@greek_cicada_project

I have always considered the two taxa as separate species (C.althaeoides and C.elegantissimus)

but frankly speaking I am not a professional botanist and different botanists with far more knowledge than me have considered the two taxa either as different species or subspecies.

I'm not aware of recent papers about these two taxa that can clarify the situation.

the last monograph about Convolvulus I'm aware about is Wood et al.,2015 an they treated the two taxa as subspecies

When possible and there are enough differences, it would be preferable to keep two taxa at the specific level due to the well-known issue of subspecies not leading the observation identification.
Moreover, the two taxa are not vicariant:
https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/9dd9afc4-a4dd-4e39-a682-3fdaa44245b5
https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/586a1bb9-4e18-4b44-98f8-726637efaadf
and this is another well-known issue with the taxonomy adopted in POWO that often does not take into account the mandatory vicariancy for subspecies.

You’re absolutely right, we need to ID all subspecies correctly in order to make a good taxon change (if we make one)

@t_e_d Yes !

@greek_cicada_project @blue_celery @luc-arc : have you sent a feedback to POWO ? bi@kew.org See: https://powo.science.kew.org/contact

I have manually IDed hundreds of observations (I think you noticed from your notifications).
But there are still more than 1500 obs at species level.

I have drafted a taxon split here: https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/134945
« When you commit this change, identifications will be re-assigned to the output taxa based on their atlases. If some or all of the outputs lack atlases, or if atlases overlap for a given record, identifications will be replaced with identifications of the nearest common ancestor taxon ( Convolvulus althaeoides) »

Atlases are based on POWO's distribution.

Convolvulus althaeoides subsp. althaeoides
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/451076-Convolvulus-althaeoides-althaeoides
https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:77172842-1
Atlas : https://www.inaturalist.org/atlases/85523

Convolvulus althaeoides subsp. tenuissimus
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/607256-Convolvulus-althaeoides-tenuissimus
https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:77189709-1
Atlas : https://www.inaturalist.org/atlases/85537

Analyze IDs (link at the bottom of the split above the map: https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/134945)
Estimate which identifications of the input taxon will be replaced by identifications of the output taxa and which will be coarsened to a common ancestor once the split is comitted. This may take a moment to calculate. Links to observations are truncated to subsets of 200.

Total IDs of input taxon: 6477
Number of IDs Destination Atlas
4806 Convolvulus althaeoides althaeoides Atlased
16 Convolvulus althaeoides tenuissimus Atlased
218 Convolvulus althaeoides Outside of all atlases
1437 Convolvulus althaeoides Overlapping atlases

Can you check the atlases?
Can you check the drafted split?
Do you think it's a good idea to commit this split?

I’m so sorry I did not respond to your previous messages @t_e_d
I haven’t contacted POWO, so you should definitely send them a feedback regarding the taxonomy of C. althaeoides tenuissimus (=C. elegantissimus)

For now this is one of the sources supporting C. elegantissimus
https://portal.cybertaxonomy.org/flora-greece/cdm_dataportal/taxon/a16fceac-bc31-45a5-8daa-fa10f20cb33d/synonymy?highlite=8e8e3068-c1e8-45a3-92ed-d377105f2b99&acceptedFor=8e8e3068-c1e8-45a3-92ed-d377105f2b99#8e8e3068-c1e8-45a3-92ed-d377105f2b99

I am searching for other sources right now and will send them afterwards

I am OK for considering both at species, while they are co-occuring in the Central-North Algeria without any "intermediate" !
I am a bit circonspect about the intermediate specimen cited by Wood et al., and when time I will try to check them one by one...

OK, merci. Par exemple la "var. dissectus Faure & Maire" me parait un parfait C. elegantissimus, et comme le disent le auteur, il a juste des feuilles glabrescentes c'est tout !
https://science.mnhn.fr/institution/mnhn/collection/p/item/p00417690
https://herbier.umontpellier.fr/hv/wakka.php?wiki=PagePrincipale/iframe&action=detail&ordre=p&codebarre=MPU002968
Les autres je regarderais une autre fois si je peux...

Sounds good for me @t_e_d

@t_e_d I think that’s a great solution!

@t_e_d It would be cleaner with the complex indeed

Bonne année !
It's done.
Deviation created: https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_framework_relationships/742970
I have also updated my proposed taxon split: https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/134945
You can now help to ID all the observations to the species (former subspecies). Many observations that were previously IDed at species level are now at complex level and need to be IDed.
I hope that the species will soon be included in the computer vision.

You are welcome!

Thanks for this information and for your work!

donc les efforts payent ! :-)