i think we can use sections but only once there are resources available for most areas to identify them. We don’t typically change iNat taxonomy based on original research, usually only once keys and such are published, for this reason. if there’s no clear way for everyone to be able to try to identify them there’s no real point in asking.
4 Likes
I would encourage interested identifiers/observers to add tags for the sections or specific phenotypes. These would not be official but could help researchers find observations with specific traits. There’s a similar thing with Dark-eyed Junco subspecies. Technically there is no “Oregon Junco” subspecies but one could conceivably make a tag for these. That would at least help people find this phenotype which is actually a collection of subspecies that are probably not distinguishable from photos.
3 Likes
The challenge is that we don’t yet have a good comprehensive resource for regular people to identify sections in North America. Taraxacum officinale is not correct, but at least it works as a catch-all label for ‘introduced Dandelions’. My concern about replacing that with sections now is that most people would be flummoxed and stick to Taraxacum sp., or just avoid them altogether.
I do like the idea of adding tags for some of the key features that would go into a sectional classification.
I’m leaving for two weeks in the field tomorrow, I’ll try to revisit this when I get back.
2 Likes
No, this is not how nomenclature works. Using Taraxacum officinale is not incorrect either, it is just a broader application of a taxonomic concept and a validly published name. If you have trouble with microspecies, then using the name T. officinale is not wrong.
It is just helpful if you also qualify that you’re using the name ‘in the broad sense’ (sensu lato).
2 Likes
My understanding is that Taraxacum officinale can only be correctly applied (sensu lato) to species in the section Taraxacum.
“Taraxacum officinale is lectotypified based on a specimen of section Taraxacum that is of ambiguous species identity (Kirschner and Štěpánek 2011), and thus it can be used if all species of its section (section Taraxacum) are treated as a single species. But as such a vastly broad species concept is biologically unrealistic, numerous species in the section should be recognized. Similarly to the case of section Erythrosperma, specimens of section Taraxacum should be identified as “section Taraxacum” or, for ambitious identifiers, as strict-sense species. Though use of the name T. officinale, unlike T. erythrospermum, is legitimate in British Columbia and North America, it should be avoided as it falsely suggests species identity.”
3 Likes
That’s what I was thinking of, but if you don’t recognize the sections at all (which is a common view), T. officinale (sensu really lato) can be used as an umbrella for most/all of the introduced species that Bjork is dealing with. That is in effect what we’re doing now in North America.
3 Likes
Incorrectly, you mean. Isn’t that the point of this paper, which provides keys to the sections? Yes, for a limited geographic range… but I would bet that the sectional keys would actually work across a much broader range.
Seems like a fair argument. One must start somewhere, though…
the taxonomic underpinning of inat has changed some lately, but it was always based on existing publications not new original research. New research that isn’t part of one of these references yet isn’t included, and using the old taxonomy isn’t wrong. It just is subject to change. Broadly we use POWO but in Vermont i mostly use Haines 2011 and a few other similar keys and floras… which only include common and red-seeded (the latter rarely seen) so i imagine i won’t be using these Taraxacum ‘microspecies’ any time soon either for ecological assessments at work or for my own purposes.
Also can someone explain why what apparently used to be subspecies are now ‘microspecies’? Why aren’t they addressed with the existing subspecies taxonomy? It makes it easier for people to choose whether they want to use them or not.
3 Likes
My understanding is that microspecies is a term used in apomictic/agamospermous lineages such as Taraxacum. I never heard this term until I did more digging into Taraxacum. Richards describes an important geographic split in taxonomic traditions that may answer your question:
“In general, even within a single genus such as Taraxacum, Eurasiatic workers have tended to “split” apomictic groups into many “agamospecies”, but North Americans have rarely adopted this strategy. The Průhonice meeting provided an excellent opportunity for each “side” to understand the position taken by the other. If Europeans think that Americans are thereby losing information, Americans may consider that no-one will use an information system which contains thousands of taxa!” (Richards et al. 1996).
Another genus with a high diversity of apomictic lineages is Rubus. Since Apomixis and sexual reproduction often co-occur I can see why this is a huge challenge for taxonomists and geneticists.
Richards, A. J., J. Kirschner, J. Stepanek, and K. Marhold. 1996. Apomixis and taxonomy: An introduction. Folia Geobotanica 31:281–282.
1 Like
That explains the two philosophies but what I more wonder is why not use a hierarchical entity (like subspecies) because then that subverts the debate by allowing people to choose the level of ID that meets their needs.
Yeah, I didn’t really answer that. I think it has to do with genetic isolation. Since some taxonomists view genetic isolation to be an important characteristic of species, and since strictly apomictic lineages are genetically isolated, some taxonomists feel they deserve species status. I think they were hesitant to apply subspecies because subspecies are used for geographically segregated populations that can interbreed when brought into contact. Since apomictic microspecies don’t do this it’s a loophole in the system.
