@abounabat I would love to have your opinion on this.

@wolfgangb @mercantour @surfelife @maremimar @luissilva4 :
What do you think about the possibility to create Ophrys fusca ssp. forestieri, which is the priority name on O. fusca ssp. lupercalis, and also several other synonym subspecies as ssp. gackiae and ssp. maghrebiaca ? (akhdarensis could have priority if synonym, but it is a very poorly now taxa and very far from the Western-Central Medit. area, so I prefer to not considr until new data) (O. malacitana has never been combined at subspeficic rank)
This new name on iNat could recover, at least provisionally, all the plants from Western-Medit. (Iberic-Maghrebian-Tyrrhenian) with early flowering (January-April depending on the coastal relief and altitude) and medium-sized labellum (12-18 mm approx.) often pollinated by Andrena nigroaenea or related bees (A. bicolor, etc.) and maybe Colletes (for "O. malacitana").
PS: unfortunately, on POWO, O. fusca ssp. forestieri is synonymised with... O. iricolor ! What a mess ?
NB: the var. forestieri Rchb.f. was described from French Pyrenees, where no iricolor-like has never been seen less than 500 km far. Only O. forestieri Lojac. (non Rhcb.f.) is described from Sicily but the legitimity of this name is controversial (a new Sicilian species vs a recombination of the Reichenbach name). And here also, no iricolor s.l. in the whole Sicily... I will write to Kew right now !

I think putting some order & clarity in the "fusca" group became a necessity but is also a huge colossal task !!

The great thing about all those iNat obs, is that it gives us data... and only by looking at numbers & doing quick stats, I think they really reflect a big taxa problematic & confusion : for a total of about 3500 obs, about 40% of those obs fell under O. fusca ssp. fusca (as basically almost everything is at the moment given synonym by Kev, Powo...and co) that became a generic taxa name where we put "everything"; and about 30% of those obs were left at genus level (prob either because of uncertainty, lack of clues to characterize & ID or to avoid taxa confusion until hopefully it becomes clearer).

I personally think this is sad not to see this amazing biodiversity showing & reflecting the reality of the field, leading to more general problematic of protection, preservation & conservation. You can't protect something that is not clearly named.

The same problematic appeared in the debate O. scolopax/O. oestrifera where confusion & chaos were ruling.
I'm very pleased to see now that some clarity helped, happy to see people able to ID alone their obs with assertiveness.
It was hard work, but it paid off.

Now jumping in regarding the initial question, yes I think creating this deviation makes total sense.
I just still have a hard time with O. forestieri that I still consider a bit cryptic... I know the name as priority over O. lupercalis, but I still feel like "O. forestieri" appears when we talk about an early flowering one or when we don"t really what it is... and in the literature (apart from studies like the one of Lowe for ex.) still appears a bit like an "ancestor" name to characterize something, an ophrys that we don't really its range, nor its pollinator, with a fluctuating flowering time depending on sources, countries... etc.

Feels like the taxa O. lupercalis is more accepted, and more regularly used by most to ID their find, like in France for example, Portugal...

I'm not against using O. forestieri at all, I'm just wondering what exactly do guys think should this taxa regroup?
Syn. of O. lupercalis ok, then what about the ones from North Africa, Portugal, Spain, Sicilia... and the Greek ones?
Because for Greece we basically use I think 3 different taxa that could fall under some "O. forestieri" : O laureotica, O. leucadica & O. calocaerina (with a late flowering & larger labellum)

New thorough researches, like the ones mentioned above give hope to bring some clarity within the group.
It's probably one of the most challenging & tricky "group", & I think using a combo : genetic - morpho/phenotypic - floral scent is the right path.

But still, those ophrys are remaining more largely unstudied (apart maybe from France), difficult to collect accurate data & samples of species flowering in December/January when most studies (Paulus, Renz, Delforges, Bateman...etc) only started in March/April.
Pollinators for most still remain unknown, their distribution range as well...

I agree that splitting for splitting is not necessarily the solution here, we could "regroup".
But let's say we deviate, and create O. forestieri as a fusca ssp. ; then what happens to the "others"? Should we create other fusca. ssp. ? How many do we keep?

Regarding the O. iricolor situation, I think the lumping position of POWO & Kev is not only making no sense at all but also shocking.
We had a discussion about it last year I think, in a flag (?) that I cannot find.
If their position is set in stone, I think we should definitely deviate then, creating O. iricolor as a full specie rank & adding at least 3 ssp. (ssp. iricolor, mesaritica, vallesiana) based on distribution, flowering time & lebelum size. Those ssp. could "regroup" the others (astypalaeica, eleonorae, lojaconoi, hospitalis...) so we don't have to deviate nor split too much; when possible to specify of course.

