I’m not a taxonomist nor a Taraxacologist! But this is pretty damn interesting. Thanks for sharing @chlorophilia!
In case you don’t have access to the paper here are the takeaways.
First and most usefully for us, the author provides a database of photographs online that accompany the article: https://morphobank.org/index.php/Projects/ProjectOverview/project_id/3346
Second this paper applies European taraxacum taxonomy to some BC Taraxacum. Here are the key references it cites:
Richards, A.J. 1985. Sectional nomenclature in Taraxacum (Asteraceae).
Taxon, 34: 633–644. doi:10.2307/1222201.
Kirschner, J., and Št ˇep.nek, J. 1987. Again on the sections in Taraxacum (Cichoriaceae) (Studies in Taraxacum 6). Taxon, 36: 608–617. doi:10.2307/1221855.
Dudman, A.A., and Richards, A.J. 1997. Dandelions of Great Britain and Ireland. BSBI Handbook No. 9. Botanical Society of the British Isles. 344 pp.
This paper does include a key to the exotic sections in BC, this key appears to draw heavily from the work of Richards. I’ve attached this as an image here for reference:
While this is pretty cool–it does make me want to look at some dandelions–what’s a dandelion “species”? Some authorities believe that the genus “includes about 60 sections with about 2,800 species” (Kirchner et al 2015). My sense is that this points to Taraxacum being one of those “special cases” (all too normal really) where the species concept doesn’t quite work.
Given the special nature of dandelions. I found a (mildly acerbic) review of Richards dandelion book online (Atkinson 1998). Here’s a choice section:
“So why would you want to place a dandelion in one of the many species listed in this book? Their reproductive biology and ecology, although not covered in detail in this book, helps to explain the patterns of variation and there’s little doubt that the entities identified are real in nature. However, to my mind there is doubt about why they should be named. Sexual taxa may show a similar amount of variation to that encompassed by dandelions but the variation could only be taxonomically recognized by giving individuals a name, a thing no sane botanist would want to do. By naming apomictic lines taraxacologists are effectively naming every different genetic individual, which is taking taxonomic splitting to absurd extremes. However, someone has gone to the trouble of naming them, and if you’re on the lookout for an arcane hobby why not take up taraxacology? But, even with the aid of this book, you need to devote a good deal of time to identify a dandelion: so be warned, as the authors point out, ‘dandelions are difficult’.”
Kirschner, J., L. Záveská Drábková, J. Štěpánek, and I. Uhlemann. 2015. Towards a better understanding of the Taraxacum evolution (Compositae–Cichorieae) on the basis of nrDNA of sexually reproducing species. Plant Systematics and Evolution 301:1135–1156.
Atkinson, R. 1998. Dandelions of Great Britain and Ireland. BSBI Handbook No. 9. A. A. Dudman & A. J. Richards. Illustrations by Olga Stewart. Edited by P. H. Oswald. London: Botanical Society of the British Isles. 1997. 344 pp. ISBN 0 901158 25 9. £17.50 (paperback). Edinburgh Journal of Botany 55:321–322.
