Alnus. This
happens when we can't automatically assign an identification to one of the
output taxa.
Review identifications of Alnus glutinosa 54222
Taxonomic Split 65096
(Committed on 2019-12-29)
|
|
split into |
|
Comments
@apseregin I'm just following the curator guide:
https://www.inaturalist.org/pages/curator+guide
What duarte did was okay. He added a taxon split for for Alnus glutinosa, a taxon that is still accepted but that had to be split into three different species.
The system is not able to accept Alnus glutinosa as both, input taxon and output taxon, therefore a second Alnus glutinosa had to be created that is used as the output taxon.
I don't like this either, but i don't know any other solution for taxonsplits like this.
[I haven't read any of the literature, but] yes 966205 would be the new sensu stricto Alnus glutinosa
Ok, let it be just a technical issue. To say truly, I would br prrfer adding of two new taxa with subsequent reidentification. Nonetheless, thanks guys for friendly explanations
Yes, the problem with not doing a taxon split is particularly users who are inactive or do not update their IDs. The user "intended" Alnus glutinosa sensu lato with their original ID and may not be around to reidentify as Alnus rohlenae in areas where they co-occur. It's not fair that their ID then becomes "maverick" when the community reidentifies.
It's also a lot of work to reidentify vs. doing the taxon split.
Consider a situation like an Alnus glutinosa observation in Greece, where its range overlaps with Alnus rohlenae:
ID1: Alnus glutinosa sensu lato
ID2: Alnus glutinosa sensu lato
ID3: Alnus glutinosa sensu lato
ID4: Alnus glutinosa sensu lato
to reidentify the observation as the new Alnus rohlenae, without doing a taxon change, it would require nine new IDs!
with the taxon split, all four of their IDs automatically transfer to genus (Alnus). It then only requires one ID of Alnus rohlenae to change the observation taxon from genus to species and two IDs to return to research grade at species.
In the case of the north-central Iberian Peninsula, the distribution of Alnus glutinosa and Alnus lusitanica is not well known. I do not think that they should be replaced one by the other automatically. Some photographs allow to take morphometric measurements of the fruits and sometimes they are in the size limit between both species.
What's going on? @kai_schablewski , @bouteloua , @blue_celery . I need your assistance to review an issue and most probably to retract unnecessary change. Introducing Alnus glutinosa 966205 instead Alnus glutinosa 54222 is useless