[Taxacom] Plant names

[Tony Rees]

BTW, Plants of the World Online currently uses the scientific
name Reynoutria japonica for this plant (Japanese knotweed), as does
Tropicos (I think). I am not sure which literature source/s are used as the
basis for this decision. A 2013 article in Heredity (
https://www.nature.com/articles/hdy201298) uses the name Fallopia japonica,
but notes that this species is in the section  Reynoutria of Fallopia, and
that alternative options (to cope with the noted molecular results) are
either to continue with a broad concept of Fallopia, or to break out some
species into separate genera, namely Reynoutria and Muehlenbeckia (allowing
that species can then hybridize across generic distinctions), which appears
to be the solution preferred by POWO and Tropicos.

Sometimes Wikipedia is good for summarizing recent debates in areas such as
this (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynoutria_japonica) however in
this case it is not particularly helpful (although anyone can edit it to be
more so).

Regards - Tony


On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 at 05:09, Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:

> However, an important distinction between IPNI, just mentioned, and other
> resources such as Plants of the World Online (POWO) and others mentioned
> below, is that IPNI is a "nomenclator" and records names (e.g. binomials
> for species) and their author, place and year of publication, but does not
> attempt to distinguish between current ("accepted") and non-current names,
> i.e. include synonymies for any particular taxon, which is where
> discrepancies can arise on account of varying taxonomic opinions now, or
> changes in the same through time. These are however attempted to be tracked
> by taxonomic catalogues, of which POWO is one, Tropicos is another, and
> Catalogue of Life is a global synthesis of source - though for the latter
> one should check which secondary taxonomic compilation it is using for any
> particular sector, in case it is one that you do not prefer, or is simply
> out-of-date or not "expert assessed". All/any of these may agree or
> disagree, or be "incorrect", at any particular time, either because they
> contain errors (occasionally), follow different preferred treatments, or
> have become outdated by recent work. Which to follow? My "go to" is mostly
> POWO at the moment, but I also check this against recent literature and
> other resources to check that it is offering what appears to be the current
> or consensus view, and if something does look current or correct, use my
> own judgement and/or contact the POWO editors in case they have missed
> something.
>
> Regards - Tony
>
> Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
> https://about.me/TonyRees
> www.irmng.org
>
>
> On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 at 03:31, Tom Schweich via Taxacom <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>
>> I have a similar issue, in that the agency I primarily work with uses
>> the USDA plant symbols, yet some plants I am finding on their lands are
>> not listed by USDA, or are listed as a synonym. I generally use the
>> names from Flora of North America, since my collections are nearly all
>> North American.   That should work with North American knotweed since
>> that volume is published
>> (http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=126398). For
>> those taxa not listed in USDA Plants, I put "XXXX" in the USDA symbol
>> field of the data I send to the agency.  I think the closest thing to a
>> global catalog would be the International Plant Name Index (IPNI at
>> https://www.ipni.org/). I have used IPNI quite a bit, though mostly for
>> tracing historic plant names.
>>
>> --
>> tomas at schweich.com
>> http:\\www.schweich.com
>> Mobile: 510-701-3418
>>
>>
>> On 2/9/2021 11:28 AM, Joey Slowik via Taxacom wrote:
>> > So this may be a simple question. I'm helping with a Knotweed EA and
>> > have realized that the recent publications all use a different name
>> > than the USDA. The USDA plants database, which is what we are told to
>> > use for reference, seems outdated, like 10+ years. And for some names
>> > there seems to be no justification but historical use. Is there a
>> > reason for this? I usually work with spiders and there is a general
>> > consensus on accepted names from the World Spider Catalog. But is
>> > there debate in the plant naming world? Is it ok to use old names?
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> >
>> > Jozef Slowik
>> > UAF Cooperative Extension Service
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Taxacom Mailing List
>> >
>> > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> > For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>> > You can reach the person managing the list at:
>> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> > The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
>> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>> >
>> > Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 34 years,
>> 1987-2021.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Taxacom Mailing List
>>
>> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>> You can reach the person managing the list at:
>> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
>> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>>
>> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 34 years, 1987-2021.
>>
>