Taxonomic Swap 80327
(Committed on 2020-09-18)
|
|
replaced with |
|
Comments
Hello @mftasp
I can't say I know what to do now. I have already read the article and do not understand it completely. So far I only ever created one-to-one taxon framework relationships.
In this case the taxa are synonyms of which both are not accepted by POWO and both do not have a taxon framework relationship. I thought that by merging them I would make them a little better rather than worse.
POWO does not accept any subspecies here - only Papaver alpinum. Neither Papaver rhaeticum nor Papaver alpinum rhaeticum appears as a synonym. I have no idea how to make a "one to many" ? taxon-framework relationship here.
Hi @epsilon,
I notice that there are several subspecies of Papaver alpinum that are not in POWO, so I wouldn't worry about this one not being right. In addition, POWO is pretty bad at correctly capturing infraspecies.
The easiest thing to do would be to create a taxon framework relationship with Papaver alpinum rhaeticum as the internal taxon, and nothing as the external taxon (since it's not in POWO), and in the notes below, add a note that says something like "Infraspecific taxon not captured by POWO", and if they're freely availably, a link to a pertinent reference that use the name as valid.
I'm happy to create it for you if you're still confused, so you can see how I'd go about doing it.
Miguel.
Hi, sorry for beeing late.
Unfortunately it is not easy to find a source for this.
I have only found a quite old source in which the different Papaver alpinum s.l. are described as subspecies. Is it possible to link this?
https://www.zobodat.at/stable/pdf/PHY_7_4_0302-0314.pdf
There are sources where the (sub)species are accepted as a separate species
https://ww2.bgbm.org/EuroPlusMed/PTaxonDetail.asp?NameCache=Papaver%20alpinum%20aggr.&PTRefFk=7500000
or as in POWO are not accepted at all. Whereby in POWO e.g. Papaver alpinum rhaeticum does not even appear as a synonym. This is always a sign for me that not everything is right there.
http://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:673716-1
http://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:673389-1#synonyms
So far iNat has taken the path of recognizing them as subspecies.
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/136572-Papaver-alpinum
In this sense, it would be logical to combine the two (synonyms) into one subspecies.
@mftasp
I posted a comment on the taxonmerge. What else needs to be done to make it correct?
POWO used to not be great with taxa that start with 'P'. This might still be the case.
Since POWO does not seem to have the correct taxonomy, and there are sources (https://ww2.bgbm.org/EuroPlusMed/PTaxonDetail.asp?NameCache=Papaver%20alpinum%20aggr.&PTRefFk=7500000) that indicate that the taxa should be considered valid as separate species, why do you want to merge them?
I would probably leave it alone, if you merge it into Papaver alpinum subsp. rhaeticum and they turn out to be separate species, it can a real pain to split them (it may bump a lot of observations down to the genus Papaver).
Hello @mftasp
I am very sure that the two are synonyms, otherwise I would not want to do the fusion.
I have mentioned some sources and reasons why I think (I am sure) they are synonyms in the commentary on the "Taconomic Swap".
The taxonomy of Papaver alpinum is very complicated and surely the last word has not been spoken yet. We can leave it as it is, but it doesn't make things easier.
Here again the sources:
http://luirig.altervista.org/flora/taxa/index1.php?scientific-name=papaver+alpinum+subsp.+rhaeticum
https://www.gbif.org/species/4927773
https://www.herbarium-online.ch/pflanzenverzeichnis/papaver_aurantiacum.html
https://www.nationalpark.ch/de/flora-und-fauna/pflanzen/rhaetischer-alpen-mohn/
https://flora.nhm-wien.ac.at/Seiten-Arten/Papaver-alpinum-rhaeticum.htm
This is the only source that sees it differently. Certainly a mistake
(https://ww2.bgbm.org/EuroPlusMed/PTaxonDetail.asp?NameCache=Papaver%20alpinum%20aggr.&PTRefFk=7500000)
I've added a deviation for Papaver alpinum rhaeticum and linked back to the discussion here: https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_framework_relationships/449886
That should be enough to let anyone seeing this and noticing it is not in POWO know not to delete it. You're probably OK to commit the change, anyone else with questions has has a few weeks to say something! Thanks for your thorough work BTW.
Thank you for your patience and help. I will wait a few more weeks, there is no hurry.
Hi @epsilon,
If you are deviating from POWO, please create a taxon framework relationship showing the deviation.