Perhaps some taxonomy expert can enlighten me.
The hybrid of two species of the same genus (ANEMONOIDES trifolia and ANEMONOIDES nemorosa) was called ANEMONOIDES x pittonii. This seemed logical to me: you’d keep the same genus also for the hybrid, wouldn’t you?
The genus of the Pittoni-hybrid however was changed to ANEMONE. Can anyone explain the logic behind this? This name swap has been intriguing me since it occurred seven months ago:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/74749436
yes,
technically, whoever changed the two Anemonoides species from Anemone to Anemonoides, did not bother to also formally transfer their hybrid.
Technically; Anemonoides x pittoni does not exist as a valid name.
It is not being fixed since taxonomy of Anemonoideae is still in flux, with different solutions to a problem (Anemone traditionally described is a very heterogeneous genus, with many sections more closely related to related genera (i.e. Hepatica, Pulsatilla etc.) than to each other and to type species (I think Anemone coronaria). One of the solution is to raise a couple of genera for Anemone sections, the other is to just lump practically the whole Anemoneae into Anemone (and Clematis, if it counted with it). First solution is difficult, as it needs good,. robust and stable phylogeny to avoid unnecessary synonyms and trasfers and name changes, the other one is a simple solution; that however poorly reflects the diversity and evolution in this group; and would also cause nomenclatural upheaval).
So for now it has been decided it is best to wait.
Thanks, ljazz. Ok, so we’ll wait for the big picture to be sorted out. As so often.
Nevertheless, I think those responsible for shifting the genus for the two species that generated the hybrid from ANEMONE to ANEMONOIDES in the first place could finish the job they started and in the meantime also fix the hybrid name to reflect the parents’ genus.
on POWO, all of them are back in Anemone.
It has been decided we shall wait for know on iNat, to avoid jumping here and there until a convicing study is presented. Since I have been on iNat, Anemone nemorosa changed names I think three times, so this decision is not at all unjustified; even if it causes incosistencies.
That alludes to an issue that has been the subject of many threads in itself – and one that is a source of frustration to many of us who are something other than career taxonomists.
the issues are not the name changes thesleves. Taxonomy is a sience, and like all science, it develops and changes, and I do not have much sympathy for those complaining about it
This issue is POWO flip flops completely with every paper. It is reasonable to expect that some problems will require a discussion; it is unreasonable to expect a global database to adapt to every paper (resolving higher level texonomy - species should be added as they are described).
Maybe a category of pending name would be good?
In European vegetation science, for syntaxonomy (for vegetation unites i. e. Festuco-Brometea), the problem was solved by making a commitee that oversees all the changes. I am not sure if that is feasible for normal taxonomy, and who would be in that comittee (then again ICBN is a thing, so?); but there should definitely a filter between literature and acceptedness of names.
That said, synonyms are usually not wrong names, often they are just outdated. It does not matter if you say Anemone or Anemonoides nemorosa, everyone will know what is talked about; or its ashort POWO search away.