Flag for Taxon: Subspecies Drymocallis arguta convallaria
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| zharkikh | Subspecies Drymocallis arguta convallaria |
Remove this variety. It is synonym of Drymocallis convallaria. |
Jan. 20, 2022 03:14:12 +0000 | loarie |
Comments
In POWO, Drymocallis convallaria is a synonym of Drymocallis arguta subsp. convallaria.
In FNA, Drymocallis convallaria is accepted at species level with Drymocallis arguta subsp. convallaria as a synonym of it.
Here in iNat, both taxa are considered accepted, which is wrong.
The FNA version is the most recent and is based on the revision of North American Drymocallis done by Barbara Ertter in Journal of the Botanical Research Institute of Texas, Vol. 1, No. 1 (10 AUGUST 2007), pp. 31-46.
The FNA is explicitly cited as considered by POWO. But they appear to have preferred a publication by Allred in 2012? Sorry, but I don't have access to that.
I agree that we should not have both.
No, POWO prefers to do not look into any source they cite, because Allred in his compilation of Flora Neomexicana calls it Drymocallis convallaria (which does not occur in New Mexico), corresponding to Ertter.
You can find the book (part 2) here:
https://floraneomexicana.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/fnm-iii-part-2-2020.pdf
referred from https://floraneomexicana.org/flora-neomexicana-series/
@zharkikh can you reach out to POWO and report back here?
I'll wait a few weeks before committing this swap https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/123177
These taxonomic issues should be sorted out with our reference (POWO) that way here on the iNat side curators have a much simpler task of keeping in sync with our reference rather than trying to reinvent the wheel by make our own taxonomic decisions which we are not well equipped to do.
@loarie I sent email describing the problem to POWO guys - not sure if this will make an effect and how fast they can resolve it.
Anyway, in fact, we are in much better position to work on the taxonomic issues. We do not do our own taxonomic decisions, but instead rely on the available studies. POWO is doing the same, but they do not have enough human power to provide this in timely manner.
Also about keeping iNat in sync with POWO. Most of my requests for name correction is about missing varieties or varieties to be removed. The principle is trivial and can be automated. There cannot be a single variety of a species, must be at least two. POWO resolved this issue long ago. iNat, however, still did not sync it.
Whenever a new variety is added to a species without varieties, the original name "genus species" will convert to "genus species var. species". When a variety is raised to a species level, the remaining single variety must convert to the species level, as well.
Someone should work on this.
At the end, they turned to be very responsive and agreed to make the change, referring also to NatureServe (https://explorer.natureserve.org/Taxon/ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.128313/Drymocallis_convallaria).
great news - thanks
I set up a deviation until they update
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_framework_relationships/299049
and made the swap https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/123177
I didn't split D. arguta, can you check these obs and add IDs to make sure the boundary is right?
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/compare?s=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%3D%3D
Overall, the maps look good, placing D. arguta east and D. convallaria west of the continental divide. The problem is mostly with WA and ID, where there is a bunch of D. arguta observations.
we could do this split https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/123217
the atlases are currently using states and would roll back 555 IDs from Drymocallis arguta to Drymocallis which isn't great
Total IDs of input taxon: 4887
Number of IDs Destination Atlas
4057 Drymocallis arguta Atlased
205 Drymocallis convallaria Atlased
70 Drymocallis Outside of all atlases
555 Drymocallis Overlapping atlases
if you can refined the ranges to counties we can reduce the overlap. Can you do that?
you can read more here about atlases https://help.inaturalist.org/support/solutions/articles/151000015337-section-d-how-to-respond-to-a-flag-requesting-to-split-a-taxon
The best way would be to roll back D. arguta for just two states, WA and ID. Canada guys did a nice job of splitting the maps. I would leave the belt around the continental divide as it is because both forms can intertwine there and produce intermediates. See Discussion in FNA (http://floranorthamerica.org/Drymocallis_arguta).
If we want to ping people to adjust their calls from the mixed belt, the best would be to create a kind of complex taxon that includes both species and let people decide on their calls. The extreme solution, not the best one, was done by BONAP - they extended the area for D. convallaria too deeply into the Great Planes and excluded Colorado from D. arguta area.
OK I removed Alberta, Montana, Wyoming and Colorado following from the D. convallaria atlas so all obs there will stay as D. arguta and committed. Thanks for all your work
I agree with using the continental divide as a range boundary in Canada (AB & BC). The FNA treatment is a bit cofusing in that despite saying that P convallaria occurs only west of the continental divide, the map and text for that species show it occurring in AB. All of AB is east of the continental divide, thus an inconsistancy. A closer look at populations close to the divide and a better understanding of what's going on with the genus may show something different in the future. But for now, this look fine.
