That’s what I do with dandelions already. Taraxacum sp. Anything more seems like it needs specialist attention.
1 Like
are there subgenus type units that can be distinguished from good photos? If so can we get those added? If not… yeah they will just go in the genus junk bin rendering it impossible to do much with that data.
2 Likes
First of all you could try to download the files of Taraxacum for the British flora from this page:
https://bsbi.org/plant-crib
Remember that most dandelions growing in urban areas fall in the section Ruderalia and actually are not the true Taraxacum officinale.
there are only sections Ruderalia and Erythrosperma.
Palustria, Naevosa and Celtica have been added as species (sic.).
Those of the British isles are not the only existing sections. For example in the Mediterranean there is section Scariosa.
Interesting, I just looked at the BC paper that inspired this thread and noticed it doesn’t include Ruderalia among the sections present in BC. The only mention of the section in the entire paper is in the title of one of the references.
1 Like
I try not to ID dandelions below genus because of this bewildering array of (possible?) species - but it seems many people have trouble with even that. I’ve been going through the dandelion observations in California and approximately a third of them are not even Taraxacum. Not everything with a yellow flower or a puffy seedhead is a dandelion, no matter what the AI tries to tell you!
5 Likes
Of course, “common” users usually think that all dandelions are Taraxacum officinale. Similarly here in Europe more or less every wild rose is Rosa canina, almost every wild bramble is Rubus fruticosus, there are just two Alchemilla species, A. alpina and A. vulgaris and so on… sometimes iNat is a good exercise for patience 
2 Likes
It’s funny how the most common species are the ones people have the most problems with - I’m seeing a lot of those kinds of IDs even from people who are otherwise quite good identifiers. I guess the status of something as a “common” plant makes one less likely to actually pay attention to its characteristics.
1 Like
When something, although wrong, is rooted among people is difficult to eradicate, somehow like a repeated lie that becomes the truth. Moreover, also the id tool contributes since T. officinale is always among the first choices. So, when you tell them that there is no possibility to be sure on the identity of that dandelion and also that it is likely not the true T. officinale, maybe their reaction is to ask themselves who are you to say so…
2 Likes
Section Ruderalia has to be thrown for nomenclatural reasons. Section Taraxacum now accounts for what many in the UK and some elsewhere still call section Ruderalia.
A few rambling notes of clarification (I’m the author of the article under discussion here):
First, my apologies about the paywall. There’s nothing I can do about it. I can’t afford hundreds of dollars per article for open access. I try to publish in open-access journals, but they’re few in number, so I can’t send all my manuscripts to them. As the author, I don’t even have my own copy of the article. NRCan made it so difficult for me to access the complementary copy (sharable only a small number of time), I just gave up.
Second, a lot of the comments here address the microspecies problem. We’re already used to apomictic microspecies in North America, in Boechera, Draba, Crataegus, Poa, Erigeron. When species originate through hybridization, resulting in polyploidy and non-functional pollen, we need to name those entities not by one of the parental species, but by a name that represents the species solely. If that’s the actual evolutionary scenario in the origins of these species, then taxonomy needs to reflect this.
I don’t advocate that everyone learn Taraxacum microspecies if they don’t want to. That’s why in the paper I emphasize the sections presented (which are the sections widely used in the geographical regions where our North American exotic species came from). Recognizing the sections takes some practice, but I don’t think it’s any harder than learning, for example, oak species, or Erigerons. Not easy, but not impossible. Also please note that there are many more sections of Taraxacum than those I present in the paper. Our native species in North America all belong to other sections, and the Old World and southern hemisphere have many more sections.
Taraxacum erythrospermum cannot be applied to any plant in North America. That is a sexual species of the Mediterranean. It is highly unlikely it will ever be found outside its native range, since sexually reproducing Taraxaca don’t establish easily in new territory. So it’s best, if you don’t want to learn a few common apomictic species like T. scanicum and T. disseminatum, then I recommend using the name “Taraxacum section Erythrospermum” rather than a species name.
