Taxonomic Merge 46343
(Committed on 2019-05-09)
|
|
merged into |
|
Comments
@jaykeller, if you agree - and moreso if you don't - with the ID's I and @polemoniaceae posted here let us know. Otherwise your ID will end up as Leptosiphon chrysanthus if and when this taxon change is committed.
The last link in your message does not work for me, i get the message 'Sorry, that doesn't exist!'.
On catalogueoflife it is Leptosiphon chrysanthus ssp. chrysanthus (syn: Leptosiphon aureus, Linanthus aureus). I agree that the plants identified as Linanthus aureus and as Leptosiphon aureus represent the same species that is described as Leptosiphon chrysanthus. L. parviflorus is quite different and it is nearly impossible to confuse it with L. chrysanthus.
I am ok with this taxon merge, but lets wait for more answers.
For some reason, the link is preceded with: https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_merges/" and ends with a close-quote. Odd, that. Here's the actual link: https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1154&context=aliso
There is another subspecies, Leptosiphon aureus ssp, decorus, and there are observations under that name. The "Move children to output" option should result in Leptosiphon chrysanthus ssp. decorus being added as well.
Ah, thank you!
I know that article, i have read it some days ago already when i made many taxonchanges in Polemoniaceae.
I dont know why i missed this taxonchange, i think i was reading this before i created the genus Dayia on iNaturalist.
Yes, I saw your recent taxon changes - it's why I included you. The discussion originated here. Thanks for the comments and I agree - let's wait for more responses before committing.
@polemoniaceae @bouteloua @dhwilken @jrebman @grnleaf @kai_schablewski @jdjohnson
All, I have edited this swap to NOT move children to output. This is because [Leptosiphon aureus subsp. aureus + Linanthus aureus subsp. aureus] ==> Leptosiphon chrysanthus subsp. chrysanthus will not work that way. So I have created a separate merge (https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/56270) to cover that portion of the change. So there are three draft merges that should be committed in this sequence:
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_merges/46703
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_merges/56270
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_merges/46343 (this one)
That said, I think it's time to do a final check for any confused or out of range IDs, then get these merges committed before the flood of this year's new observations really hits for these taxa. (I will double-check some range-edge observations on the map right now...)
Any concerns remaining about going forward with this?
I abstain. Please move on without me. :)
Only found this one so far: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/23418562
Anyone care to chime in on the ID?
@stevejones @kai_schablewski Any objections if I go ahead and commit the above three merges?
No objection, Jim, and sorry for not responding earlier.
Comments and corrections welcome. @polemoniaceae @bouteloua @dhwilken @jrebman @grnleaf @kai_schablewski