Taxonomic Swap 5294
(Committed on 2013-07-12)
|
|
replaced with |
|
Comments
subsp.
http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl1.1/record/kew-2447089
https://gobotany.newenglandwild.org/species/utricularia/vulgaris/
http://michiganflora.net/species.aspx?id=1623
http://data.canadensys.net/vascan/taxon/6506
Flora of North America (in prep)
sp.
http://www.calflora.org/cgi-bin/species_query.cgi?where-taxon=Utricularia+macrorhiza
http://plantsoftheworldonline.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:526896-1
Weakley 2015
The Kew World Checklist of Selected Plant Families also favors full species status: http://wcsp.science.kew.org/synonomy.do?name_id=518512
Jones 2005 Plant Life of Kentucky is another vote for species status.
And species in Flora of the Chicago Region (Wilhelm and Rericha 2017) :)
I missed the start of this conversation. I was updating our 40 year old basin plant list and deferred to the Plant List on this one, since it seemed there wasn't much agreement. But I get that iNaturalist prefers Jepson, so I now use that exclusively when making taxon changes. If someone wants to revert or change this one, I have no issues with that.
The link below makes a good argument for placing macrorhiza as a subspecies of U.vulgaris. I am at least swayed, if not fully convinced (give me a few more days...) http://floranorthamerica.org/files/Lentibulariaceae%20provisional.pdf),
Almost all international authorities (including POWO) accept U. macrorhiza at the species level. I see absolutely no reason to disagree with POWO in this case because U. macrorhiza is clearly separated morphologically and geographically from U. vulgaris.
Yes, clearly separated morphologically and geographically, but are the morphological differences big enough to warrant specific status?
@f_rivadavia In my opinion, yes. But that is not relevant for this discussion since iNaturalist's taxonomy closely follows POWO (Plants of the World Online). Utricularia macrorhiza is an accepted species in POWO and should therefore be treated as such here on iNaturalist. See https://www.inaturalist.org/posts/18353-transition-to-plants-of-the-world-online-as-a-taxonomic-reference
As that journal post says, our community here on iNaturalist can deviate from POWO if our community, with evidence, supports that.
The FNA document linked above says,
Treated here as subsp. macrorhiza, this taxon has been widely treated as distinct at the species level from the European Utricularia vulgaris, but the differences, largely associated with the spur, are very minor. P. Taylor (1989) noted that in the European taxon the spur is 2.5--6(--8) mm, shorter than the lower lip, with a broad conical base and tapering to a narrowly cylindric or narrowly conical, blunt to somewhat acute apex, and typically straight (sometimes somewhat concave or convex), and internal glands are present only on the dorsal surface of the spur. In contrast, subsp. macrorhiza has a spur as long as the lower lip, 4--7(--9) mm, basally more narrowly conical, with the cylindrical distal portion clearly curved upward, and with an acute apex; internal glands are present on both dorsal and ventral surfaces. In both taxa the internal glands are usually not visible on herbarium specimens, and spurs must be dissected in fresh material to be seen. When fruiting, both subspecies have recurved pedicels, while the sepals are somewhat to strongly divergent.The European subsp. vulgaris is vegetatively less robust, but Taylor acknowledged that the two cannot be distinguished vegetatively. While subsp. macrorhiza has been known to extend into northeast Asia, Taylor noted that it was not clear to what extent either subsp. macrorhiza or subsp. vulgaris occurred in western Siberia. During field work in the region west of Novosibirsk and in the Altai Mountains, it was found that the Siberian material was indistinguishable from our American taxon, and recent reexamination of that Siberian material confirmed that those specimens belong to subsp. macrorhiza. Hence, subsp. macrorhiza appears to be geographically more widely distributed than subsp. vulgaris.
It is noteworthy that no infraspecific taxa were recognized by Taylor for any species in his worldwide monograph, a reasonable, practical approach when addressing 214 species of Utricularia.
