Flag for Taxon: Sternbergia sicula
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| greek_cicada_project | Sternbergia sicula |
it looks like Sternbergia sicula is Sternbergia lutea. https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:708549-1 http://portal.cybertaxonomy.org/flora-greece/cdm_dataportal/taxon/c57ca65e-601a-4e00-b7b2-11302d7ff946/synonymy?highlite=ea90262d- |
Nov. 26, 2021 22:26:23 +0000 | abounabat |
swaps done |
Comments
Well, the first point is that the wild S. sicula (diploid from Sicily, Greece, Creta, etc.) and the ornamental S. lutea (diploid/triploid from gardens) are two species with a lot of morphological characters, see the publication of Peruzzi et al. 2008 in Caryologia https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00087114.2008.10589616
But the ornamental plants are of 2 types, and the second one is a diploid sicula-like leaves but lutea-like flowers taxon, what is still misunderstood ! (S. "sicula" sensu Flora Gallica)
About the level to be used, yes we have two options :
-- 2 species within a species complex,
-- or 2 subspecies within a species sensu lato.
++ plus the 3rd Sternbergia greuteriana, also at species or subspecies level...
If iNat users prefer the subspecies rank instead of the species one, we could change !
@aztekium @nickpapag @konstantinos_barsakis @aulax @lucapassalacqua @jorgedecapadocia @joergschiele @blue_celery @ahmedm @surfelife @yuriydanilevsky @tiggrx @kostaszontanos
As the main observers and identifyers of Sterbergia tulea/sicula complex, what is your opinion ?
S. sicula should be better treated as a subspecies of lutea
@aztekium : I have difficulty to understand what you still don't understand ?
The W-European botanists that have seen and studied both species concluded they are distinct (See the Peruzzi's paper and Flora gallica mentionned above). The true lutea is mainly an ornamental plant (often triploid, pers. obs.), that probably doesn't grow in Greece, where S. sicula is probably the only one, mainly on rocky semi-natural habitats. It is why you possibly don't know the true lutea if you haven't see the garden form from W-Europe.
Of course I may be wrong, and if you have any argument I would read it with pleasure...
Errol.
So up to now we have
-Sternbergia lutea subsp. lutea (=Sternbergia lutea)
-Sternbergia lutea subsp. greuteriana
This also means that the complex Sternbergia lutea is not needed anymore if we follow the subspecies concept
Dear Sotirios,
I am not sure to understand.
Up to now, we have 3 taxa. We can consider them as species or subspecies. While all of them are listed as synonyms under S. lutea by POWO, we should admit them by deviation.
The current situation on iNat is 3 species and a species complex above.
If you prefer we can consider them as 3 subspecies under S. lutea s.l., it would be a less strong deviation... and I am fine with this option.
Is it what you proposed ?
Yes, it is better to make all three species subspecies.
Probably that leaving the 3 as subsp. level sounds like the best option.
As Sicula has been studied and deviated from the others, we can't just remove it. Wouldn't make sense.
I would leave it as subsp. level.
After that, observers that want to keep treating them as synonyms could still do it, and the ones that want to distinguish them could do it as well... It leaves more options without closing any doors nor radical deviation.
sicula is distinguished by small morphological features of the leaves and by its ecology. Chromosomes are almost the same.
S. greuteriana is clearly a distinct species, not a subspecies.
https://www.zobodat.at/pdf/STAPFIA_0080_0395-0416.pdf
Valerio, but in the paper you cited, S. sicula is also treated as a species ! :-)
So I think the best compromise would be to treat each one as subspecies by deviation, and then people that want not to distinguish can easily stop at species level as said @surfelife just above.
I will prepare the swap now...
I am not a priest and that paper is not my bible.
I think I have developed a certain sensibility through the years that allows me to express my point of view on plants.
Yes, I understand perfectly.
Same goes for me :)
Thanks :)
Also published in 2008, where they suggest the cultivated forms should be given cultivar status:
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8339.2008.00903.x
Gage, E. & Wilkin, P. (2008). A morphometric study of species delimination in Sternbergia lutea (Alliaceae, Amaryllidoideae) and its allies S. sicula and S. greuteriana in Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 15: 460-469.
Yes, I know this study, it is very confuse and suffers of several bias. I would need time to discuss one by one, but if time any day I will try to do it...
@abounabat this is another interesting discussion.
I am no specialist in Sternbergia, but I have seen and collected a lot of them (https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=any&taxon_id=371995&user_id=greek_cicada_project&verifiable=any) not only in Athens, but also in Crete. (I have uploaded 20 observations from Athens, you can seethe variety of the flowers)
The question is if we should keep this seperate species, because it is very doubtful. What would be a good compromise is making it a subspecies of S. lutea. Or just making it S. lutea subsp. lutea.
What do you think? Im eager to hear your opinion...