Flag for Taxon: Genus Trapelia
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ian_medeiros | Genus Trapelia |
please add Trapelia collaris to iNat taxonomy |
Jan. 21, 2024 01:37:53 +0000 | jlisby |
species added, T. coarctata split |
Comments
Unresolving as this touches on a deeper issue which must be resolved.
Adding T. collaris to the iNat taxonomy effectively signals that we accept fully the taxonomic revision of https://doi.org/10.1017/S0024282917000639. I believe this is sound and some species we will have to learn, but it significantly changes the meaning of "Trapelia coarctata" as all (European) users I know have been using it (T. elacista which the paper resurrects is here already but isn't being used).
As such I think merely adding the new species to the taxonomy and adding an ID of the here and there is not an appropriate course of action, and that implementing these new species should involve reclassifying the old T. coarcata IDs in some way using a taxon split. This would be to either bump them back to genus level or to newly erected species complex. However it is not clear to me how wide such a complex ought to be if implemented. For example should it include T. obtegens as the esorediate specimens the paper shows to be common must surely have been misIDed in the past as they would for example key out to T. coarctata in LGBI2. It also appears such a complex might have to be nonmonophyletic to be practical.
I would like to hear if you have an opinion on which of these is preferrable or whether there are good arguments for simply leaving the old coarcata-IDs that I am not seeing.
Thanks for your insights. Species complexes are probably a good idea because many iNaturalist observations will not be able to be definitively identified to species in the new classification.
Based on the ITS phylogeny, the species with convex areoles (T. obtegens, T. collaris, T. glebulosa, and T. involuta) form a well supported group that could be called the T. glebulosa complex. This would allow for uncertainty e.g., around esorediate specimens of T. obtegens. I do think that many observations in this complex will be above to be given a finer identification, though.
The main need for a species complex arises from T. coarctata and T. elacista, which can't always be separated. Unfortunately there is not clear evidence that they are sister species, but a "T. coarctata complex" for the European species with continuous thalli is probably the best option. In contrast to the complex for species with convex areoles, which I suspect will be used sparingly, many observations of T. coarctata/T. elacista will probably stay at the complex level.
Given your comments, my proposed course of action would be (1) create these complexes, (2) do a taxon swap of T. coarctata to T. coarctata complex, and (3) go through the T. coarctata complex observations to transfer any with convex areoles to T. glebulosa complex or species within that group as appropriate. This is a way to accommodate the new classification framework with minimal disruption (i.e., most observations currently identified as T. coarctata will just become T. coarctata complex).
I think the above is preferable to either bumping things back up to genus or to keeping the old understanding of T. coarctata.
I think that sounds like a very reasonable approach. I have gone ahead and created the species complexes, and the necessary taxon change as a draft: https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/138254.
Just to make sure I understand; you are saying that we should change all T. coarctata IDs worldwide to complex level, correct? I am always somewhat afraid of touching things outside of Europe where my experience lies, and the paper mostly covers Europe though it of course indicates that there are likely problems in T. coarctata in other regions as well. If so then I will commit the taxon change shortly.
Seems okay to me.
@jlisby If you don't want to touch the IDs from the observations from outside of Europe, you can always create an atlased swap.
We have unpublished molecular data that "T. coarctata" in South Africa is not T. coarctata s.str., so I think it is safe to say that "T. coarctata complex" is a global solution.
Ok, I will commit it then.
does the committing of the pertinent swap mean that the underlying issue is resolved, or is there more to do?
As far as what needs to be done on the taxonomy side this should be resolved now, yes, now we just need to go through the observations and reclassify any that seem misplaced (and make sure the observers know about the change as new observations come in)
https://www.indexfungorum.org/Names/NamesRecord.asp?RecordID=821704