New taxon change

Taxonomic Changes

Change types
Clear filters

Taxonomic Swap 100394 (Committed on 2021-10-17)

POWO (Citation)
Added by dryopteris2 on October 17, 2021 20:20 | Committed by dryopteris2 on October 17, 2021
replaced with

Taxonomic Split 100393 (Committed on 2021-10-17)

POWO (Citation)
Added by dryopteris2 on October 17, 2021 19:32 | Committed by dryopteris2 on October 17, 2021
split into

Taxonomic Swap 100392 (Committed on 2021-10-17)

unknown
Yes
Added by borisb on October 17, 2021 17:38 | Committed by borisb on October 17, 2021
replaced with

Taxonomic Swap 100391 (Committed on 2021-10-17)

unknown
Yes
Added by borisb on October 17, 2021 17:36 | Committed by borisb on October 17, 2021
replaced with

Taxonomic Split 100390 (Committed on 2021-10-17)

There are two Polypodium riograndense homonyms and we have supposed observations for both.

unknown
Added by choess on October 17, 2021 17:31 | Committed by choess on October 17, 2021
split into

Taxonomic Swap 100389 (Committed on 2021-10-17)

unknown
Yes
Added by vitalfranz on October 17, 2021 17:28 | Committed by vitalfranz on October 17, 2021
replaced with

Taxonomic Swap 100388 (Committed on 2021-10-17)

Gender of genus is treated neuter in most relevant sources, but as feminine in https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5799738/
(and there discussed, why).
Got adopted by Tenebrionidae taxonomists recently.

unknown
Yes
Added by borisb on October 17, 2021 17:24 | Committed by borisb on October 17, 2021
replaced with

Taxonomic Swap 100387 (Committed on 2021-10-17)

Gender of genus is treated neuter in most relevant sources, but as feminine in https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5799738/
(and there discussed, why).
Got adopted by Tenebrionidae taxonomists recently.

unknown
Yes
Added by borisb on October 17, 2021 17:23 | Committed by borisb on October 17, 2021
replaced with

Taxonomic Swap 100386 (Committed on 2021-10-17)

Gender of genus is treated neuter in most relevant sources, but as feminine in https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5799738/
(and there discussed, why).
Got adopted by Tenebrionidae taxonomists recently.

unknown
Yes
Added by borisb on October 17, 2021 17:21 | Committed by borisb on October 17, 2021
replaced with

Taxonomic Swap 100385 (Committed on 2021-10-17)

Gender of genus is treated neuter in most relevant sources, but as feminine in https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5799738/
(and there discussed, why).
Got adopted by Tenebrionidae taxonomists recently.

unknown
Yes
Added by borisb on October 17, 2021 17:21 | Committed by borisb on October 17, 2021
replaced with

Taxonomic Swap 100384 (Committed on 2021-10-17)

Gender of genus is treated neuter in most relevant sources, but as feminine in https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5799738/
(and there discussed, why).
Got adopted by Tenebrionidae taxonomists recently.

unknown
Yes
Added by borisb on October 17, 2021 17:20 | Committed by borisb on October 17, 2021
replaced with

Taxonomic Swap 100383 (Committed on 2021-10-17)

Gender of genus is treated neuter in most relevant sources, but as feminine in https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5799738/
(and there discussed, why).
Got adopted by Tenebrionidae taxonomists recently.

unknown
Yes
Added by borisb on October 17, 2021 17:19 | Committed by borisb on October 17, 2021
replaced with

Taxonomic Swap 100382 (Committed on 2021-10-17)

Gender of genus is treated neuter in most relevant sources, but as feminine in https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5799738/
(and there discussed, why).
Got adopted by Tenebrionidae taxonomists recently.

unknown
Yes
Added by borisb on October 17, 2021 17:18 | Committed by borisb on October 17, 2021
replaced with

Taxonomic Swap 100381 (Committed on 2021-10-17)

Gender of genus is treated neuter in most relevant sources, but as feminine in https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5799738/
(and there discussed, why).
Got adopted by Tenebrionidae taxonomists recently.

unknown
Yes
Added by borisb on October 17, 2021 17:17 | Committed by borisb on October 17, 2021
replaced with

Taxonomic Swap 100380 (Committed on 2021-10-17)

Gender of genus is treated neuter in most relevant sources, but as feminine in https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5799738/
(and there discussed, why).
Got adopted by Tenebrionidae taxonomists recently.

