In my experience, the native Phragmites can often, though not always, be differentiated visibly. They are shorter than the European variety and often have reddish stems.
2 Likes
:
Itās subjective, but itās based on real data. Itās not like taxonomists can do literally anything they want. They have to do intensive studies, collect lots of data, find someone to publish the data, ect.
Only after all that can they form an opinion. THEN, it has to be one that enough other people consider reasonable for it to be accepted. Itās a collaborative and heavily science-based process.
1 Like
itās a matter of where you draw the line. Would you be in favor of calling literally every genetically distinct individual its own species? If not, youāre drawing a line too. I think the āspeciesā line is being pushed way too low, and thatās causing problems and is totally unnecessary when the sub-species options exist. I also believe the names are being changed too frequently and it would have the same upsides and no downsides to just wait and update them all every 15 years or something. People can use tags and fields to track their preferred taxonomy if they want to, without forcing it on everyone else.
4 Likes
I do agree POWO updates too often, but my idea of a correct amount of time would be once every couple of years instead of once a month or whatever theyāre doing.
Iām not a taxonomist so I cannot say where the line should be drawn. I have no opinion. But do know you are in the vast minority with your opinion of where the species lines are.
1 Like
iām in the vast minority on this message board yes, but you might be surprised how many people reach out to me and tell me they agree with me. Most field ecologists i meet also agree with me or have even more anti-change views than I do. You shouldnāt assume too much from the echo chamber. You might as well say āmost taxonomic splitters agree with splittersā as the splitters have basically taken over iNat and most of academia and pile pretty heavily on those who disagree with them.
And yeah i can work with compromise, if iNat slowed the rate of change, it would be better than nothing.
5 Likes
Iām particularly fond of Carex. I tell people about ecologists who will come to me at the end of the summer with one specimen of what theyāve been calling āBall Sedgeā in the field. They want a species ID to put on all their āBall Sedgeā records. But I know there are 20 or so species that look like that, half of them likely in the study area, and all with subtly to distinctly habitat needs. āCarexā is inadequate but identifying their specimen is misleading.
1 genus, 2 or more genera
2 Likes
A case that supports the necessity of always taking what is written in Wikipedia with a pinch of salt. The taxonomic position of T. officinale is clear. It is a name that should not be used as its type in ambiguous.
3 Likes
I could have joined you if you hadnāt rejected section in favor of genus. I have put in a lot of effort in the past trying to use that section key ā especially for observations on the West Coast near to where the key was intended ā and I cannot get on board with backpedaling or rejecting those efforts. If my Mexicana observations get bumped back to genus on the basis of your argument, I will unashamedly opt-out of community taxon.
Thatās what Iām driving for. At the same time, though, Iām not interested in discussing whether two morphologically-the-same populations share āsequences.ā
1 Like
The very fact that taxonomy has been splitting more recently shows very well that is the generally accepted opinion in science. However, weāre still splitting far less now than many earlier taxonomists did, especially in the late-1800s to early-1900s.
Once again, if you have a suggestion for another global plant taxonomy Iād love to hear about it.
i highly doubt you would given you dismiss all of my ideas, i donāt feel like putting forward more to be dismissed outright.
if by āgenerally acceptedā you mean āsteamrolled through without any true objective reasonā, sure. Lots of things were āgenerally acceptedā science in the past and tended up being wrong.
In any eventā¦ i should stop with this so others can talk about dandelions. I think youāve made yourself clear that you support the hypersplitting, hopefully youāll watch what it does to the naturalist community and change your mind one day, but by then much damage will already be done.
No, I would be genuinely interested if you have a suggestion of another global plant taxonomy. As far as Iām aware, there is no other besides POWO. I was under the impression this is why we follow it. If there is more than one, Iād love to know about it.
1 Like
I think we should revert to iNatās ~2015 taxonomy, and evaluate which one to adopt in 2035 or whatever when things have stabilized. And if they havenāt, maybe none of them. Thatās still what I think we should do. Certainly there are other options as well but the main thing is i wouldnāt be constantly making updates to taxonomy that make the site near-unusable.
iNatās 2015 taxonomy was just hodgepodge of whatever various people requested - IMO āunusableā, as long as weāre going into the realm of hyperbole. Certainly less useful than what we have now.
We use POWO because it is the only global plant taxonomy out there to follow. If you would like an alternative for people working with botany on a global scale, then I suggest you get started on making one.
