Taxonomic Swap 45010
(Committed on 2019-01-01)
|
|
replaced with |
|
Comments
Well, they can be updated from dolichostyla just as easily as from debilis.
I agree with Phil. C. dolichostyla is specifically applied to what was the entity tagged "long style" The old designation was at least correct as it stood before the revision. Now it is only partially correct. For those people not familiar with the genus I think the change could be confusing.
This is a tricky situation.
Heenan (2017; p. 73) notes that the 'holotype of Cardamine debilis DC. is small and scrappy making the specimen difficult to assign to a particular species.....based on the slender and long style this specimen is therefore treated as Cardamine dolichostyla....... However, Cardamine debilis DC is an illegitimate name because it includes the earlier name "Sisymbrium heterophyllum G.Forst. [a different plant [my notes]]'. To complicate matters "Sisymbrium heterophyllum G.Forst." could not be used for the New Zealand Cardamine because in Cardamine that epithet is preoccupied by C. heterophylla Host (1797) so the combination C. heterophylla (G.Forst.) Schulz (1903) doesn't have priority. It is for this reason that Govaerts (1999) provided a 'new name' for the New Zealand plant - Cardamine forsteri Govaerts. Govaerts (1999) did not typify that name. It transpires that Forster's "Sisymbrium heterophyllum" as Heenan (2017; p. 84) makes clear, is a different plant to de Candolle's C. debilis; i.e. Forster's type of Sisymbrium heterophyllum is not the same as Heenan's Cardamine dolichostyla; following Heenan's typification it is now part of the synonymy of Cardamine forsteri
I am not sure how, in iNaturalist one conveys this situation.
I think how Stephen has tried to convey all of this is probably as good as anyone can within the workings of iNaturalist - I confess that I have left this one alone because I could not think of how to do it.
I am also not sure Phil how you can say that the 'old circumscription of C. debilis encompassed a number of new species in Heenan's revision' so that Stephen's decisions here are 'strictly not accurate' in the sense of past Flora treatments what you say may be so but surely in terms of the nomenclature and application of names Cardamine debilis can only, ultimately, apply to the type? In that sense Peter Heenan has made a clear decision, that de Candolle's plant and illegitimate name matches only Heenan's C. dolichostyla.
Or did I read that wrong?
Thanks PeterI think you have explaned it correctly in terms that even a taxonomic novice like me can understand. I see that a flag has been raised as POWO have not yet caught up with Peter Heenan's paper which may be understandable as it is quite something to digest.
No problem. These sorts of name changes are tricky and in reality unless people have taken images of all the necessary structures it will be well nigh impossible to put names on those taxa that had generically been lumped into C. debilis prior to Peter's revision. That I cannot fix - I have the same problem with many of my postings pre-Heenan (2017). As for POWO, well they have not caught up with many things......
POWO only index published changes, pretty much uncritically. Anyway, all options in this particular case are suboptimal, so we might as well just accept the status quo, i.e. my change, which at least has the advantage of not accepting a species, i.e. debilis, which is no longer accepted as a good species. My change is also consistent with NZOR: http://www.nzor.org.nz/names/30860a31-b21a-4434-99c9-de82f6fd4c7d
Yes Stephen as I said above your decision and action is the best one to take on this website. I have the same misgivings about POWO as I did of the 'Plant List' - there is a pattern whereby Southern Hemisphere decisions and publications are often ignored. I gave up trying to get this fixed with 'The Plant List' and I have as yet not tried to address these issues with POWO.
Yes, we in NZ are better placed to keep track of our own biota here on iNat, without reliance on global websites which don't even seem to know NZ exists!
LOL - I quite agree -
This is not strictly accurate in that the old circumscription of C. debilis encompassed a number of the new species in Heenan's revision, including C. dolichostyla. The observations will need to be updated one by one.