unknown
Yes
Added by borisb on October 17, 2021 17:16 | Committed by borisb on October 17, 2021
replaced with

Taxonomic Swap 100379 (Committed on 2021-10-17)

Gender of genus is treated neuter in most relevant sources, but as feminine in https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5799738/
(and there discussed, why).
Got adopted by Tenebrionidae taxonomists recently.

unknown
Yes
Added by borisb on October 17, 2021 17:15 | Committed by borisb on October 17, 2021
replaced with

Taxonomic Swap 100378 (Committed on 2021-10-17)

Gender of genus is treated neuter in most relevant sources, but as feminine in https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5799738/
(and there discussed, why).
Got adopted by Tenebrionidae taxonomists recently.

unknown
Yes
Added by borisb on October 17, 2021 17:14 | Committed by borisb on October 17, 2021
replaced with

Taxonomic Swap 100377 (Committed on 2021-10-17)

Gender of genus is treated neuter in most relevant sources, but as feminine in https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5799738/
(and there discussed, why).
Got adopted by Tenebrionidae taxonomists recently.

unknown
Yes
Added by borisb on October 17, 2021 17:13 | Committed by borisb on October 17, 2021
replaced with

Taxonomic Swap 100376 (Committed on 2021-10-17)

Gender of genus is treated neuter in most relevant sources, but as feminine in https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5799738/
(and there discussed, why).
Got adopted by Tenebrionidae taxonomists recently.

unknown
Yes
Added by borisb on October 17, 2021 17:12 | Committed by borisb on October 17, 2021
replaced with

Taxonomic Swap 100375 (Draft)

Gender of genus is treated neuter in most relevant sources, but as feminine in https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5799738/
(and there discussed, why).
Got adopted by Tenebrionidae taxonomists recently.

unknown
Yes
Added by borisb on October 17, 2021 17:11
replaced with

Taxonomic Swap 100374 (Committed on 2021-10-17)

unknown
Added by ampullinidae on October 17, 2021 16:47 | Committed by ampullinidae on October 17, 2021
replaced with

Taxonomic Swap 100373 (Draft)

POWO (Citation)
Added by epsilon on October 17, 2021 12:29
replaced with

Taxonomic Swap 100372 (Committed on 2021-10-17)

unknown
Added by aricafoix on October 17, 2021 12:29 | Committed by aricafoix on October 17, 2021
replaced with

Taxonomic Swap 100371 (Committed on 2021-10-17)

unknown
Yes
Added by atronox on October 17, 2021 08:21 | Committed by atronox on October 17, 2021
replaced with

Taxonomic Swap 100370 (Committed on 2021-10-16)

POWO (Citation)
Added by loarie on October 17, 2021 05:15 | Committed by loarie on October 16, 2021
replaced with

Taxonomic Swap 100369 (Committed on 2021-10-16)

POWO (Citation)
Added by loarie on October 17, 2021 05:13 | Committed by loarie on October 16, 2021
replaced with

Taxonomic Swap 100368 (Committed on 2021-10-16)

unknown
Added by stephen_thorpe on October 17, 2021 04:46 | Committed by stephen_thorpe on October 16, 2021
replaced with

Taxonomic Swap 100367 (Committed on 2021-10-16)

Ribes odoratum is recognized as a synonym of Ribes aureum var. villosum in both POWO and Flora of North America. Ribes aureum var. villosum is already present on iNat, so I am combining the taxa following POWO taxonomy so that the same taxon isn't represented by two names. POWO notes "its native range is W. Central & Central U.S.A."

Added by keirmorse on October 17, 2021 02:59 | Committed by keirmorse on October 16, 2021
replaced with

Taxonomic Swap 100366 (Committed on 2021-10-16)

Added by kitty12 on October 17, 2021 02:56 | Committed by kitty12 on October 16, 2021
replaced with

Taxonomic Swap 100365 (Committed on 2021-10-16)

I. hyemalis is the currently accepted name for this taxon.

see: Hoot, S. B., Napier, N. S., & Taylor, W. C. (2004). Revealing Unknown or Extinct Lineages within Isoëtes (Isoëtaceae) Using DNA Sequences from Hybrids. American Journal of Botany, 91(6), 899–904. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4122705.

Hoot, Napier, and Taylor (2004) (Citation)
Yes
Added by dryopteris2 on October 17, 2021 01:34 | Committed by dryopteris2 on October 16, 2021
replaced with