Taxonomic Swap 126480
(Guardado el 31/05/2023)
|
|
reemplazar con |
|
Comentarios
@sarahlloyd @regularslimeguy @myxograzina @alison_pollack @alainmyxos What are your thoughts on this rushed swap?
Hi Nicolas - I apologise for bringing up this taxon swap; I didn't realise the headaches it would cause. I based it on Eumycetozoa.com which considers C. porioides to be a synonym of C. fruticulosa. I agree that there are limited published phylogenetic studies to support the taxon swap- as is the case with many slime moulds. I had no idea about the previous discussion on the matter and I thank you for bringing this to my attention. I do, however, strongly suspect that the poroid form is simply a morphotype of C. fruticulosa. Ceratiomyxa is very common in my area and I have observed many times both morphs occurring within the same colony, with transitional forms between. This is true also of the yellow and white colour forms often occurring together.
@tyson_ehlers The problem doesn't come from you :) You are not a curator so this is not your responsability. It may be a morphotype, which I think is a reasonable hypothesis. Or it may also a morphotype specific to one or multiple species in C. fruticulosa. As the type is not revised, it's likely as well that this name will be resurrected for a species of this complex. Without that, it's pure speculation...
I haven't seen sufficient molecular evidence in favor of either synonymizing or separating porioides and fruiticulosa. But as far as taxonomy goes I think it would be the most consistent and efficient choice to follow eumycetozoa.com. It's followed by nearly every researcher in the field and provides access to hundreds of definitions in primary sources that are often inaccessible otherwise. It is certainly influenced by its curators, but in the absence of a more complete and publicly available molecular & morphological phylogeny it is by far the best source of evidence based taxonomy and the slime research community seems to agree. I am very open to discussion however. Taxonomy is a tricky thing and sometimes more a matter of function than strict evolutionary history.
And no insult is intended to other sources, I may simply be unaware or unfamiliar with them
Carlos Lado's eumycetozoa.com website is generally considered by those who study myxos to be the best source for myxo taxonomy. There are studies being done on Ceratiomyxa, and it will be interesting to see what they reveal. I also would prefer to not lose the distinction. I suggest that we retain the varieties, and use Ceratiomyxa fruticulosa var. poroides. Or now that the change is made is that to no longer possible to revert to that?
I am surprised that anyone can make a taxon change. I thought it was only curators who are allowed to do that.
If we need to manually re-identify the porioides observations it will take time but it won't be too complicated. I don't mind that kind of work
Sorry for creating a potential mess with this. I did check eumycetozoa.com as that is the best myxo resource for up to date taxonomy, which states it is a synonym. Will certainly reach out and discuss anything like this (my fist taxon swamp obviously) in the future.
@ryan_durand Can you avoid making taxonomic changes without consulting anyone? This topic has been discussed extensively in a previous flag!
- This is a valid name. You can see the full bibliographic citation in Index Fungorum and in Eumycetozoa.com.
- Eumycetozoa website is great but cross-checking sources is necessary. Other sources keep this species as independent or make a variety of it.
- We did keep Ceratiomyxa porioides as this genus is clearly understudied and many species are waiting to be described. However, completely synonymizing the two taxa is a destructive operation as now we don't have a way to name these collections in case it would be proven to be independent based on phylogenetic means and not on a single opinion.