There was an earlier forum discussion of this change and it seems there is broad agreement.
Perhaps someone familiar with the IBC decision can confirm that no further action (e.g. an additional publication) is needed to make these changes effective? If IPNI and POWO have made those changes, my guess would be they are already effective. But I’m not yet seeing Article 61.6 listed here: https://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/pages/main/art_61.html
Once we’re sure of that, we just need a good process to make the corresponding changes to iNat. Some thoughts:
- We should have a presumption to make these changes, even when iNat’s taxonomy diverges from POWO.
- We need to decide whether we are preserving the old names as synonyms. Pro: People can find the current taxon using the old name, which will appear in all literature prior to 2024. Con: The old names are being changed because they’re offensive; preserving them as synonyms perpetuates that offense to some extent. From what I can tell POWO may not be listing the old names as synonyms. Does the IBC decision have any guidance here?
- Ideally, the changes would get some review by iNat users/curators familiar with the taxa involved. I’m not suggesting that iNat should decide whether to make these changes on a cas-by-case basis, but there may be unresolved flags and other taxonomic issues that can be addressed at the same time.
- We may need an overall process to track the 200+ name changes to help ensure that they’re handled consistently and completely. Maybe @loarie could offer some guidance?
- It would be great to have input from botanists from southern Africa in this process.