Taxonomic Swap 59495 (Committed on 2020-05-19)

POWO (Citation)
Added by bobby23 on July 8, 2019 03:25 PM | Committed by alexiz on May 19, 2020
replaced with

Comments

This species has no subspecific taxa attributed to it on Plants of the World Online.

Posted by bobby23 over 4 years ago

POWO does not focus on subspecies. The fact that there are no subspecies on POWO does not mean that there are no subspecies!
DO NOT SINK THIS SUBSPECIES.

Posted by tonyrebelo over 4 years ago

@tonyrebelo for this specific species, Ipomoea pes-caprae brasiliensis is not absent from the POWO - it is listed as a junior synonym for the species (http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:30040623-2#synonyms).

Posted by bobby23 over 4 years ago

Yes: that is standard taxonomic procedure in the literature - it implies that the subspecies are included in the species - but not necessarily that they are sunk, but it might be incorrectly transferred in POWO. I dont know well enough: I would prefer to the see primary literature where it was "sunk" before sinking it.

Posted by tonyrebelo over 4 years ago

In a genetic study, Miryeganeh et al (2014) state that "populations of subsp. pes-caprae that are restricted to only the northern part of the Indian Ocean region were highly differentiated from subsp. brasiliensis". Seems there is good evidence to keep the subspecies splits.

Link to the paper in PLoS One here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0091836

Posted by linda_harris over 4 years ago

If that is the case, then there are subspecies currently missing because I. p. brasiliensis is the only subspecies listed under Ipomoea pes-caprae.

Posted by bobby23 over 4 years ago

Hi @alexiz This is a subject of interest for me, and the taxon change affects a species that is part of sandy beach systems that I study, so I am keen to be on top of the latest information. I'm an ecologist and not a taxonomist, so I'm here to learn. Please can you explain why subspecies brasiliensis was dropped?

I had a look for the most recent research on Ipomoea pes-caprae, and found this:
Wood JRI, Muñoz-Rodríguez P, Williams BRM, Scotland RW (2020) A foundation monograph of Ipomoea (Convolvulaceae) in the New World. PhytoKeys 143: 1–823. https://doi.org/10.3897/phytokeys.143.32821
"Ipomoea pes-caprae is commonly divided into two subspecies or varieties. Only subsp. brasiliensis (or var. emarginata, if recognised at varietal level) occurs in the New World. It is recognised by its emarginate leaves, whereas the type from the northern Indian Ocean area has deeply bilobed leaves, the lobes somewhat divergent. Opinions about the status of these two forms have varied over the years. Recent molecular studies (Miryeganeh et al. 2014) suggest the two forms are genetically separate and rarely hybridise but some intermediates occur and the issue is not yet fully resolved."

(Link to Miryeganeh et al. 2014 in my previous comment in this thread)

Perhaps this subspecies should be retained until, as @tonyrebelo suggested, there is primary published research indicating that these subspecies are not valid? Especially because it seems that the recent genetic evidence is in support of the subspecies, even if - as Wood et al (2020) point out - it's not yet fully resolved. I'm just wondering what the motivation was for removing this subspecies (and still keeping ssp. pes-caprae). Thanks very much - appreciate your time.

Posted by linda_harris almost 4 years ago

@loarie - what do we do in such cases where curators commit a change despite objections and the current publications, and without offering any further explanation or comment?

not very nice behaviour!

Posted by tonyrebelo almost 4 years ago

EDIT: I completely misunderstood the situation. I thought I had committed this taxon swap prematurely. I now see that that is not the case.

If I recall, part of my reservations was that Kew had started to reinstate subspecific taxa for many plants on POWO, but continued to treat Ipomoea pes-caprae brasiliensis as a synonym (not a child taxon) of Ipomoea pes-caprae. My intention was to contact Kew to ask them why and share what they told me here, but life unfortunately got in the way and I forgot to do so. While I still think it's a good idea to contact Kew - and to share the information you all provided - there is no issue with reinstate the subspecies at least in the interim.

Posted by bobby23 almost 4 years ago

I have restored the subspecies (https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/236504). What I cannot do is reinstate the subspecies-level identifications, unfortunately.

Posted by bobby23 almost 4 years ago

Unfortunately, they probably amount to 3000 of the 3300 observations.
Any chance of requesting a rollback?

Posted by tonyrebelo almost 4 years ago

Thank you for reinstating the subspecies @bobby23.
Following to see if the rollback is possible - great suggestion @tonyrebelo

Posted by linda_harris almost 4 years ago

Add a Comment

Sign In or Sign Up to add comments