Taraxacum officinale can actually be used to represent all of the species of section Taraxacum collectively (which is sometimes called section Ruderalia). But it cannot be applied as a species since the lectotype is of ambiguous identity (other than it is part of and representative of section Taraxacum). So there’s nothing gained by using the name “Taraxacum officinale”. Using “Taraxacum section Taraxacum” on specimens not only specifies the same taxon, but also makes it clear that a group of species, not a single species was the result of identification. To do that correctly, you have to know that you’re not applying that sectional name (or T. officinale) to a member of a different section.
One important takeaway from the paper: Specimens of exotic Taraxacum have to be collected in spring, during the first major blooming event. Specimens collected later will likely have their “summer leaves”, which don’t show the full suite of characteristics that are so important to identify sections and species. Taraxacum specimens are useless if they are dried slowly (they decay rapidly, losing the pigments that help to make the identifications). Suboptimal specimens can’t reliably be identified. Field photos help a lot, if taken correctly with accurate colour. Photos should be in a series, showing a supermacro closeup up the styles and corollas, the side of the capitulum, including the colour of the outer surface of the outermost corollas, as well as the inner and outer involucre bracts. Photos of leaves should show the outer surface of bases of the outermost leaves, as well as clear views of entire leaves. It’s fussy work, but in order to get it right, that’s what’s necessary. Otherwise, Taraxacum sp. might be all you can do.
Native Taraxacum in North America is very diverse, yet we have names for only a small number of species. Taraxacum ceratophorum is a useless catch-all name for many species, and we do not have T. ceratophorum in North America at all. For the native species, at this point, it’s best to name species as “Taraxacum sp., native.”, assuming it’s certain that the specimen does represent a native species. Identifying native vs. non-native North American Taraxacum can’t be accomplished with old keys, such as the Flora of North America. Those keys are highly unrepresentative of the actual diversity we have. The native species are so poorly known partly because they grow mostly in hard-to-get-to places, such as the high boreal and arctic-alpine tundra. I’ll be publishing further on this in the coming years.
I would be happy to answer any questions if iNaturalist will allow (I’m new to this platform, and I see that I’m warned that I have already “Reached the reply limit for this topic”, which is why I’m having to write all this in this field, replying to only one of the comments.
19 Likes
It would be premature at this point to write keys to the exotic species. It’s still too easy to find new additions. Here’s a copy of the keys to sections that appears in paper:
1a Plants usually growing in wild vegetation at high elevations or latitudes; bracts sometimes strongly corniculate, the outer ones mostly erect to appressed, sometimes recurved or spreading; leaves mostly either weakly lobed or with simple lobes … (Native groups, not treated here)
1b Plants mostly in disturbed vegetation, mostly at low to middle elevations and latitudes; bracts not corniculate or with small, inconspicuous horns, the outer ones mostly spreading, recurved or reflexed; leaves mostly deeply lobed, the lobes in most cases longer than wide and often again lobed … 2 (Exotic sections)
2a Outer bracts erect and appressed, blackish green, ovate and with blunt apices; plants usually in wet sites; not documented from British Columbia, but to be sought …[Section Palustria ]
2b Outer bracts spreading to recurved, or if appressed, then apices acute to acuminate; habitat various, but usually not in wet sites … 3
3a Inner and/or outer bracts minutely corniculate; outer bracts mostly <10 mm long, mostly thin and pale, usually pinkish … 4
4a Cypsela cone slender, scarcely tapered, usually >0.7 mm, cypsela body often red- or purple-brown … Section Erythrosperma
4b Cypsela cone stout and upwardly tapered, usually <0.7 mm, cypsela body pink-brown … Taraxacum fulvicarpum group
3b Inner and outer bracts not at all corniculate (though sometimes with 1-2 minute ridges at apex; outer bracts various, but often >10 mm long and usually opaque or dark and without pink tones … 5
