Flag for Taxon: Creeping Foamflower (Tiarella stolonifera)
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| grand | kevinfaccenda | Creeping Foamflower (Tiarella stolonifera) |
questionable taxon validity/acceptability |
Jun. 28, 2022 12:00:30 +0000 | rynxs |
accepted by POWO |
Comments
Certainly published fulfilling terms of the ICBN (See the IPNI.org).
@robertarcher397 A published name isn't necessarily an accepted name
"Accepted names and synonyms
IPNI is a nomenclatural database only. For taxonomic opinion please visit the Plants of the World Online (POWO) record for that name. POWO includes accepted names, synonyms and global distribution which IPNI does not provide."
T. stolonifera is not currently recognized by POWO
@grand You do not have to tell me how IPNI and POWO work or not. All I am saying is that it is a validly published name, based on your concern in the flag and comment on the editor being the author. Now, POWO do have a backlog and thus there are no immediate reason to remove this name.
@robertarcher397 meant no offense, simply stated what it says. Isn’t it prudent to wait until it either gets accepted or rejected after it’s been reviewed? If this weren’t a self published article I wouldn’t have flagged this but it seems like inat is jumping the gun making this the valid accepted taxon .
Photoneuron is publishing papers from hundreds of authors working on North American and Mexican plants at no cost, as well as quickly. POWO is duty bound to accept this name and many in this publication. It is up to the individual researchers and institutions (in North America and Mexico), to accept and incorporate this name. If they unwilling to accept it, it needs to be refuted in a paper with proper reasons. This is how biological naming works. This takes time. It is just that POWO have a tremendous backlog of publications around the world to incorporate. I do notice they are making mistakes.
Please read about a real self publishing publication/journal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Hoser)
I didn't know that this journal wasn't peer reviewed, but I currently have no reason to think that makes the science of a lower quality. Nesom is a respected botanist.
The names should stand until somebody publishes a new paper critiquing them.
The journal IS peer reviewed. It is perhaps not that obvious or less formal from the journal text.
@robertarcher397 I'm well aware of cases like Hoser, what he did was not simply self publication but taxonomic vandalism. But I will disagree with you regarding the journal being peer reviewed, it falls under grey literature - it clearly stated that outside expertise will only be sought if deemed necessary by the editor and in this case there are no mentions of outside experts in the acknowledgement therefore self publication.
This can keep going on and on but inat does try and follow POWO not precede it - https://www.inaturalist.org/posts/18353-transition-to-plants-of-the-world-online-as-a-taxonomic-reference in the case were the are differences between IPNI and POWO the taxon should be flagged as a deviation there's the old flow chart but also see comments from 5 months ago.
As of October 2022, the taxonomy proposed by [Nesom 2021] is accepted by POWO, COL, and Flora of the southeastern United States [2022]. One or more of the new species are accepted by VASCAN, Alabama Plant Atlas, and Vascular Plants of North Carolina.
I do agree with @grand, however, iNat follows POWO by convention. Deviations from POWO require special consideration.
All that said, I do have a question. Tiarella stolonifera was segregated from Tiarella cordifolia sensu lato. Doesn't a taxon split require special handling? I'm not a curator, so I really don't know.
Thank for the note. Are you asking if the species can be separated geographically? If not the only option is to identify each separately.
Thanks @robertarcher397 I'm asking if this particular taxon split was handled correctly. Adding the name Tiarella stolonifera effectively invalidates a bunch of iNat observations. Is it up to users to rectify the situation or does something happen automatically? For example, there is only species of Tiarella in Vermont. Should the system automatically convert Tiarella cordifolia to Tiarella stolonifera in all observations with a Vermont location?
When there are so many observations this would have been ideal to use an Atlas. However, the distributions of the different species are contigious and in some areas overlapping. Perhaps @laurie can help out on this.
Species ranges overlap in the southeastern U.S. but there are plenty of provinces and states with a single species. I prepared this list from various sources, using [Nesom 2021] as a starting point:
Canada:
New Brunswick: Tiarella stolonifera
Nova Scotia: Tiarella stolonifera
Ontario: Tiarella stolonifera
Québec: Tiarella stolonifera
United States:
Alabama: Tiarella wherryi, Tiarella austrina
Connecticut: Tiarella stolonifera
Georgia: Tiarella wherryi, Tiarella nautila, Tiarella cordifolia, Tiarella austrina
Kentucky: Tiarella stolonifera, Tiarella wherryi
Maine: Tiarella stolonifera
Maryland: Tiarella stolonifera, Tiarella cordifolia
Massachusetts: Tiarella stolonifera
Michigan: Tiarella stolonifera
Mississippi: Tiarella wherryi
New Hampshire: Tiarella stolonifera
New Jersey: Tiarella stolonifera
New York: Tiarella stolonifera
North Carolina: Tiarella stolonifera, Tiarella nautila, Tiarella cordifolia, Tiarella austrina
Ohio: Tiarella stolonifera
Pennsylvania: Tiarella stolonifera
Rhode Island: Tiarella stolonifera
South Carolina: Tiarella cordifolia, Tiarella austrina
Tennessee: Tiarella wherryi, Tiarella nautila, Tiarella austrina
Vermont: Tiarella stolonifera
Virginia: Tiarella stolonifera, Tiarella cordifolia
West Virginia: Tiarella stolonifera
Wisconsin: Tiarella stolonifera
plus introduced populations of Tiarella cordifolia in Minnesota and Norway.
To provide some perspective, I determined the place_id of each place with Tiarella stolonifera and no other species:
New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Québec, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin
7587,6853,6883,13336,49,17,2,29,41,51,48,31,42,8,47,33,32
and then used the Explore tool as follows:
As I write this, the above query produces 7,087 observations. Those observations might be converted automatically.
The journal where T. stolonifera is described is not a peer reviewed journal , the sole editor appears to be the author of the manuscript...
https://www.phytoneuron.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/31PhytoN-Tiarella.pdf
https://www.phytoneuron.net/editorial-and-publication-information/
the other species described in the paper do not appear to be accepted by any taxonomic authority (ex: Tiarella austrina, Tiarella nautila) and are not on inat
@kevinfaccenda - Tagging you since I believe you created the taxon in inat