Taxonomic Swap 95671
(提交於 2021-07-29)
|
|
替代為 |
|
評論
@fmroberts2 - that might be a good question for POWO, but more generally curators are instructed to curate in the direction of POWO if there's no consensus to deviate. This deviation discussion was open for 2 years with no calls to deviate https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/346459. If there are places where you'd like iNat to not deviate from POWO please flag those taxa to lay your case for why so that deviations can be made to signal curators not to curate in the direction of POWO
POWO is now accepting Pseudognaphalium luteoalbum: https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:909623-1
What is the recently published paper supporting the case for moving Pseudognaphalium luteoalbum into Helichrysum now? The name has been bouncing around for a while. As usual, POWO does a terrible job identifying support for suggested name changes. The only "recent" paper I am finding that is relevant is Galbany-Casals et al 2014. The authors more or less say stick with Pseudoghaphalium for the time being in that paper. So I am curious as to what has been published recently making the case. POWO seems to be resting their case on a number of floras that use Helichrysum. Citing a flora for a name change is reasonable if the flora has a good discussion making the case for the usage but otherwise, they are not. For example POWO cites KEW's online flora of Colombia as a source. However, as best as I can tell when I pull up Helichrysum luteoalbum on that source, there is just a name and no discussion at all if I am accessing the flora correctly. It would be nice if iNat would start including the actual paper for which a name change is based rather then simple citing POWO.