Taxonomic Swap 139705
(Committed on 2024-02-23)
|
|
replaced with |
|
Comments
As clearly indicated at the top of the page, a discussion has been open for almost 5 years, with no disagreement, here : https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/386794
(same for the other swaps)
Lack of opposition isn't necessarily support for. I don't see any reason why the better option wouldn't be opening up a discussion with tags for people who have observed or identified the taxon (the encouraged method), which is much more likely for them to see and respond to, rather than committing a swap because it has had a flag for x amount of time and no comment.
As stated in the discussion cited, and in the comment at the top top the page : « Ariocarpus retusus in POWO and Lodé ».
The main reason was not that the flag has been open for 5 years without any disagreement, but that both POWO = the external taxonomic authority for vascular plants on iNaturalist and the main competing other source agree.
since the species is not exactly like A. retusus, in addition to the color of the flowers, the shape of the tuber is different, it is speculated that it is a natural hybrid or a subspecies, to work with cacti we decided to deviate from POWO so much because they It takes up to a year to update, as it has a perspective on the species that most of us who work with these taxa do not share, so it was decided to divert several species using Joël Lodé's taxonomy of cacti as a basis. Vol. I to 4; In the case of this species of ariocarpus Lode also stated it as A. retusus but we did not choose to change it and even decided to deviate from that line due to its already mentioned differences; It is common for cacti to be classified from a distance without sufficiently deep appreciation, which causes many species to be grouped into a few and with the passage of time they return to what they were when carefully studied again, as an example are the cases of Epithelantha, Lophophora and Turbinicarpus
In any case, we should ask what the rest think, especially those who know the species more closely.
Ariocarpus confusus is most likely a taxon related to A. trigonus, POWO unfortunately is following the really bad taxonomy of a single person: David Hunt, who made a lot of taxonomical and nomenclatural changes without any systematical, genetic or field support except his name on the changes (Also blamed publicly the rest of the world taxonomist´s on Cactaceae do the same he do at the end). POWO also is failing to recognize many new published names and phylogenetic studies that seggregate or group genera/species on cacti, e.g. POWO prefers to follow his late fellow proposal from Kew (Hunt) instead of dozens of new phylogenetics done by Mexican´s researchers in its own country in many universities (that is a kind of systematic domination too over other´s proposals, very common and known in science). The real problem on dissappear names based on a single taxonomic opinion like POWO is that many good species are vanishing under synonymy and it conservation is compromised in the field on it´s own countries. The validity of names must be based prepferably on published integrative taxonomic studies that lead as a result the synonymy, and not only what a page says, also must be proposed by the national academics and not other people who do not know anything about the native taxa involved. Finally, my recommendation is that any nomenclatural synonymy must be first validated by phylogenetic or integrative taxonomic studies available, if not available, the names must remain until it´s done.
<3
Note : there was no deviation for this species.
You can send a feedback to POWOwith the relevant literature.
See : https://powo.science.kew.org/contact
And how can one vote to disagree with the decision to include Confusus in Retusus?
It's a pity that this, like other species of cacti, are classified according to D.R. Hunt's preference.
con que la mayoría de los que tienen los registros junto con los principales identificadores del taxón comenten que no están de acuerdo con lo que del otro lado del mundo consideran.
que opinan @ug56bdi @aztekium @lexgarcia1 @leokese @lidiasc @marplant @ulianov @naturenl @iemontenegro.
Considero que debemos basarnos en estudios basados en datos intrínsecos, de las plantas, y datos ambientales, echarle la culpa a gente que ahora no se puede defender, me parece poco académico. Recuerdo que la maestra Bravo nos comentó, cuando le decíamos que la seguiríamos como 'escuela', dijo, no! hagan ustedes su propia escuela. Recuerden que la taxonomía y la nomenclatura es una 'guerra de ideas'. Aun cuando nos parezcan o se sientan gente muy docta, siempre debemos ser más inteligentes.
Los que están a favor de situarla en retusus seguramente:
Nunca han estado en el sitio por mas de media hora
No conocen la diferencia entre una caliza y un esquisto (sedimentarias vs metamorficas) mucho menos conocen la columna estratigráfica del estado de Nuevo León
No han puesto la atención en la diversidad de formas en las que apuntan los tubérculos, hacia el ápice o hacia afuera
No han prestado atención a la variación en la textura y color de la epidermis
No han prestado atención a la forma del tubérculo en sección transversal
creer que todos los Ariocarpus de la zona de los esquistos sean tratados como Ariocarpus retusus ssp. retusus parece mas un capricho de seguir las reglas otros, que realmente tener un criterio propio.
Cuando quieran organizar un viaje para estudiar más a fondo el enigma de Aramberri, echenme un grito inclusive por whats https://wa.me/message/C4C2I6XRM2LPI1
Here around is common to forget that the only authorized people for remove names is the composed by the Nomenclatural Commitee for Vascular Plants from the IAPT, always after a long debate and revision of papers and cases to justify it, the rest of changes of names, if not published or studied properly simply is failing in a mistake.
Another way for say it is that INAT platform is not a taxonomical authority on anything if not supported by taxonomists, even more, it´s just a "citizen science" photo page.
