Taxonomic Swap 144050
(הועלה ב 2024-06-13)
|
|
הוחלף ב |
|
תגובות
@leonperrie My apologies. Was there a period when you were recognizing A. haurakiense at species level? I found https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/66535 but I wonder if I wrote "NZ Flora" in error for the NZPCN treatment. https://www.nzpcn.org.nz/flora/species/asplenium-haurakiense/
The latter states that there's a ploidy difference. I have mixed feelings on that--I can't quite bring myself to elevate some of my local Asplenium to species level notwithstanding that ploidy difference, as the morphology is much too subtle, so I rather like the idea of treating them as subspecies. (Also a bit easier for a system like this where essentially everything is identified by photo voucher.)
The most recent swap was just me cleaning up some leftover subspecies; I'm open to re-consolidating these two taxa under A. flaccidum if you don't think they're consistently distinguishable.
Thanks @choess. I think no need to reverse what has happened. I was just clarifying who said what. Pat never accepted subsp. haurakiense at species level, and I'm comfortable with subspecies status. However, others prefer species status despite the difficulty of recognising some plants.
Hello @choess,
Regarding your assertion above, we maintained the subspecies for the Flora of New Zealand; i.e., treating haurakiense as a subspecies of flaccidum. Pat Brownsey was adamant about this, and looked into this again in detail before writing the eFloraNZ treatment. Have you read his summary here? https://www.nzflora.info/factsheet/taxon/Asplenium-flaccidum-subsp-flaccidum.html
In some places, it is difficult to distinguish the entities. In my experience, while I appreciate that the north-eastern North Island has in parts a particular morphological (and ecological) variant, similar variants occur elsewhere in the range of Asplenium flaccidum s.l. If treated as species, are they flaccidum or haurakiense? Same question for the Kermadec plants mentioned by Pat on the eFloraNZ page.
Until there is some genetic evidence that there are two (or more) distinct evolutionary lineages in sympatry, it seemed more pragmatic to me to keep treating the NE NI variant as a subspecies (i.e., a lineage, albeit only putatively so, with a geographic basis).