Flag for Taxon: border pinyon (Variety Pinus cembroides bicolor)
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| elizatorres | border pinyon (Variety Pinus cembroides bicolor) |
A user requests the division of this taxon into Pinus discolor and Pinis johannis, which have been accepted in recent works. I leave the references. How can we achieve consensus in these species since POWO maintains P. cembroides var. bicolor? |
Oct. 3, 2020 21:32:36 +0000 | Not Resolved |
Comments
@socogonzalez @najera_tutor @aztekium_tutor @alexiz
deja leo el paper
pues es el mismo que me pasaron la vez pasada que hice el cambio, ya lo he hecho como 4 o 5 veces, ahora está bloqueado por un marco de taxón, eso lo hago pero me toma más tiempo y a veces tampoco se puede si desde más arriba le dieron permisos exclusivos a alguien; recuerden que esto no es una democracia.
mientras tanto, quedaría entonces así?
Pinus cembroides var. bicolor = Pinus discolor
__________________________ = Pinus johannis
@loarie @bouteloua What is the process for adding an exception to a taxonomic framework? POWO relies on Farjon's 2010 taxonomy, and he did not take into account the knowledge of Mexican botanists nor the subsequent comprehensive studies cited above. Furthermore, Pinus discolor and P. johannis are completely allopatric, so separating existing observations is easy.
Thank you all!
And, Eli, as Dr. Liston indicates, those species are completely allopatric, so giving the names to the records will be easy:
Pinus discolor is in the Sierra Madre Occidental and the Sky Islands (Madrean Archipelago), while P. johannis is on sedimentary mountains in central and eastern Mexico.
Gracias :)
I mean, on sedimentary rock in mountains from central and eastern Mexico.
no es más bien sobre suelos derivados de rocas ígneas?, al menos en SLP así se ve, solo hay P. cembroides en una sierra de suelos derivados de rocas sedimentarias (sierra de Catorce), mientras tanto las otras poblaciones de P. cembroides y P. johannis suceden en sustratos de orígenes ígneos tanto en sierra de san miguelito como en Sierra de álvarez, mismo caso he observado en sierra santa bárbara GTO y en palo alto AGS
Entonces, Pinus johannis al igual que P cembroides, crece tanto sobre roca sedimentaria como sobre roca ígnea. En la localidad tipo de johannis, este está en la parte alta y nedia del cerro (de caliza) y cembroides en la parte baja. Con los consabidos híbridos en la zona que comparten.
acáen san miguelito coexisten lo que se tenía como cembroides y discolor, supongo ahora corresponden a johannis y cembroides, desconozco si hay híbridos pero coexisten uno al lado del otro y su porte como tono de hojas es muy notorio
Así es Pedro. Se distinguen bien fácil.
whats the proposed deviation from POWO?
Splitting Pinus cembroides ssp. bicolor into Pinus discolor and Pinus johannis. Supporting literature cited above.
Yes is a splitting. Splitting has to be done with careful. Because is destructive.
How can it be done? Do we need more information? Should each of the observations affected by the cut be identified later?
do the species overlap? If you can start by
1) making inactive taxa for Pinus discolor and Pinus johannis
2) making atlases for Pinus discolor and Pinus johannis
3) making or updating atlases for Pinus cembroides and Pinus cembroides ssp. bicolor
that will help show the extent of the overlap
Ok. I'll do it as soon as I can. I haven't made any Atlases yet. Maybe i will need help. Thank you.
happy to help answer questions if anything described here https://www.inaturalist.org/pages/atlases is confusing
just checking in on this - here are inactive taxa for
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/207467-Pinus-johannis
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/166891-Pinus-discolor
If someone could make atlases for them and for https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/57903-Pinus-cembroides that would be super helpful towards splitting this taxon
Hi:
I've tried doing it, but I'm not sure of the distribution range. The collection data does not seem clear.
I have received this message from the Durango herbarium curator:
Thanks Eli,
Those two are morphologically cryptic species.
