Taxonomic Swap 31482 (Guardado el 04/04/2018)

Text copied from: https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/38425

iNaturalist authorities:
Calls it S. canadensis:


VASCAN
Weakley 2015


Calls it S. nigra subsp. canadensis:


GoBotany


Listed as present in California by USDA PLANTS, but taxon not recognized in Calflora (only S. nigra subsp. caerulea listed).

Tiebreaker:


The Plant List, which calls it S. canadensis


Not iNat authorities, but the following also call it S. canadensis:
Plants of the World Online
Michigan Flora
Flora of Missouri
Flora of the Chicago Region
Weber/Wittmann Flora of Colorado, per @cwarneke above as I do not have a copy

The Plant LIst (Referencia)
Añadido por bouteloua el 31 de marzo de 2018 | Comprometido por bouteloua el 04 de abril de 2018
Reemplazado con

Comentarios

I added common name "Common Elderberry" to Canada. Not sure what the name should be for the States but I doubt American Black Elderberry is the most widely used

Publicado por reuvenm hace más de 4 años (Marca)

I've only heard folks call it black elderberry here.

Publicado por bouteloua hace más de 4 años (Marca)

Huh okay - very odd how these names vary so much over such a short distance!

Publicado por reuvenm hace más de 4 años (Marca)

Here is a paper that goes over the arguments for and against recognition of Sambubcus canadensis as a separate species:

Applequist, W. L. (2013, June). A brief review of recent controversies in the taxonomy and nomenclature of Sambucus nigra sensu lato. In I International Symposium on Elderberry 1061 (pp. 25-33).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4859216/

While the main European and Eastern North American varieties have the same number of chromosomes, very similar pollen, and are potentially indistinguishable morphologically, they seem to be reproductively isolated not only geographically but also by the apparent general sterility of their hybrids.

Here is a quote from another paper paraphrasing part of the results of a different study:

"Seed set was obtained from the cross S. canadensis × S. nigra (Chia 1975). From 3 crosses, one produced 63 seeds and 2 seedlings, one produced 43 seeds and no seedlings, and one was sterile."

Atkinson, M. D., & Atkinson, E. (2002). Sambucus nigra L. Journal of Ecology, 90(5), 895-923.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Arvind_Singh56/post/What_is_the_toxicity_of_Sambucus_nigra_leaves_shoots_and_roots_Is_the_amount_of_cyanogenic_glycosides_in_a_given_speciman_variable/attachment/59d63d8579197b807799a50e/AS:420056862347264@1477160768899/download/1.pdf

Sadly, I can't access the study mentioned in the above quote, but here is its citation:

Chia, C. L. (1975). A chromosome and thin-layer chromatographic study of the genus Sambucus L. Diss. Abstr. Int., B, 36(4), 1565.

Still, the crossing data is a relatively small sample size. And there doesn't seem to be any good molecular phylogenetic studies that address the taxonomy of S. nigra.

Publicado por dziomber hace más de 4 años (Marca)

To explain the description of the taxonomic change: https://www.inaturalist.org/pages/curator+guide#policies

Publicado por bouteloua hace más de 4 años (Marca)

Agregar un comentario

Acceder o Crear una cuenta para agregar comentarios.