5a Involucre often distinctly glaucous (alive), blackish green and glossy (dried); outer bracts ovate, lanceolate or sometimes oblong-lanceolate … 6
6a Leaves mostly olive-green, lateral lobes usually 4 per side and hamate; outer bracts comparatively abruptly tapered; mostly robust plants … Section Hamata
6b Leaves mostly dark bluish green, lateral lobes usually <4 per side and mostly not hamate; pollen often absent … 7
7a Leaves not spotted (except often at the internodes, or spotted due only to injury); pollen often lacking; locally common … Section Celtica
7b Leaves purple spotted, the adaxial spots corresponding to abaxial ones; pollen present (ours); rarely encountered … Section Naevosa
5b Involucre rarely glaucous, not appearing blackish or varnished in the pressed state; outer bracts mostly oblong or lance-oblong … 8
8a Outer bracts mostly >10 mm long; leaves mostly crisped and/or rugose, summer leaves almost always complexly lobed; pollen rarely absent … Section Taraxacum
8b Outer bracts mostly <10 mm long; leaves often not crisped and mostly not rugose; summer leaves mostly weakly lobed or merely dentate; pollen often absent … 9
9a Petioles with no wings or wings narrow; summer leaves usually oblanceolate or obovate in outline; capitula usually comparatively small; ligules deep yellow, the outer ones with dark abaxial stripes … Section Borea
9b Petioles with broad green wings to base or nearly so; summer leaves often oblong; capitula usually comparatively large; ligules often comparatively pale, the outer ones often with pale abaxial stripes … Section Boreigena
8 Likes
This is a great post this is also the reason why I no longer post these
Working this past summer for a USFS contractor doing GIS work in the Sacramento Mtns
Here in New Mexico I learned there are over 20 different types present
In this mountain range most require a lab test to figure out the type
So I tapped out on these
2 Likes
this here illustrates the issue well. the taxonomy is ‘great’ in terms of understanding hte evolution of the species but if it means we can’t monitor or document them, we miss a lot. We need a parallel taxonomy that works in the field. Otherwise, they just drop off the map. Kind of like how i stopped adding polypodiums most of the time because it has two cryptic species that aren’t actually distinct.
4 Likes
Thank you for your posts! Would this key be sufficient for identifying sections in eastern North America or would it be better to wait for more information to be published?
1 Like
What is the reason of not adding them? Genus is a good enough id.
1 Like
Not very interesting to me if I can’t identify it past coarse levels due to mangled taxonomy.
1 Like
It depends on the situation I think. Looking in iNat, there appears to be only two species of Polypodium in Vermont - in which case you aren’t really losing any information by identifying to genus?
With the dandelions, it sounds to me like the status quo in North America is actually worse than just saying Taraxacum sp., because the distinctions that have often been made don’t actually really correspond with anything ecologically or evolutionary meaningful.
Where I would agree with you is when taxonomic changes make it hard to actually put a name on things that clearly indicates what you are reporting. As an example, the distinction between Platanthera huronensis/hyperborea/aquilonis is very difficult in the field, and probably impossible when not flowering and it would be really nice if I could easily indicate that something was just a member of this group.
1 Like
yeah, that is true… for now. Until more are split off. Genus level things aren’t as easy to deal with on iNat though especially since one can’t get them to research grade without another genus ID plus a check box marked.
But that’s what you do almost day as identifier. My opinion corresponds with one of iNat purposes - loosing data is worse than getting stuck at genus level, rg or not. If you just don’t wanna observe something it’s perfectly fine, but if it’s just because of taxonomy difficulties than such ideas should be rethought. If now you or anyone else can’t id it to species level it doesn’t mean someone else is not gonna visit the site later. I’m sure we all can’t just remember all the sites.
Btw I adore e.g. Polygonum and I believe it’s tracking is significant no matter what.
1 Like