Taxonomic Swap 72360
(提交於 2020-02-20)
|
|
替代為 |
|
評論
The paper cites two other works in support of this particular change. Of these, one (Haseltonia 2018(25): 5-29) creates a new combination, Cylindropuntia imbricata var. spinosior, without further explanation. The other (cited as a work "in review", presumably in reference to American Journal of Botany 106(10):1-19) presents data that does not resolve the status of the taxon and includes a discussion stating both that "maintenance of C. spinosior as a species is certainly justified" and that it "could easily be considered an intraspecific taxon within C. imbricata".
I think it is ill-advised to adopt new nomenclature when the authors who propose that nomenclature present no coherent argument in its favor.
The situation is ambiguous, and without a clear reason for change we should opt for nomenclatural stability and consistency with floristic works in the areas where these taxa occur. I don't know how to undo this change, but I suggest we do so. @atozbotanicals - Could you refrain from making changes like this in the future? Other curators - if this is a repeated pattern, we should consider removing atozbotanicals' curatorial status. I don't know what the process there is, but change for the sake of change is tiring and counterproductive, and we should not just go along with it.
This is not change for the sake of change. In the paper it is clearly stated “The following new combinations are made after many years of cytological, morphological, DNA, common garden, and herbarium studies by the authors and their colleagues, which have shown that certain groups of Cylindropuntia populations possess a unique combination of morphology, ploidy, and distribution, but cannot be easily separated by DNA sequencing from a sister taxon or sister taxa. In addition, all of our subspecies occur within a fairly unique distribution, but morphologically intergrade with a sister taxon or sister taxa where their distributions overlap.” These changes are based upon years of work by the likes of Marc Baker, Michelle Cloud-Hughes, Donald Pinkava, and others, who are specialists of the Opuntioideae. Also, you will see the references under each taxonomic change in the paper which explains the geographic and genetic reasoning for this. The publication cited for the change serves as a synopsis of the studies which support them. I have already brought the changes up to the too Cactaceae curators in the discussion flag of the family, as well as now the Opuntioideae subfamily where further changes will be decided upon.
Please see the citations at the end of the paper which provide change-by-change references for those proposals mentioned in the publication cited in the swap.
I checked the references, please see my comment above.
The quote you include says that there is evidence supporting the nomenclatural change but does not provide any evidence. That's an important difference! Neither this work, nor the two it cites with respect to Cylindropuntia imbricata subsp. spinosior, actually provide an argument in favor of the change. They either say that there is evidence, but do not provide it, or equivocate and indicate that it could be considered either a separate species or an infraspecific taxon within Cylindropuntia imbricata.
I have already stated in their references are the evidence for each the changes, they cite more than 2 publications. That work is, again, a synopsis of the previous genetic study performed by Baker and others as is shown in the other references cited.
"I have already stated in their references are the evidence for each the changes" - Yes, you stated that. I checked the references. You are incorrect. :-)
Well, they’re quite literally there. Regardless, the changes stand, and restating what I said before, I have already brought the changes up to the top Cactaceae curators in the discussion flag of the family, as well as now the Opuntioideae subfamily where further changes will be decided upon.
@loarie can you reverse this so the community can have more time to discuss it
The paper in question discusses Sonoran desert populations. But the taxon change affects all regions. Cactus, being so highly locally adapted, are not famous for falling neatly into taxonomic compartments, and tend even to defy the use of the term "species".
I think the lumping together was unwise. No, I'll go farther than that. It was foolish.
This is already being discussed in the Cactaceae flag and is supported by fellow Cactaceae curators.
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/47903/flags
I’m not sure what your quibble is with the paper on the basis of it saying “Sonoran desert populations”.
The publication states “This subspecies represents Sonoran Desert populations of the species and is differentiated from other subspecies by shorter spines and lower, more crowded tubercles. The placement of Cylindropuntia spinosior within C. imbricata resulted, in part, from recent DNA analyses (Baker and Pinkava 2018, Majure et al. in review)”
As in, the subspecies C. imbricata subsp. spinosior represents Sonoran Desert populations of the species C. imbricata. C. spinosior’s range has always been in the Sonoran desert.
Cylindropuntia spinosior gets well beyond the Sonoran Desert. I'm not too sure of the relevance of that fact of itself, but describing it as a taxon of the Sonoran Desert is an error.
The paper cited does not include any argument in favor of this nomenclatural change.