Ain’t that the truth. Just spent the afternoon dealing with the local NP administration we work with sorting out some odd, convoluted, and self-defeating decisions they’d made that has wasted three days of work so far.
2 Likes
No, they don’t, we have many complexes without any interbreeding.
7 Likes
In botany we’re recovering from a long period of overzealous lumping, and at the same time modern molecular research is changing things. Plant genetics and their relationships to morphology can get pretty funky. Molecular results are often validating earlier splits that have been lumped and disregarded for the better part of the last century, and then revealing additional cryptic species.
Interestingly in my experience it’s mostly the field scientists who’ve maintained belief in the old splits and griped about taxonomists sitting in herbariums lumping dried specimens of plants that are obviously different entities in person on the landscape, and say “told you so” when newer papers supporting splits are published. Clearly there’s a range of opinions there, though.
Phytoneuron’s a relatively young but respected journal. Its role and requirements are transparent and well-defined, and it provides accessible publication of papers on taxonomy and biogeography that by their nature are not subject to the formal peer review process. Soon I’ll probably be submitting a first detection paper for a new invasive species in the eastern US to that paper. Nesom himself is also well-respected and if you’re a botanist in the eastern US, chances are you’re already using a lot of taxonomy he’s revised, quite possibly in previous publications in Phytoneuron. I can see why the fact that he’s publishing in the journal he edits could give some pause, but there just aren’t that many journals that serve the same purpose. Peer review for these types of papers consists of rebuttal papers and acceptance or rejection by other authorities.
5 Likes
For people who are wondering why the Tiarella case is being treated differently, some context is necessary.
Guy Nesom has a large body of peer-reviewed work and is generally regarded as an expert in the field. He uses Phytoneuron as an outlet for some of his own work but also reviews papers by others–Semple puts a lot of goldenrod novelties in there, and generally I see short papers from a couple of different families (Asteraceae, Montiaceae, Polygonaceae) and new floral records in the southeastern US. The impression I get is that it’s basically a repository for short reports that are useful but would take a long time to place in other journals.
I think most botanists would say, whether it’s peer-reviewed or not, that they trust Nesom went through a bazillion specimens of Tiarella and saw the differences he saw (which is why he’s being handled more genteelly than Hoser slapping names on other people’s clades); whether they agree with the conclusions is a different matter. Some of his stuff is pretty uncontroversial. On the other hand, some of his recent splits, e.g. in Euthamia, will make identification rather difficult; I raised a flag a few years ago to get eyes on that one, because I wasn’t very sure it would be accepted (https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/543527) and certainly my current opinion (https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/590494) is that it isn’t ready for prime time. You could even argue that this is a bit Hoser-like insofar as he seems to have identified two biological entities, hasn’t completely delineated them, but whoever (likely Szubryt) does finish clearing up the distinction will be obliged to apply the names he chose.
My overall take is that “peer review” in the formal, processing-a-manuscript sense, is a bit of a red herring in the taxonomic-naturalizing complex. The review that really matters is the opinion of the community that deals with these biological entities. You can have a paper that is peer-reviewed by non-taxonomists and comes to a conclusion that everyone in the community ignores; or you can have a paper in Phytoneuron that’s not peer-reviewed, but everyone in the community says “Sure, right, I can see the difference, that is a distinct entity.” People are always free to drop new names into synonymy and move on if they’re not convinced.
9 Likes
I think that makes sense, if iNat would actually do it but then the ‘species’ level still comes up with the name no one actually uses. Which leads me to my broader point that these should have been subspecies to start with, but that’s roaming back into the other topic i was trying to avoid.
Thanks for clarifying. It did seem really rude, but i’m glad it wasn’t intended that way and sometimes i come off as rude when i don’t mean to as well, so i get it. I have a problem with the policy, not that specific name per se, but it’s only personal insomuch as it’s my personal opinion, which is true for anything i say in here.
From what i can tell the ‘external source’ is just one person in one government agency coming up with a name and putting it on a website. ironically i work for a government agency too so… i guess i could also just make up species names? I am not proposing i go that route but it just seems kind of bizarre. i guess i should flag the wikipedia page to note that the name isn’t in wide use and should be removed, but i’m not a wikipedia curator and don’t really want to go down another rabbit hole. And this comes up for other species anyway and that will only solve this one.