But overall, I think this question about O. forestieri raises a bigger one : what should we do with the fusca group?
Is the possibility of splitting this group in several groups or subgroups wouldn't help a lot?
A funerea group, iricolor group, blithopertha group, attavira group, subfusca group? ...
I mean most authors (if not all) are using these groups to describe all those species, so why are we still using a unique "fusca group" for all on iNat?
Great work has been done in the Euophrys section with the Fuciflora group, the Scolopax/Oestrifera group... etc.
In the Pseudophrys section, we gained in clarity with the Lutea & Omegeifera groups, shouldn't the fusca one be the next step?

I think it’s a good idea and I agree with @starjay and @surfelife points of view. Deviations must be done carefully but also it’s important to name correctly different species.

@abounabat This O. iricolor swap looks perfect to me! Thank you
It's clear and a very good compromise I think.
I guess the swap change will update automatically all obs, we would just have manually to precise the newly added ssp. on the obs requiring it. They aren't that many so it should be all good.

How would we go about on the fusca group? Accept the paper above as a starting point?

The Lowe's study could maybe be a starting point yes,
I mean his study explains that O. forestieri synonymize O. lupercalis (even tho he mentions that according to him what was originally designed as O. forestieri with the collected material are very likely consistent to be indeed O. lupercalis, ref. page 543) And he details the new distribution range (covering O. forestieri + O. lupercalis range). So it might help to submit the idea to Kew.

But if we follow that, then we should exclude the "true" O. fusca ssp. fusca from Portugal & create a new O. malacitana (or O. fusca ssp. malacitana?)

Then what is the status of the Sicilian ones? Should they fall under O. forestieri as well ? Or is there any local studies leading in a way of a new local specie ?
Should the greek O. laureotica, O. leucadica & O. calocaerina be included as well under O. forestieri or should we create new fusca ssp. to exclude them from the current O. fusca ssp. fusca ?
Should O. forestieri include as well the controversial O. delforgei ?
And overall, what should O. fusca ssp. fusca should be describing then? The typical portuguese one ?
Because when we look at O. fusca fusca 's current range now, it's huge, from Western Portugal all the way to Western coastal Turkey, including Northern Africa.

I think the problem results by opening a door centuries ago, and over time each countries tried to propose names to match what they were observing in the field. So we end up with a huge list of names & proposed local taxa, that for some could very well be simple synonyms & possible geographic variations (either morpho or flowering time difference) but that could also very well be local endemic species!

Because territories delimitations with some of these plants aren't always easy to define or explain, if we take the example of Crete, Greece : we easily have up to 7-8 "fusca-group" taxons on the same island...!

But I definitely think more people here should be contributing & giving their views on the matter & discussion, people from France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Sicillia, Sardegna, Tunisia, Greece, Turkey... etc with field experience.
Because I'm not sure people in an office that probably never ever seen a real fusca with their own eyes will be of much help in regard to what & how we should name our plants observed...
And I cannot speak for plants of countries that I have never seen.

Ok for me !

Yes, the true fusca seems to be limited to the Lisboa area (but I do not know it from my own)
Maybe yes, ssp. malacitana could be a good taxon, in case of its particularism would be confirmed (pollinator and/or morphology), but as far as I know, it is not really accepted now, except for Lowe and Paulus themselves ?
In Sicily, the O. forestieri sensu Lojacono is not well understood, and other names (like O. gackiae, or O. sabulosa ?) could represent the local "nigroaenea-fusca", but I have no own experience of these taxa in Sicily.
In the Eastern Mediterranean, I have never seen myself, neither from a photo, a close related to fusca s.s. or fusca/lupercalis/forestieri. I think all taxa are really distinct and form another group(with long petals), but the older (priority) name is a bit confuse... maybe O. leucadica from Renz 1928 ?

For the Eastern Mediterranean, Yes I personally support the idea that O. leucadica replace O.forestieri/lupercalis

Renz (1928); Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. 25 : 265 ; in Repertorium Specierum Novarum Regni Vegetabilis. Centralblatt für Sammlung und Veroffentlichung von Einzeldiagnosen neuer Pflanzen. [Edited by Friedrich Fedde]. Berlin : https://www.ipni.org/p/788-2
This taxa is also supported by Delforge as well as Antonopoulos & Tsiftsis (2022, Atlas of the Greek Orchids, Vol. II, page 52.) Antonopoulos & Tsiftsis mention a parallel with O. forestieri with the early flowering ones of Central Mediterranean.
H.Kretzschmar (2002) uses O. fusca ssp. leucadica : https://www.ipni.org/n/20004348-1

So if we create an O. forestieri, maybe we could create a O. leucadica as well. Could allow us to "clear up" the use of fusca ssp. fusca. for the greek ones. And O. leucadica could "regroup" O. laureotica & O. calocaerina that still lack of further studies.

