About those dandelions

[jasonhernandez74]

@upupa-epops

Yep, e.g. @jasonhernandez74’s plant is section Taraxacum based on a quick look at the bracts (strongly recurved) and leaf structure (lots of lobes, 3-dimensional edges).

I already figured that. I don’t recall ever seeng a dandelion that wasn’t Section Taraxacum. That is why I limited my research to those species in Section Taraxacum. I think you are right, that I am not going to get satisfactory answers here; I presented that plant as an example of Section Taraxacum (a.k.a. Taraxacum officinale) with the idea that it must, presumably, be in one of the microspecies that people say comprise that section.

@sedgequeen

The one other photo for your set would be a close-up of the flowers, so we can see if there is pollen being pushed out of the tubes by the stigmas, i.e., whether the plant produces pollen.

Okay. Apomictic vs not. Is there a source that would tell me which lineages are apomictic and which are not?

@ryan_durand

A key to the exotic sections of British Columbia Taraxacum is presented and the sections are characterized. Species known to date are listed by their sectional placement.

All very well, but it doesn’t help at the level I was trying to consider, namely, observations already considered to be Section Taraxacum. And this is part of what contributes to my skepticism: that virtually nobody can get beyond section. Just as asipdoscelis noted:

@aspidoscelis

we could just conclude that in Taraxacum “section” means the same thing “species” does in other genera.

…which, for all practical purposes, is tantamount to concluding that “Section Taraxacum” is Taraxacum officinale. And I hate to say this, but the answers so far tend to suggest that I should just go with Taraxacum officinale and not get pedantic about it being a section.