I don’t know, but if a genus has less than 100 observations it is probably not worthwhile adding species complexes. I wouldn’t be too dogmatic about it. My primary guiding principle would be: is it helpful (to the community, to identifiers, etc.)?
As long as we’re on the subject, is there a term for what might be thought of as “subspecies complexes”?
Recently, I identified somebody’s observation of Dark-eyed Junco as the Slate-colored Junco. I was then asked how I ruled out this other Slate-colored Junco which, the person said, was the geographically appropriate one.
My most recent field guide recognizes five subspecies:
- Slate-colored Junco
- White-winged Junco
- Gray-headed Junco
- Oregon Junco
- Pink-sided Junco
I was then told that three of these five are actually groups of subspecies. So, what is the term for that kind of group, and what are we supposed to do about it?
Yeah those are referred to as subspecies groups (e.g. on eBird or in the Pyle bird banding guide book). For many species eBird only allows you to ID down to subspecies group level, since realistically nobody can identify past that in the field. That begs the question of whether the subspecies should exist at that fine level at all, but that’s another topic…
FYI, the E. dentata and E. hyssopifolia complexes are up and running. Notes for each can be found in the history. I’ve been putting off adding the E. cyathophora complex since it’s not quite as crucial as the other two.
Still waiting on whether the curator guide can be updated. @loarie
Unfortunately I am facing some users who do not accept the creation of a complex encompassing three morphologically similar species, two of which are extremely similar and often, at least here in the Mediterranean, misidentified. I thought that such complex could be useful, when a reliable specific identification is not possible, to allow the possibility to give a complex level ID. Moreover, it could be useful when one needs to browse the OBS of these related species. Anyway, these users insists that the complex should encompass also other taxa that, according to a genetic study, are related to the three. This could make the complex much less useful since, apart the supposed genetic relationship, the other species are less similar. I am not saying that the opinion of these users is not legitimate. On the contrary, it is well in accordance to the guidelines for the creation of complexes.
In this light, I think that we could slightly rethink the purposes and rules of complexes:
-
“Species complex is monophyletic (i.e. sibling groups of species)”. Comment: Not always phylogenetic data are available so it is not always possible to state if two or more morphologically similar species form a monophyletic group. Moreover, what is monophyletic is not necessarily morphologically similar. Thus, in certain cases it could be useful not to add all the species that form such monophyletic group. On the other hand, there could be not closely related species that are very similar. Finally, genetics is still evolving as far as its utilization in taxonomy. So. it has happened that what discovered in studies of some years ago has been eventually rethought in the light of new data.
All summed up, I think it should be allowed to create a complex when it is strongly proven that a certain number of species are morphologically similar and potentially or really often misidentified in iNat. On the other hand, if phylogenetic works suggest tha also other species should be included in a complex, it should be evaluated if such inclusion is useful or, differently, it could just contribute to create a too morphologically variable complex. -
“Complex is recognized in the literature”. Does this mean that a complex should have necessarily received a latin name? In many cases it is not possible, but species close similarity is a fact. Moreover, not all the literature is available to everyone. In the end, here we have a number of taxonomists or specialists that can provide a reliable point of view.
So, I think that it should be allowed to create a complex even if no one before has “officially” addressed to a group of species as a complex. Of course, when it is the case. -
“A named subgenus, section, or series does not already exist for the group”. Such taxa in many cases could exist. But they could be very old and, in some cases, they could be not supported by more recent genetic data. Anyway, not all the clades that result from genetic data are given a name. So, in these cases, what should we follow, traditional taxonomy or genetics?
In other words, I mean that, as far as I am concerned, it would be desirable that complexes could not just represent an additional taxon above the species, but that they could also be something useful to make life easier here for both observers and identifiers.
NB: I am not trying to foster a sort of anarchy in iNat taxonomy.
For the sake of clarity, could you provide example(s) of a group of taxa which is both strongly proven (to be morphologically similar) but that no one before has “officially” addressed to a group of species as a complex (or ‘section’ or some other supraspecific grouping)?
(I also see how it could benefit some specialists advancing their own taxonomic opinions through iNat, bypassing the boring usual process of peer debate and formal publication; opportunity for an iNat-parataxonomy devised single-handedly by a select few - noocracy rather than anarchy)
If the complex is more-or-less referred to in literature as including those other species (maybe not using the exact word complex, but being referred to together as a group) then I would argue that the other species should be included, because not including them might cause confusion. The taxon would still be useful if it is narrowing down the options from genus/subgenus (whatever rank the parent is). From what you say it would seem that the other species are more easily identifiable, so you could look up the hard ones by searching for members of the complex that are not identified to rank species.
If the literature does not refer to the extra species as included within the same group, I see no reason to include them just because they are closely related…
In my subfamily of beetles (Donaciinae), I created Species-Groups and gave them names, and I’m planning to do so in the next revision. So the Group names are published, along with phylogenetic analysis. Some DNA work has been done subsequently over the 33 years since publication. I support the use of such Group or a complex names, and would use them in the many cases where I cannot ID more specifically than such a Group. There is not yet a standard term for this in the ICZN?