Taxonomic Swap 87571 (הועלה ב 2021-01-10)

לא ידוע
נוסף על־ידי mftasp בתאריך ינואר 10, 2021 10:11 אחה"צ | אושר על ידי mftasp בתאריך ינואר 10, 2021
הוחלף ב

תגובות

This taxonomy does not reflect what happens in the field. My postings https://inaturalist.nz/observations/65265464 and https://inaturalist.nz/observations/65265428 were of two distinct taxa growing together (sympatric). This happens in many places around coastal NZ for these taxa. It does not make taxonomic sense to have two subspecies or varieties growing together and the separate (and published) species names should be maintained for them.

פורסם על-ידי cco לפני בערך 3 שנים

Hi @cco,

Regardless, we follow Plants of the World Online for our taxonomy. We can deviate, but in this case pretty much all floras from within its range treat it as a subspecies, including the New Zealand Flora.

I am not sure what the problem is with having ingraspecies co-occurring. This hapens in many places and with many infraspecific taxa.

פורסם על-ידי mftasp לפני בערך 3 שנים

Hi @mftasp We are probably going to have to agree to disagree on this one. For usage of Epilobium cinereum in NZ, there is a good discussion towards the end of https://www.nzpcn.org.nz/flora/species/epilobium-cinereum/ . The Flora of NZ by HH Allan (1961) Vol.1 retained E. cinereum and it was P & T Raven's 1976 monograph on Australasian Epilobia that many people (including the authors of Flora of NZ4) have followed (using taxonomy for E. billardierianum ssp cinereum which Raven first published in NZJBotany in 1971 with Engelhorn). This was not the only taxon for which Raven and Raven created subspecies for what I recognise in the field as valid species - sympatric and morphologically and ecologically distinct taxa. Their E. alsinoides includes 3 NZ species as subspecies. Other NZ web sites preferring E. cinereum include https://maoriplantuse.landcareresearch.co.nz/WebForms/PeoplePlantsDetails.aspx?firstcome=firstcome&PKey=54E1FAD1-182B-42F3-8447-725FEE9E16E5 ; https://gd.eppo.int/taxon/EPICI ; https://nztcs.org.nz/nztcs-taxon/90 ; http://www.temarareo.org/TMR-Pukatea.html ; also a lot of local reports, plant lists etc. on vegetation, e.g. https://districtplan.ccc.govt.nz/Images/DistrictPlanImages/Site%20of%20Ecological%20Significance/SES%20H%202.pdf ; http://digitallibrary.landcareresearch.co.nz/digital/collection/p20022coll13/id/406 ; http://www.friendschchbotanicgardens.org.nz/newsletters/Newsletter76-friendsofthebotanicgardens.pdf ; Enough said. I'm primarily a plant ecologist, not a taxonomist, but taxonomy has to 'work' in the field; sympatry of plants that differ morphologically and ecologically indicates 'good' species to me.

פורסם על-ידי cco לפני בערך 3 שנים

Ok. To be clear, I am not disputing that they may be better treated as species, just that this view seems very much a minority view at this stage. They are separate taxa, which makes it easy to change their rank in the future, should a majority of published sources treat them so.

As I said above, there is also no inherent problem in infraspecific taxa occurring sympatrically. It happens all the time.

If we were to deviate from our external taxonomy, I would like to see a modern taxonomic treatment that is widely accepted and followed. Currently all Australasian herbaria, as far as I can see, are using the name Epilobium billardiereanum subsp. cinereum, and all modern Floras and serious taxonomic treatments are following Raven's taxonomy.

פורסם על-ידי mftasp לפני בערך 3 שנים

BTW, we should probably move this discussion to the flag that triggered this, so it is easily found, and so that @rowan_hindmarsh_walls, who made the change, can see the thread.

פורסם על-ידי mftasp לפני בערך 3 שנים

@mftasp you are correct that the subspecies name is the only one recognised by plants of the world online, but as @cco said, the view that this entity should be a species is not a minority view in NZ, its just that no-one has the time or money these days to carry out the modern taxonomic work necessary to challenge the status quo.
The reason why I changed it in the first place is because the NZ government recognises this entity as a species rather than subspecies when giving it a conservation status, see page 63 in:

Conservation status of New Zealand indigenous vascular plants, 2017. By Peter J. de Lange, Jeremy R. Rolfe, John W. Barkla, Shannel P. Courtney, Paul D. Champion, Leon R. Perrie, Sarah M. Beadel, Kerry A. Ford, Ilse Breitwieser, Ines Schönberger, Rowan Hindmarsh-Walls, Peter B. Heenan and Kate Ladley. New Zealand Threat Classification Series 22. 82 p.

This is by far the most up-to-date piece of reputable published literature regarding this entity in New Zealand.

But of course Australia, being the larger nation gets the last say (tongue in cheek).

פורסם על-ידי rowan_hindmarsh_w... לפני בערך 3 שנים

הוספת תגובה

כניסה או הרשמה להוספת הערות