Taxonomic Swap 147321
(Guardado el 30/09/2024)
|
|
Reemplazado con |
|
Comentarios
@sbdplantgal I posed this question in the original swap flag. I'd prefer that B.b. laevicaulis be lumped (for now) into B. leucophaea to avoid any confusion. It took a while for POWO to recognize B. leucophaea as a good species and I imagine it will take a little while longer for them to recognize the two varieties leucophaea and laevicaulis. From my understanding, iNat does not follow 'regional' taxa recommendations unless there is unanimous support for them, but I do think Weakley's FSUS correctly recognizes the two varieties
@sbdplantgal If you think a taxon should be swapped, it's best to flag that taxon directly, rather than commenting on the swap for a related taxon. I'll flag it myself, since I noticed your comment here, and it looks like I should have caught that when doing the main swap.
But if B. leucophaea laevicaulis is Baptista leucophaea, and there are no other varieties, then the nominate variety would be superfluous. https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:304758-2#synonyms But as @jakes26 points out, it may be only a matter of time and respectful communication with POWO before the Weakly varieties are recognized.
What about Baptisia bracteata var. laevicaulis? According to Kew POWO -- it is now also accepted as Baptisia leucophaea without intraspecifics.
Weakley 2024 lists both Baptisia leucophaea var. leuophaea and Baptisia leucophaea var. laevicaulis.