Qué hacer entonces? Parece que no todos estamos de acuerdo con algunos cambios o que se agreguen nombres solo porque lo dice fulano o zutano'. Considero que para los nombres que queremos que aparezcan debemos en bloque, respetuosamente, dirigirnos a la gente de California, para que solo un grupo selecto de nosotros hagamos cambios, siempre basándonos en estudios bien hechos. Saludos cordiales a todos.
para poder poner a CACTACEAE como "Locked Taxon" primero hay que tener una lista completa de las especies, se intentó empezar con los géneros pero pues no hubo mucho interés por parte del KEW para darle seguimiento pues no parece interesarles en absoluto otras opiniones; sin embargo eso era para poder homologar POWO y iNat, pero en función de que no hay actualizaciones de su plataforma más que cada año podemos crear una lista de desviaciones taxonómicas solo para los casos que en conjunto se consideren necesarios, incluso podemos abrir la advertencia sobre la especie con la información para proponerla como nomen conservandum.
@najera_tutor : only the newly published names are added to POWO once a year. Other changes are made every week or two.
For a nomen conservandum, see : https://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/pages/main/art_14.html
@t_e_d también tardan en artículos publicados que separan especies o reconocen a otras como válidas, los únicos cambios que he visto que realizan en un periodo corto es cuando son cambios en niveles taxonómicos superiores a género.
@najera_tutor : I send several feedback to POWO each week. The changes are always made at the next refresh.
puede ser, en CONVOLVULACEAE y otros, pero en el caso de CACTACEAE siempre han preferido mantener la directriz de su vaca sagrada local.
I send feedbacks about many different families, not only Convolvulaceae.
Please, don't write in all caps. See : https://www.inaturalist.org/pages/community+guidelines
Don't write in ALL CAPS. On the Internet, ALL CAPS is the equivalent of screaming at someone a hand's breadth away from their face. You might think you are being emphatic, but most people think you're screaming. A more polite way to add emphasis is to add an asterisk on either end of the word (or words) you would like to emphasize, like this.
Solo uso mayúsculas para familias y para acrónimos, si eso le ofende pues no es mi intención y tampoco mi problema.
Please again, remove the all caps.
Botanical families shouldn’t be written in all caps, but in italics.
Por lo general, los niveles taxonómicos superiores deben ir en mayúsculas (familia, orden, clase, filo o división y reino), pero no en cursiva. Sin embargo, hay algunos casos especiales: las bacterias, los hongos y los virus también deben ir en cursiva en el nivel de familia.
llevo mucho más tiempo que usted en ésta plataforma y ha sido la única persona que se ha sentido agredida por escribir una familia botánica como es debido
Ahora, si insiste en que le parece inadecuado puede poner una advertencia y consultarlo, mientras tanto lo seguiré haciendo pues así es correcto; en lo personal solo me parece una manera para salirse por la tangente.
ICTV § 3.27 (virus)
In formal taxonomic usage, the accepted names of virus, viroid and satellite realms, subrealms, kingdoms, subkingdoms, phyla, subphyla, classes, subclasses, orders, suborders, families, subfamilies, genera and subgenera are printed in italics and the first letters of the names are capitalized.
ICN Preface § Formatting and standards used in the Code (including algae, fungi and plants)
As in all recent editions, scientific names under the jurisdiction of the Code, irrespective of rank, are consistently printed in italic type.
ICNP Chapter 4. Advisory notes (procaryotes, including Eubacteria and Archaea)
It is recommended to print scientific names by a different typeface, e.g., italic, or by some other device to distinguish them from the rest of the text.
(note : except for candicatus, see Appendix 11)
...and as the very next sentence in the ICN preface after your quote clearly states, "The Code sets no binding standard in this respect, as typography is a matter of editorial style and tradition, not of nomenclature." (in the next sentence it then states that editors and authors may wish to follow the Code's example for uniformity's sake, but again, that's not remotely the same as all caps being "contrary to all rules and recommendations of the different International Codes of Nomenclature")
And the next sentence :
Nevertheless, editors and authors, in the interest of international uniformity, may wish to consider following the practice exemplified by the Code, which has been well received in general and is followed in a number of botanical and mycological journals.
It is clearly a recommandation.
@najera_tutor Please avoid being passive aggressive. I've now discussed with @t_e_d that you should be allowed to capitalize families and have asked them to stop telling you to change it.
@arman_ : I totally disagree.
See : https://www.inaturalist.org/pages/community+guidelines
Don't write in ALL CAPS. On the Internet, ALL CAPS is the equivalent of screaming at someone a hand's breadth away from their face. You might think you are being emphatic, but most people think you're screaming. A more polite way to add emphasis is to add an asterisk on either end of the word (or words) you would like to emphasize, like this.
Alguien va a opinar sobre el Ariocarpus en cuestión, o vamos a seguir viendo una discusión de reglas de netiquette?
It would be wise to tag others and open a discussion first with taxa you are committing all of these swaps for with 0 input, especially taxa that have several observations. @najera_tutor @carloslim @gonzalezii @aztekium qué opinas?