Taxonomic Swap 41606
(Committed on 2019-02-20)
|
|
replaced with |
|
Comments
@wolfgangb per my comment above, why did you not at least swap with the correct synonym under Escobaria vivipara: Escobaria vivipara var. deserti? Now all of these observations will need to be re-identified to the correct variety.
Or do you also intend to sink all of the varieties currently recognized in iNat?
@jdmore @wolfgangb I agree this is BS!!!
why did you not at least swap with the correct synonym under Escobaria vivipara: Escobaria vivipara var. deserti? Now all of these observations will need to be re-identified to the correct variety.
an you undo/correct? @bouteloua
Only site staff can reverse swaps.
@loarie
i flagged it and did not changed because i still have my doubts on the specie, it is an Escobaria but i'm not shure it is an E. vivipara var. ...
and as far a i know varieties are not very accepted; see for an instance the case of Echinocereus, many varieties and subspecies becoming subspecies or species.
same with Epithelantha, Rapicactus, etc.
Reversing swaps is pretty destructive if not done immediately
Whats the deviation from POWO that's being proposed?
Does everyone have a sense for what it means to create deviations (technically Taxon Framework Relationships) under the new Taxon Framework system? I've started some documentation here
https://www.inaturalist.org/pages/taxon_frameworks
i think is ok to leave it like this, until we define the ending specie and then deviate it.
If it needs to be Escobaria (which it is) it is best to use Escobaria vivipara var. deserti or create Escobaria desertii (Lodé). Var deserti is still active (I think) and refers to the same plants. The community/american floras seems to prefer C. chlorantha. I personally don't care what name these plats get but they are distinct, more so than all other of the named E. vivipara var.. Sinking them all in E. vivipara to somewhere in the future having to look fore these posts and rename them again seem stupid and a waste of time. @loarie
@loarie to answer your question directly:
No one seems to accept the current POWO synonymy, which places Coryphantha chlorantha ==> Escobaria dasyacantha, but places other names for the same taxon (i.e., Escobaria vivipara var. deserti) ==> Escobaria vivipara (no varieties).
POWO Cactaceae are, quite frankly, a spiny mess at the moment.
There seems to be general consensus on iNat that (1) this taxon belongs in the genus Escobaria, and (2) this taxon is distinct as either a variety (Escobaria vivipara var. deserti) or a species (Escobaria chlorantha exists and has priority over Escobaria deserti). All of these Escobaria names are available nomenclaturally. Only the variety is currently available in iNat -- I've temporarily added the other synonymous scientific names to that record.
Two recent North American references (Flora of North America and Jepson Manual) prefer species rank; one (Intermountain Flora) prefers variety.
Based on the above, my recommendation would be to deviate from POWO using the name Escobaria chlorantha for this taxon.
@loarie and as to understanding deviations under Taxon Frameworks -- your documentation is definitely a good start. I tend to be a back-end nuts-and-bolts type, so not understanding how it's being implemented behind the scenes, I don't yet have a mental picture of how deviations are being created going forward. (Nor for that matter, how matches are being determined, since it would involve comparing synonymies on both ends.) But I look forward to learning more!
it can be reverted without much trouble, let me remember how i did
OK, update on where we are:
Per discussion above and here: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/20503937 @najera_tutor added Escobaria chlorantha to the iNat taxonomy and swapped with Coryphantha chlorantha here: https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_swaps/35444.
Unfortunately this does not revert the earlier Coryphantha chlorantha ==> Escobaria vivipara swap. We still need to go through and find the old chlorantha observations and re-identify, which @najera_tutor has already started (thank you!).
I took a crack at adding a new Taxon Framework Relationship to account for Escobaria chlorantha here: https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_framework_relationships/323204. @loarie please confirm whether this is the way it is supposed to work now.
I am WAITING to make the other needed swap, Escobaria vivipara deserti ==> Escobaria chlorantha. This is because the existing 3 observations with that ID are either E. vivipara vivipara, or cannot be determined due to lack of flowers. Making the swap for those 3 observations would not be of any help at the moment. So instead I just added Escobaria vivipara deserti as an additional scientific name to E. chlorantha for now, to help guide any new IDs in the right direction.
And a final word, I advise strong caution going forward in curating Cactaceae names based on current POWO nomenclature. As noted in my earlier comment and in other areas (Opuntia for example), it needs a lot of clean-up first.
