Taxonomic Swap 102062 (Guardado el 27/11/2021)

Añadido por greek_cicada_project el 27 de noviembre de 2021 a las 11:05 AM | Resuelto por greek_cicada_project en 27 de noviembre de 2021
reemplazar con


@greek_cicada_project : it is a bit a pity to have made this change without consulting the main users. It is possible to suggest a swap and keep it as a draft, waiting for reactions.
As you know, this taxon is considered as a synonym by POWO :
Of course I agree to do a deviation in this case, but the previous situation (A. hortensis ssp. pavonina) was already a deviation, made in this sense.
But the question you arose up yesterday about S. lutea/sicula is the same here... should we deviate at subspecies level or at species level ? Both could run well, and I personally prefer when a deviation is the lowest possible. Furthermore in this case, the subspecies level is supported by geographical vicariance if I remember well.
Finally, if we conserve this species rank, then we need to create the complex level for cases when ID is not precise...
What do you think ?

Anotado por abounabat hace 2 meses (Advertencia)

It would be good to make an Anemone section and subsection.
Botanists changed the status of A. h. pavonina from subspecies to species after doing some genetic analysis.
This source underlines that Anemone hortensis and Anemone pavonina are on the same clade of the subsection Anemone: (figure 8)
The article also says:

The Mediterranean species of subsection Anemone exhibit a more apomorphic character profile (e.g. involucral leaves reduced and connate at base, apertures of pollen grains specialized, etc.). Their common ancestor with a basic karyotype had evidently already evolved 8–7 Mya ago, before the late Miocene Messinian salinity crisis of the Mediterranean. Subsequent allopatric differentiation led relatively quickly to the origin of three taxa with their distribution centres in the East, Central and West Mediterranean area: A. coronaria, A. hortensis and A. palmata. After considerable structural chromosomal changes and the establishment of crossing barriers, these species of subsection Anemone must have achieved their present, widely sympatric distribution. That they have a preglacial age is evident from the infraspecific differentiation in A. hortensis, with the split of the deviating A. pavonina genotype at N11 being dated at 2.2 Mya in the early Pleistocene.

Anotado por greek_cicada_project hace 2 meses (Advertencia)

Thanks for the paper, I already known it but it was a good occasion to read it once again. I added the subsection Anemone, its 4 subsections and sorted all species concerned by each subsection :
But I am sorry to tell you that the paper consider A. hortensis, pavonina and heldreichii as synonyms, after a short discussion. Of course I disagree, and I still think we could consider the 3 taxa as subspecies, mainly for geographical reason. We also can see in the figure 8 a very slight difference between hortensis s.s. and pavonina, but while heldreichii is absent from the sampling, we cannot conclude.
So, as the morphology of flowers suggest heldreichii and hortensis are more close related, and that pavonina could be a sort of intermediate (paleohybrid ? introgression ?) between hortensis s.l. and coronoaria, it seems not incongruent to consider it at species level also.
Thus, I think we can keep this taxonomic scheme, and we not necessarily need to create a complex species, as the subsection is quite equivalent...
All OK for you ?

Anotado por abounabat hace 2 meses (Advertencia)

Yes, I fully agree with the taxonomy now

Anotado por greek_cicada_project hace 23 días (Advertencia)

Añade un comentario

Entra o Regístrate para añadir comentarios