The worst part about this split would be the enormous number of observations that would no longer be able to reach species level due to lack of flowers. These observations would need to be manually marked as "cannot be improved," forcing them to Research Grade despite genus-level IDs.

There are only 139 observations of Asarum canadense var. reflexum so I must be missing something. Why is this going to be messy?

Let's back up (to the present). You're saying that among the observations of Asarum canadense, there are many potential observations of Asarum canadense var. reflexum, right? Okay, but how is that a taxonomic issue? Of course it's not, so why does it become a taxonomic issue upon swapping Asarum canadense var. reflexum with Asarum reflexum?

If one simply swaps A. c. var. reflexum into A. reflexum, users will continue to post and identify as A. canadense. The overwhelming quantity of Asarum canadense observations, which were never identified to variety, become "misidentified" and require correction, necessitating a split or manual revision. It's more of a limitations-of-iNat-identifications issue rather than a strictly taxonomic one.

For example, if we had decided to simply add Tiarella stolonifera without any additional action, the range of T. cordifolia would remain unchanged. In the same vein, if T. stolonifera had been a variety of T. cordifolia, elevating it to species would require splitting to force-change the observations that were never identified to variety in the first place.

I much prefer lumping to splitting. Let's not do this unless we absolutely have to!

oh nooooooo!!!! I hate these kinds of splits! There was a recent one with a fungus that forced me to mute a bunch of people so that I wouldn't get 500+ notifications every day.
Anyway, I think we first need to clear up how this would work. As far as my extremely limited knowledge of curator powers goes, there are three options:
1) The taxon A. canadense be split into two taxa. This would make everyone's A. canadense IDs automaticlaly go up to the genus level- there would no longer be any Asarum canadense IDs, so they would all have to be re-ID'd from a pool of Asarum IDs.
2) The taxon A. canadense var reflexum becomes its own species (A. reflexum). All of the A. canadense (without variety specified) IDs remain the same, meaning that there are thousands of A. reflexum observations that are wrongly identified as A. canadense. In order to rectify that, a group of IDers would have to go back and add A. reflexum IDs (or dissenting genus-level IDs) to thousands of A. canadense observations. Due to people piling on IDs, a LOT of observations would require 3+ additional IDs to change the taxon to A. reflexum.
3) Create an Asarum canadense complex taxon, and make all of the Asarum canadense IDs turn into A. canadense complex IDs.

For both #1 and #3, IDers can then go around specifically looking for observations annotated as "flowering" and ID only those as either A. canadense or A. reflexum. Personally, right now I think #3 would be the best solution. I'm sure someone will object to creating a species complex like this though...

Unfortunately, it is not allowed that we create a complex taxon without having it first established in literature. Perhaps temporary complexes with defined time limits are a possibility, @loarie?

Regardless of what the community decides, I'm going through all of the Illinois and Chicago Region observations and adding as specific of an ID as is possible. I would much rather the community correct and manage itself as much as possible before any curatorial action takes place. The swap from variety to species seems unlikely to be rejected by the community, so correction seems like an inevitability, but that could change if the community decides that it hates this change for some reason. Part of my hope from this flag is that identifiers can take on their own regions and break apart the task of adding IDs and marking "cannot be improved" if the split happens.

I would definitely recommend going through your reviewed observations before beginning the process identifying, if that's something you can help with.

is there any way to mass-delete/withdraw IDs based on taxon? If any change does end up being implemented, I would rather start fresh by having my IDs deleted/withdrawn so that they don't get in the way.

What benefit does iNaturalist accrue by elevating this variety to species? (that's a Real Question) AFAICT, there are only costs, no benefits.

@trscavo increased accuracy in our description of life's natural history, which is the primary pursuit of the field of taxonomy? Why should we have pushed through the Tiarella changes when it would have been easier to keep them all as T. cordifolia?

This will suck in Ontario which likely has three distinct taxonomic entities called A. canadense in the loose sense (A. acuminatum, A. canadense s.s. and A. reflexum). Having said that, I'm generally in favor of a split.

