評論
Thanks, Stavros. Based on that we should abandon this taxon merge and instead perform a taxon swap of H. cretica to H. rhagadioloides. I'll await further comments.
Oh, hell. I neglected to review the comments here before committing. It appears I should have removed the subspecies and simply changed H. cretica to H. rhagadioloides. My apologies, Stavros, for not reading through these comments again before committing. While this does conform to POWO, the information you posted here contradicts that. If you think it important I can add those subspecific designations back for the eight observations with subspecific designations.
I think we are OK being in conformance with POWO on this one for now. Quoting from http://cichorieae.e-taxonomy.net/portal/cdm_dataportal/taxon/c00984a1-81b9-48da-a481-214e1dcee5a3
"Recognition of infraspecific entities, usually at the rank of subspecies and mainly based on the diameter of the peduncle at fruit, is probably not justified. As has been exemplified with an analysis of the plants on Corse by Jeanmonod & Schlüssel (2012), the peduncle diameter seems to vary gradually, without discontinuity and geographical pattern."
If someone still wants to propose a deviation for any infraspecific taxa, they are always welcome to flag for it.
Good point, Jim, and thanks, but I still feel foolish.
Do not commit before review by @aztekium @savvaszafeiriou @matt_g. @smfang (flag here) @bouteloua (flag here) as well.