Andropogon glomeratus. Esto
ocurre cuando no podemos asignar automáticamente una identificación a uno de los
taxa de salida.
Revisar identificaciones de Andropogon glomeratus 75432
Taxonomic Split 102763
(Guardado el 27/07/2022)
|
|
dividido en |
|
Comentarios
Sorry, this swap didn't do exactly what was intended, and that was at least partially my fault. I think it needs to be reverted and redone with different atlases, @loarie can you help please?
Some of the confusion comes from the appearance of the Analyze IDs section, which looked ok, but it turns out that the first Andropogon glomeratus is the species, and the third and fourth lines are the complex.
reverting
Yikes. Sorry for messing it all up! :-/
The paper that caused a bit of this deals strictly with the Southeast US, so the species outside of that range aren't discussed. This change was mostly made for the 3k observations or so from TX where some folks were going observation by observation to change the ID's (lots of time and energy!).
Apologies.
Its reverted. I'm not versed into what was screwed up before but to me it looks like it would be ok if it was committed now - not sure what was changed
@loarie thanks for the help and sorry again for the trouble.
Do you know why there are many fewer input IDs this time around? The screenshot above shows ~11600 glomeratus IDs, but the new analysis shows ~7100 IDs.
I have many observations that were teleported to "Andropogon glomeratus Complex" with no action on my end after the split was committed. Despite the reversion they're still showing up as that which I'm guessing is why there are suddenly fewer ANDRGLO observations.
maybe an indexing thing or maybe it didn't properly revert. There's a lot of content involved. Taxon changes are officially irreversable and our attempts to revert them aren't perfect
Here's some info that may help:
Original monograph when species treated as varieties: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/9260011#page/246/mode/1up
Info for A. eremicus (as A. g. var. scabriglumus): https://www.jstor.org/stable/2419116
Initial justification for treatment at species level (not enough elaboration for my taste, but oh well): https://journals.brit.org/jbrit/article/view/910/826
Extended justification to A. tenuispatheus: http://www.phytoneuron.net/2018Phytoneuron/73PhytoN-Andropogoneremicus.pdf
Incorporation into SE US flora: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346966543_Studies_in_the_vascular_flora_of_the_southeastern_United_States_VI
A. g. var. pumilas = A. tenuispatheus
A. g. var. scabriglumus = A. eremicus
A. g. var. glaucopsis = A. cretaceus
A. g. var. hirsutior = A. hirsutior
A. g. var. glomeratus = A. glomeratus s.s.
I updated the atlas for A. eremicus as best I could. There is some uncertainty regarding the eastern edge of the range of A. eremicus and the western edge of A. tenuispatheus, but I think there are only a handful of observations from those areas. Powell indicates that most of the Trans-Pecos Texas plants are A. eremicus (under a different name), but the other does occur there. Chihuahua is probably the same way, but I'm not sure about Durango. Hard to say if A. tenuispatheus makes it to NM but it might be best to consider it A. eremicus until someone looks into it and "discovers" a new species for New Mexico.
[Removed some stuff that is no longer valid]
I kicked off the revert again incase it timed out or something - not sure if it will help
The revert is complete, we're back to square one, thanks @loarie
It sounds like there is a desire to move IDs other than just the ones in Texas, but I'm not honestly clear on what should go where.
Reiterating what I wrote here: https://www.inaturalist.org/atlases/15469
I guess I was under the impression that A. tenuispatheus was being thought of as the western species in the discussion and saw the taxon split had been committed. As a latecomer to the discussion, I panicked a little bit and wanted to get as much geographic info out as I could as quickly as I could. It wasn't so much a desire to apply outside of Texas but a misunderstanding that the taxonomy was trying to be applied outside of Texas. I don't mind this being applied only to Texas too much, but even within Texas, A. eremicus is included within the A. glomeratus complex. That said, I don't know if it's a good idea to change the taxonomy for just one state and ignore everything else. That may cause more confusion than the initial taxon split itself.
@loarie I am curious to know your thoughts here regarding state specific vs. broader application of the taxonomy, though.
As for where things should go, the maps provided by Campbell give a pretty good indication the continental US (more info here: https://www.inaturalist.org/atlases/15469). It's not clear-cut in all cases, but the SE US stuff has already been segregated so we shouldn't have to worry about that. A. eremicus is essentially the only unincorporated name.
@nathantaylor Well, the confusion is already happening, since iNat users are already manually changing their IDs to A. tenuispatheus throughout Texas. With this reverted, users will see A. glomeratus as the most abundant species in Texas and A. tenuispatheus as a less abundant species -- when they should all be A. tenuispatheus. I think it would be good to change what we know can be verified, then add to the taxon split as the outer ranges of the split become better defined.
I looked back over some previous taxonomic changes, and it seems like the glomeratus complex was created in October, and the individual subspecies were elevated, but there was never a proper taxon split at the species level. So in theory, some of the glomeratus IDs made since October could be sensu stricto, but probably nearly all glomeratus IDs are still sensu lato and we should do a full split to all the elevated subspecies, bumping IDs to complex in areas of overlap or uncertainty.
I added the elevated subspecies as outputs, but didn't atlas anything, so it's definitely not ready to commit.
Update:
To be a bit more conservative with eremicus, I added Sonora and Durango, and to be a bit less conservative in Texas, I limited it to the Trans-Pecos region
I added Arkansas and Tennessee to hirsutior, following statements by @theo_witsell
I expanded tenuispatheus, following Campbell 1983, and also added NM and Chihuahua to be conservative
The Hawaii Invasive Species Council says they have tenuispatheus, but the USDA says they have glomeratus s.s. and I'm not sure who to believe -- seems like a state-level agency would know their state specimens better?
here are the Campell and Weakley maps:
and the map of the atlases as they stand right now (note: lots of overlap in the southeast):
As expected, this will cause all the IDs in the southeast to go up to complex, but Texas will go almost exclusively to tenuispatheus, and the southwest will go to eremicus. Most of Mexico and further south will go to tenuispatheus. Hawaii will go to complex unless we add it to either glomeratus ss or to tenuispatheus.
Any other issues?
@loarie when I run analyze IDs, I'm not getting the line for IDs outside of all atlases. Do you know why that is? As an example, there are IDs in Hawaii, but Hawaii is not currently in any of the output atlases.
hmm I think thats a bug thanks for catching it - the version you can run from here https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/102763/edit includes it
I’m curious if there’s been any progress on this taxon split. It can be confusing seeing two species throughout Texas even though they should be the same.
Is their a published source for the taxonomic split and the status of California Plants? Plants of the World online is not actually a source, it is a global checklist, and when I searched this species on Plants of the World, it restricted the species to the SE United States; California (where I am) and Mexican plants were still listed under A. glomeratus. Clarification please.