Taxonomic Merge 92157 (Committed on 2021-05-18)

Included in this article

Added by stevejones on May 17, 2021 20:15 | Committed by stevejones on May 18, 2021
merged into

Comments

Could someone please post a link to the paper prescribing the taxon change? Or the title of the paper and author(s)? I haven't yet found it.

Posted by joshua_tx 5 months ago (Flag)

Ok, I think I found the paper in question although not sure how to access it:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/taxon.65.1.47?seq=1

Posted by joshua_tx 5 months ago (Flag)

I agree. I verified that there are no homonyms published by other authors. There will be no problem with this.

Posted by oscargsol 5 months ago (Flag)

This name change is really going to hurt... I'm afraid I don't know much about it but the change looks supported.
I don't know anything about Condalia lycoides.

Posted by nathantaylor 5 months ago (Flag)

I know, I'll miss it too. I always hear "Ziziphus obtusifolia" in my mind in the voice of a startled W. C. Fields.
According to POWO, Condalia lycoides is a synonym of what's now Sarcomphagus obtusifolius; it was rattling around loose in the iNat database.

Posted by stevejones 5 months ago (Flag)

Thanks so much for link Steve, I appreciate it. The paper does indeed call for this merge among a number of other taxon changes in the Rhamnaceae. Seems quite thorough and well done (of course as it should be) without taking any liberties beyond what the data prescribes and these changes seem likely to hold for a long time. I don't see a reason for any variances from this new taxonomy or any reason to delay aligning to this new taxonomy. Although it's going to be hard to undo Ziziphus obtusifolia being forever stamped in my mind.

Posted by joshua_tx 5 months ago (Flag)

Add a Comment

Sign In or Sign Up to add comments