I 100% agree with this proposal from 2020. The use of ‘complex’ is a slap in the face to the hard, hard working taxonomists who developed ‘species group’ while describing many new species of Oecanthus.
You use ‘complex’ more usefully in your reply above than using it for Oecanthus species groups - [quote=“joe_fish, post:24, topic:14543”]
meaningless complexity.
[/quote]
This problem has come up again on the forum: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/use-of-the-term-species-complex-in-inaturalist-taxonomy/58938/.
2 Likes
If “group” for animals would be the equivalent to “section” for plants, why not just rename it as “section-group” or “section/group” to cover both plants and animals?
In Zoological nomenclature a ‘Section’ is a rank between Order and Family. (In iNat this is called ‘Zoosection’ to distinguish it from botanical ‘sections’. So yes, we can do that, and we have done that in some cases: such as in Platycheirus, where there are ‘(sub)groups’ within ‘groups’, so some are at section, and some at complex within a section. But it suffers from the same issue of a rank being used to represent a slightly different concept of a rank.
For me, whether to rank a ‘group’ at section or complex is determined by the size and diversity of the group. The more like a sensu stricto complex they are, the more likely I am to use complex. The bigger the group is and the more easily distinguished its members are, the more likely I am to use section. If we actually had ‘group’ as an option, it would be unnecessary to make such judgements about which option is the least imprecise use of terminology.
1 Like
To answer your question. species group should go between subsection and complex. This is a very common taxon rank in modern taxonomy and not just for insects. Reusing section or subsection is not a viable option since “section” and “subsection” mean something completely different in zoological taxonomy (they are taxon ranks between infraorder and superfamily in zoology).
1 Like
In botany there is also something like a species group, the “series”. It is a taxonomic rank below section and subsection. I’ve had to stop sorting at sections or subsections during many revisions of plant genera because the taxonomic rank “series” simply doesn’t yet exist on iNaturalist. I think it would be good and appropriate if the “series” rank were finally introduced on iNaturalist as well.
3 Likes
This is such an issue im unsure why it isnt commented more on. Especially when more and more complexs or other taxon ranks are being technically incorrectly used. The longer inaturalist waits, the more taxon swaps need to be made to replace peoples work arounds for taxa that dont have the proper rank. So the only possible way to add them is using technically incorrect work arounds.
Imagine just how many complexs would need swapping now. Then imagine another year of curation, how many more complexs are incorrect and being used as work arounds?
,
4 Likes
That is very true! The amount of clean-up work is already daunting. (I can think of dozens of complexes that should be species groups off the top of my head.) The longer we wait, the more work will be needed.
2 Likes
There is a feature request for series here:
Implement the botanical rank “series” between subsection and complex
1 Like