1 Like
I don’t want to divert the thread too much but i really se a crisis coming in 10-15 years where all the monitoring agencies, land management groups, etc, can’t even exchange biodiversity data any more because everyone has their own taxonomy. I interact with lost of different groups and literally no one chases taxonomy like inaturalist does. And even two inaturalists with different people would come up with different results. It’s totally untenable and is only going to get worse. And nearly all of it could have been avoided by just allowing more full use of another level of ‘branch’ of the taxonomic tree on the subspecies level.
I mean, i get it, it isn’t a popular view and everyone will jump on me again. If i am wrong, come jump on me in 10 years, and if i’m right, well it sucks because you all will have moved on to something else and those of us trying to do applied ecology will be struggling for it.
1 Like
I think everyone would like to see some kind of solution. But first, everyone must acknowledge the relevant facts. I think we’re getting closer to that goal. iNat “policy” is to only recognize common names which are used outside of iNat. So in instances when there is a taxonomic split, and there are common names used outside of iNat, it would be in line with iNat policy to update the names. That is what happened in this particular instance. The question here isn’t whether iNat policy has been followed or not–it has–but what outside entity has the right to invent a common name. Since that has been identified as the problem, there are two solutions: (1) wait for iNat staff to develop a policy regarding what entities have the right to invent a common name or (2) wait for iNat staff to form a committee to develop such a policy. I don’t think the forums have been shown to be a productive route to a solution–but I also don’t see an easy solution on the horizon regardless of the approach. Are there any other routes to a solution that folks might propose?
3 Likes
So here’s the thing. there’s a botanhical entity in Vermont. Everyone calls it ‘A’ and has for hundreds of years. One agency in North Carolina, a very culturally different place 1000 miles to the south, has over the last five years named it ‘B’ because of a taxonomic split. But regardless of the common name, everyone other than taxonomists still calls it ‘A’ and presumably will continue to do so, because it’s not really possible to make everyone call it ‘B’ even if we wanted to. (in fact i’d guess everyone in North Carolina still calls it ‘A’ also i just can’t speak from experience there.)
iNat is supposedly a community science endeavor meant to ‘connect people with nature’ and that’s repeatedly been stated to be much more important than data (to the point that Ken-Ichi has actually directly said “the data is just a byproduct of inaturalist”. ). While i don’t always fully agree with that policy, it’s the reality of the site. So what connects people with nature more? Calling a plant ‘A’ as literally everyone in the community does, or calling it ‘B’ because it seems more taxonomically correct according to a new and not broadly accepted taxonomy change and someone else 1000 miles away made up that name 5 years ago? Given that all, can anyone actually defend ‘B’?
I agree the forum isn’t the ideal place to bring this up, but flags don’t work. Flags are heavily patrolled by splitters and there’s no way to get the wider audience to understand what it is they are doing. Instead it comes up again and again in observations where people are upset or confused as to why their observations of common wildflowers suddenly have weird unexpected names that no one uses.
So the route I propose: keep it as heartleaf foamflower. People can put in ‘creeping foamflower’ as an alternative name, that’s fine. The default name should be the one 99% of people use, period.
5 Likes
As I said, I don’t think the forum (or flags either) is the place to find a solution that applies to all future issues of this nature. The forum is not the place to decide what the name should be in this specific instance either–as the forum moderator has already said. There’s no way to come to a consensus on the forum. An entity with some authority must create the policy and then the policy is applied to this specific instance. I wish I was optimistic that a policy could even be created given that the problem to be solved is “what entities can legitimately create common names”. If folks want a solution, we need to recognize the problem first. And I think @charlie stated the problem very clearly in a recent post:
“i certainly don’t think one agency fabricating a name like that constitutes a valid reason for inat to adopt it”
What forum moderator said to stop posting about this here? i didn’t see that. There may be new moderators i don’t know? I didn’t see any post from a moderator here.
1 Like
An alternative route that comes to mind, acknowledging that the pace of taxonomic change and description of even more truly cryptic species that are very difficult to identify will continue, would be creating a rank similar to “species complexes” that covers what might now be considered a “vernacular” species concept (in this case Tiarella cordifolia sensu lato) so that users unfamiliar with the split can continue to enter “heartleaf foamflower” and make sure that that comes up first in suggestions instead of Tiarella cordifolia sensu stricto even if that uses the same common name. This artificial rank could be applied on a case-by-case basis on the understanding that it’s a tool for improving accessibility.
