Taxonomic Merge 39888
(Committed on 2018-09-21)
|
|
merged into |
|
Comments
I got Tony's blessing and no one else I tagged responded here, so I think we're good to go on committing these.
Why did you do this? It's a backward step. You merged a currently accepted name into a synonym? Shouldn't it be the other way around? https://bie.ala.org.au/species/http://id.biodiversity.org.au/node/apni/2886824#names
iNaturalist generally defers to Plants of the World Online (POWO, plantsoftheworldonline.org) for accepted vascular plant taxonomy. However, if the iNat community disagrees with POWO, we can flag the taxon, have a conversation about it, and consider an explicit deviation from POWO on a case-by-case basis. In some cases the iNaturalist community has pointed out errors with POWO, which POWO will incorporate into their site in their next round of updates.
You can read more about vascular plant taxonomic policy on iNaturalist at this journal post.
Thanks for your quick reply :-) Given it's an Australian Plant, and Atlas is an Australian Federal Gov' site, that uses the Australian Plant Index, I personally think that their name should take precedence? The only time I've found this wrong is if a name has changed and Atlas hasn't had time to catch up. BUT I'm only an ameteur, so don't want to step on anyone's toes. But keen to keep things .... correct / uniform. :-) Am I reading correctly that there are no ob's of this species? I've got some I'll load. So assuming Atlas is correct, no current changes, I think Zygophyllum apiculatum is the correct name and any duplicates / synonyms should be merged into that?
Ah, I see there is one. We have it on Ellura www.ellura.info/OtherSmallPlant.html#Zygophyllum-apiculatum
Also I'm only new to iNaturalist, so still finding my feet how it works. I was shocked to read this on my dashboard when I logged in. But interesting to see how the process works :-)
iNaturalist used to defer to regional authorities first, but recently changed to a global scheme in August 2018. The problem is that when you step back taxonomically, we need to be speaking the same language as to whether we are referring to, in this case, Zygophyllum sensu lato (which includes Z. apiculatum) or Zygophyllum sensu stricto (which excludes Z./R. apiculatum). This 2003 paper redefined Z. apiculatum as a Roepera species, and I wonder why APC rejected their conclusions but Plants of the World Online accepts it. I don't see any more recent papers that refute their conclusions regarding apiculatum. Might be worth it to ask APC to update rather than change the taxonomy here on iNat.
Thanks Cassi; not exactly a "recent" change is it! I'll see if I can find something out. Mind you it's the w/e, so won't hear anything for a while now. Cheers Brett
If I understand this correctly, they didn't accept it because the name isn't properly formed? They've concluded Roepera apiculata is a nomenclatural synonym. https://biodiversity.org.au/nsl/services/rest/name/apni/222473/api/apni-format
There seems to be a 2013 paper on it in that link, perhaps you have access to it?
As such, they use Z. apiculatum https://biodiversity.org.au/nsl/services/rest/name/apni/78962/api/apni-format
I have found that they have been really strong on getting all the Latin correct. Atlas shows that Roepera is a synonym of Zygophyllum, so at least all the related plants are together.
Just checked iNaturalist, and the other twin-leafs we have are already under Roepera. So your merge is consistent with the rest of iNaturalist.
I guess it depends on that 2013 paper if it then means ALL of the Australian Roepera should be moved to Zygophyllum?
Most information relating to these plants are found under Zygophyllum apiculatum, while the accepted name in Australia is Zygophyllum apiculatum.
https://biodiversity.org.au/nsl/services/search?product=APC&tree.id=51209179&name=Roepera+apiculata&inc._scientific=&inc.scientific=on&inc._cultivar=&max=100&display=apc&search=true
http://www.saseedbank.com.au/species_information.php?rid=4805
https://vicflora.rbg.vic.gov.au/flora/taxon/892cc9d3-0a37-44f2-b9b4-c763418e2247
It’s confusing for the community, hence I request iNat to deviate from the established protocol on this species.
@rfoster @reiner Can you please express your opinions for this species?
@ellurasanctuary, the only 2013 reference I am seeing is volume 26 of Flora of Australia (Meliaceae, Rutaceae and Zygophyllaceae), which cites this taxon as Roepera apiculata:
https://biodiversity.org.au/nsl/services/rest/reference/apni/53460
I generally find that ALA is slow to update and any taxonomy in Australia is very slow. I think POWO is more dynamic and should probably be followed. I haven't looked into this species specifically though.
