Flag for Taxon: Alabama Cherry (Variety Prunus serotina alabamensis)
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| whiteoak | mftasp | Alabama Cherry (Variety Prunus serotina alabamensis) |
the 'alabamensis' taxon is best treated at species rank |
Oct. 5, 2022 21:23:44 +0000 | Not Resolved |
Comments
Thank you for opening this flag.
For what its worth, I can only relay my own experience with this taxon.
The range of Alabama cherry is entirely contained within the range of black cherry. In my experience, black cherry usually occurs in the same habitats as Alabama cherry, and it's not unusual to see them growing but a few feet from each other. However, they maintain distinct populations, with robust morphological differences and habitat preferences. Among the hundreds and likely thousands of plants I have seen of both taxa, I have yet only found one hybrid, and I have been looking! The hybrid is distinct to me precisely because its intermediate traits are never seen in the parent taxa.
Unfortunately, Alabama cherry appears to be poorly documented. Most sources I have access to insufficiently describe its traits and habits.
I do not have a strong opinion regarding this taxon, but based on my limited experience, I would say that Prunus serotina (serotina var. serotina) and Prunus alabamensis (serotina var. alabamensis) are usually easy to sort using leaf morphology.
@whiteoak did you email Rafaël already?
I do not have a strong opinion either. All but one of my observations (the one that has been confirmed by another iNat user) were identified by a botanist leading a Georgia Botanical Society walk, and he IDed them as a separate species - that was a couple of years ago, however.
Actually, I wrote the above mistakenly thinking the change was based on more recent work being done on the flora of the Southeast. I do have a (mildly) strong opinion; I agree with @whiteoak . Changing the ranking based on older data seems backwards, but I recognize the administrative burden in using multiple flora. Also, I am not a working botanist or database administrator, so my opinion may not be that valuable to this discussion.
There was an earlier flag for this which I can’t find now. I think the resolution was it was left as is. I have no strong opinions on how it’s classified.
The reason for changing the taxon was based on a paper that provided evidence that there wasn’t a ton of genetic difference between Prunus alabamensis and Prunus serotina. However, it was left at as a separate species
@bouteloua -- I haven't emailed Rafaël, have had other 'fish to fry'. I'll try to get to it...
But, as stated on the other "flag thread", and which @loarie was encouraging about, I'd really like to see a more systematic answer to this "wrong direction flow" of taxonomic decisions, rather than playing whack-a-mole with each individual case that pops up. :-)
Rafaël from KEW?
There is a fair bit of discussion under the swap which is useful for context: https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_swaps/101446
Probably worth continuing the conversation here.
The discussion is about whether we treat this taxon as a subspecies of Prunus serotina (which is what our external taxonomic authority does) or deviate from POWO and treat it as a separate species.
I can see that @williammcfarland, @sm356, @linaceae @alabamaplants and @jagawong are some of the main identifiers, and @botanylicious, @lillybird, @adiamond,@destes are some of the main observers and may have an opinion or contribution.