Taxonomic Swap 111868 (Δημιουργήθηκε στις 14-08-2022)

Regional floras have varied in whether this species is recognized as Oreocarya celosioides or Oreocarya glomerata (or equivalent names in Cryptantha), but apparently no one in the last few decades has recognized two species here.

The basionym Cynoglossum glomeratum has priority when this species is placed in the genus Oreocarya, while the basionym Oreocarya celosioides has priority when it is placed in the genus Cryptantha. However, Cynoglossum glomeratum was overlooked by many authors when segregating Oreocarya from Cryptantha, leading to the different names used for this species in Oreocarya.

POWO (Αναφορά)
Προστέθηκε από aspidoscelis στις Ιούλιος 07, 2022 0428 ΠΜ | Δημιουργήθηκε από aspidoscelis στις Αύγουστος 14, 2022
αντικαταστάθηκε με

Σχόλια

@lysandra @plachuff @walterfertig @craigwhippo @taitsougstad @jfgaskin -- Since you all are frequent observers or identifiers of this species, figured I'd ping you. I think this one is fairly unambiguous, as described above. Barring objections in the next week or so, I'll probably commit this.

Αναρτήθηκε από aspidoscelis 3 μήνες πριν (Αναφορά)

Sometimes I don't know what to say, this is one of those cases. I'll need to understand this swap for my work.

Αναρτήθηκε από lysandra 3 μήνες πριν (Αναφορά)

Before I realized that POWO had in fact synonymized the two, I wrote a long email suggesting they do so. And then I realized my error right after I sent the email. Oh well. In any case, that means I have a big chunk of text that might provide helpful details:

Greetings,

I suggest synonymizing these two names, in which case Oreocarya glomerata has priority. What appears to have happened is this: Cryptantha glomerata Lehm. ex G.Don has priority over Cynoglossum glomeratum Fraser f. ex Kunth* in the genus Cryptantha, so when recognized in Cryptantha this species has gone by the name Cryptantha celosioides (Eastw.) Payson. When transferred to the genus Oreocarya, it appears that most authors have been unaware of the basionym Cynoglossum glomeratum Fraser f. ex Pursh, so have called the species Oreocarya celosioides Eastw. Michael Simpson has identified the error, indicating that Oreocarya glomerata (Fraser f. ex Pursh) Greene has priority in Oreocarya and listing Oreocarya celosioides Eastw. in synonymy:

http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/plants/oreocarya/taxa/O_glomerata/

The online Oregon Flora and Washington Flora Checklist both follow this nomenclature as well, recognizing Oreocarya glomerata with Oreocarya celosioides in synonymy:

https://oregonflora.org/taxa/index.php?taxon=15405

https://biology.burke.washington.edu/herbarium/waflora/checklist.php?Taxon=Oreocarya%20glomerata&ID=56380

Two online floristic databases, USDA PLANTS and ITIS, and Higgins in his 1971 monograph of Cryptantha sect. Oreocarya, recognize Cryptantha celosioides with Oreocarya glomerata in synonymy:

https://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=517914#null

https://plants.usda.gov/home/basicSearchResults?resultId=c1da39d5-980d-44ac-9ad2-439ee9dbb908

The remaining state or regional floras I checked (Ackerfield, Flora of Colorado; Dorn, Vascular Plants of Wyoming; Lesica, Manual of Montana Vascular Plants; Cronquist et al., Intermountain Flora vol. 3A) recognize Cryptantha celosioides or Oreocarya celosioides without mentioning Cynoglossum glomeratum or any names based on it.

I've yet to find a flora or monograph since Payson's 1927 monograph of Cryptantha sect. Oreocarya that recognizes two species, either Cryptantha celosioides & Cryptantha bradburiana** or Oreocarya celosioides & Oreocarya glomerata. In other words, there appears to be unanimity in works of the last few decades that there is one species here, but there has been some confusion about which name to call that species when it is placed in the genus Oreocarya.

Regards,
Patrick

*The author is varyingly given as Fraser f., Pursh, or Fraser f. ex Pursh. I believe the last form is correct, as "C. glomeratum Fraser. catal. 1813" is given as a synonym in a work authored by Pursh: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/49811166#page/393/mode/1up
**A replacement name published by Payson, to avoid conflict with the prior Cryptantha glomerata Lehm. ex G.Don.

Αναρτήθηκε από aspidoscelis 3 μήνες πριν (Αναφορά)

Also, for what it's worth, I think some of the observations currently under Oreocarya glomerata might be the taxon I've recently learned as Oreocarya spiculifera...

Αναρτήθηκε από aspidoscelis 3 μήνες πριν (Αναφορά)

@lysandra - If you're using a flora that does recognize both Oreocarya celosioides & Oreocarya glomerata, I'd be interested in taking a look at it. I think I was reasonably thorough in checking US resources, but I don't really know the resources on the Canadian side.

Αναρτήθηκε από aspidoscelis 3 μήνες πριν (Αναφορά)

Checked the Moss & Packer 1983 Flora of Alberta against Lesica's Manual of Montana Vascular Plants. So far as I can tell, Cryptantha macounii sensu Moss & Packer = Cryptantha spiculifera sensu Lesica, and therefore Oreocarya spiculifera. And Cryptantha nubigena var. celosioides sensu Moss & Packer = Cryptantha celosioides sensu Lesica = Oreocarya glomerata.

Αναρτήθηκε από aspidoscelis 3 μήνες πριν (Αναφορά)

However, the synonymy given by Michael Simpson (sdsu link above) suggests that the name Cryptantha macounii is a synonym of Oreocarya glomerata and misapplied in Moss & Packer.

Αναρτήθηκε από aspidoscelis 3 μήνες πριν (Αναφορά)

@lysandra - Thoughts?

Αναρτήθηκε από aspidoscelis περίπου 2 μήνες πριν (Αναφορά)

Well, I'm gonna go for it...

Αναρτήθηκε από aspidoscelis περίπου 2 μήνες πριν (Αναφορά)

Προσθήκη σχόλιου

Συνδεθείτε ή Εγγραφή για να προσθέσετε σχόλια