I do think these are three species, and jeez that will be fun to work with.

yeah, please do not do this. With each one of these another huge suite of observations on the site are ruined. I don't see any compelling reason we need this and i see very compelling reasons not to do it. I'm getting really close to just setting my account to reject taxon changes and encouraging others to do so as well.

Please consider other users other than taxonomists here. These threads are only really ever seen by taxonomy-oriented cuartors and the vast majority of users are not heard.

I'm not going to have that debate again because i am tired of being treated badly which is what usually happens on this site if you disagree with the taxonomic hegemony. If you really care you can go here. https://www.inaturalist.org/journal/charlie/68030-my-take-on-taxonomy Otherwise I will just tell you constantly changing taxonomy and bumping things back to genus permanently does ruin that taxon for me, and for others who have told me so directly.

There's no hegemony, just the acceptance of change as those changes roll in. Even if the community decides to accept this change and all that it entails, the change doesn't need to be immediate. I knew you would object, but I was hoping it would be a different objection than bumping to genus. If you want a debate without "being treated badly," feel free to PM me. I'm not the best with words but I have no ill will.

As for the creation of a complex, we'll see what @loarie says about temporary complexes. I don't think it will be necessary in the long run. Plenty of species already require flowers for ID, and as previously mentioned, this element has been around for quite some time (just not on iNat at species level). I don't really appreciate the insinuation that these taxonomic splits are made haphazardly, mostly because it attacks the accuracy and reliability of the taxonomic framework chosen by staff, but you are entitled to your opinion. I appreciate the sentiment behind your exaggeration, but these forms are quite different, if you hadn't noticed the dimorphic floral anatomy of our eastern Asarum yet. Also, this isn't a true split in the sense that the taxon was pre-existing as an infraspecific. The option to ID to variety has been here for years.

I'd support creating a species complex, even temporarily, to ease this split, which will affect a large number of observations.

Also, FWIW, I strongly support splitting A. acuminatum, which certainly is morphologically distinct and geographically confined.

I'm ok with the split if there is a complex for the two species so all of those 1000 observations are not knocked back to genus and so future observations without flowers can be classified to that complex level. Though i'd prefer not to have the split at all.

If a complex would be useful to identifiers like charlie, there's no reason not to make one. The question is how to get from the current taxonomy to the desired taxonomy

Way 1
The "proper" way to do this as it relates to iNat's current infrastructure would be to:
1) add Complex Asarum canadense in between Genus Asarum and species Asarum canadense
2) create a new inactive taxon for Asarum reflexum below Complex Asarum canadense
3) swap Variety Asarum canadense reflexum into Asarum reflexum
4) swap Variety Asarum canadense canadense into Asarum canadense
5) split Asarum canadense into Asarum canadense and Asarum reflexum
but I agree that this would be super disruptive in terms of lots of altered IDs

Way 2
A less proper less transparent but also less disruptive way would be to:
1) change the rank of species Asarum canadense to Complex Asarum canadense (I believe only staff can make this change?)
2) create new inactive taxa for Asarum reflexum and Asarum canadense below Complex Asarum canadense
3) swap Variety Asarum canadense reflexum into species Asarum reflexum
4) swap Variety Asarum canadense canadense into species Asarum canadense

Does anyone see any major downsides to the second way?

Is there a way to send out a notification for a taxon change without actually doing a change? That's my only criticism of that method. I don't think swapping the complex into itself would be practical, though, just to send out that notification.

there's no way to generate the notifications that a taxon change generates without doing a taxon change, but changing the rank directly will be recorded in the history tab for people to seek out https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/56325/history

not with the current infrastructure. If you want to notify people then I'd propose Way 1 or Way 3. If notification/noise is not super important than I'd propose Way 2

I'll wait to see what other users think. Perhaps I'm placing too much weight on it.

iNat doesn't currently have Asarum canadense var. acuminatum as a valid taxon and our reference considers it a synonym https://powo.science.kew.org/results?q=Asarum%20canadense%20var.%20acuminatum
so I don't think we need to worry about it, unless I'm misunderstanding something

It is my view that acuminatum should at least be recognized at the species level if reflexum is considered a species, and that is something I (or someone else) need to email POWO about. I like Way 2 for ID changes.

