Taxonomic Swap 78689
(Committed on 2020-06-25)
|
|
replaced with |
|
Comments
back to the old times...too many bits of life named after Cunningham..or just sent south as australis for that matter!
@gtaseski I already did!
@gtaseski I'm a bit lost here. Is your reason: POWO, etc? Source: unknown
I'm trying to make sense of the relation between a number of authorities here and still don't follow your reasoning. Would you mind spelling it out a bit more clearly, please?
Generally, iNat follows POWO (Plants of the World Online). This and all other current global plant databases do not recognise Diploglottis australis as an accepted species name. In this case, The Plant List is clearest: http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl1.1/record/kew-2771028
Thanks for taking the time @stephen_thorpe
I wonder why POWO lists four species as synonyms of Diploglottis cunninghamii and doesn't mention Diploglottis australis as a synonym. Are you allowed to just guess? Or, is The Plant List a better authority?
POWO doesn't actually mention typical Diploglottis australis at all, but I'm interpreting this as an omission which The Plant List resolves. POWO does list as synonyms:
Melicocca australis (G.Don) Steud. and
Stadmania australis G.Don
These are clearly synonyms of Diploglottis australis (G.Don) Radlk, so POWO has clearly just overlooked this name.
See this reference: http://plantnet.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/emuwebnswlive/objects/common/webmedia.php?irn=65712&reftable=ebibliography
The basionym for Diploglottis australis is Stadmannia australis G. Don which was published in 1831 and based a living specimen at Kew. The combination Diploglottis australis was made in 1878 by the german Radlkofer. The basionym for Diploglottis cunninghamii is Cupania cunninghamii which was published in 1841 by Willliam Jackson and based on living specimen also at Kew. The combination Diploglottis cunninghamii was published in 1863 in Flora Australiensis by Bentham. The plants grown at Kew were collected and sent over by Allan Cunningham. Allan Cunningham wrote the name Stadmannia australis on his specimens from eastern Australia, however he never validly published that name. G. Don was the person who validly published Stadmannia australis in 1831. Both Stadmannia australis and Cupania cunninghamii have the same neotype and lectotype collected by Allan Cunningham. I think as Stadmannia australis was the first validly published name, its subsequent synonyms should have priority over the name Diploglottis cunninghamii, which was based on Cupania cunninghamii first published in 1841.
@stephen_thorpe
Stephen, thanks for clarification, however that seems a bit arbitrary to me. I would have thought that committees would have met, proposals would have been thrashed out, and some clear resolution would have been in place before any of us could legitimately drop an accepted name in common use.
POWO refers to IPNI - The International Plant Names Index for other data where it suggests that the status of Diploglottis cunninghamii, is nom. inval.
The Plant List suggests that Melicocca australis (G.Don) Steud. and Stadmania australis A.Cunn. ex Hook are both unresolved names
The Plant List is basing their recommendations for name acceptance on 2012 data, which, eight years later is still WCSP (in review)
A couple of examples of current usage:
*GBIF is using Diploglottis australis Hook.f. ex Benth. as accepted
*APC/APNI - Australian Plant Census/Australian Plant Name Index are using Diploglottis australis (G.Don) Radlk. and I understand that APNI and IPNI feed into each other
It appears to me that Diploglottis cunninghamii has been recommended to the scientific community as a name for what we have up to now considered to be Diploglottis australis. However, it is far from clear that Diploglottis australis should no longer be used.
I don't think that iNaturalist should be a vanguard here.
Well, there is clearly a nomenclatural mess involved, but the important thing is that both names on iNat refer to the same taxon, which they did not before I made the taxon change. It doesn't really matter which is the preferred name. iNat generally follows POWO, which is a bit more complicated in this case, but, as I said, since both names refer to the same plant species, we don't want both names on iNat as if they were different species and it doesn't really matter which is the preferred name as long as both names point to the same taxon page.
Well thats just stupid, what a mess. If i am working in Qld i have to use the Qld names or they would think i mad. The Qld Census doesnt inclue D. cunninghamii, our latest books dont either, what a mess
You can still use (and search) the name D. australis, it will just display as D. cunninghamii. There is no problem.
Stephen, i find that crazy, its D. australis in Qld, and it should be used, not D. cunninghamii. If i used . cunninghamii in my ecological reports people here would think that was incorrect.
That's their problem
Martin, you're not crazy. A lot of very smart people put a lot of effort into getting our botanical names correct. There are significant legal, commercial, and environmental consequences of using an incorrect name. There isn't always consensus amongst the big players and there can be strong professional disagreements while it gets sorted out. In the meantime the rest of us are supposed to follow some authority, generally in Australia that would be APC, the Australian Plant Census, and in Queensland, which might have a different interpretation it would be the Queensland Herbarium. In the case of the Australian Native Tamarind they both agree that its name is Diploglottis australis.
However, iNaturalist takes its names from Kew, in England, the POWO, Plants of the World Online. POWO doesn't list Diploglottis australis, but as Stephen does point out it does list Diploglottis cunninghamii and gives four synonyms: Cupania cunninghamii, Diploglottis cunninghamii var. diphyllostegia , Melicocca australis and Stadmania australis, all previously published names.
Interestingly none of those synonyms mentions Diploglottis australis. So if we are to take POWO as the authority, there is no reason that Diploglottis cunninghamii and Diploglottis australis are the same plant. Using a non-Kew plant list (and there are lots of plant lists to choose from) that suggests that australis is a synonym of cunninghamii is overstepping what Kew have written.
And, as I have mentioned above, there are several Kew-based and other international authorities that don't align with POWO and are still using the name Diploglottis australis. None of those agencies are rushing to change their names, and are continuing to use Diploglottis australis as the generally accepted name.
I think Stephen changed the name on iNat under a mistaken premise. POWO does not suggest they are the same plant. There was no confusion. Changing a name like this adds confusion for no useful outcome.
@johntann99 There was no mistaken premise. The iNat database had both names active as if they were distinct species, which clearly they are not. POWO lists the basionym of D. australis as a synonym of D. cunninghamii, so there IS "reason that Diploglottis cunninghamii and Diploglottis australis are the same plant". The only issue is the preferred name, i.e. the name that displays. You can still use and search on iNat for D. australis, but it will just DISPLAY automatically as D. cunninghamii. A note can be added by the uploader to any observations to the effect that they prefer the name D. australis for this species. There is no problem here.
I have no objection if someone wants to merge the names the other way around, so that D. australis is the preferred name, but I'm not going to do that myself, because I have followed iNat protocol and merged the names according to POWO and other similar sources. I do have an objection to reinstating both names as if they referred to different species. Please don't do that!
Can you explain the reason for this change?