Taxonomic Merge 123693
(Draft)
|
|
merged into |
|
Comments
Sinking horticultural hybrids with malformed names that lack taxon relationships. Via the curator guide: "use of hybrid taxon concepts should be avoided whenever possible. Adding IDs of higher-level taxa is usually sufficient." In the event a genushybrid is named, we tend to err on the side of lumping it with the next highest taxon.
If you wish to track observations of cultivated Ruspolia × Ruttya observations, I would recommend utilizing observation fields, as they are not subject to taxonomic changes. This link provides every observation that was IDed as "×ruttyruspolia" prior to the merge: https://jumear.github.io/stirfry/iNatAPIv1_identifications?taxon_id=575216&taxon_active=false¤t=false&per_page=200
I totally disagree with this ridiculous nonsense. This is a ridiculous policy - if indeed it is an iNaturalist policy and not a decision based on one sole iterant curator.
This is a good botanical name. The hybrids are real hybrids. And the hybrid formula is valid.
@loarie - can we please have some clarity on this. This is stupid - removing good identifications and reducing them to observation fields at generic, tribe and family level. '
This is a wild hybrid, and is found in the wild. see here: https://journals.co.za/doi/pdf/10.10520/AJA00423203_2441 - there are at least two natural wild cases of this hybrid noted from different localties.
See also:
Meeuse, ADJ & J MJ de Wet (1961) x Rullyruspolia, a natural intergeneric hybrid in Acanthaceae. Bothalia 7: 439-441.
I dont know how many wild cases were on iNaturalist when this travesty was committed, but it is only a matter of time before one or more is recorded.
Please have it reinstated and put a stop to this ridiculous practice of unnecessarily making valid IDs as inactive.
Please revert to the hybrid formula: 1081041
@tonyrebelo please see the discussion on this flag: https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/608603
Be aware that vascular plant taxa lacking taxon relationships and also not accepted by POWO can and will be swapped without warning. Relationship unknowns can be found here: https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_frameworks/10/relationship_unknown?page=1
I have already commented on that flag.
Pay close attention to what has been said on this flag, and reinstate the WILD hybrid that you deleted.
@tonyrebelo no research grade observations of × Ruttyruspolia existed prior to the merge. See: https://jumear.github.io/stirfry/iNatAPIv1_identifications?taxon_id=575216&taxon_active=false¤t=false&per_page=200
Please reach out to POWO.
But what happens when we want to post one found in the wild?
Until POWO accepts it as a naturally occurring hybrid, I would recommend identifying it to Graptophyllinae and marking "No, it's as good as it can be" in the DQA to make it RG. Additionally, you can use observation fields however you would like to mark such observations.
I dont accept that. It is a wild hybrid and you need to acknowledge that POWO is not an authority on hybrids - it is known to be incomplete and wrong.
The hybrids were added for a very good reason. Please reinstate them.
I dont want to fiddle with silly DQA, which then has to be "however you would like to mark such observations." - We need a simple and accurate system for mapping and summarizing our flora, and not have to play around with obtuse fields to get things to work, when there is a perfectly acceptable and simple way to get this working.
Observation fields are not obtuse, they're quite useful and intuitive. Please reach out to POWO and have them correct this on their end.
I have given you the evidence. In fact the paper
Meeuse, ADJ & J MJ de Wet (1961) x Rullyruspolia, a natural intergeneric hybrid in Acanthaceae. Bothalia 7: 439-441.
is the one cited in IPNI on which POWO is based: see https://www.ipni.org/n/888-1
So clearly POWO is in error.
If you insist on slavishly following POWO, why do you not contact them and have it corrected?
That can be taken as insulting. Do not so easily refer to others as "slavish."
You know iNat follows POWO, you've known this for years. I should not have to explain to you that we get our taxonomy from POWO, accept the species they accept, and reject the species they reject (you also know deviations are a last resort). You know how this works, and you've gone through the exact same motions before. It's your change you want to push through, and you have the sources. The plant is in your region of the world, published in sources you read.
They are not intuitive or logical.
If I want to extract the wild instances of the hybrid
Ruspolia hypocrateriformis australis × Ruttya ovata '
out of
Graptophyllinae 1371009
using Observation fields in two years time, then kindly please tell me how to go about doing this.
Until 48 hours ago, it was trivial.
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=113055&taxon_id=1081041
Now it no longer works. And anyone posting an ID ends up with
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?taxon_id=1371009&place_id=113055
What a mess-up!
@tonyrebelo use the link I already gave to you to find observations that were identified as × Ruttyruspolia.
That only works because the species name was present on the system. Now that you have destroyed that possibility, your links will no longer work and those observations will be lost.
@tonyrebelo you didn't check the link. It's an external GitHub API that retrieves withdrawn IDs, it works.
It wont work any more, now that the name no longer can be posted on iNaturalist because you removed it.
However, please see the other link. POWO has approved the name: please restore it - you dont even need to create a deviation. .
I dont really care about xRuttyruspolia
but the hybrid
Ruspolia hypocrateriformis australis × Ruttya ovata
exists and is wild and must be restored.
xRuttyruspolia can be listed as a synonym of that.
@tonyrebelo the link works perfectly fine for me, I can see every identification of × Ruttyruspolia, ever. Have you actually checked this link (https://jumear.github.io/stirfry/iNatAPIv1_identifications?taxon_id=575216&taxon_active=false¤t=false&per_page=200)? If your internet is slow it may take longer.
If you want this merge reversed you'll have to ask @loarie (only staff can reverse swaps), but if you want me to create a duplicate hybrid taxon I can do that.
no - duplicates are insane - the original IDs are lost and will have to be reinstated; all those peoples hard work wasted!
So the link is only supposed to work retro-actively, @rynxs ? If I post a new observation of that hybrid now will your search pick it up? Have you tested it in that way? I tend to agree with Tony for the most part.
@pieterwinter here is no disagreement here at this point, so I'm not sure what you mean. Tony asked me how one could find all of the prior existing observations of × Ruttyruspolia, which I provided. The link pulls withdrawn identifications of × Ruttyruspolia and its child taxa. New observations of the hybrid can not be identified until the merge is reversed by @loarie, who I presume is waiting for a POWO refresh.
No I did not ask that question. My question was pointedly how one would ID the hybrids in the future. Please read the question more carefully: perhaps I was being too polite and did not make it obvious enough.
But Pieter hits the nail on the head. Unless @loarie reverses this then future observations of the hybrid are lost forever, except to a few users who can delve into the thousands of observation fields and who know how to extract obscure data not accessible to most users, and very few professional botanists and taxonomic experts.
My bad for misunderstanding your question. Now that you have provided the additional necessary context I am able to understand more clearly what you were asking for.
Do you want me to revert this taxon merge (123693)?
Yes Please.
taxon merge (123693) revertedd
Thank you.
Is it possible to park this swap and discussion without it sitting as a header to the taxon page?
& https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/1081041-Ruspolia-hypocrateriformis-australis---Ruttya-ovata will require a deviation or a link to https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:888-1#other-data (which is not yet updated)
right now the option is to delete it which has the downside of deleting these comments, I'd like have an option to put taxon changes in an abandoned or reverted state (the reasons for which would be clear from the comments). It would be a relatively small change
@loarie would deleting the inputs/outputs work?
thats another option with other pros/cons
I like it! What are the cons?
Is there an explanation and motivation for this?