Flag for Taxon: Marengo Orchid (Subspecies Ophrys scolopax heldreichii)
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| abounabat | Marengo Orchid (Subspecies Ophrys scolopax heldreichii) |
Referendum about the transfer under O. oestrifera subsp. heldreichii |
Nov. 25, 2021 22:09:28 +0000 | borisb |
Comments
@surfelife : As you explained hereafter (https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/553695) you support the specific rank for O. calypsus.
But what about O. heldreichii ? It looks like a scolopaxoid vicariant of O. calypsus (and reciprocally).
So, if we consider heldreichii under O. scolopax s.l. or under O. oestrifera s.l., what should we do with O. calypsus ?
And if we consider O. heldreichii as a full species (a small "group" according to the orchidologist point-of-view), it would be a good occasion to include as a subspecies O. heldreichii subsp. calypsus (combination already made by Kreutz).
I personally support the specific rank for O. heldreichii, not only because of its intermediate shape between O. oestrifera s.l. and O. fuciflora s.l., but also because the shape and position of petals (almost adjoining at the base) is a strong criterion...
Personally I treat O. heldreichii as a small group entity, same as O. oestrifera group and O. fuciflora group.
The flowers of O. heldreichii group are much "bigger" than the ones of O. oestrifera group; the general shape, the lobes, the petals..etc differ. Therefore I wouldn't associate heldreichii as a ssp. of the oestrifera group.
I mostly base my observations using as reference Antonopoulos & Tsifstis 2017, among others, but I found them the most detailed, clear & accurate. I found their groups' organisation the most relevant and perfectly matching what I observe on the field. They match as well most of the time Kreutz, which is also for me a valuable reference.
POWO is amazing source of information, and should be used as main reference as much as possible.
However when it comes to Orchids, it gets quite confusing & not always up to date.
A bit of clarity is more than welcome, I cannot agree more. At least on iNat, for the rest, I'm not a scientist nor an specialist orchid botanist... just an avid passionate observer.
I agree with you about Antonopoulus & Tsiftsis and also about Kreutz.
Thanks
So, the trend would be to consider O. heldreichii as a full species including subspecies, like O. oestrifera...
Does anyone would like to comment ?
Since there is no other opinion expressed, I created the name O. heldreichii and proposed a draft swap here : https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/103323
As Ophrys oestrifera has been recently distinguished at species level her on iNat by deviation from POWO, I think this taxon (O heldreichii) should be sorted into O. scolopax s.l. To consider it as a full species would be an option (some orchidologists consider itself and its allies as a "group"), but I think that sorting into O. oestrifera s.l. would be a better option, conserving the overall consistency of the taxonomic scheme used here, according to the POWO heritage.
Both 3 names exists and are possibilities that I would like to submit to your opinion :
1/ keep O. scolopax subsp. heldreichii (it would be the eastern most and most deviating taxon of the scolopax group)
2/ upgrade O. heldreichii as a full species (it would be a bit disrupting with the general lumper position adopted here)
3/ transfer into O. oestrifera subsp. heldreichii (it would be a deviation from POWO but conserving the overall consistency)
@surfelife @aulax @felix_riegel @ronald_flipphi @eralverson @ulfswenson
@wolfgangb @ralf_jahn @mercantour @felix_riegel @bernardoparri @sambiology
As the main observers and identifiers of O. (subsp.) heldreichii, what is your opinion ?