Taxonomic Swap 18944
(Committed on 2017-05-11)
|
|
replaced with |
|
Comments
seems fine to me - but if it is at the genus level then you should also swap out T. latifolia et al
I have T. latifolia queued up at http://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/18943. What's less clear to me is what to do with the others in the genus, since we have no authority for them other than The Plant List, which still uses Trientalis.
Is this paper responsible? http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.3372/wi.39.39103 and if so is my reading that they lumped all former Anagallis, Pelletiera and Trientalis into Lysimachia right? If so, it seems the proper thing to do would be to swap all species in those 3 genera into Lysimachia.... yay taxonomy
It could be, but I'm mostly concerned with tracking our authorities. Calflora adopts that new Manns & Anderberg treatment as does GoBotany, so for Anagallis and Trientalis it makes sense. Pelletiera seems to be a genus from places where we don't have regional authorities so by our own rules we would follow The Plant List (http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl1.1/record/tro-26400323) and leave it alone.
this is the problem with not having global authorities..
Yeah, we've been using Lysimachia in Vermont I think. it's kinda odd because it doesn't look much like the other Lysimachias but i know that isn't a good criteria for that type of thing. I don't have a strong preference either way for this one
Weakley (2015) uses Lysimachia, although I didn't realize it until I looked it up after seeing this swap.
@loarie, @charlie, @mickley, does this seem right to you? Definitely the GoBotany treatment, mostly want a second pair of eyes before I commit.