Flag for Taxon: Lavender Oldfield Aster (Symphyotrichum priceae)
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| rynxs | loarie | Lavender Oldfield Aster (Symphyotrichum priceae) |
misapplied? |
Sep. 27, 2022 05:49:49 +0000 | rynxs |
swapped |
Comments
How this would affect iNat observations:
.1. Symphyotrichum priceae would be swapped into Symphyotricum kentuckiense
.2. Symphyotrichum × priceae would be created
.3. Swapped observations would be examined for pubescent individuals, which would be IDed as S. × priceae
.4. Symphyotricum kentuckiense would be named Price's aster
.5. Name Symphyotrichum × priceae "Price's hybrid aster," possibly? Potentially too confusing?
Original flag: https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/588551
@elizabeth1067 tagging self
@rynxs I examined all (now) 45 of the observations IDed as Symphyotrichum priceae. I saw only the characteristics of S. kentuckiense. I believe it is safe to move them. If the hybrid remains Lavender Oldfield Aster, that would cause people who only look at common name to continue to use it for the glabrous plants. How do we let them know that the name S. priceae was incorrectly applied to the glabrous plants until 2021, and that S. priceae isn't accepted but S. × priceae is puberulent and is as a putative hybrid with the formula of S. kentuckiense × S. pilosum var. pilosum?
I was hoping to have some kind of traction, discussion, or confirmation of agreement by now. As for letting the relevant folks know, I can do this:
@wildlandblogger @stephaneselgroth @zirick @respecttheknob @destes @abmorris @dyork97 @markmcknight @ashley_bradford @castanea @dbrianhendrix @finzelflowers @gizzardscout @jodi38 @natemartineau @syrherp @tararoselittlefield @whiteoak @loki_limestone @vvoelker @segrasslands @milopyne @brandoncorder
I'm planning to swap in a few days if there is no dissent.
I was hoping as well. The paper is short, and Plants of the World Online has accepted the name changes proposed, as you mentioned. Meanwhile, I have to update Wikipedia.
Unfortunately I haven't had time to get into it yet, sorry. In Kentucky we haven't yet made this switch in our natural heritage database, although from a SERNEC search it looks like APSC is more on the ball @masebrock.
I like your proposal @rynxs
@rynxs S. kentuckiense is endemic to the U.S. (specifically to limestone cedar glades and broken limestone roadsides in a connected area of Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, and Georgia). It is not in the NatureServe database, although S. priceae is as G4 (apparently secure), but with a slightly extended range and a last evaluated date in 1988.
@rynxs I have found one S. priceae observation that should remain the hybrid when you do the move. Do you want those listed here?
S. × priceae should remain in subsection Porteriani since both of its parents are placed there.
I am far removed from anything to do with taxonomy and classification and will leave it to you guys who know these things. Thank you!
I wouldn't disagree with the Medley revision.
POWO accepts taxon as Symphyotrichum × priceae (Britton) G.L.Nesom. The observations on iNat may be of Symphyotrichum kentuckiense (Britton) Medley, which is glabrous.
https://www.phytoneuron.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/18PhytoN-Asterpriceae.pdf