Would be good to contact and coordinate with POWO if you want to involve acuminatum

@charlie a compromise solution to this problem was sought by @rynxs and authorized by @loarie, that is, the activation of a species complex. I'm happy with that result. Actually, a more accurate word is relieved, but in any case, we have a solution now. Can we move forward instead of continually dredging up the past?

@charlie I couldn't think of reason enough not to go through with the swap, which is why I tagged someone who I thought would attempt to find one. In theory, if the current varieties had ranges/zones of hybridization, that would warrant forcing them to remain at infraspecific level. However, they do not appear to hybridize or introgress at all. Additional reasons not to go through with the split would be the invalidity of the proposed taxa (just variance within a variable species), irreparable damage to an ongoing study using iNat data that would need to be sorted out prior to the split, or an ongoing sitewide activity that places too much of a burden on the site (CNC, for example). Those are a few barriers to splits that I have actually encountered.

For the record, you are not "wrong." You have an opinion, as does everyone. I don't think I've done any of the bad practice things you've listed, but I am bad at wording my statements sometimes and probably spend time researching plants that I should be spending socially, so who knows how some of my statements are interpreted despite their intended meaning, sometimes? I don't have any control over other people, either. I don't think this thread has gone down that particular path, though. I did attempt to find a compromise, as @trscavo noted. Please PM or tag me if you think of anything more that can be done to ease or mitigate large splits.

We don't really have any "echo chamber." These discussions happen on-the-spot as they roll in, there's no previous agreements or alliances. At least in my case, I've never discussed these splits outside of the singular public discussion, except for individual queries post-split.

Any observation (I think at family level or below? definitely at genus level or below) can become RG if there is a community consensus on ID at a taxon higher than species if you check the "No, cannot be improved" box in the DQA. I can do this for you following the changes, if you want.

Per your request, I will not notify you of these flags and discussions in the future. Let me know if you ever change your mind.

@rynxs
", irreparable damage to an ongoing study using iNat data that would need to be sorted out prior to the split"

I have stated it causes damage to field surveys i am doing, i am not sure why that doesn't count here?

" I am bad at wording my statements sometimes and probably spend time researching plants that I should be spending socially, so who knows how some of my statements are interpreted despite their intended meaning, sometimes?"

well i am autistic so that is definitely very relatable to me, though in my case since i'm autistic, more social time isn't going to change my traits. Though I do enjoy it despite the stereotype. To be clear i am not saying you are autistic, just that I am. I do think the issue here is the taxonomic splitters are absolutely certain what they want to do is right, based on deep knowledge and valid observations and data. However, you all just want to use the species concept differently from me, and unfortunately the way you want to use it, makes it very difficult for me to use it the way i want to use it. I recognize we are all here to learn about nature and share that with others, but i do feel that for the rampant splitting the cost far outweighs the benefits. Unfortunately i am not very good at convincing people of things, i just make them mad. But as mentioned above it's kind of a core trait so my best hope is to do my best to not piss people off (too late here i guess) and hope to convince someone with more ability than me to navigate social structures, so that they can beg for the splitting to stop and maybe have some success. More likely I just have to accept that iNat continues to steadily decline in value for applied ecology the way I and my colleagues practice it. And, i believe, to the general public as well.

I know that genus can reach research grade, but im sure you know there are a lot of reasons why genus level ID is problematic on many levels. As mentioned before, one is that it breaks my ability to connect iNat directly to my bioassessment database. But that ship has already sailed. I now have a different way to collect that data so most of it does not go on iNat any more. I do appreciate the consideration of making intermediate units between genus and species, it does not solve the database problem but at least allows me to track the data at a level below genus.

