Aviso: Some or all of the identifications affected by this split may have been replaced with identifications of Alnus. This happens when we can't automatically assign an identification to one of the output taxa. Review identifications of Alnus glutinosa 54222

Taxon split aaaaaa 48px Taxonomic Split 65096 (Guardado el 29/12/2019)

Vit et al (2017) described two new tetraploid species, both previously confused with A. glutinosa: Alnus lusitanica (Iberian Peninsula and Morocco) and Alnus rohlenae (Dinaric Alps). The true A. glutinosa extends from the Pyrenees in northern Spain eastwards:

Alnus rohlenae and Alnus glutinosa co-occur in parts of Greece and Bosnia and Herzgovina (at least), and produce triploid hybrids. Observations from this area need to be checked carefully. Introduced populations have not been checked in this study, but are likely to be A. glutinosa s.s. given its wider distribution.

The new species have already been accepted by POWO:

POWO (Referencia)
Añadido por duarte el 18 de noviembre de 2019 | Comprometido por duarte el 29 de diciembre de 2019
dividido en



What's going on? @kai_schablewski , @bouteloua , @blue_celery . I need your assistance to review an issue and most probably to retract unnecessary change. Introducing Alnus glutinosa 966205 instead Alnus glutinosa 54222 is useless

Publicado por apseregin hace 9 meses (Marca)

@apseregin I'm just following the curator guide:

Publicado por duarte hace 9 meses (Marca)

What duarte did was okay. He added a taxon split for for Alnus glutinosa, a taxon that is still accepted but that had to be split into three different species.
The system is not able to accept Alnus glutinosa as both, input taxon and output taxon, therefore a second Alnus glutinosa had to be created that is used as the output taxon.

I don't like this either, but i don't know any other solution for taxonsplits like this.

Publicado por kai_schablewski hace 9 meses (Marca)

[I haven't read any of the literature, but] yes 966205 would be the new sensu stricto Alnus glutinosa

Publicado por bouteloua hace 9 meses (Marca)

Ok, let it be just a technical issue. To say truly, I would br prrfer adding of two new taxa with subsequent reidentification. Nonetheless, thanks guys for friendly explanations

Publicado por apseregin hace 9 meses (Marca)

Yes, the problem with not doing a taxon split is particularly users who are inactive or do not update their IDs. The user "intended" Alnus glutinosa sensu lato with their original ID and may not be around to reidentify as Alnus rohlenae in areas where they co-occur. It's not fair that their ID then becomes "maverick" when the community reidentifies.

It's also a lot of work to reidentify vs. doing the taxon split.

Consider a situation like an Alnus glutinosa observation in Greece, where its range overlaps with Alnus rohlenae:
ID1: Alnus glutinosa sensu lato
ID2: Alnus glutinosa sensu lato
ID3: Alnus glutinosa sensu lato
ID4: Alnus glutinosa sensu lato

to reidentify the observation as the new Alnus rohlenae, without doing a taxon change, it would require nine new IDs!

with the taxon split, all four of their IDs automatically transfer to genus (Alnus). It then only requires one ID of Alnus rohlenae to change the observation taxon from genus to species and two IDs to return to research grade at species.

Publicado por bouteloua hace 9 meses (Marca)

Agregar un comentario

Acceder o Crear una cuenta para agregar comentarios.