Taxonomic Swap 105434 (Δημιουργήθηκε στις 16-02-2022)

A community-derived classification fo... (Αναφορά)
Προστέθηκε από kai_schablewski στις Φεβρουάριος 16, 2022 0140 ΜΜ | Δημιουργήθηκε από kai_schablewski στις Φεβρουάριος 16, 2022
αντικαταστάθηκε με

Σχόλια

@kai_schablewski why have you implemented this change?
Diphasium and other similar segregates of Lycopodium and Lycopodiella are not accepted by POWO (https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:132364-3) or by local Floras (e.g., https://www.nzflora.info/factsheet/Taxon/Lycopodium-scariosum.html; https://biodiversity.org.au/nsl/services/rest/name/apni/61303).

As far as I can see, this kind of unnecessary taxonomic change - the splitting of monophyletic groups into smaller monophyletic groups - upsets general users of scientific names, and gives taxonomists a bad name, while lacking any good justification.

Αναρτήθηκε από leonperrie 11 μήνες πριν (Αναφορά)

We do not use POWO for Ferns, Lycophytes and Cactaceae on iNaturalist.

Nearly all genera with only a few exceptions that I have changed recently were already in accordance with the PPG1.

Some genera like Diphasium s.str. were divided on iNaturalist into Diphasium s.str. from South America and Lycopodium s.l. from NZ at the same time. There has also been some taxonomic chaos before my recent changes like for example the species Diphasium gayanum. Three different names were active on iNaturalist at the same time before my changes: Diphasium gayanum, Lycopodium scariosum var. gayanum and Lycopodium gayanum.

The PPG1 and the following more recent taxonomic changes are based on genetic evidence and are widely accepted by many scientists worldwide.

I knew that some criticism would come from New Zealand. However even in NZ the New Zealand Plant Conservation Network uses and accepts this modern classification: https://www.nzpcn.org.nz/

Of course it is possible to render these groups monophyletic if you lump most of the genera together. But you can also lump Cactaceae into a Portulacaceae s.l.
But even more than for example members of the Caryophyllales the different lineages of lycophytes are distinct and have diverged earlier than most of the modern plantlife on earth.

It is also possible to render this group monophyletic by creating smaller, well defined genera!

They might still share a lot of similarities in morphological traits, but that does not necessarily mean that they are really closely related and that we should simply lump most genera together. POWO seems to be quite isolated with this approach.

It is also helpful for identification purposes to have smaller taxonomic entities where morphologically similar species can be compared with each other.

It is usually quite easy to recognize members of genera like Diphasium, Diphasiastrum, Palhinaea, Phlegmariurus, Phylloglossum etc. that are all not accepted on POWO by the way.

The identification process of many lycophytes is not easy, especially in biodiverse areas like the neotropics. Pictures are often not very helpful because you usually need length specifications and microscopic details to properly determine a species, and of course you will also need a good key. This means that many species can not be identified down to species level on iNaturalist. In this case it makes perfect sense if you can at least assign this plant to a closer family group rather than just calling it Lycopodium spec. or Huperzia spec. It is much more accurate to assign these taxa to smaller genera like for example Diphasium, Palhinhaea etc.

Αναρτήθηκε από kai_schablewski 11 μήνες πριν (Αναφορά)

Hi @kai_schablewski.
As a taxonomist interacting with the public, I have to be able to explain such changes to them. I don't see compelling reasons for this change, so I'd be grateful if you could elaborate on the aspects below. General users of scientific names dislike, even * hate *, changes to the names they are familiar with. Because they are the primary audience for taxonomic works, I therefore think it is important that change is minimised and any changes are well justified. 'Fixing' non-monophyletic groups can be scientifically justified, but that's not the issue here.

Your last point about species identification difficulties could have been easily dealt with by implementing infra-generic groupings, without the need to impose changes to generic names on general users.

I appreciate that the lycophyte lineages are old. But there is no universally-agreed criterion for temporarily calibrating/standardising Linnaean ranks. This is simply an arbitrary change, which doesn't achieve an objective fix (because there is no objective solution to achieve here). Someone else could equally apply the genus rank at higher or lower levels within the phylogeny. It's hard to see how splitting (or lumping) monophyletic groups into smaller (or larger) monophyletic groups is necessary or useful or in the best interests of general users of taxonomy.

On a slightly different angle, surely iNaturalist's primary mission is to allow/encourage users to observe and record nature, and that is more important than having a tidy taxonomic infrastructure (which can be managed at other places). If one country wants to use genus A, and another genus B, then what's wrong with allowing that, even if the schemes are mutually incompatible? The primary audience of iNaturalist is general naturalists, and their needs (including stable nomenclature) should be prioritised over those of taxonomists, who should have the skills to accommodate untidy classifications, and the means to manage them elsewhere.

By the way:
Who decided iNaturalist doesn't follow POWO? POWO is far from perfect, but the same applies to PPG (which abjectly failed in its stated goal to minimise taxonomic change). [I feel that iNaturalist's current need to follow a single taxonomic scheme is problematic, and that it should allow for regional deviations, as it does for common names. But that is apparently too difficult.]

Taxonomic decisions for the NZPCN are made by one person. This does not constitute strong backing for your position. In this part of the world, you'd be better to look to the Australian Plant Census for guidance. There, the different state herbaria 'vote' on taxonomic changes, so it is much more representative. In that regard, it is a better approach than PPG or (as I understand it) POWO or World Plants, where decision-making is unilateral. Australian botanical taxonomists also have a culture of minimising taxonomic change while working towards a monophyly-based classification (Entwisle and Weston 2005; https://www.publish.csiro.au/sb/sb04013), which is something I've learnt from and greatly admire. The Australian Plant Census hasn't made a judgement on this particular case, and I'd have advised you to wait until they did before making any changes to a platform like iNaturalist.

Αναρτήθηκε από leonperrie 11 μήνες πριν (Αναφορά)

"If one country wants to use genus A, and another genus B, then what's wrong with allowing that, even if the schemes are mutually incompatible?"

There is a whole lot wrong with that, and it was one of my main reasons to correct the taxonomy for some remaining taxa. Probably more than 90% of lycophytes were already according to the PPG1. Sorry, but this is really annoying me right now.

I'm extremely bothered by the fact that it's not possible to finally come to an agreement after all the discussions about lycophytes. If this continues, I'll withdraw completely and let you do whatever you want, then it'll just be another taxonomic mess where everyone uses the name they want to use. I wonder why I'm wasting my time here.

I might be a bit irritated right now, and I ask for your understanding. I've had a few almost sleepless nights worrying about this senseless war in Europe...

Αναρτήθηκε από kai_schablewski 11 μήνες πριν (Αναφορά)

Προσθήκη σχόλιου

Συνδεθείτε ή Εγγραφή για να προσθέσετε σχόλια