Taxonomic Swap 85577
(Guardado el 07/09/2022)
|
|
reemplazar con |
|
Comentarios
@finrod @blue_celery @majoet
Neither SFO, nor GIROS do recognise the species (subspecies for the first one, mere synonym for the second), so I would rather prefer the subspecies.
What do Spanish workers do ?
I would tend, in the absence of a study showing E. tremolsii as a subspecies, to stay on what POWO (based on iNaturalist) proposes and to switch all observations noted as a subspecies to the species Epipactis tremolsii.
@fabienpiednoir I am not so skilled in orchidology to express a point of view and, to be frank, it is subject I sometimes look at with many doubts...
I tend to think that taxonomy should follow the use that is made of it - including conservation.
this is why I always ask users rather. In many groups, (orchids, brambles, stick insects, some bugs...) where phenomenon like hybridogenesis, gynogenesis, and so, are fairly common, the traditionnal notion of species loses its sense... but this doesn't take of its practical usefulness...
As a general rule, I would prefer that the site taxonomy could try to reach a compromise between the taxonomic novelties, the name in use among citizens and the taxonomic backbone of the site.
I do not have available the checklists of the countries where E. tremolsii grows but, on the basis of some works on this subject, it seems that this taxon is considered a true species and since a time long enough so that it can be argued that citizens (and botanists) address it as a species and not as a subspecies.
I do not know if E. tremolsii can be somehow considered geographycally and/or ecologically vicariant in relation to E. helleborine but I would not be surprised if the two could co-exist. Indeed, in POWO in some cases a concept of subspecies that does not respect the ecological and geographical vicariance seems to have been employed.
I'd personally use the subspecies, however to me it's not terribly important: once it's accepted and treated as a separate taxon, it's not that important here in iNaturalist if it's ranked as a species or subspecies, anyone who wants to use this database can still find it. I'd look what's the consensus about the name is in Portugal (as most of the observations come from there, from a quick look at the map at the top of the page) and follow it, waiting for a "final" judgement (by genetics, morphology, both, whatever...).
My 2 cents :-)
From the content of the discussion here, it appears E. helleborine ssp. tremolsii was considered a full species by POWO, correct? Unless I'm misunderstanding something, it is now updated to be a subspecies: https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:887501-1
If we're following POWO, E. helleborine ssp. densifolia need to be swapped into E. helleborine ssp. tremolsii as well. In addition, E. helleborine ssp. minor needs to be swapped into E. helleborine ssp. helleborine. Neither of these subspecies have any observations at the moment.
Right. We can validate this swap now.
About the other name (synonyms or not), I prefer to let others discussing...
As there is no strong opposition since 2 years, and while the most recent scientific literature confirm the infraspecific status of E. tremolsii, I finally validated this swap. E.g. :
https://www.mdpi.com/2223-7747/10/9/1839/pdf
Thanks!
@mercantour @fabienpiednoir @wolfgangb : do you prefer this solution or the opposite one ?