Taxonomic Swap 18943
(Guardado el 11/05/2017)
|
|
Reemplazado con |
|
Comentarios
I did borealis since that seems mostly American. I don't know of any European plant authorities to check http://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/79404-Trientalis-europaea against.
Also note Jepson moved these from the Myrsinaceae to the Primulaceae
I think we've discussed this before, but in this case when a taxonomic authority (like Jepson) adopts a paper (like Maans and Anderberg 2009, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20699148 ) that makes changes at the generic level (in this case folding all of Trientalis into Lysimachia) what should iNat do? Should we:
1) Only change the species explicitly covered by the external taxonomic authorities cover (like Jepson) even if this means duplication of genera?
2) Apply the conclusions from the study (like Maans and Anderberg 2009) embraced by the external authority (like Jepson) to all members of the clade globally?
My preference would be 2, but I think alot of 1 is happening. eg Dodecatheon and Primula seem to be only partially curated for this reason
I think 1 is more in keeping with our current policies, maximizes stability, and minimizes conflict, all at the cost of consistency and comparability. I want people not to fight more than I want consistent counts, and you tend to have the opposite prioritization. Dodecatheon and Primula are a different problem: in accordance with our policies, they should probably all be in Primula, and I just didn't do that because I'm lazy and parochial and mostly only care about the species near me.
we must have total coverage!!
are you going to leave the other two former Trientalis hanging :( http://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/49915-Trientalis