This post is primarily about plants but the question is general and may be relevant to other kingdoms too.
I sometimes find particularly taxa of plants that are a mess due to tons of taxonomic changes and/or alternate names, with different sources using different naming schemes, and I rely on a lot of external resources, especially POWO, and also USDA and BONAP, to make sense of them, matching up what refers to what.
An example would be the Nuphar genus. Some authorities have considered there to be only a single species in that genus, typically Nuphar lutea, and then they consider the different populations of it to be subspecies. Nowadays, most authorities consider the different populations to be different species, typically 8, but there are as many as 84 different species names in the genus that have been proposed by different authors. And if you check five different sources, you might find five diferent naming schemes, and it becomes really confusing to know what population(s) a particular text is referring to.
So for instance where I live in the Mid-Atlantic US, the species currently recognized by POWO is Nuphar advena (Aiton) W.T.Aiton.
On POWO, under “Synonyms”, for this species/authority combo, they list a whopping 34 “synonyms”; here is a selection of them:
- Nuphar lutea subsp. advena (Aiton) J.T.Kartesz & Gandhi
- Nuphar lutea subsp. macrophylla (Small) Beal
- Nuphar lutea subsp. ozarkana (G.S.Mill. & Standl.) Beal
- Nymphaea ozarkana G.S.Mill. & Standl.
It’s not clear from these “synonyms” if they refer to the same total populations. Upon close examination, in most cases, they do not. So they’re not really synonyms (i.e. not having the same or nearly the same meaning, not really referring to the exact same taxon) even though they’re listed as such.
For example, there is a “contained within” relationship between Nuphar advena (Aiton) W.T.Aiton and, say, Nuphar lutea subsp. ozarkana (G.S.Mill. & Standl.) Beal., in that Nuphar lutea subsp. ozarkana (G.S.Mill. & Standl.) Beal. refers to a small subset of the population of Nuphar advena (Aiton) W.T.Aiton.
As a different example, there seems to be a one-to-one relationship between the names Nuphar lutea subsp. ozarkana (G.S.Mill. & Standl.) Beal and Nuphar ozarkana (G.S.Mill. & Standl.) Standl. But POWO provides no clue as to this relationship; instead, it just points each of these to the same taxon.
Clarifying these relationships is relevant to me because I often work with range maps and other documents that refer to species, subspecies, and varieties, and I want to know what they’re referring to and I want references that help me to understand which terms correspond to what.
POWO, along with most other taxonomic authorities I’ve consulted, ones that have lists of synynoms, such as ITIS, and USDA, don’t seem to make the distinction between 1-1 relationships and “contained within” relationships.
Furthermore, it gets even uglier / more complex. There are some situations where names are listed as synonyms where there doesn’t even seem to be a clear “contained within” relationship. For example a species name proposed by one author, might be broken up and lumped in with different species, but none of these portions covers the full range of the other species. So what is listed as a “synonym” is simply a “non-empty intersection” or “overlap” between the populations referred to by the name.
It Gets Still Worse
Probably the worst thing ever is that the same name+authority combo doesn’t even refer to the same population. For example, POWO now lists the name Nuphar lutea (L.) Sm. as referring to populations extending only from Europe into Asia and barely into North Africa. But the USDA refers to the same name and authority, Nuphar lutea (L.) Sm., with the “old” convention, before the North American populations were broken out into separate species.
So like, when a source or reference cites “Nuphar lutea (L.) Sm.”, it’s not even possible for me to know what classification scheme they’re using. I thought the purpose of including the authority was to know what classification scheme was being used, so that the name was unambiguous? But the name “Nuphar lutea (L.) Sm.” is now ambiguous, because people aren’t recording the authority of the authority that broke apart the species as a taxonomic change to the species that was broken apart. I don’t know if this is convention (if it is, it’s contrary to the whole purpose of the convention of citing naming authorities) or if it’s an error, like perhaps POWO or perhaps USDA has wrongly cited the authorit in this case? But it’s enough to be a huge headache.
It would be highly relevant when looking at lists of scientific synonyms to know which of them represent one-to-one relationships, which represent “contained within” relationships (and in these cases which direction the relationship goes), and which represent “overlap” relationships where neither population referred to by one name is contained within the other.
This stuff is a high priority for me because these complex relationships are the norm, rather than the exception. There are also many examples of 1-1 relationships which are simple to resolve, and many “contained within ones”. There are fewer “overlap” scenarios, but they tend to be highly problematic so it is important to know when you are dealing with those.
So my questions here are:
- Are there any conventions for notating the distinction between 1-1, “contained within”, and “overlap” relationships when noting scientific “synonyms”? Surely there are different words that we could use to refer to these types of relationships.
- Why are so many authorities listing things as “synonyms” that aren’t really strictly synonyms? I thought scientific language was intended to be precise, and many aspects of systematics and taxonomy go to great lengths to do so, yet people seem to be using the word “synonym” extremely sloppily and carelessly, to the point of great imprecision, loss of information, and confusion.
- Are there any databases or other resources that can help me make sense of this stuff, and classify a “synonym” as having a particular relationship type, and here’s the kicker, without having to do a deep-dive into the primary literature and/or analysis of secondary references like actually comparing range maps? I can figure this stuff out, it’s just awfully time-consuming and error-prone.
- In the absence of a “nice” solution like those above, is there some way for me to logically deduce these relationships through public data available in places like POWO, ITIS, perhaps other places I am not checking? Perhaps IPNI that POWO uses as a source for their data?
It’s like, the people who do all the wrangling of these scientific names already know all this stuff about the relationships, they just aren’t notating it clearly in references like POWO that list scientific synonyms. Are these people writing down and storing this information somewhere else, in a public database where I can look it up? Or is the information just getting lost, like they just keep it in their heads and then sloppily write everything down as a “synonym”?
The closest I’ve found to this is the BONAP nomenclator, which often has a list of which species and subspecies have been lumped into which species and subspecies under a taxonomic reclassification, but it is hardly comprehensive, and it also doesn’t list authorities which makes it borderline unusable in some of the messiest cases (and this is where I would most need it), and I’ve also found a ton of cases where the relationships it lists, including the authorities that it uses (which you can look up in their TDC=taxonomic data center), overtly conflict with what I find listed in POWO and I find myself unable to make sense of the whole mess. Like BONAP’s nomenclator pretty much only lists entries for the transition between the USDA PLANTS database’s naming scheme and BONAP’s naming scheme, which sometimes corresponds to POWO’s scheme but often does not. So, while helpful in some cases, its usefulness is limited.
I would be grateful for any insights anyone has to offer!