5 Likes
I am amazed to read some of this information about dandelions, and the situation is a funny perfect mirror image to mistletoes. Dwarf mistletoes (Arceuthobium) were split into a huge number of species through the 1900s, mostly circumscribed by the host species rather than by morphological differences. Now, FNA lumps 13 of these species together as subspecies of A. campylopodum, considering them āecotypes of a single variable speciesā in the āearly stages of genetic differentiation among widespread populations.ā Jepson doesnāt even separate them at subspecies rank. Splitting dandelions to oblivion might frustrate biologists doing fieldwork, and so has lumping mistletoes: foresters find it unhelpful for Jepson to call two different populations by the same name when one consistently only parasitizes white firs, and the other specializes on pines.
5 Likes
hahaā¦Iām taking the side of the lumpers. From the comments above, it seems to me common Dandelion is selfing itself although the plant produces seeds. The genetic variations may not be that high. Iām no scientist. Variations may come from spontaneous mutations in the seeds. The differences in leaf shapes may have been due to environmental causes or just small variations in the genes. The seeds are dispersed by wind. Seedlings cover a large area rapidly. With cross-pollination and self-pollination, there may be mechanisms that enables the plants to look the same in the area. There is a pink flower dandelion somewhere which if not domesticated may likely be separate species. Wikipedia is input by people. Comparing it with Lavandula officinalis, this name is a synonym. It is not uncommon to see synonyms in wikipedia and since the scientific names are updated often, it is ok with me. The name Taraxacum officinale refers to common dandelion. If they split the species up, some populations may retain this name so the name will always be around , even if it becomes a synonym.
In many dandelion taxa, seed set is apomictic ā without sex. Itās not selfing, itās cloning.
One dandelion breeding system variant that I find interesting: Some dandelions that set seed without sex still produce pollen. That pollen can fertilize the ovules of other species that are outcrossing. Gene exchange, but not really exchange because itās one-directional. Dandelions mess with our expectations.
Among all the dandelions that we might wish we could treat as Taraxacum officinale, there is a great deal of genetic variation. Some of the named groups arenāt variable. Some are.
11 Likes
@jasonhernandez74 - No need to opt-out of community taxon! In fact, Iād say dandelions already IDād to section are (big-picture) where we need the least ID work, and where we should be most cautious. Basically for the reason you mention - thatās where weāre most likely to run into credibly considered, well-documented observations. No reason to disturb those! Now, skimming through the dandelions currently IDād to section, it looks to me like a fair number were just placed there because folks know species isnāt right anymore, more than anything. But still, the point stands, I think - and practically speaking, section IDs are only 2,600 of 132,000 US observations.
@upupa-epops suggests it might be worth leaving observations with: (1) good views of the leaves, including the base of the leaves, and (2) good views of the underside of the flower in the āNeeds IDā category, on the grounds that someday, somebody might invent/discover/propose a way of further IDāing them. Thatās not unreasonable, although for the most part Iām inclined to disagree. My own take is that if the identification is āas good as it can beā when weāre IDāing, then we should mark it as such. Still, I respect the position. Here again, though, as a practical matter, the vast majority of dandelion observations donāt have those kind of photos/views.
My larger point is - hey - we had 80,000 dandelions at Needs ID! Weāve all been afraid of touching any of them because of the taxonomic confusion/dispute. But thereās no need for us to be afraid! The absolute vast majority of dandelion observations in the United States should be IDād to research grade at genus level, because thatās all the quality of the photos and the taxonomic lay of the land support! So - fear no more, letās ID some dandelions!
(Only 78,671 still needing ID at the moment - weāve made some progress)!
10 Likes
Yeah it is complicated and interesting behavior that it would be interesting to see more studies about. Itās been a while since I looked at the literature, but I think maybe the ones that donāt produce pollen probably arenāt old at all, like less than a few hundred years. One would expect the purely asexual lineages would be particularly susceptible to going extinct, unless some regulatory factor can turn their ability to produce pollen back on under certain circumstances. I guess many species have individuals which are sterile, so maybe it is not surprising that that happens in taraxacum, just unusual that the sterile individuals can survive asexually for centuries instead of a single organismās lifetime.
2 Likes
Reminds me of a common fern, Bird nest fern. I have always known it as Asplenium nidus. Now some in iNat decided to put a sophisticated name to it, Section Thamnopteris. Iām just amused, not irritated. I will rely on iNatās 2/3 majority voting rule to decide the outcome.
1 Like