I’m probably getting out of my depth here. Someone with more experience applying the microspecies concept should probably answer. For what it’s worth I don’t believe microspecies are recognized or even discussed in the international code of plant nomenclature: https://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php
Flora of North America says this about Taraxacum officinale:
Phenotypic and genotypic variation of this species have been studied in North America (L. M. King 1993; King and B. A. Schaal 1990; J. C. Lyman and N. C. Ellstrand 1998; O. T. Solbrig 1971; R. J. Taylor 1987), but results of those studies did not lead to the recognition of microspecies.
Also
The typification by A. J. Richards (1985) would leave the common dandelion of both Europe and North America without a valid name (J. Kirschner and J. Štepánek 1987). For the time being, with the nomenclatural situation still not resolved, I am following traditional usage of the name Taraxacum officinale .
Sounds like the problem with Taraxacum is well understood by botanists in N.A. It also sounds like there is a lot more genetic research required to figure out how much genetic mixing is going on between apomictic lineages and sexual lineages.
Here’s a cool paper on apomixis genetics that I think is available online for free: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.663.3905&rep=rep1&type=pdf
3 Likes
huh. i mean i guess i can kind of see that, though i didn’t know there was the requirements that subspeices always can interbreed. But… they are basically taking a stand on this over semantics, where the downside is the complete removal of the species concept as useful for interpreting, understanding, studying, or communicating about ecology or nature. To me that is far, far too steep a price so, i’m a lumper (to species level) and would rather have technically problematic subspecies and keep the ability to name and talk about plants in the field. But i will leave it at that since this is a well worn comment for me to make here.
1 Like
It’s not so much an issue of what level in the hierarchy these things should be at, but rather a categorical difference in the kind of species they are. A microspecies is usually an asexual lineage, essentially a clone that reproduces by apomictic seeds. They’re usually polyploid, and often the result of hybridization. And every once in a while they’ll engage in a little outcrossing/hybridization themselves, just to keep things interesting. That’s not what we usually think of as a subspecies. And if you were to make it a subspecies, that raises the question of a subspecies of which species? Because there’s likely more than one sexual diploid species (i.e., a typical species) around, and more than one may be ancestors of your microspecies.
Similar issues in Rubus, Amelanchier, Crataegus, Antennaria, etc. In the case of Amelanchier, the sexual diploids, isolated from the polyploids, are apparently relatively easily separated morphologically and genetically. But we don’t get to look at them in isolation, the polyploids exhibit all kinds of intermediate morphologies, effectively obscuring the differences among the diploids.
Lumping them all, or splitting out every microspecies, both have their drawbacks. Finding a useful middle-ground takes a lot of work.
4 Likes
Y’know, I was questioning rat snake (Colubrinae snake) taxonomy (and I continue to do so, on the grounds that arbitrarily deciding the ranges of species that are not visually, are barely genetically distinguishable, and are excellent swimmers shouldn’t be dismissed quite as readily as “it’s this species on one side of the Mississippi River and the other species on the other side”) but this Taraxacum microspecies explosion is just sheer insanity, on both the part of nature and on the part of the taxonomists who’ve lined up to give each of these names. (Now, if this concept of "thousands of Taraxacum species is maintained, if one of those taxonomists could see their way to naming a Taraxacum inaturalistii, I’d be quite happy.)
4 Likes
Furthermore, (let me continue a bit of ranting, I’ve just spent the last few hours hunting out a small invasion of Scutigera and somehow didn’t manage to iNat any, so I have frustrations to work out after the arrival of these unexpected housebreakers), what on earth is a microspecies? How does one go about determining the differences between them? (If people have actual answers to these two questions, please let me know, I’m just perplexed by all of this.)
I will close on the note that many people of my (limited) experience dismiss plants as “too hard” already. I’m sure that this species splitting- no, grinding or shattering, into thousands - is going to lead to less engagement with the knotty problem of Taraxacum on iNat. In the meantime, I’m going to iNat every dandelion I see as a different species (joking, but also… maybe.)
4 Likes
No, not incorrectly, just in disagreement with the taxonomic concepts of the paper’s authors.
To be incorrect, one would have to apply the name Taraxacum officinale to a group of plants that does not include the type specimen for that name. As long as what you are calling Taraxacum officinale includes that type specimen (and no types of any older names), you can include as much or as little additional plant diversity in Taraxacum officinale as you like. You will then be expressing a taxonomic opinion that may differ from other opinions. But it will not be incorrect.
6 Likes
Our knowledge and understanding of these taxa might only just be coming into focus, and we may see nothing of interest, or we may make some groundbreaking discoveries… we won’t know until we open the box!
3 Likes
Taraxacum, similarly to other genera characterized by agamospermy, is almost only for specialists. In many cases it is difficult just teh attribution to a certain section. In particuar identification with just one or few photos is only a wast of time.
In the case of places where Taraxacum is alien it can be even more difficult since someone has to check for any possible species that could have been introduced.
1 Like