Flag for Taxon: ivy-leaved morning-glory (Ipomoea hederacea)
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| sbrobeson | ivy-leaved morning-glory (Ipomoea hederacea) |
the infraspecies are not recognised by POWO |
Sep. 24, 2023 20:42:09 +0000 | t_e_d |
Done. |
Comments
@ron_kushner any thoughts on this flag?
it appears he hasn't logged in for almost exactly 2 years...
@gstaples may have some knowledge to share about this?
@t_e_d I suggest you follow the latest monograph for Ipomoea in the Americas; POWO lags behind the literature by 6-12 months, at least, and may not be up to date yet on Ipomoea. The reference is Wood et al. (2020) PhytoKeys 143: 1–823.
Merge drafted here : https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/135475
Top identifiers : @alexiz @mjpapay @ron_kushner @tlit46 @adiamond @abelkinser @m_whitson
Do you agree?
The FNA treatment just came out, and they say that leaf shape is controlled by very simple allele variation and isn't useful for defining varieties. They don't recognize Ipomoea hederacea integriuscula, which seems to be the main one used on iNat. That was named by Asa Gray in the 1800s from North America, but on iNat is being used for observations from around Japan. Considering that it seems to be a North American variety, I'd give weight to the folks at FNA if they say it isn't distinct. I will note that I've only identified lots of I. hederacea because it is a common and distinctive species in my state. I like morning glories, but I don't know a whole lot about the intricacies of their taxonomy, and don't have really strong opinions about it.
My goal, wherever possible, is to follow rigorous science.
@mjpapay : what does it mean in this particular context?
If the science does not lead to certain direction, then it is best not to take action that cannot be substantiated as necessary.
@mjpapay : can you just say clearly if you agree with the proposal to merge the varieties with the species ?
I am not here to play guessing games, and I don't have the time.
If my vote is needed,
then the evidence is not sufficient.
@mjpapay : I'm not asking for you to vote. There is no vote here. I am just asking if you have any knowledge to share about this flag that would argue against the merge, or for the merge. If you don't, then don't make useless comments.
Again: I am not here to play guessing games, and I don't have the time.
@jdmore ?
@m_whitson has already summarized well (above) the 2023 FNA treatment, which seems to give good justification for not recognizing varieties. If there is independent consensus between FNA and POWO, then I see no reason not to follow POWO here.
is there grounds for a deviation, or should they all be merged?