Taxonomic Swap 119546
(Committed on 2023-01-12)
|
|
replaced with |
|
Comments
I don't have a strong opinion either way. I don't think I can distinguish Phlox mesoleuca and Phlox nana, though.
I haven't been involved in one of these before? Do we need to make the case, so there is a record, or are we just looking to see if anyone has any disagreement with the idea?
I'm mostly looking for the latter but wouldn't discourage the former. Ultimately, I can commit at any time, but know very little about Phlox taxonomy and wanted to provide some time to get a second opinion in case of disagreement. Since Plants of the World Online (the primary reference for iNaturalist) accepts P. mesoleuca, it's good to get a sense for if the community is on board with the change. @polemoniaceae is by far the most active Phlox identifier on iNaturalist, so I especially hope he has a chance to comment. If he doesn't have a problem with this, doesn't have an opinion, or doesn't want to comment, I have no problem committing the change. I'll give it a couple more days and then commit the change.
Also, are there any other names that need to be synonymized under this? It would probably be easier to address them all at once instead of piecemeal if there are more. That also reminds me, if you run across any other synonyms, Phlox or otherwise, you can flag the taxon for curation on the taxon page. It should be a little curation dropdown with an option that says Flag for Curation. It may take a little more time or discussion if the taxonomy varies from Plants of the World Online, but there are many deviations are expectable if there's good rational.
I think Phlox triovulata would also be included in Phlox nana, if we include Phlox mesoleuca.
Glad that you asked about other names. As Patrick suggested, https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/166725-Phlox-triovulata should be synonymized (currently there are zero observations, so it seems straightforward).
Not sure if @polemoniaceae has time to respond, but based on his comment on https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/17522211 where he says "linear, sparsely hairy leaves. (Probably a synonym of P. nana though)" I doubt he'll object.
There are clear trends in the morphology by geography, however, there are also some violations of the taxa as drawn up. There's been some support for infraspecific taxonomy but that's not a factor here. Ultimately, the two names discussed herein at species level are probably best treated within P. nana so I don't have a problem with/would support the changes proposed.
@alan_prather @polemoniaceae Request for discussion or comment before I commit this change. Also, please tag anyone else you think should be involved in the discussion.