Taxonomic Merge 92157
(Submetido em 18-05-2021)
|
|
fundido com |
|
Comentários
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.
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
I agree. I verified that there are no homonyms published by other authors. There will be no problem with this.
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.
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.
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.
@oscargsol @joshua_tx @nathantaylor @ellen5 @bouteloua
Note that this taxon merge has already been made: https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes?taxon_id=1238467
See also: https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/92160