@loarie - question about Taxon Framework Relationships: are the related external names limited to those considered valid taxa in the external source? Or can they also include (or be exclusively) names considered synonyms in the external source?
If the latter, then I'm thinking that https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_framework_relationships/323204 should be a many-to-one relationship (instead of "not external"):
Escobaria vivipara var. deserti + Coryphantha chlorantha + additional POWO synonyms ==> Escobaria chlorantha (also a synonym in POWO).
Please advise - trying to learn here! Thanks.
The external taxa will just be names currently accepted in the external source.
I edited your taxon framework relationship to reflect what how it seems POWO is treating these taxa vs. what we have set up on iNat currently. I might be missing some internal or external taxa, not sure.
i leave E. chlorantha and E. desertii because i see diferences in perianth and it might need revision
Thank you @bouteloua for clarifying and fixing how the TFR should work (if I may coin an acronym here...). I think you found the relevant internal taxa. There is still the issue that two of our internal taxa (chlorantha and deserti) should probably be synonymized as chlorantha, though I see @najera_tutor has some question about that (more below).
There is also the issue that POWO synonymizes the Coryphantha chlorantha synonym with a completely different species, Escobaria dasyacantha. I suppose this would require a second, overlapping deviation TFR, one-to-many with external (Escobaria dasyacantha) and internal (Escobaria chlorantha + Escobaria dasyacantha). Does that sound right?
@najera_tutor I am not aware of any references or other workers who have questioned the taxonomic equivalence of chlorantha and deserti. And I am guessing the type specimens from the 1800s will not be very helpful in elucidating any perianth differences at this point. How do you propose to resolve this question?
My understanding is that TFRs aren't meant to overlap — sorry, the acronym was already coined before you ;)
Here's my guess for Escobaria dasyacantha:
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_framework_relationships/288742
So I guess we just ignore POWO's assignment of the name Coryphantha chlorantha to Escobaria dasyacantha, since Coryphantha chlorantha is no longer an accepted name either internally or externally? That leaves me a little uneasy, but as long as it works for iNat, it's all good.
Glad someone already found TFR handy, I hate being first with a new acronym... ;-)
wait.... some Escobaria and Cochisea species are proposed as separate genus Neobesseya
Neobesseya abdita
Neobesseya cubensis
Neobesseya dasyacantha ssp. dasyacantha
Neobesseya dasyacantha ssp. chaffeyi
Neobesseya duncani
Neobesseya emskoetteriana
Neobesseya lloydii
Neobesseya minima
Neobesseya missouriensis ssp. asperisima
Neobesseya missouriensis ssp. missouriensis
Neobesseya robinsoniorum
Neobesseya zilziana
and yes, please let's ignore powo in practically all cactaceae
the entire complex (Coryphantha, Lepidocoryphantha, Escobaria, Neolloydia, Neobesseya, Cumarinia) needs revision
@najera_tutor Can you provide a citation or other source for the Neobesseya proposal?
My view is, there are a lot of groups that need revision, but iNaturalist taxonomy won't be able to wait for all of those. We need to come up with the best practical taxonomy that will work now for the users of the site. And then revise later when better information becomes available.
http://cactus-aventures.com/Taxonomy_of_the_Cactaceae_Index_of_Synonyms_&_errata.pdf
this is the most accurateand actual list.
i guess we need to do a cactus group to discuss if Lodé's taxonomy is the best or not;
@wolfgangb and me have been working on Echinocereus based on their group studies, and I have previously fixed Coryphantha, Thelocactus, and other, but some groups need more revision and to vote if the list proposed by Lodé is good enough to standardize our cactus taxonomy once in a lifetime
All, I think the suggestion of @najera_tutor for a Cactaceae discussion group is a good one, given the sad state of POWO taxonomy for this family, and the possibility of better sources. The situation is parallel in many ways to that of the ferns (see https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/271039).
So that we don't depart from the narrower focus of this taxon swap here, I have initiated a Cactaceae flag for further discussion at https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/337805. Please go there to continue discussion of broader Cactaceae taxonomic issues and possible solutions.
@wolfgangb @cactus-d @jonathanmohl @ug56bdi @davidferguson @loarie @bouteloua
Hi all,
Here are some quick facts, along with my opinions regarding this one.
