I’m not sure if this is the place to post this question, but here it goes. There is a “species” category on iNat called Iris x hybrida. Is this meant to be a catch-all category for the multitude of non-wild Iris cultivars? Am I understanding that correctly? Are we using similar ‘buckets’ for other garden forms?
1 Like
There’s a flag about this subject here: https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/591552
2 Likes
A recent change is for the ubiquitous garden hibiscus.
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/1628098-Hibiscus---rosa-sinensis (oh the URL does not display the hybrid X. Odd) Hibiscus x rosa-sinensis
But I see on the flag that Iris is more complicated
Altho Hibiscus also has x archeri
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/962704-Hibiscus---archeri
In this case, Iris × hybrida is an actual published name that apparently applies to the cross Iris pallida × Iris variegata. The flag above is a good summary of the problems resulting from that treatment.
In general, “× hybrida” is an often misinterpreted epithet that may be used for individual hybrids and nothospecies, is not meant as a bucket for cultivars, but is often used incorrectly as such. iNaturalist has a number of entries called [Genus] “× hybrida” that were created to be used as catch-alls, as you wonder. However, that usage is against the rules of nomenclature and taxonomically useless if the name was never published – and in general an individual hybrid/nothospecies name is never meant to be used as such a bucket.
There are some problems that result from the difficulty of placing cultivars where there isn’t a bucket, but simply making up names for that purpose is a recipe for complete disorder.
4 Likes
So, in your opinion, for the handful of Iris cultivars that I have personally recorded, it would be best to simply leave them at genus level and not place them in Iris x hybrida, since I don’t know the ‘parentage’ of the plants (nor do I have any special knowledge along those lines)?
Much more complicated than I expected!
(I sometimes find Iris cultivars growing “wild”, and so record them for my own interests, even if they are not accepted as “wild” by iNat).
1 Like
Thank you, @bouteloua, looks like this is a more complex issue than I thought!
1 Like
@DianaStuder, thank you. I actually encountered the issue with garden hibiscus some years ago, but since I was only making a single observation, I didn’t think much about it at the time.
1 Like
Yes, I think that would make the most sense. I do think it’s a bit unfortunate that there’s nowhere to place them below genus level, but cultivated varieties are different to biological varieties, and not knowing the parentage does mean that we can’t know what hybrid name is the right one in these cases.
I’ve also found some plants derived from cultivated material that I couldn’t identify below genus or section level, like Narcissus, that seemed to be growing wild or semi-wild. I do think though that if you’ve found them spreading on their own, they should be considered wild! You can mark them as such yourself even if an automatic iNaturalist process is initially marking them as cultivated; you can put an opposing vote in the Data Quality Assessment section, at the bottom of the observation page on desktop or in the right “Details” sub-page in the new iNaturalist app.
1 Like
Yes, thank you! I just did that for a proper Iris species… Iris ensata… which was growing in a swamp along the Appalachian trail, but had defaulted to ‘not wild’. I included a “long shot” to show the environment in which it was growing. It was one of two I found there, and someone else reported the same species from the same location but in a different year. On the off chance you are curious, here’s one of them: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/85496143.
3 Likes
I would recommend tagging @yuri_pirogov and @yuriydanilevsky for input on any Iris cultivars (or wild species). They both have encyclopedic knowledge.
If I understand correctly Iris × germanica is actually the nothospecies that applies to the cross Iris pallida × Iris variegata. In contrast, Iris × hybrida is used for later cultivars that have more complex parentage but are identifiably not Iris × germanica. There’s a view that this makes Iris × hybrida a bucket taxon that should be eliminated; there’s also a view (which I support) that it clearly encompasses “modern” hybrid Iris cultivars and eliminating it would destroy a lot of useful information for little purpose. Right now, I believe there’s a taxon framework deviation to reflect the fact that we don’t follow POWO here.
2 Likes
They could also be considered separate if they represent different directional crosses: for example if I. × hybrida was the one where the pollen came from I. pallida and the ovule from I. variegata, and vice versa in I. × germanica. However, I doubt that that’s well documented enough to separate them. I see the practical argument for separating the cultivars from any wild-derived nothospecies material, but there is no actual taxonomic basis for putting the former group of plants in I. × hybrida arbitrarily unless the type specimen of that name agrees (is a complex hybrid).
Yes, but that’s not the case as far as I understand it. I. × germanica has parents I. pallida and I. variegata; I’m unsure which provided the pollen and which the ovule.
I. × hybrida refers to post-1889 hybrid cultivars created by crossing I. × germanica with I. cypriana Foster & Baker, I. trojana A. Kerner ex Stapf, I. mesopotamica Dykes, or other tetraploid species. This group of plants is reliably distinguishable from I. × germanica and from the other parent species, but cannot easily be traced to a specific combination of parent species.
