Flag for Taxon: whalebone tree (Streblus brunonianus)
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| kitty12 | whalebone tree (Streblus brunonianus) |
= Paratrophis pendulina |
Jul. 21, 2023 02:54:01 +0000 | t_e_d |
Done. |
Comments
I wonder if POWO should be contacted regarding this taxon and if it should be reviewed. From the pre-print version of the paper naming P. pendulina (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.08.030452v3) is:
"Although the types of Morus pendulina, Morus brunoniana, Pseudomorus sandwicensis, and Pseudomorus brunoniana var. obtusa [...] we therefore provisionally treat them all as one widespread and variable species." p. 36-37 (bold mine)
I've only read the pre-print version of the paper
APC/APNI has no entry for Paratrophis pendulina however seems to accept both Streblus pendulinus (Endl.) F.Muell. and Streblus brunonianus (Endl.) F.Muell.
Ah, so the weird thing is POWO is citing Berg, C.C., Corner, E.J.H. & Jarrett, F.M. (2006). Flora Malesiana 17(1): 1-154. Noordhoff-Kolff N.V., Djakarta. as its source for the synonymy with Streblus pendulinus. It then sources accepting "Paratrophis pendulina" to "Towards a checklist of the vascular flora of Vanuatu." Paratrophis pendulina is a homotypic synonym of Streblus pendulinus so the synonymy is transitive I guess. So I guess technically they aren't citing to that statement that calls them "provisionally" synonymous.
@wildskyflower that's correct: POWO are citing the checklist paper and I was talking about the source for the name itself (the Gardner in Paratrophis pendulina (Endl.) E.M.Gardner)*, which I assume is the checklist's source but I'm not sure. Sorry for any confusion
Edit: and cited by POWO just below the title (First published in Taxon 70: 975 (2021)) but not in their publications list
I've just read Plunket et al. "Towards a checklist of the Vascular Flora of Vanuatu," Candollea, 77(1), 105-118 and cannot see Paratrophis pendulina (or any Paratrophis species) mentioned at all, nor any reference to Gardner et al.'s paper so I'm confused
I guess maybe email POWO? Its bi@kew.org
Ok, POWO told me that in the actual paper published in Taxon (not the pre-print version) that I don't have access to they're explicitly synonymised
Well, that is an answer at least, unsatisfying though it may be...
Are we ok to do the swap, then?
I guess we'll have to swap since we're following POWO and not the Australian Plant Census and I can't think of any strong arguments to deviate
No objection from me
I'm not sure how to deal with the conservation status when the swap goes ahead so have opened an additional flag https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/627096
Swap done : https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/139595
https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:856663-1