring taxon. So if Kakteen und andere Sukkulenten published an article that says × Mangave hybrids regularly occur in the wild, that would be good grounds to create the genus hybrid taxon. If the article talks about horticultural hybrids only, that suggests it's not a good fit for iNat's taxonomy.
I'd like to leave this flag open to see what views other curators or admins have on the topic. If I'm in the minority, I'd be happy to learn what I'm not taking into account!
The Graptosedum are also from cultivation. Nevertheless other curators decided to add it. Probably for the identification of cultivated plants, but there seem to be some cases of Graptosedums escaping and growing truly wild now. Drosera trinervia × cistiflora is neither named nor supported by any taxonomic authority, so its not by the rules either. Nevertheless it makes sense to keep this taxon. There are countless examples of unnamed hybrids like this over many genuses / familys. I understand that keeping all of them would be too much, but i think exceptions should be made, especially for wild hybrids or cultivated ones if they are very common. For the 30+ Hybrids from the Mad about Mangave series the parent species are known. I understand adding all of them would be too much. But as a compromise i thought having only the genus would be reasonable.
I think we should add it because it would be a great help for IDers of cultivated plants without causing problems for anyone, if it does it can be easily undone.
@rupertclayton how did you place those links in your comment, by the way? My textbox doesnt offer that.
Hi @jf920. I do understand why you you'd like to have these hybrid taxa available. There are lots of observations of cultivated Agavoideae on iNat; it's great that you're identifying them; and it's frustrating not to have the genus hybrid × Mangave available as a taxon.
My understanding is that iNat's guidelines limit addition of hybrid taxa to those that either occur naturally with reasonable frequency, or are cultivated hybrids that have significant naturalized populations. In either case, iNat really wants there to be a published reference supporting the hybrid name. I'd be interested to see if @loarie, @bouteloua or another experienced admin or curator has thoughts on this. I'll maybe mention that all three of the hybrid succulent taxa you noted were added by the same curator, who is enthusiastic and prolific but maybe not the most careful in following iNat procedures.
If we want to invite a broader discussion, I'd suggest transferring this to the iNat Forum, where there are better tools for managing discussions.
For the links, you can use [link text here](https://my.url.org/page) This relies on the same Markdown formatting as in observations, comments, etc. It's just that the flag comment text box doesn't provide buttons to make the formatting easier. (Actually, it seems to me that some Markdown formatting doesn't work in flag comments; I've not yet found a way to successfully do bulleted or numbered lists.)
thank you @rupertclayton
I just noticed there already is a discussion on the forum. If anyone wants to join: click here :)
We have 'frankenflora' among our proteas (in part caused by planting out of range species)
https://www.inaturalist.org/search?q=frankenflora
Protea taxonomy is @tonyrebelo 's territory
do you have a synopsis with at least one nothospecies of x Mangave?