Taxonomic Merge 130159
(Submetido em 07-09-2023)
|
|
fundido com |
|
Comentários
@egordon88
I don't think that was a good idea. In this case, a taxon split should have been made. And all the new species that have emerged from the subspecies of Senecio squalidus should have been provided with an atlas beforehand.
So now we have an estimated 2000 wrongly determined Senecio squalidus (s.str.). As previously Senecio squalidus rupestris was folded into Senecio squalidus. If the naming of these observations was correct now they are wrong as Senecio rupestris is folded out.
@blue_celery How can we solve this?
maybe we could:
1) create a complex with (S. aethnensis, S. aknoulensis, S. balansae, S. calabrus, S. duriaei, S. ×glaber, S. rupestris, S. sardous, S. siculus, S. squalidus)
2)reidentify S. rupestris from the S. squalidus OBS.
It could become somehow easy because the two taxa seem to be quite vicariant:
https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/7b656ffc-049a-4f63-ad5e-644cf7a668e9
https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/1632d0f2-0db1-4549-896c-5de5310d8d00
If we provide the two species with an atlas and catch up on the taxon split, it would all be automatic.
Have you ever done this @blue_celery
2000 observations are a lot to go through, plus there are many observations where I cannot confirm Senecio squalidus s. l. with my knowledge.
never done something like this
I can help go through the observations if you provide some ID notes. We can still split S squalidus, but it looks to me like the ranges overlap?
I am also trying to find out the distribution. For example, I can't yet determine which of the two species occurs in GB. In the distribution map I found both species are synonymized.
https://plantatlas2020.org/atlas/2cd4p9h.p65
Here you can see the differences between both species. There are also distribution data. If this is true, it overlaps in GB and in France.
http://www.mittelmeerflora.de/Zweikeim/Asteraceae/sen_rupestr.htm#2
I reviewed almost everything outside the UK, so I think we’re in good shape for S rupestris. If other species that @blue_celery mentioned need curation, we can look at more advanced splits.
See https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/631014