O. laureatica : early flowering (Dec/Jan/early Feb), Attique.

https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/148548983
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/148044334
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/147545220
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/146521223

O. leucatica : intermediate flowering (End of March/April), Attique/Sterea Hellas/Peloponnese/Ionian Islands

https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/137909211
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/111539150
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/111070908

O. calocaerina : late flowering (April/begining of May) with very longer lip (1.5-2cm); attracting a different pollinator than O. leucadica; Attiki, Greece mainland & Evia (Eubée) island.

https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/116804372

Antonopoulos & Tsiftsis make mention of sicilian plants (described locally under O. lupercalis) with very long lip really matching the "greek" O. calocaerina; which I think is a very interesting lead...
with such individuals as these :

https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/148202593
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/148994042

And the Sardinian ones, could be somewhere between O. lupercalis/forestieri & O. leucadica :

https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/22806963

Before to open (or not?) a new pandora box with the Eastern attaviria / ceesmensis / creberrima / cressa / leucadica / thriptensis / etc.... I just created also the name Ophrys fusca calocaerina : https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/1455316-Ophrys-fusca-calocaerina
It includes also as synonyms O. (fusca) lucana and O. (usca) sabulosa.

Deviation scheme currently completed here : https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_framework_relationships/199549

Great for the changes done, thanks.

I can't speak for the spanish & italian ones as I'm not familiar with them at all.

But I also think the initial idea to regroup was ideal, so we try to keep it as clear & simple as possible.
Deviate when needed so we could open doors, but regroup when possible.
When the differences are slim, or unclear/unstudied I think we should stick to a steady taxa. (ssp. fusca could remain in place for those mentioned above until new studies are published).
We have to think both of expert observers and also neophytes... I'm afraid if if it gets too "complicated" people would get lost & confused..

Let's take it step by step, and maybe focus on taxa for which it makes more sense and where an improvement is really needed based on observations made here that would deserve their proper taxa.
Maybe we could focus on plants that are easy to separate and ID, based on big morpho difference & clear distribution.

For the italian ophrys, I see a lot of italian observers posting almost daily a lot of their fusca s.l. observations in the facebook group "PACA orchidées sauvages". I don't know if some of them are present on iNat or not, but I think they could easily be reached out maybe to ask for their views about what they observe in their areas.

Also, I propose the creation of Ophrys lenae and Ophrys algarvensis. The precedent was created for Ophrys vasconica as a stablilized paleohybrid like O. algarvensis and O. lenae.
O. lenae is restricted to western Portugal and O. algarvensis is also cited in Spain (Vásquez in https://floramontiberica.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/folia_botanica_extremadurensis_3_2009.pdf).

Sources:
Lowe et al, 2012
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253644706_Two_new_Ophrys_species_from_Portugal
and the genetic work done by Cotrim et al, 2016 in
https://www.academia.edu/64498785/Marked_hybridization_and_introgression_in_Ophrys_sect_Pseudophrys_in_the_western_Iberian_Peninsula
also
https://floramontiberica.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/folia_botanica_extremadurensis_3_2009.pdf

Hi,
let's take this by steps:

O. pintoi is in no way related to O. dyris and it is in the O. fusca group (more related to O. subfusca). You can see my latest O. pintoi by checking my O. fusca observations from yesterday. The reason I haven't pushed for the O. pintoi spp. here is the distribution is ill-defined. (also for reference https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253644706_Two_new_Ophrys_species_from_Portugal)

About the O. lenae, it is indeed a micro-species from Portugal, but I disagree it should be lumped with O. vasconica. The distribution is quite well defined and there are quite a few differences. (also you can check my latest O. omegaifera dyris observations)
About O. algarvensis. About the O. algarvensis - O. mirabilis differences, Tyteca et. al goes through great length explaining the morphological differences here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283498737_Ophrys_algarvensis_a_new_species_from_the_southern_Iberian_Peninsula

So currently, the distribution of this group the way I see it is:

O. vasconica on Eastern Iberian Peninsula and France (although there are a few localities on the north of Portugal);
O. lenae on the western/central part of Portugal.
O. algarvensis on the southern part of Portugal and spain going up to spanish Extremadura at least.

All being said, I do understand not wanting to deviate from POWO. But in POWO Ophrys vasconica appears as Ophrys x vasconica and as a synonim of Ophrys x brigittae.
So going from here there are two way I see we can take this:
a) change O. vasconica to O. x vasconica? Same as I did when I changed the O. brigittae taxon to O. x brigittae to keep in line with POWO.
b) deviate and create O. x lenae and O. x algarvensis alluding to its stable hybrid nature.
c) Keep everything as is and use the observations field to register the unrecognized species by POWO, like I have been doing.
Either way is fine by me :)

@abounabat @surfelife @mercantour what is your opinion on this?

Hi @surfelife,
O. algarvensis is closer to O. mirabilis as @abounabat said. The ones in the center of Portugal are closer to dyris (s.s.) but with a stigmatic cavity grooved like in O. fusca (s.l.) which denotes their hybrid origin.
About floramonticola, in the fusca group yes I agree they split it too much, but otherwise I find their approach to spp. and var. much easier than say Delforge :)

Ok for me.