From a purist taxonomic perspective, some might suggest that I. × hybrida should be merged into section Iris. However, this would badly serve several of the aims of iNaturalist:
- The ~7,200 observations of clearly identifiable I. × hybrida plants would be merged with the ~3,600 observations identified as section Iris. Many of the latter might be identifiable to species or nothospecies-level, but separating them from the relegated I. × hybrida plants would now be a lot more work.
- The ~5,800 observers of these I. × hybrida plants would lose information about what exactly they had seen.
- The ability to track naturalization of hybrid cultivars distinct from wild plants in section Iris would disappear.
- I’m guessing we would probably also risk losing the assistance of several prolific identifiers of Irises on iNat.
Those are real losses with real impacts, and I think they more than justify a taxon framework deviation to accommodate I. × hybrida.
I’ll note that this is far from the only imprecisely defined taxon in iNat. In Animalia, there are several “collective genera” such as Pseudogeoplana that are used to place identifiable species with uncertain affiliations. In time, we might expect that phylogenetics will allow these species to be moved into monophyletic genera, and perhaps we’ll also be able to carve out more precise nothotaxa for Iris cultivars. In the meantime, iNat needs to accommodate the reality that lots of iNat users post pictures of Iris cultivars and these users are not helped if we choose to pretend we cannot distinguish cultivars from the wild species parents.
2 Likes
Again, I understand the practical implications may be undesirable, but deviations are meant to be for differing taxonomic treatments that are equally nomenclaturally valid, not for those that are nomenclaturally invalid as separate taxa under the current rules. I don’t think I would necessarily want it to be merged up to sect. Iris, but at the same time there is no obvious case for separating them in a Code-compliant way, unless so-called I. × hybrida is treated as having complex ancestry and not just the exact same parentage as I. × germanica, or its status is changed.
I also don’t think there is a good case for separating it if it has not so much a consistent complex ancestry as a mixed ancestry that’s different between distinct cultivars currently thrown into the I. × hybrida bucket.
The situation in the animals is also undesirable, but I’m not familiar with the ICZN to say whether it contravenes the rules outright. I can at least say that this Iris situation is not being treated validly as it stands. There are only two acceptable ways to separate them that I can think of:
- If I. × hybrida is treated as having different ancestry from I. × germanica. This could be by being considered to have complex parentage, i.e. not just Iris pallida × I. variegata. However, it still has to be a consistent complex ancestry. A bucket of many disparate cultivars is of questionable value in and of itself.
- If I. × hybrida is moved to a different status. The “infrahybrid” designation on iNaturalist may be appropriate, since there is no Code-sanctioned rank that’s called simply “infrahybrid”, so the normal rules need not apply. There would be little functional difference since iNaturalist is still not including hybrids in the Computer Vision, so people would still be able to identify as a thing called “I. × hybrida” but without the rule that necessarily and always applies to actual nothospecies.
I’m not sure there’s a firm rule on that. My understanding is that deviations are for circumstances where the mission of iNat to connect people with nature is furthered by having the iNat taxonomy diverge in some limited way from the patchwork of taxonomic authorities that have been adopted. One of those reasons might certainly be that the iNat community finds it beneficial to accept a taxonomic treatment that’s currently at odds with POWO. Another reason might be that that the iNat community decides that including some name in widespread use provides substantially more value to iNat users than suppressing it because it fails under some provision of the relevant taxonomic code.
I would certainly agree that the latter circumstance should be invoked very sparingly—what’s the point of having consistent naming rules if you don’t stick to them? But I think this is one case where continuing the taxon framework deviation makes much more sense than submerging all reliably identified observations of these Iris cultivars into an undifferentiated higher taxon.
The one other case I’ve seen of this sort was a decision to use a valid hybrid formula that has been widely used in many years of research over an also valid but virtually unused nothospecies name that had been resurrected after about 100 years. These scenarios are distinct, but both favor retaining names that can connect iNat users to available literature on the plants they have observed over alternatives that provide no benefit to iNat users.
On another point, it seems you’re suggesting that I. × hybrida might have the same exact same parentage as I. × germanica. I think you may have missed this comment from @yuri_pirogov on the flag:
The name Iris x hybrida that we use on iNat is Iris x hybrida hort., not Iris x hybrida Retz. The name Iris x hybrida hort. is widely used in gardening literature to designate artificial hybrids of various species of Section Iris , although it may be a late homonym of the name Iris x hybrida Retz. (Research of the tall bearded iris varieties Iris x hybrida hort in the Stavropol Botanical Garden) The name Iris × conglomerata N. C. Henderson, although has been proposed (see FNA), is obviously still Nomen nudum.
