What is the meaning of Alchemilla vulgaris in iNaturalist taxonomy?

I am confused about Alchemilla vulgaris. In some taxonomies it is a catch-all taxon for all apomictic species (similar to how Taraxacum officinale works). However, the current iNat taxon originated by a split of A. acutiloba into A. vulgaris and A. mollis so the sensu latissimo interpretation seems dubious to me and I think it might be a synonym to what key to the flora of Czechia calls A. acutiloba - that means one particular species with acute lobes and distinct distribution of hair in various locations (A. mollis is also recognized by the Czech key).

However, many users in our country seems to apply this name for any Alchemilla (most often resembling A. monticolla, but unidentifiable due to invisible details like the hair).

What is the right course of action? Let any Alchemilla be A. vulgaris if the users want the broad meaning of the taxon? Or disagree that the specimen cannot be what we know in other taxonomies as A. acutiloba because the leaves are clearly different or the hair, if visible at all, are different?

Disagree, of course, species is suggested by cv and most people don’t know there’s not only one species, but dozens of them, so reiding is needed.

1 Like

In iNat taxonomy, Alchemilla vulgaris isn’t a “catchall” species, it is one of the hundreds of similar apomictic species that are all considered separate. There’s actually a person on iNaturalist who specializes on the genus Alchemilla, @alchemillist, and if you have enough photos of the plant showing different details (flowers, up and side view, abaxial and adaxial side of leaf, close up of stem and leaf petiole showing the hairs) I’m pretty sure you can mention him on the observation page and he might give a species ID. If you see someone just label any Alchemilla as A.vulgaris without any of the details visible, disagree and just put it as genus Alchemilla, then choose the “as good as it is, cannot be improved” option. This way , the observation can get to research grade.