It is fine to notify me of changes if there is a chance you will reverse a split due to my objection or concerns. But it's yet to happen that i am aware of, ever. This one just felt like taunting. I recognize now you didn't intend it that way, and don't necessarily know about how others have treated me regarding this issue. Thank you for including me, though i am disappointed that my reasons for concern, which i feel are very clear and logical, are rejected again. I do feel that the long term impacts to iNat will be severe, but given there is no 'control group' of a similar site that does not adopt constant taxonomic splits, i will never be able to prove that.

Thanks for listening. I do appreciate turning this conversation around.

if we are on the edge of whether to do so can we just not for now, since it's controversial?

If anything, A. acuminatum is the most unique and easily differentiated.

Yea, I'm normally indifferent to splits but this is one I strongly feel should happen given how distinct these entities are. I'll gather some references over the next few days.

I went ahead and created the complex, as well as the currently inactive Asarum acuminatum (1473618) and Asarum reflexum (1473617).

I do want to point out, not to muddy things, that morphologically there are some clear distinctions (if you have clear images of the flower, which is a big "if"! even when flowering, many people do not look for the partially concealed flower, and none of my observations show it as I didn't anticipate A. canadense being split)... but "there isn't any proper study published for this" per a member of my lab. that is, we don't know anything about the genetic coherence of these entities, and precious little about even the ecological coherence. I don't know that there is any a priori reason to think these forms merit species rank as opposed to variety, subspecies, or even forma. I say this as someone who normally prefers the splitting approach (my handle on some sites is @taxosplitter even!), but am deeply wary of a controversial split where the entities involved haven't even been demonstrated to be monophyletic(!).
if I and members of my lab have incorrectly overlooked a study that covers this issue, then please link it. otherwise, I don't think there is any reason to see this as anything other than a taxonomic opinion that relies on only one line of evidence -- and one would be hard-pressed to find a diehard morphological systematist approach that doesn't take into account phylogenetics these days.
Edit: not to re-litigate "whether this is controversial" per se, but I don't think the issue is a totally settled one, given that this is again a seemingly purely morphological distinction being made here.

I've noticed strict morphological distinctions and habitat differentiations in Ontario as well. A. reflexum on rich alluvial floodplain soil and usually growing with other southern/midwestern species (Silphium perfoliatum, Verbesina alternifolia, etc.).

To flip this around - what about the Acer saccharum complex? The morphological differences between A. nigrum and A. saccharum aren't genetically coherent, but there seems to consensus that they should be treated as different taxonomic entities.

I'm coming from a place of ignorance here, and I only recently learned about this split proposal. There are a lot of questions that I can't find answers to, and perhaps think that moving slower with full split may yield more long term benefits than moving things to species level right now. Despite this I want to state what I've found, because reading through this discussion it doesn't seem to have been brought up.

First is there actually a suite of unique morphological characters in these two taxa? The original description describes a very unique suite of features with reflexum having elongated rootstock 10-45 cm 4mm thick, with branches remotely alternate (vs canadense with 2.5-15 cm, 6-10mm thick, sub opposite and approximate) with joints glabrous, not contracted, and with prominent bract scars with some distant (vs puberulent, contracted at the joints, and narrowly scarred from fallen bracts) with bracts separated or distant (vs approximate or overlapping) with leaves broader than long with a shallow open sinus to deep sinus, obtusely pointed, nearly glabrous above and with a satiny luster (vs little, if at all, broader than long, with a deep, often partly closed sinus, the hirsutulous-puberulent upper surface with a satiny luster) with petioles 3-4 mm. thick, loosely or thinly tomentose-pubescent with slightly longer and softer hairs than in canadense, somewhat shining on the outer surface and mostly glabrous towards the base except along the villous-pubescent inner margins, often nearly glabrous throughout in age (vs 3-6 mm. thick, at first canescent throughout or densely white-pubescent with short, spreading or slightly reflexed hairs, becoming more loosely pubescent, or puberulent, often with cinereous or somewhat rusty hairs) in addition to the floral characters presented in the keys I could find that differentiate these taxa. While there seems to be something approaching distinctness of floral morphonology I cannot find anything about the other characters which occupied a large portion of the original description. I raise this concern because the one published thing I found really looking at the taxonomy of the group indicated that all of these traits seem to vary somewhat independently. Additionally Kelly indicates that forms are distinct in range extremities they appear to have more of a cline/mixed characters in the bulk of the range. (Kelly, 2001, Taxonomy of Asarum Section Asarum (Aristolochiaceae) If it is true that there is not a suite of characters that define these two taxa but rather 1 character that raises a ton of red flags for these being valid taxa. I see some discussion of secondary characters above, but are these characters really distinct and strongly correlated with floral morphology?

