Taxonomic Swap 59702
(Committed on 2021-11-23)
|
|
replaced with |
|
Comments
@fabienpiednoir : je pense que tu n'avais pas lu la recommandation ci-dessus, en allant voir le cas 59701 qui concernait l'espèce en entier.
C'est pas grave puisqu'il y avait pas d'observation de la sous-espèce, mais je pense qu'il ne faut pas valider l'autre sinon c'est la cata... :-)
This is a completely wrong decision!
(following in English for non-French readers)
Actually wasn't the author of the change; only found it unvalidated, and I validated, after checking.
subsp. is recognise synonym to ssp. strumarium according to POWO, which is the taxonomical authority for this group. Not necessarly true on every point, but still once judge the most suitable consensus. Exceptions have to be treated case by case.
I personaly don't like the idea of dropping italicum ; it is recognised by local projects and local projects taxonomical referentials, such as TaxRef (and, probably, Spanish and Italian authorities as well, I guess), so this would lead to data losses in those area. But I must admit I have no scientifical reason to argue for its conservation, so if the taxonomical referential doesn't recognise it...
If there are arguments not considered by POWO for its conservation, then we can make an exception here.
regarding to SPECIES, I didn't see there were a problem of synonymy too; this is a different problem, I think. Of course, putting orientale in synonymy with strumarium is a different problem.
Regarding to italicum, yes, unfortunately, there actually WAS observations. Many of them, actually. But someone "kindly" re-identified EVERY French italicum to species strumarium without asking for putting the taxons in synonymy before - this resulted to backdrop every italicum to genus level.
I'm not an expert on this group, but I remember I spent many time, before forging myself a conviction that those SE French populations were italicum for true - whatever italicum truly is.
Now, I automatically tag them as italicum, but I must admit this was ages ago, and I can't remember what features made this italicum, so is italicum is a valid taxon even less. I would prefer italicum to be kept, so if ones have clues to argue for this, I'm taker....
Yes, it has been a pretty unfortunate decision.
In the case subsp. italicum could have been merged into the nominate taxon but I think that there is no sense in merging it into strumarium subsp. strumarium.
No matter if it is so in POWO (that, by the way, cites only two checklists to support their treatment while there are other works available providing different views).
At most italicum could be a subspecies of strumarium, but this solution has been chosen by few authors.
There are a handful of works dealing with the taxonomy of Xanthium subgen. Xanthium or treating italicum and strumarium as separate taxa:
https://www.miteco.gob.es/es/biodiversidad/temas/inventarios-nacionales/xanthium_strumarium_italicum_tcm30-70176.pdf
Flora gallica: flore de France
How many names for a beloved genus – Coalescent-based species delimitation in Xanthium L. (Ambrosiinae, Asteraceae)
Jeanmonod, D. (1998): Xanthium subg. Xanthium and Helichrysum italicum, two diffi cult taxonomical cases. Candollea 53: 435–457
http://ww2.bgbm.org/EuroPlusMed/PTaxonDetail.asp?NameCache=Xanthium&PTRefFk=7000000
An updated checklist of the vascular flora alien to Italy
Flora of RussiaThe European Part and Bordering Regions · Volume 7
and others
Is it possible to revert this decision?
try writing an email to help@inaturalist.org ? I believe it is the way for asking to reverse a swap...
Infructescences of Xanthium strumarium and X. italicum are different.
http://linnean-online.org/11614/
http://apps.kew.org/herbcat/getImage.do?imageBarcode=K001065893
These differences are clearly visible, there are no intermediate forms. It's a shame, but botanists in English-speaking countries do not see these differences. I do not understand why.
As a result, confusion in determinations, floristic data, etc. :-(((
@phlomis_2019 moreover, italicum here in Europe is a noxious invasive while, at least here in Italy, strumarium is a very rare native. This unless it will be demonstrated that also strumarium is an alien, but up to now it has been considered native.
As deviations from the backbone are allowed and literature supporting a different treatment is available, a reversion of this taxon change would be desirable.
In European Russia, the situation is the same: X. strumarium s. str. is very rare.
See also:
Opravil E. 1974. Xanthium strumarium L. — evropsky archeofyt? // Acta Inst. Bot. Acad. Sci. Slov. Ser. A. Tax. Geobot. V. 1. P. 83–87.
Opravil E. 1983. Xanthium strumarium L.— ein europäischer Archäophyt? // Flora. V. 173. P. 71-79.
Brinkkemper O., Kuijper W.J. 1993. Zum vorkommen der spitzklette (Xanthium strumarium L.) in Europa // Archaeo-Physika. Band 13. 7000 jahre bäuerliche landschaft: entstehung, erforschung, erhaltung zwanzig aufsätze zu ehren von Karl-Heinz Knörzer. S. 81–88.
https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:260872-1
Now the treatment of Xanthium orientale in POWO has been changed and it is again an independent species. So, could it be changed also here?
@cmcheatle @fabienpiednoir "Italicum Moretti" is close to orientale rather than strumarium. Now a var. italicum is available but "itailcum" in iNat leads to strumarium. The avrietal rank could be adequate. So, could you fix this?
Thanks
The linked 'source' above ( http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:77194547-1#synonyms ) appears broken or mistyped, and I could not locate that synonymy on POWO - there's no such thing at https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:260872-1#synonyms
Could someone who is familiar with these Xanthium provide a new link to the work(s) behind the original taxon swap? (or, if now dropping all subspecific taxa, any reference that would synonymize the orientale and strumarium species?)
Thanks!
Only taxonomists completely unfamiliar with these plants could synonymize these taxa.
Sorry for the GOOGLE-translate.
please review change 59701 before activation.