Flag for Taxon: Small Spider-orchid (Subspecies Ophrys sphegodes araneola)
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| abounabat | Small Spider-orchid (Subspecies Ophrys sphegodes araneola) |
proposed deviation rom POWO to be discussed |
Nov. 30, 2021 13:49:10 +0000 | borisb |
Comments
it looks like a really good decision.
The priority species would become o. araneola (syn. litigiosa), and the possibility of ascribing all these taxa to O. araneola s.l. it's really good.
For now it seems right to leave these taxa to the rank of subsp., Due to the debates that are still going on about the classification.
I did not understand one thing, all these subspecies would also be created on Inat? or was it just a clue to which individuals this new taxon exchange was referring to?
big deviation from POWO, but I believe that if POWO does not start updating its databases with well-described and recognized entities (often also resorting to gross errors), then the change must come from Inat.
@bernardoparri : yes ! iNat could start the change, and if we are lucky... and persuasive, POWO would follow ?
:-)
It's been a while since I've been following the genus Ophrys, so my opinion doesn't count much. At the time of my observations, O. araneola was considered as a full species. The genus has evolved a lot since then, I'm a bit confused, so I won't give my opinion. I did not follow in particular the reason of the passage of O. araneola in subspecies of O. sphegodes. Is the return trip also based on validated arguments? If so, could POWO (Govaerts) accept this change since iNaturalist is supposed to be based on POWO?
Shouldn't the question be submitted to him?
Same here, I don't know much about Ophrys taxonomy (except that it is confusing), but I really welcome the pragmatic attempt to make things clearer on the platform. Thanks @abounabat for taking care of this.
Draft changes proposed here :
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/102476
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/102477
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/102478
After this, we will have to re-identify all araneola sensu lato. Mainly are typical subsp. araneola (syn. litigiosa), but few are not...
Is it ok for everybody ?
Why should all these taxa be put under araneola and not under sphegodes? Which is the rationale? O. araneola itself is extremely close to sphegodes.
It was a proposal to be discussed. It began with O. virescens, that iNat users had distinguished from O. araneola, and not to consider synonym under O. sphegodes araneola. So it is why the debate concerned mainly French users. But as several taxa confused under O. sphegodes araneola need also to be distinguished (ausonia, incantata, illiryca, argensonensis, etc.), the question arose of their distinction one by one under O. sphegodes or grouped under a species sensu lato like the Kreutz 2004' scheme.
The same situation for O. argentaria already been considered as a distinct taxon by POWO, but under O. sphegodes like araneola itself. Like it also clearly belongs to the same morphological complex, we proposed to follow the same scheme.
At contrary, exception for O. (sphegodes) massiliensis, which is not at all an araneola-like, but 100% a sphegodes-like.
Please let us know your opinion...
Errol.
I know the complexity of the case but, in the absence of studies that could shed light on the real independence of many taxa and the possible relationship in the whole group on the basis orf morphometric and genetic data I would say that almost any solution would end up being unsatisfactory.
Maybe I make a mistake in considering orchids with an approach used with the other botanical families and, of course, this is just my point of view but I really do not see the point in separating sphegodes and araneola at species level and then distributing under them other taxa as subspecies.
Well, the main interest on iNat is that the morphometric criterion (small labellum) that is visible on photo (labellum < sepals) + morphological criterion (simplification inducing no gibbosities or almost) allow us to identify araneola and allies vs sphegodes and allies.
Consequently, if you cannot identify which taxon it is, you still could keep the species level "araneola s.l." that you could not if you consider all taxa directly under O. sphegodes s.l.
Do you understand what I mean ?
PS : furthermore, some names, like O. incantana, have never been combined under O. sphegodes, but under O. araneola yes...
It's no use to ask if I understand.
The lack of gibbosities is seen also in populations in which other plants have well pronounced ones and the labellum is overally rather small. This is what usually people call variability:
https://static.inaturalist.org/photos/116627361/original.jpeg
But, I think that I have used words that could have been misunderstood. I really think that araneola is somehow diffferent from a typical sphegodes but, as already stressed, I would not elevate it to the species rank. May it be useful in order to respect the rule of geographical/ecological vicariancy for subspecies? If so, then ok, go on.
(NB : it's use to ask because my English is not perfect !)
Of course variability is very important, it is why I frequently ask observers to post more photo if they have got ?
And yes, I think it may be useful, in order to distinguish O. araneola s.l. and its geographical vicariant from O. sphegodes s.l. and its eco-geographical vicariant also.
So, I will validate the swap, because this provisional situation with both names is not good to drag on...
Thanks,
Errol.
Hello @abounabat , actually, you should have swapped Ophrys sphegodes ssp arenaola to Ophrys arenaola ssp. arenaola since you planned to move other subspecies.
Precisely no, because O. sphegodes araneola sensu POWO is splitted here into 3 subspecies under araneola and a 4th still under O. sphegodes... see here : https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/578019/taxonomy_details
It is why we have to reassess, one by one, the O. sphegodes araneola observations, even if mainly should be true subsp. araneola... (but also subsp. virescens, and maybe other in Italy)
we have to reassess, one by one, the O. sphegodes araneola observations, even if mainly should be true subsp. araneola...
Exactly that's the issue I was pointing out. Since O. virescens, O. argentaria and O. argensonensis already existed on inaturalist under sphegodes, I would have similarly swaped araneola directly to the nominate ssp.
Well, the problem is without perfect solution : argentaria was created very recently by myself in prevision to the swap and split, O. virescens was created independtly but without a global revision, etc. So if we moved directly into subsp. araneola, we would have to check all of them in order to reclass wrong ID...
Don't worry, I will check all of them now !
Errol.
According to the discussion here https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/552654 we propose not only to swap O. virescens into O. arenaola s.l. (the origin of the discussion), but also to upgrade O. sphegodes ssp. araneola at species rank (O. arenaola Rchb.), in order to detail the numerous other related taxa at subspecies rank :
Ophrys araneola subsp. argentaria (Devillers-Tersch. & Devillers) Kreutz
Ophrys araneola subsp. ausonia (Devillers, Devillers-Tersch. & P.Delforge) Kreutz
Ophrys araneola subsp. illyrica (S.Hertel & K.Hertel) Kreutz
Ophrys araneola subsp. incantata (Devillers & Devillers-Tersch.) Kreutz
Ophrys araneola subsp. quadriloba (Rchb.f.) Kreutz
Ophrys araneola subsp. tommasinii (Vis.) Kreutz
Ophrys araneola subsp. virescens (Gren.) Kreutz
@ wolfgangb @chacled @tkoffel @vincent316 @jujurenoult @sebcato @majoet @mercantour @bernardoparri @konstantinos_barsakis @tmaximo : as the main O. (ssp.) araneola observers / identifiers, what do you think about ?