Taxonomic Merge 132339
(Guardado el 19/11/2023)
|
|
fue combinado en |
|
Comentarios
see flag: https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/632667
Before the merge @brothernorbert was effectively the only person using these infraspecifics.
The benefit is that we are following POWO as the iNat staff desire, and not maintaining taxa which are not recognized in the most recent taxonomic literature. See the recent monograph of this genus and they do not accept any infrapsecifics of S. viridis.
Morrone, O., Aliscioni, S. S., Veldkamp, J. F., Pensiero, J. F., Zuloaga, F. O., & Kellogg, E. A. (2014). Revision of the Old World species of Setaria (Poaceae: Panicoideae: Paniceae). Systematic Botany Monographs, 1-161.
Yes, but I always thought major and pycnocoma are all the same. The problem is, that italica was domesticated from viridis and now some populations are something between italica and viridis. Often the distinction of viridis and italica is a miracle for me ....
This is a new story from @kevinfaccenda (do you remeber killing of Phalaris arundinacea var. picta (https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/632672) )?
@kevinfaccenda, making iNat nomenclature "following POWO" can be perfomed easily by stuff in automatic mode (using api), but this function was delegated to the community. You know why? As it was discussed, POWO is extremely weak in grasses (and in Poales in general). Kew tradition of grass studies is highly criticized.
For instance, Euro+Med is treating subsp. pachystachys and subsp. viridis separately
https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/5957fdcd-1648-4760-8fe1-dbcba181a47b
https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/a35c8acc-795d-4021-b56d-540e7e2728db
WorldPlants is also recognizing three subspecies in Setaria viridis:
https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list#plantUid-114018
And of course these are different taxa easily distinguished in nature.
So, if you want to merge something automatically and robotically "following POWO" without any experience in the group, (1) ask the community and tag the experts , (2) take a look into alternative databases like Euro+Med , WorldPlants, etc , (3) take a quick look through observations.
@christiangilli What do you think about this topic?
Of course I totally agree with @apseregin !
@kevinfaccenda please consider that all backbones are always going and back because taxonomy is a relative science in constant progress, so when you merge anything maybe in few years we will need to split again, and this kind of case is really not infrequent.
The "problem" is that the inputs progressively added by users is definitively lost by the merge, in case of a future split...
The "mess" is that considering additional infraspecific taxa (not in the backbone) was disturbing nobody and then there is really "no need" to merge.
Could you understand our reasoning and our position ?
Please stop these kind of "useless but harmful" merging.
Thanks in advance,
Errol.
I totally agree with @abounabat and @apseregin in general and with @brothernorbert concerning (var.) major = (subsp.) pycnocoma, see e.g. Flora of China for the three taxa (http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=2&taxon_id=200026279). I would prefer varietal rank for the three taxa but taxonomic rank is a matter of taste in this case.
@kevinfaccenda subsp. pycnocoma, also as variety or as species, is often accepted in floras.
Let me say that, agreeing with previous comments, there are few benefits in this merging. Moreover, it is quite disappointing that such "destructive" changes are still made without asking other users' points of view. In this case, it would have been sufficient just asking top observers and top identifiers of Setaria viridis.
For a detailed discussion on this topic, please read this forum thread:
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/should-curators-have-a-critical-point-of-view-when-changing-inat-taxonomy/46339
I don't get why everybody is coming at me on this when none of you have even used these taxa.
"Moreover, it is quite disappointing that such "destructive" changes are still made without asking other users' points of view." This is not true. Effectively all of the infraspecific IDs of S. viridis were made by @brothernorbert who consented to this merge. The flag was also open for a month and half and nobody commented. https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/632667
I did ask the users who were identifying the taxa! And I'm following a monograph of the genus Setaria as my source (not just POWO!). Meanwhile, everybody else who has never used these taxa has come to weigh in despite never using them on iNat.
Morrone, O., Aliscioni, S. S., Veldkamp, J. F., Pensiero, J. F., Zuloaga, F. O., & Kellogg, E. A. (2014). Revision of the Old World species of Setaria (Poaceae: Panicoideae: Paniceae). Systematic Botany Monographs, 1-161.
OK I heard you, but my symmetric question for you is "what did you gain merging these infraspecific taxa that you didn't use either?"
Personally I gain little. I've been trying to curate the grasses and part of that is dealing with all the open flags . This also brings iNat closer to the POWO taxonomy as desired by the admins, and removes taxa of questionable taxonomic utility and little use on iNat (per Morrone et al. 2014).
OK, thanks.
By the way, there were about 100 obs of these infraspecies before the merge.
@kevinfaccenda I know the paper by Morrore & al. The source is absolutely authoritative but pycnocoma is synonymized with viridis without any explanation nor providing any evidences. On the contrary, recent floras that are as authoritative as the latter paper, accept it at least at the variety rank
I have a question : what is the added value of this kind of merge ?
The varietal subdivision don't disturb anyone, put could serve a lot of people that would like to use them...
@brothernorbert @convallaria1128 @alex_iosipenko @apseregin @julia_shner @wnyjw