I do agree with Charlie that the present situation is going to confuse people, though I’ve also seen “creeping foamflower” creeping into common usage across a wide range of people where I work in NY already, so I’m pretty optimistic about the long-term adaptability of the community to common name changes (see also Spongy Moth).
3 Likes
yeah, i see spongy moth as a really different situation, but if people adopt creeping foamflower widely, so be it.
I’m in favor of the complex thing but i think it’s worse than using subspecies, because ‘species’ is a widely known and default term.
2 Likes
In other words, if you want to propose a solution specific to this species, a flag is the approach to take. If the problem applies to species beyond this one, then the forum is appropriate. So, let’s stick to the broader problem as @cthawley has requested.
2 Likes
Well, being in NC and seeing that we have all four of the newly adopted species here and they would be difficult to sort out without digging and checking for runners, I’d venture a guess that most NC observations of these on iNat will be demoted to genus level now and be called whatever name the genus has (foamflowers). I suspect on plant ID hikes, it will still be heartleaf foamflower, maybe with a note that it has been split into multiple species now.
6 Likes
But that doesn’t solve the problem that you’ve raised–you were wanting iNat policy to change. Now you’re wanting the entire scientific community to change their approach. Let’s either drop the topic or stick to one problem. We can’t function if the goal posts are constantly changing.
2 Likes
That’s a potential solution. But what we’re needing here is a route to the solution–not the solution itself. Even if an ideal solution is generated here on the forum, there is no way to enforce the solution. Hence my two routes to the solution. I’m pretty sure that the problem won’t be solved here on the forum.
I don’t want to divert the thread too much but i really se a crisis coming in 10-15 years where all the monitoring agencies, land management groups, etc, can’t even exchange biodiversity data any more because everyone has their own taxonomy.
Those entities do not mind at all about taxonomy: they do not spend a dime on it. Nobody does. No input, no output.
1 Like
So there is a twin issue of taxonomy not doing things that work for applied ecologists, and applied ecologists not being involved enough themselves or devoting any resources to it? That sounds believable.
Doesn’t really feel appropriate to me, that you are telling others to drop the conversation. You definitely don’t have to participate in it. I think science needs to be changed AND inat needs to be changed but recognize i can’t change science, they will just have to find out on their own why their policy is a horrible idea since people aren’t willing to listen to some loud rando about it. But i do feel like on iNat we have a chance to build a better system, if others support it. Clearly i won’t get there on my own so yeah if that is the way this is going it’s a waste of time. But the comments here haven’t all been disagreeing with me.
2 Likes
Ah, sure, I think I was using “route” in the sense of a conceptual approach rather than specific next steps. In that sense I agree that iNat staff would probably have to form a committee to weigh the pros and cons of said approach or alternatives. I’m less inclined towards the first option suggested just because the evolution of common name usage is so varied and sometimes organic, sometimes not- any policy on what entities have the “right” will be pretty arbitrary.
Ive read through most of this; and I dont do iNat curation so forgive me if this is a silly suggestion, but why couldnt the original common name be put in parenthesis after the new one so people searching could find it?
Like here we call a plant Hearts A-Burstin’, but it is common name apparently Strawberry Bush, but if you search Hearts A-Burstin’ it comes up because it is in the system as Strawberry Bush (Hearts A-Busting) https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/83150-Euonymus-americanus
Although as I write this I don’t see that parenthesis anymore, but it still came up when i searches Hearts A-Bu is when it auto filled to it.
But it seems to me, if the new common names are accepted, but its confusing due to all being one old common name, the new common names could be first due to the species difference and then after it notes old. This would also help transition too. For example I tend to look for strawberry bush now if I see a hearts a burstin’. ( And yes here we say BuRSting not BuSTing but its still close enough to get to the answer. ) (and yes I know its a euonomyous but i cant spell that ever good enough to get it to come up esp as accents here put a slight D in it like “eudonmyous” lol - I left these misspellings on purpose to show why scientists may still not use sci names on this site ;) )
3 Likes