I also am confused where this split would leave ambiguum or accuminatum (or really what these names describe)?

Despite this being stated as an uncontroversial split here it seems that there is no consensus for this group in the literature, am I missing something? Going through the "modern" floras I have access to (strong northeast bias):
Weakly recognizes canadense, reflexum, and accuminatum at species level (without any citations supporting this, but becoming the foundation for the split in POWO)
Rericha and Wilhelm recognize canadense, reflexum and ambiguum at var level (the only one that specifically addresses the concerns above by stating that in the Chicago Region forms usually appear distinct)
Knapp, W.M. & Naczi recognize canadense and reflexum (but without notes as a checklist only)
Haines recognizes canadense s.l. as a variable taxa
Voss and Reznicek recognize canadense s.l. as a variable taxa
FNA recognizes canadense s.l. as a variable taxa
Werier (Checklist of plants of NY) recognizes canadense s.l. with the note "A modern study is needed to determine if additional taxa within Asarum canadense should be recognized"

Finally my quick Google Scholar search only turns up one taxonomic paper from the past half century that seriously discusses Asarum reflexum, and that one discounts it's validity (Kelly 2001). NatureServe does not recognize it. Vascular Plants of North Carolina recognizes it but walks it immediately saying: "This taxon -- Asarum reflexum -- and A. acuminatum are quite controversial splits from A. canadense... [but we use Weakly]"

I want to go back and say that I don't have field experience distinguishing these taxa, they haven't really been on my radar (my go to's don't reference them), so I don't want to act like an authority. That said I am having trouble with this being presented as a widely accepted universal split, when all of the non-technical sources and a significant portion of the technical resources do not distinguish between these taxa. (Comment limit here, see below)

This surely is a "more study necessary" taxa, and I think that the question here is what should iNaturalist do about potential taxa that are not fully resolved. I think that the least disruptive would be to keep these as infraspecies so those who want to can distinguish, while not creating a ID and confusion burden for those who do not know the split, or are using references that do not acknowledge the split. That is the way the data will stay most accurate (although not most precise). A canadense is a pretty clean taxa right now, with a ton at RG, and a straight forward ID. That will not be the case if this moves to a species level split, especially if these taxa are distinguishable out of flower, as the original description says is possible. This turns it from an "intro to IDing taxa" (at least in the Northeast) to a very difficult one, and one where saying as good as can be out of flower may not actually be appropriate.

I think that there is good chance that these are valid, and I tend to think that the late 1800's botanists generally had a better feel for species concepts than we do now, but I think that we need multiple lines of evidence (biogeography, habitat, a suite of morphological characters, genomics) before a split like this is not controversial. That really does not seem to be the case for this. I am in favor of taking it slow and non-disruptive, but that's just my 2 cents.

I also agree with the "burden of proof" remark about needing multiple lines of evidence; that's about what I was myself going for, further up this thread. I strongly disagree (as a systematist) about 19th-century botanists having a better handle on species concepts than we do today, both on the merits and given the drift of what a species is considered to be since that time, but that's a discussion for another place.
it may be helpful to add Asarum canadense var. acuminatum nonetheless, but I have been shown a number of specimens and living individuals that "break" the Weakley key in their combination of characters (calyx lobes sharply reflexed but also long-caudate), so this is a muddy problem even at the level of morphology and not one that lends itself well to going full ahead into a species-rank split.

