Taxonomic Swap 129913
(Δημιουργήθηκε στις 01-09-2023)
|
|
αντικαταστάθηκε με |
|
Σχόλια
Now someone needs to fix all the IDs that were to M. fasciculatus but not to variety. That's the danger in only identifying to species on iNat.
Splitting M. fasciculatus would fix that problem in part.
@thomaseverest I thought of that but, according to the iNat rules, you aren't supposed to use splits for IDing things and there are a couple plantings of M. fasciculatus var. laxiflorus within the range of M. nuttallii.
you aren't supposed to use splits for IDing things
What do you mean by that? What do you think they're for?
there are a couple plantings of M. fasciculatus var. laxiflorus within the range of M. nuttallii.
You don't have to atlas them to split if it's that big of an issue. But even if you did I'd guess there would be far fewer maverick IDs to overturn.
Got it from a comment here:
https://www.inaturalist.org/blog/40417-using-a-taxon-split-input-as-an-output
"It sounds like you want to use a taxon change to 'bulk identify' alot of observations from the species rank to the subspecies rank? Taxon changes should never be used to identify species like this - they should only be used to make sure content gets moved to the right spot in response to alterations to the structure of the tree. I know it might seem tedious, but once you add the spp to the tree the proper way to try to identify those observations currently sitting at species."
I was thinking about that for a couple fasciculatus varieties when I read the above and maybe the nuttallii split would be more acceptable. Some people have already started to make some changes and maybe it will bring more attention to the change if people have to do it manually.
Ah I see. That's in a different context where someone would like to bulk add IDs to observations, not change existing IDs because of a change in taxonomy. Otherwise there wouldn't really be much use for taxon splits. This swap has presumably created numerous unintended disagreements (which should have been checked before committing, and would have recommended splitting), where an old name does not mean what it means after the swap. That's exactly what splits are for.
https://inaturalist.freshdesk.com/en/support/solutions/articles/151000015336-section-c-how-to-respond-to-a-flag-requesting-to-move-a-taxon
https://inaturalist.freshdesk.com/en/support/solutions/articles/151000015337-section-d-how-to-respond-to-a-flag-requesting-to-split-a-taxon
Okay, maybe I'll do that. If I do, I would probably want to add to the range of M. fasciculatus var. laxiflorus so those don't get changed. They are naturalizing anyway.
Hmmm, but would a split mess with the all the varieties of M. fasciculatus that are already ID'd? I guess I can draft a swap and see what the results would be. The identifying subspecies by range thing is exactly what it says not to do and that is exactly what would happen as I would probably have to split all four fasciculatus varieties out with nuttallii if I did a split at the species level of fasciculatus. That would definitely create some misIDs regarding the many plantings too. And I guess that is a good reason not to do it as M. fasciculatus is planted in the range of M. nuttallii and vice versa, and the same goes for some varieties. So, maybe best to just let it play out as it could make a bigger mess.
If you split M. fasciculatus into M. fasciculatus and M. nuttallii, then only IDs of M. fasciculatus with no subspecific ID would be changed. If you didn't add atlases, those IDs would be bumped to Malacothamnus. Given that most observations aren't IDed past species, that would be pretty disruptive and probably not worth it if there's just a few observations needing to be updated. It all really depends on how many observations need to be changed, and whether they fit into neat ranges or not. Maybe it is just easiest to manually add IDs.
I've reached out to a few people to help add IDs, so we'll see what happens. About 1/5 of the problem ones have already been fixed. Thanks for your suggestions! I'll definitely keep these all in mind for future taxon changes.
Good name for it, too. Thanks for updating these, it's a very distinctive form in the field.