To quote the Royal Horticultural Society:
Bearded iris were commonly diploid (i.e. with two sets of chromosomes per plant) prior to the twentieth century when a few irises spontaneously doubled the number of chromosomes and became tetraploid (i.e. with four sets of chromosomes). Iris fanciers in the early part of the twentieth century set out to artificially increase the number of chromosomes to four sets since the naturally occurring ones had a number of useful qualities – notably improved size, substance and colour intensity. By crossing and inter-crossing the irises with the increased number of chromosomes, a whole new race of more robust colourful hybrids were produced. The tetraploid bearded irises became the norm and it is now rare to find bearded irises which are diploid.
Iris × hybrida hort. refers precisely to tetraploid Bearded Iris cultivars within section Iris, which are distinct from the diploid I. × germanica. I’m fine with moving these to Iris × conglomerata if that’s clearer (admittedly still not a valid name under the ICN).
Given that these cultivars are the result of 130+ years of plant breeding, it’s not realistic to expect that the parentage of any substantial number of them can be determined (unlike I. × germanica). Having a single iNat name to apply to them serves the interests of observers and identifiers with minimal deviation from the iNat taxonomy. It reflects the fact that humans have created organisms distinct from those in nature and that many people (especially newer iNat users) will observe these and want to know about them. It does that without burdening the iNat taxonomy with multiple cultivars. And it avoids mixing both cultivars and yet-to-be-determined pure species in an undifferentiated pool of section-level identifications.
As far as I’m aware, it appears that all iNat users who work with these taxa appear to support maintaining this deviation. I do understand the principled taxonomic opposition, but I believe iNat’s taxonomy exists to serve the overall aim of connecting people with nature, and this is a small and reasonable deviation to serve that aim. I’m also confident that there’s a long list of other taxonomic fixes that we can all work on before we need to shoehorn Bearded Irises into POWO’s framework.
1 Like
If the whole thing hinges on a so-called “Iris × hybrida hort.” (or “I. × conglomerata” ined. that makes the matter much worse – it’s not a published name. I will assume that point is accepted and ignore anything from my previous points, which were made about the actual published name I. × hybrida Retz. There is no provision for having a deviation cover a name that doesn’t exist at all. On that point I think it’s completely clear what the rule is.
The problem with “a small and reasonable deviation” that’s made for a name with no standing is that it is, in fact, a slippery slope (usually a rare thing). I have seen plenty of cases where people attempt to make a case for an unpublished taxon name because it’s such a special exception with such unique circumstances. While I am just one person with input, I am not interested in taking another step down that slope, from my perspective as a curator and as a taxonomist.
(The only case where staff appear to have accepted unpublished names is those grandfathered in from merging other previous websites and networks, such as with some South African cases, which doesn’t appear to apply here.)
1 Like
I think, to be precise, that “I. × conglomerata” is an effectively published name, but not a validly published name. Of course, names must be valid, not merely effectively published, in order to be accepted by POWO.
While I doubt that valid nothospecies can be published to cover more than a few modern bearded iris cultivars (because precise parentage generally cannot be determined), it seems possible that one or more valid nothosections could be published. This is what Norlan Henderson attempted to do with section Conglomeratae, set up to cover complex hybrids with parentage from sections Iris, Psammiris, Oncocylcus and Regelia, all within subgenus Iris. His publication appears to be invalid because he did not cite a type nothospecies for section Conglomeratae, but that does not mean that a similar but valid nothosection could never be published.
Of course, we do not include taxa in iNat in anticipation of their future publication, and I’ve removed sp. nov. ined. taxa several times myself. I’m advocating for the retention of Iris × hybrida via a taxon framework deviation until such time as valid nothosections are published to accommodate these cultivars. If these plants were not exceptionally widespread and sometimes naturalized, the issue would be unimportant. It’s precisely because these plants have been observed so often on iNat that I believe the deviation is justified as the only alternative is to irreversibly trash many thousands of identifications.
3 Likes
In reality, I am just a rather lazy weekend gardener. Unlike Yuri Pirogov, whose publications I use as a guide when growing irises. A relatively large number of my identifications in the genus Iris are initially associated with an attempt to correct obviously incorrect identifications of North American irises on iNat (and confirm obviously correct ones) after reading the Flora of North America (online) for descriptions of species of this genus during the Christmas holidays.
2 Likes
Well, I have found your iNat contributions to be very valuable @yuriydanielvsky! Many of us are amateurs of one sort or another, as has always been the case with botany. We learn from the professionals and hopefully give something back as well.
1 Like