Taxonomic Swap 138229 (Guardado el 21/02/2024)

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:701060-1
Lysimachia buxifolia Molina
First published in Sag. Stor. Nat. Chili, ed. 2: 134 (1810)
This name is a synonym of Lysimachia amoena

https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/646840

desconocido
Añadido por t_e_d el enero 21, 2024 06:51 TARDE | Comprometido por silversea_starsong el 21 de febrero de 2024
Reemplazado con

Comentarios

@t_e_d

Be careful. It was not correct to commit this taxonchange:

https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/138228

Lysimachia × amoena is not the same taxon as Lysimachia amoena (Sol. ex Gaertn.) Hassemer, Funez & R. Trevis. Lysimachia amoena is the valid name of the species previously known as Anagallis alternifolia or Lysimachia buxifolia that occurs in South America.

Molecular approaches reveal speciation between red- and blue-flowered plants in the Mediterranean Lysimachia arvensis and L. monelli (Primulaceae): https://academic.oup.com/botlinnean/article/199/2/557/6494517

"In L. arvensis, colour morphs also differ in other traits such as flowering phenology or type of herkogamy (Arista et al., 2013; Jiménez-López et al., 2020c). The colour morphs show different geographical distributional patterns, blue-flowered plants appearing mainly in drier Mediterranean localities and red-flowered plants being predominant in more temperate areas (Arista et al., 2013). Blue- and red-flowered plants may appear in sympatric and allopatric populations, and pollinators show a preference for visiting blue-flowered plants in Mediterranean polymorphic populations (Ortiz et al., 2015) and high colour constancy patterns (Jiménez-López et al., 2020a). Hand-pollination between red and blue individuals gives rise to homogeneous F1 progeny with salmon-coloured flowers (Jiménez-López et al., 2020a), but these are infrequent in wild populations (Jiménez-López et al., 2020c). This ‘hybrid’ phenotype has been described as Anagallis × amoena Heldr. ex Halácsy (de Halácsy, 1904: 11). Nuclear microsatellite markers reconstructed two independent genetic groups for each colour morph, supporting this reproductive isolation between them (Jiménez-López et al., 2020b). All this ecological, morphological, reproductive and molecular evidence suggests that the two colour morphs of L. arvensis are independent lineages."

This hybrid phenotype of Anagallis arvensis (= Anagallis (×) amoena, Anagallis arvensis f. lilacina and Anagallis arvensis var. lilacina) is however simply synonymized as Anagallis arvensis on POWO.
Lysimachia × amoena is not a accepted name. It is possibly an attempt to transfer the name Anagallis × amoena to the genus Lysimachia. Neither Anagallis × amoena and certainly not the made up name (?) Lysimachia × amoena are recognized as valid.

@silversea_starsong Do you remember where you originally got the name Lysimachia × amoena from?

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:77214628-1

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:2636019-4

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:2869943-4

see also: https://www.inaturalist.org/posts/80958-splitting-of-lysimachia-arvensis-colour-morphs

The observations as Lysimachia amoena that are currently on iNaturalist are this 'hybrid phenotype' of Lysimachia arvensis and are not identical with Lysimachia amoena, the accepted species from South America.

The taxon change https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/138229 should be committed, but only if the observations and synonymes of Anagallis arvensis s.l. have been removed from Lysimachia amoena before.

Publicado por kai_schablewski hace alrededor de 2 meses

@kai_schablewski logically it is an adaptation of the given name of the "hybrid form" named amoena (and therefore elevated to x amoena on the species split). It makes no sense for the hybrid to be a synonym of one of the parents, and so POWO's stance on this is insufficient and arguably inaccurate and no doubt lacking due dilligence. Of course, having that epithet already in existence for a species makes it complicated.

Granted, I'm not sure why the hybrid is indicated to full species status here rather than it's own x amoena taxon. Am I missing something? This should have never been the same taxonomic level as the species regardless of the epithet being identical.

Publicado por silversea_starsong hace alrededor de 2 meses

Okay, it looks like someone elevated the hybrid taxon to full species, presumably they mistook this for intending to refer to the full species (=buxifolia):

https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/138228

This is in error.

Publicado por silversea_starsong hace alrededor de 2 meses

@kai_schablewski @silversea_starsong : can you please comment on the flag ? https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/646840
The taxon change can be deleted at any moment by any curator, and the discussions will be lost.

Publicado por t_e_d hace alrededor de 2 meses

I've done some behind the scenes adjustments to fix this situation.

I transferred the existing amoena back to the hybrid taxon, and committed buxifolia swap to species amoena. This retains the current name of buxifolia while retaining the hybrid entity for arvensis x caerulea. The only issue remaining is the most minimal one -- what do we do about them both having the same epithet? Presumably the hybrid does not have priority due to it's obscure nature and minimal mention, regardless of the year of publication. If so I guess it may need a new published replacement name. That would be outside the scope of iNaturalist for now.

Publicado por silversea_starsong hace alrededor de 2 meses

Again : @silversea_starsong : can you please comment on the flag ? https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/646840
The taxon change can be deleted at any moment by any curator, and the discussions will be lost.

Publicado por t_e_d hace alrededor de 2 meses

Unlikely, it's been committed, but if it makes you feel better I will.

Publicado por silversea_starsong hace alrededor de 2 meses

Agregar un comentario

Acceder o Crear una cuenta para agregar comentarios.