Favolaschia. This
happens when we can't automatically assign an identification to one of the
output taxa.
Review identifications of Favolaschia calocera 83576
Taxonomic Split 107833
(Submetido em 24-03-2022)
|
|
dividido em |
|
Comentários
@tony_wills These two species are semi-cryptic. Only pores and color are different macroscopically but it's not even a stable criterion.
So specifically what are the characteristics that you've used to identify some NZ observations as Favolaschia claudopus?
@tony_wills It's the geographic distribution as Favolaschia calocera is a Madagascar endemic.
I think if you accept the phylogenetic based species concepts they put forward then locality is the only differentiator. The stated characters of colour, size etc do not work. 'F. claudopus' is also present in Kenya (DQ02637) and Italy. So even the locality and the atlas-based split might be misleading.
OK I see kenya and Italy were split out in the atlas.
It would be interesting to know where F. 'claudopus' came from. Vizzini's 2009 paper (DOI 10.1007/s10530-008-9259-5) suggests New Zealand but that is almost certainly wrong. We have no records before the 1960s when it appeared in the Auckland region and has manifestly spread across NZ since that time.
@cooperj For sure it is misleading if . I treated only the species where phylogenetic data was known or invasion progression was followed (e.g. Belgium, Switzerland or Netherlands). However, I'm unsure why the countries I listed on the atlas of F. calocera disappeared (Madagascar and surrounding islands)...
and why did NZ records get pushed back to the genus? They should all have gone to F. claudopus. I think there was something wrong there.
That's a lot of records we need to manually fix.
perhaps you atlassed the wrong version of F. calocera. i.e. the original 83576 and not the new 1367787
@cooperj Favolaschia calocera 1367787 was meant as a fallback for the records that were not atlassed by the other two. It's not a species but the Complex Favolaschia calocera. I'm certain I atlassed Favolaschia calocera 48872 because there is my original comment on it (published 6 hours ago).
I'm still don't understand why some New Zealand observations are identified as F. claudopus https://inaturalist.nz/observations?verifiable=true&taxon_id=1367787&place_id=&preferred_place_id=94916&locale=en (the rest were pushed back to genus, apart from a few where the identifier didn't allow automatic taxon changes)
OK I see the complex now.
Still - all NZ records should have gone to F. claudopus and not bumped back to genus. That should not have happened.
The only ones showing F. claudopus now is where they have a new identification.
the same case has happened for Australia; all existing IDs got pushed back to genus rather than to claudopus
Is there a way to manually reapply the atlas/split to AU and NZ observations?
I noticed something strange. The fallback (Complex Favolaschia calocera 1367787) worked as expected for records outside both atlases (e.g. https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/1494413 or https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/1498906). It means that if the Favolaschia calocera 48872 atlas was absent they would have been pushed in the fallback instead of being pushed back to the genus.
Just to record that I'm getting feedback other Australasian mycologists, not just about the problematic split that pushed things back to genus, but also about the analysis in that paper.
@cooperj There's definitely critiques to be made on this paper. However, it was already previously known that Madagascar's species was not the same as the invasive one, hence the quick adoption (at least in Europe) of the new name it gave to this clade. This paper has flaws and blind spots but the nomenclatural work is here (they even designated an epitype [without sequencing the holotype!?]). That means that it's almost inevitable that this clade will be named Favolaschia claudopus because of the ICN rules. Now it leaves a lot of questions unanswered. I hope it may spark interest for mycologists to study it more in detail.
Given the lack of sequence differences between species for most loci (and zero difference for at least one locus they used) then I would have stuck with an infra-specific classificaton, if indeed we aren't simply looking at haplotype segregation within the multi copy ribosomal loci of a single recently dispersed species. I'd be interested to read the paper that states the Madagascar species is not the invasive one. Vizzini's 2009 study picked up the same sequence variation within ITS but I don't think they inferred species-level differences, just the same biogeographical patterns in PCRd ITS.
What's the Hawaiian species now? It was F. calocera and now has gone to the Complex.
@nschwab what visually differentiates the two species?