I have encountered mostly populations with mixed characters -- some individuals within them with reflexed calyx lobes, some with acuminate calyx lobes, with those two things not mutually exclusive.
aside from my subjective opinion, I would again urge no major movement on this until we actually see some sort of research, any research, on this. there's no morphometrics, no population genetics, no phylogenomics... Weakley's key is not peer-reviewed and there is no way I know of to properly respond to an online-only beta-version pseudopublication like this kind of thing (or POWO's acceptance of it).
I am going to ask my colleague to respond to this further as I'm not sure I have the depth required on Asarum to form as strong a reply.

Field botanists have always sought to put names on entities that are recognizable in the field, which these certainly are. Whether they remain as var. or are elevated to species matters little to me as long as the names exist for me to use, which is why I strongly believe var. acuminatum should be added to our taxonomy.

The segregates Weakley is recognizing, by contrast, differ only in the form of the sepals...

I don't really see why this matters, since there are many many groups of plants, fungi, and all kinds of organisms that differ only in one characteristic. There are other differences between these Asarum taxa, but sepal morphology happens to be the most definitive feature.

@sbrobeson I'm going to be honest with you, the formatting of your comment is coming across to me pretty hostile. "Indeed, none of these questions need be answered, especially if there are in fact no actual answers to be provided" seems particularly unnecessary.

When I encounter Asarum acuminatum in the field, it seems distinct to me from Asarum reflexum. As of last season, I found I started to recognize it from a distance without needing to see a flower. At the time of this flag discussion happening last year, I wanted other opinions on the group, because I couldn't understand the perspective of lumping them wholesale. I spoke with my college professor about it; we discussed the morphologies and habitats of these plants, and he agreed they seemed distinct. I talked with some of my botany-minded friends and showed them the plants, and they did not disagree with my interpretation. I was not able to find a local botanist who defended outright lumping into one variable species (that is, without infraspecifics). Many of these people are not professionals, which is why I did not refer to them as such in my comment.

A concrete example of harm done by the lumping of this group: in Illinois, the range of A. acuminatum is definitely different from A. reflexum, in that it is limited to remnant forested limestone bedrock river bluffs and ledges, almost always in proximity to creeks or rivers. This is distinct from A. reflexum, which has a wider tolerance for various conditions in bottomland floodplain woodlands, and is much less conservative; I find it often under canopies of Lonicera maackii. The recognition of these entities allows for one to gauge the conservativeness of a community more effectively, and returning to Asarum canadense s.l. destroys this distinction. In Jerry Wilhelm's treatment, Flora of the Chicago Region rates Asarum canadense var. canadense (corresponding to A. acuminatum) as C = 10, and Asarum canadense var. reflexum as C = 5. In other words, A. acuminatum is maximally indicative of a "true" remnant, and A. reflexum is not. To me, this seems like a fairly critical distinction, one reached by an independent researcher years before this discussion.

You are incorrect about "one single supporting characteristic" defining this group. As I mentioned earlier in this flag, the petiole pubescence is noticeably denser and less cobwebby on A. acuminatum when compared to A. reflexum. The exact number of differences between two species isn't very important to me, personally. An absence of a formal study can just as easily be taken for the reverse position of lumping without justification, not that I hold that position. You and your colleague seem skeptical, which is fine, but how can you know they only differ in the form of the sepals (which, as stated, is not the case) without a formal study?

For the FSUS key "breaking," I do not define the legitimacy of species by whether or not a particular key successfully differentiates them 100%, as is doubtless the case with many others. My aforementioned botany professor likes to tell the story of how he and Jerry Wilhelm went out into the field with someone who had just finished writing a key for Dichanthelium, and immediately encountered a group of plants that broke the key and were unidentifiable. Nonetheless, distinct Dichanthelium species exist, as do many other groups that rely on few distinctions between species. I think the southeastern U.S. endemic Sagittaria chapmanii is a good species; the only reliable differentiation in keys it has from S. graminea is that it likes to make panicles sometimes. Nevertheless, its gestalt is noticeably distinct, it has different habitat preferences, and no populations of plants of this form ever produce paniculate inflorescences outside of this small region. I am interested in the specifics of what you've deemed to break the FSUS key, but as flags are not places to discuss taxonomy (for which we currently toe the line of the taboo), I would appreciate if you could PM me these details instead.