Thanks @bouteloua Those links are very confusing. I'm not sure where the "2016" comes from, but it ended with a reference to this book, pages 511-579. But at $130 +del it's beyond my means. https://www.publish.csiro.au/book/7135/
That list in your link shows both synonyms .... VERY confusing
Roepera apiculata (F.Muell.) Beier & Thulin
Zygophyllum apiculatum F.Muell.
As a general comment, I find it very difficult to find species in iNat if the name I have doesn't agree with iNat. There doesn't seem to be any synonym checking (unless I'm misisng something?). If there was I think this would be a lot less of an issue.
Cheers Brett
I completely agree with the ALA comment which shouldn’t be used to cite any Taxon due to their taxon updating procedures. At the same time APC is the primary authority in Australia regarding flora which was also cited.
I personally believe you can’t take a single species out of a genera & isolate it from the others, It’s confusing. Unless DNA testing is applied to all members of this genus then categorized systemically then that single species should be ‘pending’ change.
All decent references in Australia are linked to the species ‘Zygophyllum apiculatum’ there is no mention of Roepera apiculata, therefore researching is difficult which will create further problems down the track. The primary people researching such species will most likely be Australians. Now that data gets hidden under the name Roepera apiculata?
Interesting that the SA State Gov now lists this under Roepera, synomising Zygophyllum
http://flora.sa.gov.au/cgi-bin/census_display.cgi?datasource=general-public&family=&genus=Zygophyllum&species=apiculatum&style=book&format=HTML&submit=Search&synonym=1
In fact, going up the tree, all Zygophyllum are now renamed Roepera
http://flora.sa.gov.au/cgi-bin/census_display.cgi?datasource=general-public&family=&genus=Zygophyllum&species=&style=book&format=HTML&synonym=1&submit=Search
You have to be careful with this site, it's factsheets are not updated with the latest names, but the database/links above are generally
@ellurasanctuary "There doesn't seem to be any synonym checking (unless I'm misisng something?)"
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Currently on iNat, if you type Zygophyllum apiculatum into an ID/search bar, Roepera apiculata will appear in the dropdown as the preferred name.
@w_martin this is not a single issue of one Zygophyllum being moved to Roepera. Please check the discussion above such as the linked 2003 reference, the abstract of which includes:
A generic classification based on six monophyletic and morphologically distinctive entities is proposed: Roepera with c. 60 species in Australia and southern Africa, Zygophyllum with c. 50 species in Asia, Tetraena with c. 40 species in Africa and Asia, Augea with a single species in southern Africa, Melocarpum with two species in the Horn of Africa region, and Fagonia with c. 30 species in both the Old and the New World. Scanning electron microscopy studies of testa structure provided important characters for the delimitation of some genera. New combinations (61) are made in Roepera, a resurrected genus originally described from Australia, one new name is proposed in Zygophyllum, 35 new combinations are made in Tetraena, and two new combinations are made in Melocarpum (previously Zygophyllum sect. Melocarpum).
You can see https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/276284 for a summary of the swaps that were committed on iNat.
Sorry for my last comment, I didn’t see the linked 2003 reference nor have I read all information relating to these changes.
I just assumed the single species (Zygophyllum apiculatum) was changed due to my observation of 'Zygophyllum aurantiacum' is still an unchanged Taxon.
Thanks again @bouteloua The one I couldn't find recently is Laeviscolia frontalis (a wasp, not a plant); just couldn't id someone's record yet it's well known. iNat searched other databases, but found nothing. Not even the genus. https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/17136664 https://bie.ala.org.au/species/urn:lsid:biodiversity.org.au:afd.taxon:9518a4f3-9959-4245-8f3a-7c6fe9c7ac94 However, this is off topic, so I shouldn't waist people's time with it. Cheers Brett
I think just leave it as Roepera apiculata.
iNat is good to associate names with synonyms when looking up various species, although personally I’ll continue to use the scientific name Zygophyllum apiculatum when researching in Australia… Just until Australia catches up.
Thanks @bouteloua for your time & dedication
Looks like Zygophyllum aurantiacum was added to iNaturalist after I committed all those swaps, so yeah---looks like it should be a Roepera as well.
http://plantsoftheworldonline.org/?q=Zygophyllum+aurantiacum
Thanks for fixing it.
I had no idea of the Taxon change before assigning an ID to the observation.
Good job @bouteloua Sorry for taking your time up and appreciate the explanations :-) Cheers Brett
Any updates on this swap, @bouteloua ?