What would be the minimum amount of evidence needed for iNaturalist to consider adding a taxon split? Specifically for an orchid.
I was wondering if it’d be worth it to suggest the addition of Ophrys kallaikia C.E.Hermos, 2018 in the curation tab of Ophrys sphegodes Mill., 1768, since it’s an endemism close to me that, as far as I have seen, is well accepted at least regionally. However, in terms of bibliography, I have only been able to find the original description, its IPNI entry and its page on the Group Orquidològic de Catalunya website. Both Plants of the world worldwide and the WFO plant list still treat it as a synonym of Ophrys sphegodes subsp. araneola, so I am not sure whether this is due to a lack of evaluation or a rejection of the taxon.
Is it too little to suggest the taxon, even as a heads-up to its existence to the curators?
I am aware that orchid taxonomy is a bit convoluted, and I’m no botanist.
the best way to find out is to send them an email. You can email POWO at bi@kew.org, and they will give a very fast response (for me, usually within 12 hours) explaining their decision
Personally, I would go ahead and open a new Flag about the taxon (i.e. nested at its most likely parent), all the while mentioning that there is some discussion to be had.
For such charismatic creatures, there are already many interested parties who will happily join and offer insightful comments and advice, providing you with stronger arguments before (eventually) contacting Kew (or not).
the genus Ophrys is severely oversplit, so I would not recommend adding more.
There are many interested parties, which means there are many …interesting… views of how Ophrys species form.
The fact is that yes, there are morphological differences in populations, and that yes, maybe some of those populations might become new species, but for now, it is impossible to say whether they ever will separate, or if they even are specianting or if their disparate morphology is caused by founder effect and/or source population diversity.
Again, Im not an expert but, as far as I’ve read on the paper, this proposed species has a distinct pollinator (Andrena nitida ssp. hispaniola) and habitat (fixed dunes, post dunes, halophilous meadows) so I’d think that in this case it goes further than morphology. (Not trying to turn this into a full-on taxonomy discussion, just pointing that out). I have already made a flag proposing to look into it, so we’ll see what comes out of that.
While separate ecology can be a good indicator, It also happens that sometimes, morphology of the plant is dependent on where it grows…
The theory that different pollinators means necessarily a different species has been disputed (because bees themselves are not that specific), as there exist even hybrids of very different morphogroups (i. e. bertollonii s. l. and sphegodes s. l.), so apparently some bees have to make mistakes for those to arise.
I would put this under a flag on Ophrys or on its closest-related taxon, much as suggested. As far as I understand, Orchids on iNaturalist do deviate somewhat from PoWo, so I think it’s about convincing the most knowledgeable that it’s a meaningful and stable distinction, the non-experts will learn from the discussion in the process…