iNat is accepting both Pinus monophylla and Pinus californiarum for the same species.
Sorry, I didn’t finish that message. This situation is causing a bit of confusion for observations of single needle pines. California’s Jepson eflora recognizes californiarum as a synonym. iNat should use one or the other but not both
You can flag the taxa and a curator in charge of that taxa will see your tax and respond. But since both are species in POWO (what iNat uses for vascular plants, not Jepson) they are likely to recommend you contact POWO https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:282863-2
3 Likes
There have been several papers in recent years recognizing both P. monophylla and P. californiarum as separate species based on both morphological and phylogenetic evidence. I actually emailed Jepson about that yesterday so see if they plan on recognizing P. californiarum soon. I’ve only skimmed it but the research seems pretty solid. Some information and references here. Their distribution mostly doesn’t overlap, so that is probably what needs to be used for most iNat ID. In areas where their distribution overlaps, you may have to count resin canals in the needles for ID.
I tried getting access to the original description of the species but it is pay-walled. The species was, however, described in 1987. So, it has been the victim of taxonomic lumping for as much as 37 years. It’s about time for it to start getting recognized more.
1 Like
Thanks Keir. Your explanation really helps clarify the situation. It would be useful for identifiers to cite your reference when changing an I.d. from monophylla to californiarum.
This topic was automatically closed after 16 minutes. New replies are no longer allowed.