In my last comment on this flag, I talked about splitting out A. acuminatum from A. canadense var. canadense at the level of variety, to which you replied that we should not do any "major movement," so I refrained. I can't tell if your last comment about evidence for recognizing it as species level is about the treatment we should take for this group here on iNaturalist, or my personal view of the group. If the latter, then this flag is not the place to discuss this topic.

I don't really intend to continue responding here if the conversation is not strictly in regards to taxonomic actions that should be taken for this group on iNat. This should serve as a pretty comprehensive statement for what I think about the situation.

I'm genuinely sorry if my questions came off as hostile. What particular wording do you find to be that way? As far as no answers existing, it's because no actual study of this problem has been performed; that's my fault as much as anyone's for not diving into research on it. I'm not sure what else you found hostile about my "formatting" specifically; if it's the usage of quotes or links or anything else, I'm trying to show that (and where) the words I'm quoting are not my own. I don't mean to mock your or anyone else's words; I often struggle to know what people "really mean" when they're saying something. But I do mean to push for specifics that would actually formally support any changes to the current deviation supporting the variety-level treatment of these taxa on iNaturalist, because I haven't seen that.

Taxonomy should follow scientific study. It's undeniable that there could be differences, but they are not represented in any literature, and the FSUS treatment (and apparently POWO) follow almost wholesale from the aforementioned 1897 study. I understand that some believe that there are other characters such as the petiole pubescence; it's true that I haven't performed a formal study yet either, nor has anyone apparently. The statement about differing only in the form of the sepals wasn't meant to be a comprehensive statement about the reflexum-type and acuminatum-type morphologies, but what is presented to us by treatments as in FSUS. How can you in turn know that the petiole pubescence character is relevant rangewide?

Since you ask for "the conversation [to be] strictly in regards to taxonomic actions that should be taken to this group on iNat", I won't respond to the merits of your observation about habitat conservatism, but I think I understand your point now; thanks for posting it. I'll try to talk to Jerry Wilhelm about this next time I see him.

I ask what I ask not to drill down into "personal views" of the species, or how I, you, or anyone personally "defines the legitimacy of species", which is anyway not really taxonomy per se. This is meant to underscore the fact that the proposed split is not supported by any real study. That compounds the fact that splitting to species level seems to be deemed by others as disruptive (by you and many others), going back to the original reason given for the flag. But as far as I can tell, the questions I'm asking about the taxonomy here are being met by a lot of "it seems distinct to me", "I've noticed", etc. Botanising is not plant taxonomy. This means you should reasonably ignore my opinion, which I've tried to take pains to omit (and tried to take recourse to field-wide practices instead). It does still mean that there is no fully studied understanding of Asarum canadense s.l. across its whole range that supports species-level splitting. The formal studies such as that by Asarum specialists which supported the FNA treatment are older, but they can be taken as review that supports lumping to some degree, not necessarily without justification.

I'm sorry if this felt like a broadside against your personal views about the group; it certainly wasn't intended that way. Maybe this isn't the place for such a long discussion of it either. If I latched onto it at a personal level, it's because this problem of classification built on personal communications and old nomenclature is emblematic of the problems with continually updated floras and checklists. I'll stop posting about the merits of this case, and message Kew about their adopted treatment in lieu of continuing to unload further pre-analysis on you, et al., before I actually wade into Asarum work professionally.

