Taxonomic Swap 42751
(Guardado el 18/07/2019)
|
|
Reemplazado con |
|
Comentarios
The draft had sat for quite a while without comment but I should have thought to tag you in @tonyrebelo - my apologies.
Blindly following POWO and wasting lots of good data is not to be recommended. I usually get POWO updated. IT IS FAR FROM PERFECT.
And in this case does not follow the latest revisions that I know of.
So this is a backward step, and will take a huge effort to reverse!!!
Please consult before making unrequested changes. Had you publicized this, I would have called for an exception to be made.
Sorry: our postings crossed. I will consult locally and see if reversing this is worth the effort.
Agreed on the imperfections of POWO. Again my apologies. A way of automatically alerting people with a likely interest needs to be built in, I think.
Have you flagged to have it reversed?
No: I will ask around first. If there is no demand I will just ignore it.
On what grounds was this change made. This is a good variety and easily identified in the field. It has a different ecology to the typical variety, as it colonizes and spreads far more readily than the typical form.
Where is the justification for the swap?