I agree with the arguments made by @nomolosx and @upupa-epops. I personally would like to see a “species group” rank added, let’s say between subsection and complex. Would there be enough interest to justify making a feature request?
2 Likes
I feel strongly about this, so I’d say yes :P
I think a feature request is warranted, if this discussion is somehow not sufficient.
The idea of using the Section rank for insect species group is the change-nothing option to contrast with the benefits of adding a species group rank. The shortcomings of this change-nothing option have been noted in this discussion.
1 Like
Great, I’ll work something up over the next couple days.
1 Like
We were able to fix a ‘complex’ rank onto ‘Amanita amerirubescens’ being that is not a valid species taxon (with over 1000 observations here on iNat!) … there are over a half dozen species in that group and only two that are published names (amerirubescens not being a published or recognized name), so the ‘complex’ option was very useful here.
I tried to do the same as a test with others and failed assuming I could stack complexes on each other as parents, which you can’t. I wanted to add ranks using the English name using ‘complex’ as a rank.
Specifically for Amanita, we have a hierarchy of :
Genus>Subgenus>Section>Subsection>Series>Stirps>Genus>Species>*Group
For Amanita we need to bridge the gap between Section and Genus by using a rank of ‘Series’ & ‘Stirps’. We also need to use DNA vouched provisional names.
i.e. Most of the ‘False Death Caps’ you see being posted from the Northeast USA are “Amanita cornelihybrida nom. prov.”. They are being labeled incorrectly with European species, Old unrecognized species, and close sister species
A proper breakdown without getting to the nom. prov. would be
Genus-Amanita>Subgenus-Amanitina>Section-Validae>Series-Mappae>Stirps-Citrina>Lavendula group (complex)
Until then, we are left with identifying observations to mainly ‘Section’ , which would only narrow it down to 400 species in some cases
1 Like
I’m thinking about the value of appropriating a formal rank (section) which is restricted to botany for insects when one could just as easily use species complex (which is an informal group having an ambiguous meaning in the literature–and already often equated to species group).
In the insect literature, we sometimes see species groups that contain species complexes. So, I suppose that is the rational for putting species groups at a rank higher than species complex (i.e. section).
1 Like