Hi @loarie , I am having a problem with what appears to have just happened to D. arguta in NE BC, you seem to have removed them all:
https://inaturalist.ca/observations?place_id=6712&subview=map&taxon_id=204304
and changed all my D. arguta to D. convallaria which is not correct for reasons I'll explain:
https://inaturalist.ca/observations?place_id=any&taxon_id=602091&user_id=margaret_eaglecap&verifiable=any
I have been doing rare plant surveys in the region along the Peace River in BC for over 10 years, and early on found that D. arguta, not D. convallaria was present. Please note that this region is EAST of the Rocky Mountain crest, as specified by the FNA key and descriptions, and if you will read through the notes and examine the photos I have posted in my observations you'll see that I've worked hard to show why these plants are D. arguta and not D. convallaria. I have sent many specimens in to UBC and have had agreement from other BC botanists. Last July, the BC Conservation Data Centre recognized D. arguta for BC:
https://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/search.do
(sorry, you'll have to enter the sci name, the link won't show the search)
Here is the CDC map data based on our work from 2022 (all locations are east of the Rockies):
https://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/eoMap.do?id=377306
Much work needs to be done to clean up the D. arguta from the D. convallaria in BC on websites such as E-Flora BC and iNaturalist, but besides the difference in range there are also morphological differences as described in the FNA keys and descriptions (if you want to know this detail I can provide it).
The FNA treatment is from 2014 and I doubt the maps can be updated.
Please could you examine where the Rocky Mountain crest is in BC and allow all the Drymocallis posts to the east that were marked as D. arguta to be reinstated? (I visited all but one of the several other iNat D. arguta posts in NE BC last year to verify the ID). The plant is actually rather abundant on decent grassland and the initial rare status given last July by the BCCDC will likely be removed at some point.
If you need more info just ask :-)
In writing this I notice that VASCAN has yet to be notified of the D. arguta in NE BC so I will take care of that.
Thank you!
Margaret Krichbaum
P.S. I have had great experiences asking POWO for curation requests based on FNA and VASCAN and they make the changes very quickly. Their D. arguta map does seem a bit confused.
Here's also the
Natureserve map link showing D. arguta as recognized for BC:https://explorer.natureserve.org/Taxon/ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.133012/Drymocallis_arguta
Thanks!
margaret_eaglecap, I was following zharkikh's recommendations which plachuff echos
I'll revert the split for now
why don't the three of you come up with atlases you agree on by modifying these
https://www.inaturalist.org/atlases/13313
https://www.inaturalist.org/atlases/13290
and we can go from there
you can read more about how splits use atlases here https://help.inaturalist.org/support/solutions/articles/151000015337-section-d-how-to-respond-to-a-flag-requesting-to-split-a-taxon
Yes, much of northeastern BC is east of the continental divide but I don't see a problem with the two maps. D arguta is shown in the Peace R area of BC. The 6 or so observations of arguta west of the divide in BC (Prince George, Riske Creek, Elko, Slocan Valley, etc.) need to be re-evaluated. I'm not sure all can be determined with the photos that are there and there's already some discussion as to id on others. The BC observations on the D convallarioides map are all west of the continental divide. So, I don't see a real problem here. Am I missing something?
when atlases are used in a split, IDs of the input taxon are either
a) rolled back to the common ancestor of the outputs (in places where the 2 atlases overlap or in places outside of the 2 atlases)
b) replaced with IDs of one of the outputs (e.g. D convallaria) or left alone if that output is the input (eg D arguta) in places where only only one atlas overlaps
So the question is should IDs of D arguta in British Colombia (or elsewhere) be rolled back to Drymocallis or replaced with a specific output (e.g D convallaria). The structure of the atlases formalize this
Also keep in mind you can explode the atlas down to counties if that helps capture the ranges better. read more here https://www.inaturalist.org/pages/atlases
My original request was very simple, to consolidate two accepted by iNat but synonymous taxa, D. convallaria and D. arguta ssp. convallaria. I wouldn't dare to impose calls based solely on the FNA suggested boundary along the continental divide, taking into account their observation of intermediate form and overlaps along this boundary. I am pretty convinced that the observations labeled as "D. arguta" in WA and ID are D. convallaria. But otherwise, I don't have sufficient knowledge about localities of these taxa.
generally when we narrow/thin/carve off a piece of a taxa you need to split it to deal with unindented disagreements
e.g. when we had D. arguta ssp convallaria, IDs of D. arguta weren't disagreements with it, but once D. arguta ssp convallaria is elevated those IDs of D. arguta became unindented disagreements
we do this by splitting D. arguta into D. arguta and D. convallaria
but if there's no clear boundary between the species and no one wants to role back the 500 IDs of D. arguta to genus in the zone of overlap for a few unintended disagreements then maybe we should avoid the split and those knowledgable about this genus focus on
adding new IDs to obs sitting at genus
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/identify?reviewed=any&verifiable=true&taxon_id=72104&preferred_place_id=1&locale=en&swlng=-124.28117777666004&swlat=40.25133964716017&nelng=-107.14250590166004&nelat=54.62703471395909&lrank=genus
loarie, thank you for reverting the split until this is sorted out!
