Taxonomic Swap 36540
(提交於 2018-08-12)
|
|
替代為 |
|
評論
not sure I understand your concern. I don't think I made a mistake but please let me know if you think I made one
all the other changes were to class rank, only for the conifers to order rank, so I am not sure if that was your intention. (GBIF does lump all conifers into a single order, but on a higher level (Pinopsida) it may be more compatible with the recent gymnosperm classification by Maarten Christenhusz et al https://biotaxa.org/Phytotaxa/article/view/phytotaxa.19.1.3/0 that recognizes a number of different orders like Araucariales)
"all the other changes" example?
ah - got it. You mean that I should have swapped Phylum Pinophyta with Class Pinopsida rather than Order Pinales. You're right that was my intention and I did screw that up.
But luckily because GBIF has it as a monotypic chain: Phylum Pinophyta -> Class Pinopsida -> Order Pinales it doesn't really matter (e.g. all identifications of Pinopsida are interchangeable with Pinales).
Point taken about alternate classifications for higher plant taxonomy. iNat is currently supposed to be using GBIF for this (which is why I made this change). But I mentioned this in the doc I linked to here https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/265216 as part of a broader discussion about iNat plant taxonomy. Certainly could be changed if there's community support
Thanks!
your other changes were to class rank, this change to order was maybe a mistake?