Is Searsia a nightmare to identify?

agree, I really struggle with the genus, especially telling pterota and longispina apart

R.O. Moffett, 1994, Rhus longispina and Rhus pterota, two hitherto confused South African shrubs,South African Journal of Botany, 60, 43-49, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0254-6299(16)30659-7

Comparison of diagnostic characters of Rhus longispina and R. pterota

Drupe
R.l - Oblate, ellipsoid 3.5 X 2.3 - 6.8 X 4.7 mm, chestnutbrown, drying dark brown; resinous juice and dry drupes, astringent but palatable
R.p - Elliptic, ellipsoid 5.6 X 4.3 - 6.4 X 4.9 mm, slightly asymmetric, dark reddish brown, drying black; resinous juice and dry drupes pungent, distinctly unpalatable leaving a burning sensation in the mouth
Foliage
R.l - New growth glabrous, shiny
R.p - New growth russet, glandular
Leaves
R.l - Petioles semiterete, occasionally margined; leaflets olive-green above, slightly paler below, often laccate; apex often emarginate
R.p - Petiole flattened, distinctly winged; leaflets dull grey-green above, slightly paler below, never laccate; apex never emarginate
Venation
R.l - Secondary veins impressed, not prominent
R.p - Secondary veins prominent above, duJ! yellow, divided towards margin, often somewhat reversed
Habit
R.l - When mature, large rounded shrubs up to 4 m high
R.p - When mature, somewhat untidy squarrose shrubs up to 2 m high
Panicles
R.l - Axillary and terminal, latter prominently exposed
R.p -Fasciculate, not prominently exposed
Bark
R.l - Pale grey-brown to duJ! yeJ!owish on younger branches, granular to slightly striate
R.p - Grey, granular often lichen-covered
Habitat
R.l - Occurs on diverse substrates near the coast and Karoo
R.p - Occurs on calcareous substrates
Distribution
R.l - Widespread near the coast and in the Little and Great Karoo
R.p - along the coast and adjacent interior

Great comparative summary Tony. Thanks. Still haven't a handle on longi. Pterota is common in thicket close to the coast, western section of Garden Route.

Complexes? Probably for me no.
As a veldmuis, exposure to the species in the field works best for me.

What do the others say?
@galpinmd @jeremygilmore @steven_molteno @annsymons

Agreed that the genus is not easy to get a handle on but the past 6 - 8 months there has been considerable improvement and the CV is becoming effective, one step at a time.
Complexes - a strong no vote from me. That would negate the learning that the identifiers have acquired through dint of hard work! (fun too - otherwise we wouldn't volutarily be doing it - the human ones).
However, the need for subspecies, variants and that ilk really does need refinement on iNat's side - to make better provision for doing comparisons at the deeper levels.

So we really need those votes - please tell the participants in this thread how to go and vote, asseblief. Tony.

@annsymons - do you want to vote on nightmares, or complexes, or specific complexes?

@galpinmd
Compact guidelines of what to photograph sounds good! Can be added as a Journal post.

(And local area knowledge is invaluable. It's the diving board for ripples. Without iNat all pterotas would still be longispinas! ;-))

An easy species guide - traits to look for and how to identify can be added to Tony's amazing Searsia guide:
https://www.inaturalist.org/guides/18203?view=card
Preferably keep it accessible to the largest audience by sticking to KISS - Keep it Short and Simple. Limit confusing botanical terms.

Complexes: ..... digesting. Appears to be handy to pigeonhole the observations into more manageable units. I did need that explanation too Tony!

I am not discussing complexes at all - am likely to bail out of idetifying Searsia's if it goes that way.
I was referring to voting for the request that iNat provide more levels below species - ie
a need for subspecies, variants and forma really does need refinement on iNat's side - to make better provision for doing comparisons at the deeper levels. I want to be able to open the 'compare this obs with (only) other obs of eg: Searsia lucida elliptica or Searsia laevigata villosa when I enter that as my identification in the ID box - not have to go to a separate (sub-taxon) page to see the features of RG obs of that level.

Thanks @tonyrebelo and @steven_molteno for providing more clarity regarding the use and usefulness of complexes. I agree that they can be beneficial in moving an observation towards a more precise ID (as opposed to just staying at genus level). I do believe many of these currently confused pairs (e.g. rehmanniana var glabrata and pyroides var pyroides) can be identified to species level (Well, at least I hope so!)
If I may suggest we hold off creating complexes for the time being as we digest the concept and familiarize ourselves with navigating complexes on iNat

Complexes ARE for well defined species. The are specifically for species were visuals dont help with identification, either because they are hidden, on a side difficult to photograph or internal.
But they are only useful where there is a genuine problem. Reviewing the IDs, I noticed over 10 IDs to genus with notes "either Searsia rehmanniana or pyroides" and more than five "either Searsia pallens or glauca" - which is why I asked.
Unfortunately I cannot direct you to them (if they were in a Complex I could) because there are still over 2,600 observations to genus waiting to be identified.
(although this will narrow it down a bit: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/identify?reviewed=any&quality_grade=any&verifiable=any&project_id=searsia-in-southern-africa&lrank=genus&place_id=any&ident_user_id=galpinmd )
here is an example: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/202078231

The longispina vs. pterota issue tends to surface from time to time.
Comments on Journal posts do not reflect on the App's activity feed (not on my Android at least), but Journal items do.
@tonyrebelo could we copy/paste it as a new Journal item, please?
That way it is easier to reference to a Jounrnal link in observations as well.

Are you suggesting a pterota-longispina complex too?

I am aware that the above thread is more about 'complexes' but I've been doing a little more digging re the differences between rehmanniana (RH) and pyroides (PY) and have had the good fortune of getting into contact with Prof Rodney Moffett. He is an elderly gentleman now but is quite sharp and is willing to help with Searsia ID. I sent him some pics of observations of RH/PY(links below) from my general area.
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/206073025
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/184985140
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/196752606

His comments on the above three observations follow:

"I would place all three in iNaturalist as Rhus macowanii, now S. rehmanniana var. glabrata.. From Schonland's comments in my Flora treatment you will see that it is a variable species. Looking at all the specimens in my Ph.D. thesis I don't have S. pyroides from your area. It occurs further inland in drier country"

"S. rehmanniana var glabrata and S. pyroides var pyroides are not easy to tell apart. Habit is often a key factor with the former more sprawling and the latter more compact. The latter's leaflets are also not as rough and I would place your images under Searsia rehmanniana var glabrata, the old Rhus macowanii from your area"

From his comments it appears that PY occurs mainly in the drier areas in the rain shadow of the fold mountains and further north. The specimens to the south appear to be mostly RH. It was something I missed in the comments on PY var pyroides in the Flora treatment. It states that this species occurs in the 'southern Cape interior' - I just saw southern Cape and missed the 'interior' part.
Anyway, it's a start - still got a ways to go though.
Please feel free to disagree with my ID's if you feel I've missed something - I do actually find it helpful.