During some identification sessions, I stumble upon observation where the observer (or more rarely another identifier) added a comment containing a species name which is not available on iNat.
In some cases, that’s due to a typo, or iNat uses a synonym, or the species can be automatically imported (“Search external name providers”), and so I can resolve it.
In some cases, I flag the parent taxon for curation, and provide a link to the observation, and to POWO.
But now there is an observation for a species which has just recently been published, and which is not yet available in POWO. https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/197391367
So instead of adding a link to POWO, I added a link to the publication. I was asked to request POWO to add the species, but POWO replied:
Hi,
Please read https://powo.science.kew.org/about
" Newly published names are added from IPNI at the beginning of each year into the names backbone, WCVP. They are then edited and therefore take some months to become visible on the POWO website, so if a name you recently published is missing, please check the IPNI website https://ipni.org/ and if the name is present then it will be visible on POWO soon, if it is not on IPNI, then please register the name at https://ipni.org/registration/ and it will then appear on POWO early the following year. New names are never added manually into POWO as that will inevitably lead to duplicates over time."
Regards,
The POWO editors – Plant & Fungal Names
Which means that POWO is NOT the “original source of truth” for plant taxa, but IPNI.
Hence I’d like to ask if it could make sense to import new taxa from IPNI instead of POWO only.
this is not quite true. Other users will be able to give better/more detailed answers here, but note the distinction between the two per IPNI’s FAQs:
IPNI is a nomenclatural database only. For taxonomic opinion please visit the Plants of the World Online (POWO) record for that name. POWO includes accepted names, synonyms and global distribution which IPNI does not provide.
@thebeachcomber has already explained that IPNI is a nomenclatural database only. This means that they add all published species names and explain whether they are valid or not.
A valid name in botanical nomenclature is a validly published name, that meets all the required criteria. IPNI will explain for some names why they are nom. cons., nom. rej., nom. nud., etc. ; and also orthographic corrections according to the Code. But IPNI doesn’t say which name is the current name and which name is a synonym.
(Note : there is a misleading difference with zoological nomenclature : a valid name in zoology is a current name in botany. A valid name in botany is an available name in zoology.)
POWO is a taxonomic database. It contains current names and synonyms.
POWO can’t add all names as soon as they are published (yet). And they add all the names that are added to IPNI at the beginning of the following year.
We aim to incorporate the latest published taxonomy but sometimes papers are overlooked, in which case, please let us know. Also, sometimes changes are not made as we feel more evidence is needed to prevent changing the taxonomy and then at a later point having to change it again which can be very disruptive for users.
Newly published names are added from IPNI at the beginning of each year into the names backbone, WCVP. They are then edited and therefore take some months to become visible on the POWO website, so if a name you recently published is missing, please check the IPNI website https://ipni.org/ and if the name is present then it will be visible on POWO soon, if it is not on IPNI, then please register the name at https://ipni.org/registration/ and it will then appear on POWO early the following year. New names are never added manually into POWO as that will inevitably lead to duplicates over time.
(Personal opinion here, not speaking for the site…)
For a newly published species that seems fairly obvious and non-controversial (i.e., not an extreme splitting situation, etc.), I personally think it’s fine to flag the genus for curation, cite the publication, and tag a few other curators and top identifiers of the genus in the region where the new species occurs. If no one expresses serious reservations after a couple of weeks, I would go ahead and add the species to iNaturalist as a deviation until it gets incorporated into POWO.
To me it makes no sense to leave obvious observations of a new species in limbo for up to a year until POWO catches up, if for no other reason than it could be a serious impediment to its conservation. If for some reason POWO decides later to synonymize the name under something else, then the new species can be flagged and revisited to see if the community agrees, and then curated accordingly.
For what it’s worth, in the past POWO has generally been much quicker to incorporate new species, but maybe they are staying “on policy” now.
One way to look at it: IPNI contains names that are published and indicates which names are validly published and therefore available to use. POWO makes a judgement call about which of the available synonyms (or other confusing names) should be used, which splits or lumpings should be accepted. Both important tasks are important, but they’re different. For iNaturalist purposes, POWO results are more important, though the IPNI database is necessary before POWO can function.
That’s right, IPNI are names, POWO are taxa, two different disciplines of science. To assess if a name applies to a taxon, the literature needs to be read and experts consulted so that is not instant and POWO probably wants to see how the wind blows before considering something accepted or a synonym.
That is the same issue that is much discussed here on how long to wait until a change/deviation should be implemented. https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/should-curators-have-a-critical-point-of-view-when-changing-inat-taxonomy/46339/24