Taxonomic Swap 16557
(Guardado el 06/09/2016)
|
|
Reemplazado con |
Comentarios
I think that's a right thing. If you type in a common name, the scientific name appeared more than one and all of them look similar would make me confused. There are similar problem, should be fixed as what Erechtites hieraciifolius did. Currently, I have found the similar cases: Rhus copallinum with Rhus copallina, Solanum ptychanthum with Solanum ptycanthum.
I normally don't do taxonomic fixes for plants or anything other than mollusks, because I don't really know what I am doing with the other groups, including not knowing the proper sources.
However I could try with those other two (Rhus copallinum /Rhus copallina, Solanum ptychanthum/Solanum ptycanthum) if no-one else will attempt to fix them?
@kueda -- good idea or not?
Again, please consult the taxonomic authorities listed at http://www.inaturalist.org/pages/curator+guide#policies. For example GoBotany and the plant list both use Rhus copallinum and not Rhus copallina, so you should not make that change.
But apparently the listings do need a change in the other direction, since either way we don't want two differently spelled versions of the same name in the database.
Actually... I am pretty busy getting ready for a 3-week trip to California starting next Tuesday, so I will let someone else sort out these botany glitches. I will stick to mollusks, where I know what I am doing :)
Ah, if both are present then yes, they need to be synonymized. I'm just saying the one that should remain should be the one used by our listed authorities, if possible.
FWIW, I suspect this was the right thing to do, but for the wrong reason: we don't follow the NY Flora Atlas. The relevant authority here would probably be GoBotany, but they also follow this treatment: https://gobotany.newenglandwild.org/species/erechtites/hieraciifolius/