As for the plants themselves, Escobaria vivipara var. deserti and E. chlorantha are the same thing. The plants vary slightly from one location to another, but there is no significant difference, and they represent the same taxon. "chlorantha" is originally from near St. George, Utah, and "desertii" is from near Ivanpah, Nevada, and plants from the two areas would be difficult to distinguish without knowing where they came from. Both names represent the same large-bodied [when mature], small-flowered variant of E. vivipara. Flower color itself varies from yellow or greenish, through pinks, to rarely magenta, often all occurring side by next in one population, but in other areas all plants may have roughly the same flower color. Color is not a good basis for distinction, and any other vegetative character involving things like number or length of spines, and stem size are individually variable and/or and age dependent.
These plants blend at their upper limits with Escobria vivipara var. rosei, and they should not be treated as separate species, but this all depends on how one defines species. Var. rosei is more "typical" looking for an Escobaria vivipara variant, but it is NOT the same as var. vivipara. The variety vivipara ("radiosa" is a widely misapplied synonym of var. vivipara) does not occur in the Mojave Desert region where "desertii" is found (it is rather from the Great Plains). Var. rosei is, however, very closely similar to geographically adjacent varieties arizonica and bisbeeana. These (and two or three additional) are all very well-characterized variants, and there is no question about any of their identities, nor where they are found (excepting that all the variaties blend with one-another where they meet).
The idea that any of these has anything to do with Escobaria dasyacantha is a mistake, and that species is mostly from Texas and Coahuila. This synonymy should not be ignored. E. dasyacantha is part of the black-seeded "Escobesseya" or "Neobesseya" section of Escobaria, (depending on how much generic subdividing one wants to do), and E. vivipara is a "typical" brown-seeded Escobaria.
The E. vivipara varieties are distinguishable, and with a species so widely distributed and so geographically variable, it does not help anyone to ignore varieties, though do have to be distinguished and identified correctly to mean anything. As for the "subspecies" vs. "variety" ranking, there has never been a distinction made by any botanist working with Cactaceae until relatively recently, and "variety" has been the traditionally used ranking for the family. The recent trend to move things to "subspecies" ranking seems often to have more to do with getting authorship recognition than to do with biology or real taxonomy.
Yes current treatments would place these in genus Escobaria (with which I agree). Recent attempts to recognize varieties of E. vivipara as species (except perhaps alversonii, which is very distinct) are not supported by biological behavior in the field, and I do not agree with them; even though quite distinct looking when not intergrading with var. rosei, the variety "desertii" (= E. chlorantha) is still a part of the overall E. vivipara species population.
As for the swap that has been made. I would agree that the names chlorantha and deserti are the same thing and belong under Escobaria vivipara. However, they should not be swapped to the species without varietal recognition, because this muddies the waters a little too much. I would place all of these names under E. vivipara var. desertii, regardless of what listings like the POWO (which is often incorrect) say.
As for the "genus" Neobesseya, that's a separate subject that has no bearing on the E. vivipara vs. chlorantha vs. desertii question. It is worth a quick comment though. This is a distinctive group with differences from "typical" Escobaria, involving rounded seed shape and black color, with an aril; fruits that have a watery non-mucilaginous pulp; and in most species an early deciduous perianth (exception is E. dasyacanthus and segregates with persistent perianth). Except for E. emskoetteriana [= robertii, = runyonii], which is kind'a on the fence between the two groups, these are well-defined groups that could be considered as distinct genera. However, I would personally consider them to be so closely related that they should be treated as subgenera. "Escobesseya" is a subset of "Neobesseya" with usually smaller seeds and more elongate fruits than the other species of the black-seeded group, and is a very weakly defined grouping.
is the same as happen with Turbinicarpus, the genera were split into 3 different genera (Turbi., Gymnocactus and Rapicactus) also in some cases subspecies became species; at the beginning no one accepted this and after further observations and some years specialists started to accept the diferences; same happen time ago with Ferocactus and Stenocactus, also lets not forget that some genera of cactus were used as a box to put all the non understandable species
Per comment in conflicting taxon swap https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_swaps/35444
Coryphantha chlorantha = Escobaria desertii
http://cactus-aventures.com/Taxonomy_of_the_Cactaceae_Index_of_Synonyms_&_errata.pdf
POWO does not seem to be on board with this (yet?), so maybe a deviation needed?