@bouteloua There is a long list of regional and international authorities/checklists which accept U. macrorhiza at the species level. Furthermore, very recent molecular phylogenies done by Silva et al. (2018) and Jobson & Baleerio (2018) appear to show that U. macrorhiza is separated from its relatives U. australis, U. stellaris and U. vulgaris. http://www.butbn.cas.cz/adamec/Silva2017_MPE.pdf
Again, I really see no reason to disagree with POWO in this case.
I am also wondering why there is no entry in the list of potential deviations from POWO?
I'm not personally arguing one way or the other.
As to "I am also wondering why there is no entry in the list of potential deviations from POWO?" -- this is a very, very incomplete system of tracking deviations of POWO, likely there are thousands of plant taxa on iNat that currently deviate from POWO not listed on that spreadsheet.
If in doubt, we should go with POWO ;)
That's how I understand the journal post.
I think any deviation from POWO would need clear evidence and support by the literature. This is simply not the case here... The opposite is true actually since there is plenty of evidence supporting U. macrorhiza at the species level even if some (mostly regional) authorities/checklists disagree.
I don't believe these phylogenies based on few (mostly cp) markers give a clear picture of taxonomy, especially in the case of Silva et al. where a polytomy of single representatives is seen for each of the 4 species you cited Thilo. I'd prefer to see more comprehensive genomic analyses of multiple specimens from across their geographic ranges, especially where they possibly overlap in E Asia. ;) Either way, the morphological differences between the 2 are very minor.
Thanks for your opinion about the phylogenies Fernando! However, since at least 2000, basically all Utricularia experts have used the name U. macrorhiza in their papers and books. I couldn't find any Utricularia expert who supports the name U. vulgaris subsp. macrorhiza in the literature except maybe Garrett E. Crow.
Lubomir Adamec, Andreas Fleischmann, Richard W. Jobson, Bartosz J. Płachno, Saura R. Silva, Jan Schlauer, Barry Rice, Donald Schnell, Aaron M. Ellison, Robert Gibson and of course Peter Taylor all use the name U. macrorhiza in their papers. Furthermore, U. vulgaris subsp. macrorhiza has never been used in the Carnivorous Plant Newsletter (CPN).
If you search for "vulgaris subsp. macrorhiza" (with quotation marks) in Google Scholar, you get seven results and all of them seem to be regional flora surveys presumably done by botanists who have not studied Utricularia in detail. A search for "Utricularia macrorhiza" yields more than 700 results...
The distributional ranges of U. macrorhiza and U. vulgaris overlap in most of Siberia where they have been observed to maintain their morphological differences. This fact alone should be enough to warrant separation at the species level :)
And to quote Peter Taylor: "[...] although the difference appears to be small this in itself does not conflict with the idea of two species."
In summary, U. vulgaris subsp. macrorhiza is clearly a very outdated synonym based on the literature and the name is furthermore rejected by POWO. It should thus be changed to U. macrorhiza here on iNaturalist ;)
Maybe it's time for a revision of subspecies within Utricularia, starting with this one....
Since we are talking about plants from North America, I'll add that the primary flora iNat used before POWO,
Weakley's Flora 2015 also says Utricularia macrorhiza is the way to go:
Utricularia macrorhiza Le Conte ex Torrey, Greater Bladderwort. Pools and ponds. May-Sep. NL (Newfoundland) west
to AK, south to NC, SC, TX, CA, and Mexico; also in e. Asia. See Taylor (1989) for a discussion of the differences between this
species and U. vulgaris of Europe and w. Asia, with which it has often been combined or associated as a variety or subspecies. [=
K, Pa, S, Va, Y, Z; < U. vulgaris Linnaeus – C, F, G, RAB, WV, misapplied to American plants; = U. vulgaris ssp. macrorhiza (Le Conte ex
Torrey) R.T. Clausen – FNA, Mo]
"misapplied to American plants; = U. vulgaris ssp. macrorhiza"
weird, I just got a notification from a comment from 6 months ago?
For these changes to names that Jepson considers invalid synonyms like this one, http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/get_cpn.pl?47607&expand=1
can you add a source? Any reason why you don't want to go with Jepson on these? Where's your Berkeley allegiance ;)