Thanks. @bouteloua made a similar point here.
The only other thing I can think of is whether Dichelostemma needs to be split into Dichelostemma (sensu stricto) and Dipterostemon? i.e. if there are IDs of Dichelostemma that could refer to Dipterostemon, then we’d want to do a taxon split for the genus so that those IDs can either be transferred to Dipterostemon based on range or bumped to the common ancestor.
(and after the changes are committed, to wire up taxon framework relationship deviations, which I can help with)
I’m thinking through the pros and cons of the genus split. I think it comes down to the proportion of Dichelostemma genus IDs that are “maybe D. capitatum, maybe some Dichelostemma species” vs. the proportion that are “one of the other Dichelostemma species but probably not D. capitatum”. Most are probably in the former category, so these IDs should either get bumped up to Brodiaeaoidea (most of them) or assigned to one or other genus based on an atlas (fairly few).
Good point @cmcheatle. I’ll do that once I’ve finalized the taxon swap/split details.