Campanula rotundifolia was recently split into a bunch of species, and notably that species is now considered to be exclusively a Eurasian species. Although the taxon swap was committed, the CV continues to suggest this species throughout North America, and as such hundreds of observations are flooding in every week IDed as this species in North America.
I’ve been trying to work getting through it but it’s quite the task. I need some help. Please help me try to get through this tidal wave until the geomodel updates and we hopefully won’t have this problem anymore.
Even if you have no knowledge of this taxon, you can help by bumping these observations back to complex (Harebell Complex Campanula rotundifolia) or back even further. Campanula rotundifolia is no longer considered to occur in North America, so no need to worry that you may accidentally bump back an observation that truly is that species.
If there was a taxon split, is there a reason why the North American observations weren’t reassigned to the species complex when the split was made? Can’t curators do that on a region-by-region basis?
Sounds to me like that’s exactly what happened, except that all observations post-split still get suggested as rotundifolia by the CV, because the geomodel isn’t updated.
This looks like a good copypasta when bumping it back. I felt that I had to comment because, if we had been discussing the same kind of split in mushrooms, I would expect to see a curt “Campanula rotundifolia does not occur in North America” instead.
“Campanula rotundifolia does not occur in North America” is literally the copypasta I’ve been using (although to cut down on time recently I haven’t been bothering).
I don’t think it takes any longer to copypasta the “no longer considered” version – and that version does not come across as condescending because it acknowledges that the person who made the ID had a valid reason.
Either that or you, like me, suffer from splitter syndrome. Not all bad, but I like to see more agreement on splits. Seems like we can’t even decide how many species we’re dealing with - we follow a source only for that source to re-lump.
I don’t have opinions on plant splits, but I do strongly believe we should stick to a single taxonomy and stick to it. iNat has chosen POWO, so IMO we should be following it to the letter, for better or for worse.
It sounds like POWO’s source for this split (VASCAN) has recently re-lumped, leading me to believe POWO may re-lump in the near future. Ergo, split is possibly premature.
I notice that the displayed common name for Campanula rotundifolia in my area (in US) was changed from “Common Harebell” to “Bluebell of Scotland” in the last week or so. This appears to be an attempt to discourage people from picking it. If there was strong consensus around the split, that would look like a smart move. But given the above discussion, it feels like forcing a perspective that isn’t widely held and may not last long.
Prior to the iNat taxonomy update being committed, I was IDing to the Complex due to the lack of consensus on taxonomy. After the taxonomy split, I thought iNat had settled the issue on iNat. So I started adopting Campanula petiolata, which is the only species within the range I ID for under the adopted system.
Now it sounds like they may all go back to Campanula rotundifolia. This makes me feel like my efforts to “help” have been wasted. I’ll have to think about it, but will probably stop IDing them at all or use the complex if they are in Unknown or a coarse ID.
I say this to point out that frequent changes do have consequences. I think my own efforts are due to my desire to reduce the number of Needs ID in my area. The whole experience has taught me the value of patience. It also sounds like patience on the taxonomy split for iNat would also have been wise.
If VASCAN had kept the split I think it would have been fine to commit it, but given that VASCAN has re-lumped and who knows when POWO was last updated (I have no idea how it works), and we seem to have committed it fairly late already (post-re-lump), I would have to agree. And since I’m very much a splitter, that’s saying something.
So, I’ve been poking around to see what the status of this taxon perturbation is, and I think I’m more confused than I was before.
Up until very recently, I’ve been IDing C. rotundifolia in the CONUS as C. petiolata, and commenting with a brief blurb about the taxon split. However, it looks as though VASCAN re-lumped them, since it’s showing petiolata as a synonym. INat folllows POWO, which still has them listed as separate species, but unless and until POWO decides to follow VASCAN, there’s a conflict among the authorities.
The way I see it, there are a few options available:
Do nothing, and let the Needs ID queue get even bigger. Not my favorite.
Keep IDing to species (petiolata) and hope that the discrepancy gets sorted in favor of the ID.
Knock all of the Needs ID observations in the US back to Complex, and use the DQA to vote for ‘as good as it’s going to get’.
What I’d like is some guidance for going forward. Understand, I’m not invested in the splitter / lumper debate; I just want to have my IDs be as accurate and useful as possible (for the moment, anyway). I’d be particularly interested in curator commentary.
EDIT: this was supposed to be a reply to the original, now-unlocked thread. I guess I’m not smart enought tonight to actually type a reply as a reply, so please have pity on me and merge them.
These checklists shouldn’t be splitting and lumping on someone’s whim. There must be publications somewhere that are making the cases for the changes. It would be informative to know what the cases are. Is one camp using morphology and the other DNA?
I don’t see the point of adding a lot of disagreeing IDs in this situation. I also think it is useful to give people who add observations some information about what they saw - even if it is fluid. I am try to do that in a way that recognizes how iNat works.
I’m not saying this is best, but what currently do is agree or add IDs consistent with the split as it was made on iNat (C. petiolata for my area). That is an attempt to follow the iNat guidance of accepting the iNat taxonomy. I then add this comment:
My thinking is that if they are lumped back to C. rotundifolia, the taxonomy update will resolve those IDs.
When an out of range ID is added, I correct it to C. petiolata with a note like “Out of range for C. alaskana” and the comment above. If the ID is already C. rotundifolia or there are disagreeing IDs between species in the complex, I just add the comment without adding an ID.