The change I want to see in the atlas for D. arguta is that the part of BC east of the Rocky Mountain crest be allowed back into the range map. As far as I can tell from looking over Step 3 in the help link you provide, what must be done is to "alter" the taxon range, so that it follows the mountains instead of the provincial boundary.
However, as yet I can't understand how to make that alteration myself. Step 3 says: "To access a taxon range page, click on the link icon next to “Range” in the Overlay menu on a map. To remove or replace a taxon range, click “Edit” in the upper right corner." When I go to the map on the D. arguta main page and click on the overlay menu, I don't see the word "range" and the only link option is to GBIF, which is also a very confused map that needs updating. You will have to bear with me as I'm not as tech savvy as the rest of you.
Alternatively, maybe I could just add a comment to the Atlas for D. arguta and bouteloua would make the alteration?
As for D. convallaria, it's not a taxon I'm familiar with and so I wouldn't be comfortable changing its range atlas myself. All I can do is cite what FNA says, and yes zharkikh is right in saying that FNA mentions intermediate forms and overlaps along the divide. I agree with zharkikh that once well west of the divide, the plants are likely all going to be D. convallaria (BC west of the divide, WA, etc.). So perhaps the wise choice is to alter the D. convallaria Atlas to include Alberta, just in case? I will certainly be on the look out for it when I'm in SW AB this season, and can also watch for AB postings of D. convallaria and try to assess them.
Just a couple of days ago I went over all the D. arguta iNat observations in Canada to clean them up. I took a peek at the US map of D. arguta and felt overwhelmed, but have considered taking it slowly state by state, just to look for obvious errors. But I haven't started in on that project yet. And I have not looked at any D. convallaria posts recently, although I looked over the BC ones last summer to see if I could spot any obvious D. arguta east of the divide that had been mis-IDd as D. convallaria.
I also agree with zharkikh that the names D. convallaria and D. arguta ssp. convallaria should be consolidated, since they are considered synonymous in the FNA treatment, but from what I can see in the Taxonomy sections of the main pages for both D. convallaria and D. arguta this has already been done? I can't find any "D. arguta ssp. convallaria" posts on iNat. Not sure if I'm missing something but it seems that is no longer a problem? Or is it that the ssp. name is still "on offer" when someone makes a new observation? Sorry, there's still a lot I don't understand about how iNat works.
I am happy to help if I can understand what to do. My iNat strength lies more in assessing observations of certain specific plant taxa than in any of the tech-related stuff.
Perhaps the whole of BC should be added back in to the Atlas of D. arguta until more is understood about the ranges of these two taxa? It will take some time to go over all the N. American observations, and some will not be definitely separable.
Thank you!
I added BC to the D. arguta atlas by clicking on BC to highlight it and then clicking 'add this place' here
https://www.inaturalist.org/atlases/13290
taxon_ranges aren't relevant to altering an atlas, the atlas page is the link above
Thank you!
I will focus on cleaning up the Drymocallis observations where I can, it will take awhile.
@plachuff Yes you are right, the BC iNat maps for the two taxa do look correct, I took a look at them yesterday after all this discussion. All those called D. convallaria are west of the divide. I looked over the D. arguta posts and removed all the obviously incorrect ones, leaving two west of the divide that may or may not be D. arguta. Field work needs to be done to determine the true range of D. arguta in BC; the taxon may well be present in some central BC grasslands. If it stays rare that will happen, but if it's downlisted that will not happen so quickly because workers will not be required to report their finds to the BCCDC.
@loarie Thanks for the link to all Drymocallis sitting at genus, I will have a look at those and see if I can offer some improvements here and there, at least in Canada. I'm not sure I have enough experience to work through the U. S. observations and don't want to create more problems, so I might limit myself to comments on those.
Thank you all, this is an interesting problem to sort out.
Not according to Plants of the World Online. They accept Drymocallis arguta subsp. convallaria (Rydb.) Soják and view the species as the synonym.
If you have contrary evidence, please do reply with a comment and references.