Heads up: Some or all of the identifications affected by this split may have been replaced with identifications of Favolaschia. This happens when we can't automatically assign an identification to one of the output taxa. Review identifications of Favolaschia calocera 83576

Comments

@nschwab what visually differentiates the two species?

Posted by tony_wills 3 months ago (Flag)

@tony_wills These two species are semi-cryptic. Only pores and color are different macroscopically but it's not even a stable criterion.

Posted by nschwab 3 months ago (Flag)

So specifically what are the characteristics that you've used to identify some NZ observations as Favolaschia claudopus?

Posted by tony_wills 3 months ago (Flag)

@tony_wills It's the geographic distribution as Favolaschia calocera is a Madagascar endemic.

Posted by nschwab 3 months ago (Flag)

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.

Posted by cooperj 3 months ago (Flag)

OK I see kenya and Italy were split out in the atlas.

Posted by cooperj 3 months ago (Flag)

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.

Posted by cooperj 3 months ago (Flag)

@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)...

Posted by nschwab 3 months ago (Flag)

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.

Posted by cooperj 3 months ago (Flag)

That's a lot of records we need to manually fix.

Posted by cooperj 3 months ago (Flag)

perhaps you atlassed the wrong version of F. calocera. i.e. the original 83576 and not the new 1367787

Posted by cooperj 3 months ago (Flag)

@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).

Posted by nschwab 3 months ago (Flag)

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)

Posted by tony_wills 3 months ago (Flag)

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.

Posted by cooperj 3 months ago (Flag)

the same case has happened for Australia; all existing IDs got pushed back to genus rather than to claudopus

Posted by thebeachcomber 3 months ago (Flag)

Is there a way to manually reapply the atlas/split to AU and NZ observations?

Posted by craig-r 3 months ago (Flag)

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.

Posted by nschwab 3 months ago (Flag)

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.

Posted by cooperj 3 months ago (Flag)

@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.

Posted by nschwab 3 months ago (Flag)

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.

Posted by cooperj 3 months ago (Flag)

What's the Hawaiian species now? It was F. calocera and now has gone to the Complex.

Posted by petragloyn 2 months ago (Flag)

Add a Comment

Sign In or Sign Up to add comments

Gracias al apoyo de:

¿Quiere apoyarnos? Pregúntenos cómo escribiendo a snib.guatemala@gmail.com