search

BSBI / mapmate-taxon-requests

Tracks requests for the addition of plant names to MapMate
0 stars 0 forks source link

X Conyzigeron stanleyi Mundell #65

Open TonyMundell opened 5 years ago

TonyMundell commented 5 years ago

I originally named this in New Journal of Botany 2016 Vol.6 No.1. and predicted that it was likely to be found in many other places. The latest I have heard about was at Burry Port, the site of the former Camarthen Bay Power Station, by Barry Stewart (VC41 Recorder) on 17 Sep 2018, det. Tim Rich. It was re-named in Journal of New Botany Vol.7 No.1 as Erigeron x stanleyi (Mundell) Mundell but I guess that for now there will be a preference to keep Conyza and X Conyzigeron separate from Erigeron to follow Stace 3rd editon rather than the forthcoming 4th edition. It is not on the DDb or MapMate but I want to record it, ideally on MapMate. A record for it in 2018 was sent to me from the original Winchester site. It is frustrating not being able to record it.

TonyMundell commented 5 years ago

I also found this plant growing with both parents in Bordon VC12 on 20 Oct2018. I strongly suspect that because it is not available on MapMate this hybrid is being mis-recorded either as the very similar X Conyzigeron huelsenii (Erigeron acris x Conyza canadensis) or as Erigeron acris x Conyza sumatrensis (both of which are on the MapMate taxa list).

kwal2 commented 5 years ago

For now this should be enterred on the DDb and Mapmate as the intergeneric hybrid between Erigeron acris and Conyza floribunda although note that all Conyza will be placed in Erigeron in Stace (2019). Therefore the taxon will need changing to the new published name of Erigeron x stanleyi (A.R.G.Mundell) Mundell when Stace Ed4 changes are implemented.

TonyMundell commented 5 years ago

Tom,

That is sensible but the point I am trying to make is that the hybrid (that I named) between Erigeron acris and Conyza floribunda is not available on the MapMate taxa list so I cannot record it.

I see that it has now appeared on the DDB taxa list so thanks for that. However I would far prefer to have all Hampshire records available on my local MapMate Hampshire database (from whence they get synched to the DDB) so that I can display records on the local maps I have set up for all Hampshire and various Nature Reserves etc. I prefer not to enter records direct on the DDB bypassing my MapMate database.

I cannot see the logic of having taxa available on the DDB that are not also on the MapMate taxa list.

Incidentally I heard very recently from Paul Stanley that he has found X Conyzigeron stanleyi (= Erigeron x stanleyi) at two sites on the Isle of Wight. (I named this hybrid after Paul). I am sure this hybrid is pretty common wherever the parents occur. It turned up in two places in North Hampshire this year. What concerns me is that MapMate users will be recording it in error for the other two very similar hybrids that are available on MapMate, X Conyzigeron huelsenii (= Conyza canadensis x Erigeron acris) or Conyza sumatrensis x Erigeron sumatrensis.

Tony Mundell

On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 5:33 PM kwal2 notifications@github.com wrote:

For now this should be enterred on the DDb and Mapmate as the intergeneric hybrid between Erigeron acris and Conyza floribunda although note that all Conyza will be placed in Erigeron in Stace (2019). Therefore the taxon will need changing to the new published name of Erigeron x stanleyi (A.R.G.Mundell) Mundell when Stace Ed4 changes are implemented.

— You are receiving this because you modified the open/close state. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/BSBI/mapmate-taxon-requests/issues/65#issuecomment-445306872, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/Ag06sVdIfHjcrErjhL-hI17vfROUiBHpks5u2qaFgaJpZM4XcZMK .

japonicus commented 5 years ago

Hi Tony,

Kevin's comment related to the planning for a MapMate update in January (when for the sake of consistency the taxon would be listed as X Conyzigeron stanleyi ) followed by a further update later when Stace 4 names are adopted.

I agree with you about the urgency of the MapMate update due to the potential for loss of records, or miss-recording - but as a short-term solutions we always encourage records to submit records for taxa not in MapMate directly for DDb inclusion.

The reason names are added to the DDb more rapidly than to MapMate, is that the process to do that is simpler and far quicker. Nationally, between 15 - 20% of BSBI's recent records come from sources other than MapMate.