Taxonomic Swap 109796
(Committed on 2023-11-19)
|
|
replaced with |
|
Comments
Looks like this was originally proposed in Saarela JM, Bull RD, Paradis MJ, Ebata SN, Peterson PM, Soreng RJ, Paszko B. 2017. Molecular phylogenetics of cool-season grasses in the subtribes Agrostidinae, Anthoxanthinae, Aveninae, Brizinae, Calothecinae, Koeleriinae and Phalaridinae (Poaceae, Pooideae, Poeae, Poeae chloroplast group I). PhytoKeys 87: 1–139. So it has been floating around for several years. (I must have been distracted by Spartina getting sunk into Sporobolus...)
Yep, it's an old-school switch. I've just cited the most recent paper as it summerizes several
@kevinfaccenda you should be adding taxon framework relationships for the outputs to show that they match POWO
It looks like there are quite a few Calamagrostis species to be swapped elsewhere (Cinnagrostis, Pentapogon, Deschampsia) if POWO is up-to-date with current molecular phylogeny.
Fixed the framework. Yes, there's other flags on Dichelachne and I'll get to those swaps when I have time
Dinebra panicoides also needs one, among other taxon change outputs: https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes?utf8=%E2%9C%93&filters%5Bsplit%5D=0&filters%5Bmerge%5D=0&filters%5Bswap%5D=0&filters%5Bstage%5D=0&filters%5Bdrop%5D=0&filters%5Bchange_group%5D=&filters%5Btaxon_scheme_id%5D=&filters%5Bcommitted%5D=&filters%5Biconic_taxon_id%5D=&filters%5Btaxon_name%5D=&filters%5Btaxon_id%5D=&filters%5Bancestor_taxon_name%5D=&filters%5Bancestor_taxon_id%5D=&filters%5Bsource_id%5D=&filters%5Buser_id%5D=321317
To be clear, I'm not trying to be a jerk here, just bringing it to your attention that a lot of these outputs from changes you're committing don't have clear taxonomic senses applied to them. You link POWO, but the lack of a taxonomic framework relationship kind of leaves it dubious.
@rynxs I understand the point of frameworks for deviations. But for changes like Dinebra panicoides ( https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes?taxon_id=1510775 ), where there was no framework before the merge, and I didn't create one after, am I really changing anything if there wasn't ever a framework? It seems that the VAST majority of plants do not have a framework, and trying to add one by hand to each taxon seems like something a computer should be doing.
There was no framework relationship before the swap because it didn't match with POWO, and no deviation was ever created. When you add a relationship, it removes the taxon from the long list of relationship unknowns, and basically marks it as "complete" : https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_frameworks/10/relationship_unknown?page=1
I'm not sure if Scott has a system for it, but eventually @loarie seems to get around to making framework relationships, although I think it's nicer to just add it yourself. It takes 10 seconds, and you're already grabbing the POWO URL to put in the taxon change anyway. Using copy and paste, I can do a taxon framework relationship in about 5 seconds. The vast majority of plant taxa do have taxon framework relationships, but you're probably most familiar with taxa that need to be updated to align with POWO in some way, and thus their relationship has been removed or was never there in the first place. If you randomly check plant taxa, essentially all of them should have one.
Thank you Ryan. That helps a lot, you're totally right that I'm looking at a biased sample of things almost entirely without frameworks because I'm only curating the things with issues. I'll start adding these in the future
Thanks!
I think in the past there has been some sort of automated sweep for things that are one-on-one matches with POWO, but I don't know if that's a regular process. I do try to add the relationship after swaps; you can add a note to the relationship if you need to explain why there's some sort of deviation from POWO.
The genus Ammophila was found to be entirely embedded within Calamagrostis and cannot be maintained. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jse.12819