Taxonomic Swap 135527
(Committed on 2024-08-13)
|
|
replaced with |
|
Comments
@nschwab committed the swap.
The swap did not involve B. edulis var. grandedulis, and the sample of observations under that name that I just checked have not been affected by any swap. There is no iNat name 'Boletus edulis f. gragdedulis'
nschwab did mention the possibility of a forma swap for betulicola in the flag https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/415330 a few months ago. Perhaps the observations were too random to disentangle.
@oleg_kosterin I don't see any problem for the swap. The 1087 observations were originally identified as Boletus edulis var. grandedulis so the swap didn't affect it.
@cooperj Indeed, it was too difficult to disentangle for multiple reason. Multiple authors have applied different concepts to this form but it's impossible for me to tell if any of these are correct as the diagnosis is untraceable. There is still a form available for anyone wanting to use this form.
@nschwab
Sorry for using f. except for var. The name Boletus edulis var. grandedulis.
Now I see my main error:
In the page for Boletus edulis
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/48701-Boletus-edulis
in the page 'taxonomy':
One may see the following:
Boletus edulis Observations
Boletus edulis f. albus 7
Boletus edulis f. betulicola 0
Boletus edulis f. citrinus 1
Boletus edulis ssp. clavipes 0
Boletus edulis var. grandedulis 1,087
Boletus edulis var. ochraceus
That is, there are the numbers of observations of all forms and varieties but not of the species itself. So I though all them to be distributed to varieties and forms. It is necessary to go one step up and to open taxonomy of Boletus, to see that there are as many as 20,141 observations of B. edulis, implying that 95% of them are not attributed to any form or variety (that is good).
So I assume that the iNaturalist presentation of the taxonomy page is somewhat misleading, for it shows the numbers of observations for subordinate taxa but not for the taxon itself, which you open and look at. This can result in misunderstangings like this.
Apologising once again.
You say "That is, there are the numbers of observations of all forms and varieties but not of the species itself. "
That is not incorrect.
If you scroll up the page, on the right-hand side, you will see that it says 'Total Observations 19,320'
Adding the number of observations against Boletus edulis in the taxonomic hierarchy would be redundant.
" Four hours ago they all were in B. edulis var. glandulifera "
Perhaps there was a temporary indexing issue. That happens sometimes.
Sorry, I did not intend to post the portion of my comment after "apologising once again", I just did not notice that text (written before I clarified the issue for myself) was there. Not my day today. "Apologising once again".
I'm afraid something went wrong.
Now all but 9 observations, that is 1,087 observations, of Boletus edulis in this new sense are classified as Boletus edulis f. gragdedulis. Is it correct and intended?
Also the current iNaturalist taxonomky includes B. edulis f. betulicola, bit with zero observations. Would it be logical to swap. B. betulicola to B. edulis f. betulicola, rather than to f. grandedulis? Or at least to the species B. edulis without a form?