Flag for Taxon: Carex sect. Phacocystis (Section Phacocystis)
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| elacroix-carignan | rynxs | Carex sect. Phacocystis (Section Phacocystis) |
Add as species complexes some morphologically distinct clade |
Jun. 22, 2023 21:06:03 +0000 | kevinfaccenda |
done |
Comments
They are probably thousands of ambiguous photos on INaturalist showing a species in this "complex". At the moment all of these observations are bumped back to sect. Phacocystis and information is lost.
I forgot to add Carex fumosimontana to this species complex. Carex fumosimontana was not sampled in the latest phylogeny so that's why I forgot about it. This article also treats this grouping as a complex: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24692573?seq=6
See also https://www.jstor.org/stable/2419037?seq=1 for earlier mention of the carex crinita complex
This woud be very useful. I'd argue that most observations of C. crinita or C. gynandra are not IDable from the photos on iNat and unless someone knowledgeable sees these observations and ID them as Phacocystis, they end up as one or the other species without having any diagnostic characters shown. Having a complex may help people in IDing them at the correct level.
I support this complex
Any updates on this?
Carex fumosimontana was not added to the complex while it should have been. It is a local endemic to the blue ridge mountain with very observations on Inaturalist.
Thanks for this work Kevin! Étienne, do you plan on bumping up all unsubstantiated RG observations? There are many of them!
Do you have a reference for Carex fumosimontana being in this clade? I didn't see it in the study you linked, it only had these 3 species in the clade.
There is no genetic data available yet for this rare species, but it is morphologically extremely close to other members of the crinita complex, as explained here: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24692573?seq=6 Maybe Pedro Jimenez and his team in Spain have access to unpublished data, but I doubt it.
Thanks, that's sufficient, I've added it
Thanks a lot :)
Following the phylogeny of the Phacocystis in: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jse.12731
I would advocate for the creation of a species complex regrouping Carex crinita carex gynandra and Carex mitchelliana, naming in "Carex crinita species complex". These species are morphologically very similar and belong in the same clade.