The only way to separate them (apart from doing genetic or chemical analysis), is ecology and distribution:
Pinus dicolor is the one in the Sierra Madre Occidental and its continuation towards Arizona and New Mexico (the Madrean Archipelago), in pine and pine-oak forests.
Pinus johannis is found in the Sierra Madre Oriental and the transversal mountain ranges (which are part of the same system of the Oriental), in different ecosystems, including from Isotal de Yucca carnerosana to pine and oak forests.
May everything go very well. Take care.
S
Scott: I am sending you the map for the atlas in the mail. Please review it and tell me if you think we can do it.
elizatorres I posted the screenshot you emailed me to my flickr and embedded it below. it would be more efficient if you could do those steps yourself in the future - happy to explain any of the steps if necessary.
If someone feels strongly about doing this split the next steps would still be to create atlases for the 3 taxa involved as described above and to make a draft split with Pinus cembroides as the input and Pinus cembroides, Pinus discolor and Pinus johannis as the outputs. Let me know if you need any help figuring out how to do this.
Given that the differences between these species seem poorly understood I'm definitely not lobbying for this deviation. But if people feel strongly and want to put in the work I've described to draft this split, I'm happy to commit it and wire up a deviation. Would be great to close this flag either way.
Hi Scott: To resolve this flag, jdjohnson already answered:
"iNaturalist taxonomy usually follows widely accepted, publicly available secondary sources such as Calflora instead of primary sources that might be behind a paywall. The Gymnosperm Database supports the synonomy with Pinus discolor so I will create a taxon swap based on that scheme.
Pinus joahnnis does have a taxon record, so you should add your identification as P. johannis to the records you mentioned before I commit the taxon swap (they will be harder to find after the swap). Here the link for P. johannis.
http://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/207467-Pinus-johannis"
So, I think I have to change id for those pinus that are P. johannis and then do the taxon swap. ¿Am I right? But I have a doubt. How I can add an ID of a inactive taxon? For examble in this observation: https://www.naturalista.mx/observations/8088100
Cheers
Is this deviation going to happen? Or is the plan to stick to POWO?
I am not convinced, I have consulted the specialist but she has not responded. I believe, but I don't really know, that there are bad identifications. Does anyone have more information?
Hi Eli @elizatorres ,
Both, Dr Liston and I sent our comments on the distribution of these two species three months ago. See above in this thread.
Saludos 😊
Just started tracking this issue when I was doing ID's for S. AZ pines and found a bunch of P. discolor assigned to P. cembroides. On the question of evidence, Malusa 1992 (refs at conifers.org) found a clear and consistent clade including P. discolor, johannis, and culminicola, distinct from P. cembroides. Genetic evidence as described by Syring et al. 2007 is ambiguous, finding high nonmonophyly in the pinyons. P. cembroides is known to not hybridize with the other three species in locations where both grow together. P. discolor has been described as a var. of P. culminicola. I know of no work that directly addresses distinctions between P. discolor and P. johannis, though it may be noteworthy that P. johannis is only known from carbonate substrates. Passini (1994) treats P. discolor as a synonym of P. johannis (which was described one year earlier) and in the absence of a clear distinction between the two taxa, that might be most accurate, although discolor is much the more widely used of the two names. To be pragmatic about it, I would suggest separating both P. discolor and P. johannis from P. cembroides, at species rank, with geographic distinction as mapped above. This is certainly more phylogenetically accurate than the existing treatment and if later studies fail to show distinction between P. discolor and P. johannis at species rank, it's easily addressed.
Right Chris. Since Malusa, it was clear that Pinus discolor and P. johannis are more related to P. culminicola than to P. cembroides. And later, Flores-Rentería et al. showed that P. discolor and johannis are separated among them. Since morphologically they are very similar (but not ecological, genetical nor chemically) I also suggest a pragmatic approach and use distribution to separate them.
