Taxonomic Merge 94664
(Δημιουργήθηκε στις 09-07-2021)
|
|
συγχωνεύτηκε με |
|
Σχόλια
Hodgetts et al. 2020
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03736687.2019.1694329
"Although Hygroamblystegium fluviatile, Hygroamblystegium humile and Hygroamblystegium tenax have been synonymised with Hygroamblystegium varium (Vanderpoorten 2004), we follow Hill et al. (2006) in retaining these species as distinct pending further work."
Okay, but it is accepted by the Flora of North America, which is iNaturalist's bryophyte authority, and the majority of the observations involved (30/33) are from North America. The Annotated checklist also doesn't really bring anything new to the situation to decide it either way conclusively. The source it cites (https://doi.org/10.1179/174328206X119998) says:
"Vanderpoorten (2004) has argued that the four European Hygroamblystegium species should be synonymized as H. varium. Further work is needed before making changes.
Hygroamblystegium varium is an aptly named species in a difficult genus. There is evidence that the Hygroamblystegium species recognized here are not monophyletic (Vanderpoorten, Cox & Shaw, 2004)."
So, even they accept that there is evidence that rather than having clearly separable species in Europe, the morphological concepts used are artificial only.
Also, if you disagree with a recent merge or swap, please do not just reactivate taxa or do another swap. You can contact help@inaturalist.org and ask them to reverse the swap with your evidence for wanting them to do so, which will sort out all the identifications, not just yours. It also reduces the number of excess IDs from swaps going back and forth.
"Also, if you disagree with a recent merge or swap, please do not just reactivate taxa or do another swap. You can contact help@inaturalist.org and ask them to reverse the swap with your evidence for wanting them to do so, which will sort out all the identifications, not just yours. It also reduces the number of excess IDs from swaps going back and forth. "
So you merged it back to varium, isn't it? I do not accept that. just because tenax and fluviatile have completely different ecologies in Europe (silicate rock and limestome). Sorry, but the world is bigger than North America and the species H. tenax, varium and humile are clearly something different and can be clearly distinguished in Europe.
"Okay, but it is accepted by the Flora of North America, which is iNaturalist's bryophyte authority, and the majority of the observations involved (30/33) are from North America. "
How can I understand this statement? All bryological findings made in Europe or elsewhere in the world are void if the Flora of North America says it is different?
As noted in Hodgetts et al. 2020: "retaining these species as distinct pending further work." So the paper of Vanderpoorten, Cox & Shaw, (2004) is not generally accepted.
I did not commit another merge, no. I just inactivated the input taxa and moved names back, because your fix didn't fix the identifications for anyone but you, and there is a better way to do it.
Unfortunately, this seems to be a case where Europeans and Americans disagree, and iNaturalist can only support one or the other interpretation, not both simultaneously. I don't think either side has the high ground evidence-wise or is more consistent with available data, and in this case it makes sense to default to the site standard taxonomic authority for the group. I can see that you feel very strongly and differently, so as I said before, please contact help@inaturalist.org to ask them to reverse this merge with your reasons for wanting it to be reversed, and they can help you fix this for everyone.
A bit late to the party but I am in support of Stefan here. I have worked with these taxa for years and their niches are quite distinct. I think, given that the systematics of the group is by no means certain, that a merging would be inappropriate at this time. If at a later date it becomes overwhelmingly clear that the three are a single polymorphic taxon, sure, but there is no conclusive evidence based on molecular and morphological data, even in the NA sources. Since there is this uncertainty, retention sounds best as it means that people can continue to observe the three species and generate the appropriate data required to test the hypothesis of a single taxon vs multiple taxa.
Besides, people combined Ulota crispa, U. intermedia and U. crispula into U. crispa based on morphology decades ago, and that caused years of confusion until the newer studies showed that the three are indeed distinct. We risk 'forgetting' about the distinctiveness of the other forms if we put them all under a single umbrella.
Well, thats my two cents anyway...
George
What's the state now?
I don't know; I suggested above that Stefan contact help to have them help him, so presumably he knows more than I do
Actually, I don't see why I should contact the help. There are several experts in Europe who do not accept this change. It's difficult for me to express myself here anyway, as I don't speak English very well. I think it should be restored to its original state until further information is available. If a state is not generally accepted, there is no alternative.
@rambryum - what is your opinion? I think some of these may grow in their part of NA.
This one is actually not accepted in Europe. H. tenax and H. fluviatile as a synonym of H. varium?