TL;DR:
There are no recent studies on this, and there are inconsistencies in how the lower taxa are disinguished. Most "recent" literature suggests subsuming the supposed separate species in the Asarum canadense complex. To all curators, please keep the deviation for now, and ideally no further action would be required.

oh, and my comment was addressed to Ryan and was written before Charlie posted -- but if this isn't too much "on the merits", there are absolutely unintended consequences to splitting, not just lumping, even leaving aside the matter of the workings of coefficients of conservatism which is a matter for debate somewhere else.

This is meant to underscore the fact that the proposed split is not supported by any real study.

I see iNat as a research tool, so not everything we do needs to already be part of the literature. If we only do what is already established elsewhere, then we're not really involved in research, are we? In this case, I think lumps should definitely be supported by studies, but (infraspecific) splits should be done to facilitate research.

From what I can tell without re-reading the whole conversation, nobody's actually against an infraspecific taxon for acuminatum.... so I think the new taxon entry is a good compromise? dealing with infraspecifics on iNat is annoying, but it looks like elevating it to species level is not the best idea, for now...

@sbrobeson thank you for the sincere apology. I trusted you meant well - no harm done. I also struggle with the medium, and just wanted to let you know that it came across a bit rough, as I hope others do the same for me. I don't want it to distract from the flag at all, though.

Adding Asarum acuminatum as a variety is what I was hoping for. It necessitates a split of var. canadense, though. I can attest Illinois has no A. canadense var. canadense observations, at least. We have to figure out the range maps somewhat. The observations in Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin are A. c. var. acuminatum. Indiana could have both, although in checking it seems like they're all acuminatum as well. I largely have no idea about the other provinces/states, but I did see acuminatum in Tennessee's Great Smoky Mtn. NP two weeks ago.

I created an inactive atlas for acuminatum and added these states. I also deleted the common name "tailed wild ginger" from var. canadense and added Asarum acuminatum as a synonym for var. acuminatum.

I have a similar sentiment to Jared (@wildlander). The idea of species is a social construction, and it often doesn't work super well with plants. Senna's (@sbrobeson) colleague's statement on the breeding habits of Asarum spp. explains why quite well:

"Remember, also, that Asarum canadense is self-pollinating (Wildman 1950), like other studied Asarum spp. (Lu 1982), so individual stands of Asarum are highly inbred. As with other highly autogamous plants, you expect to see little variation within stands with some differences from place to place that are ± fixed by inbreeding."

Since populations of Asarum spp. don't often interbreed, there is a degree of interpretation that goes into which labels most accurately delineate these populations. Personally, I think if there are multiple morphological differences and differences in habitat preference between two entities, they probably warrant being separate species. As Senna points out, there is little research in this area. I haven't spent enough time with Asarum spp. to have an informed opinion about the differences between these entities.

@sbrobeson I don't disagree with you and I support leaving these as varieties for now until we have a more comprehensive morphometric and genetic study. We all have our own personal taxonomy, usually based on field experience, and I can't say I haven't opposed splits in the past (like Campanula rotundifolia).

This particular flag has drawn a lot of strong opinions, probably because it's a common, widespread, and familiar taxon to all levels of naturalists. Hardly anyone bats an eye at taxon changes in Poaceae, Cyperaceae, Spiranthes, etc., and those are often based on much more subtle characteristics than this.

I'm with Charlie on some of those. (Hopefully it's clear that that's a big thing for me to say as someone who has the handle 'taxosplitter' on other sites.)
Botanising isn't taxonomy. Nor is "personal taxonomy" germane to real taxonomy. Only good comprehensive studies will be competent to recommend big changes in widespread groups. This is why e.g. I never suggested any revision of Acer series Saccharodendron, despite working on it for a while; I just couldn't get the kind of data that would be needed. Peer graduate students @jingyilu and @ryanfuller know that there are problems in their respective groups, but have to work carefully if they end up with recommended changes, because it will affect the field to just throw charges of new species or major lower taxa reorganisation out there. The list would go on, so I won't.
Since the requested focus on taxonomic changes on iNaturalist has been begun for variety-ranked splitting only, I'm wondering what it would take to resolve this flag?