My only clarificaction here is that both species hybridize with P. cembroides. At the piedmont of the cerro de Mazapil, the type locality of P. johannis, there are intermediates with P. cembroides, which is the dominant below. As for P. discolor, there are several populations of P. cembroides showing old introgression between them.
Any movement on this? To date, Pinus johannis only has 2 observations. If no one objects I will align our taxonomy with POWO and merge P. johannis with P. cembroides var. bicolor.
por favor no hagan cambios en los taxones solo por subir su ranking en el marcador de curadores, si no se conoce del tema en cuestión se debería dejar a los que sean expertos
@najera_tutor I don't care about curator rankings, I'm trying to fix the broken, open ends left behind by other past curatorial actions that leave our shared taxonomy frayed at the margins. I do not need specific knowledge of every taxon in existence to bring our taxonomy into alignment with POWO, the ones who wish to maintain P. johannis are those who need to put in the effort to create and maintain these deviations.
The taxon name isn't even written correctly. The taxon, in its current state, needs to not be active regardless of whether or not you want P. johannis. "Pinus johanis" does not exist.
A comprehensive species delimitation study provides further support for the recognition of Pinus johannis:
https://bsapubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1002/ajb2.1847
I have written to POWO with a request to accept P. johannis.
@aaronliston thank you. Please complete the split and swap "P. johanis" into P. johannis after POWO updates.
a pesar de que se busque alinearse con POWO hay casos como este en que evidentemente se requiere desviarnos de lo que ahí se considera como sinónimo, gracias a dios la ciencia no es un dogma.
I would always recommend talking with POWO about necessary corrections rather than immediately resorting to deviations. Yes, science is not a dogma, but, as you already know, iNat follows POWO for vascular plant taxonomy. We need a working foundation in order to prevent taxonomic chaos, so all proposed changes to our taxonomy should be run through them first.
Just a quick note that both P. johannis and P. discolor are already in the iNaturalist taxonomy, but both appear to be incorrectly grafted to the genus Pinus rather than Section Parrya. This will make the taxon split more complicated for whoever implements it.
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/166891-Pinus-discolor
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/207467-Pinus-johannis
I have grafted both species to the section Parrya.
Can you check the atlases? They are not the same as in POWO.
Pinus discolor: https://www.inaturalist.org/atlases/29660
https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:677028-1
Pinus johannis: https://www.inaturalist.org/atlases/84763
https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:282881-2
I drafted the taxon split here: https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/135525
But do not commit until the atlases are OK!
@elizatorres @najera_tutor @aaronliston @loarie @jameskm @socogonzalez @rynxs @henicorhina ?
The request is in this observation:
https://www.naturalista.mx/observations/56471358#activity_comment_5571443
"Te pido el favor de ayudarnos a recuperar a Pinus discolor y Pinis johannis.
Ya estaban separados, con base en el trabajo de la Dra. Lluvia Flores Rentería y colaboradores. La separación a nivel de especie se ha corroborado en el trabajo de Montes et al. (2019). Ya desde 2003 Gernandt et al. habían señalado que estos dos forman un clado con P. culminicola y no son parte de P. cembroides.
Flores-Rentería, Lluvia & Wegier, Ana & Vecchyo, Diego & Ortiz, Alejandra & Piñero, Daniel & Whipple, Amy & Molina-Freaner, Francisco & Dominguez, Cesar. (2013). Genetic, morphological, geographical and ecological approaches reveal phylogenetic relationships in complex groups, an example of recently diverged pinyon pine species (Subsection Cembroides). Molecular phylogenetics and evolution. 69. 10.1016/j.ympev.2013.06.010"
Montes, José Rubén, Pablo Peláez, Ann Willyard, Alejandra Moreno-Letelier, Daniel Piñero, David S. Gernandt. 2019. Phylogenetics of Pinus Subsection Cembroides Engelm. (Pinaceae) Inferred from Low-Copy Nuclear Gene Sequences. Systematic Botany 44(3): 501-518. https://doi.org/10.1600/036364419X15620113920563