[Taxacom] Plant names - Reynoutria etc.

Wed Feb 10 21:53:01 CST 2021

The recognition of Reynoutria and Fallopia as separate from Polygonum sens. lat., Jozef,  Is based on the work by Tanja Schuster published as 
PHYLOGENETIC RELATIONSHIPS OF MUEHLENBECKIA, FALLOPIA, AND REYNOUTRIA (POLYGONACEAE) INVESTIGATED WITH CHLOROPLAST AND NUCLEAR SEQUENCE DATA 
- Tanja M. Schuster, Karen L. Wilson and Kathleen A. Kron (2011) International J. Plant Sci. 172(8): 1053–1066.
This showed that these 3 genera are well separated from Polygonum in molecular and morphological characters. Indeed, no-one these days would accept Polygonum in the broad sense. 

As others have said, it takes time for global and regional checklists to catch up with nomenclatural and taxonomic changes - if all herbaria had more botanical staff, the delay in assessment and acceptance (or rejection!) of published changes would be a lot less. 

Email me direct if you can't find a copy of the paper online.

Regards
Karen Wilson

________________________________________________________________________________________________
Karen L. Wilson AM
Honorary Research Associate, National Herbarium of New South Wales
Secretary, General Committee, International Code of Nomenclature for Algae, Fungi & Plants    

T +61 (02) 9231 8137 | E karen.wilson at rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au
Royal Botanic Gardens & Domain Trust, Mrs Macquaries Road, Sydney NSW 2000, Australia

-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> On Behalf Of Perkins,Kent D via Taxacom
Sent: Thursday, 11 February 2021 4:45 AM
To: Taxa com <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Plant names

Hi Joey and Tomas,

Everything is shifting rapidly in plant nomenclature and there is not always agreement on names.  Sadly, we don't have one source to check.  At least certain groups are fairly settled.

IPNI.org is an essential source to tell you when and where a name was published and, generally, if it is validly published.  It makes no judgement as to whether the name is the best to use for the entity.

I do agree with Alan Franck, Plants of the World Online is probably the best source at this point.

http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org/

It is one of the first places we look now.

We also respect USDA GRIN

https://npgsweb.ars-grin.gov/gringlobal/taxon/taxonomysearch

and

MO Botanical Garden’s TROPICOS.org

We sometimes defer to recent published floras for geographically focused works with lots of species.   In that case, we might state that we are following such and such flora for the nomenclature.

We also look at the recent literature and have in-house discussions as to what is the best names to use in certain groups.  E.g., we've been discussing Boraginaceae s.l. of late.

As for “Japanese knotweed”, formerly known as Polygonum cuspidatum Siebold & Zucc., Reynoutria japonica Hoult. is selected as the best name to use by both POWO and GRIN.  I’m not sure how TROPICOS is handling it.  Without digging deeper and looking for recent molecular studies, I would guess Reynoutria is the best way to go.  It is certainly what I would consider to be in mainstream use now.  By the way, don’t get tripped on the fact that Polygonum cuspidatum Willd. ex Soler. is a synonym of Persicaria acuminata.  Yes, sometimes different plants may have been given the same species name by different authors.

You asked, “Is it ok to use old names?"  There may be multiple valid names in use for the same entity due to disagreement.  But, in a case like this I would not use the old names.  It’s best not to use the old names when you can find there is a definite trend away from them.  Even Wikipedia uses Reynoutria- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynoutria_japonica.

Best wishes,

Kent

---------------------------
Kent D. Perkins, Manager of the Collection University of Florida Herbarium (FLAS) Florida Museum of Natural History
379 Dickinson Hall, 1659 Museum Rd
PO Box 117800
Gainesville, FL  32611-7800
Ph. 352-273-1984
---------------------------

-----Original Message-----

From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> On Behalf Of Tom Schweich via Taxacom

Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 11:27 AM

To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Plant names

[External Email]

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

(https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.efloras.org_florataxon.aspx-3Fflora-5Fid-3D1-26taxon-5Fid-3D126398&d=DwIGaQ&c=sJ6xIWYx-zLMB3EPkvcnVg&r=OGgPjERRkWKTtO7Q9_R21QHBxygXmw7ucov9x-KF-Mk&m=YzLP8o-T_v_Ca2nKqkjgB7LPwXnGnOhAGqUFTQaQjYk&s=uUdNs2iXnrytrAXqJ-bohrh2U0FFk3oe1AsmIqmE8oc&e= ). 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ipni.org_&d=DwIGaQ&c=sJ6xIWYx-zLMB3EPkvcnVg&r=OGgPjERRkWKTtO7Q9_R21QHBxygXmw7ucov9x-KF-Mk&m=YzLP8o-T_v_Ca2nKqkjgB7LPwXnGnOhAGqUFTQaQjYk&s=cHwfQnYKVUwmvowfMTyIsVN4dc-fgm9YuB7FIQ8boak&e= ). I have used IPNI quite a bit, though mostly for tracing historic plant names.

--

tomas at schweich.com

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.schweich.com&d=DwIGaQ&c=sJ6xIWYx-zLMB3EPkvcnVg&r=OGgPjERRkWKTtO7Q9_R21QHBxygXmw7ucov9x-KF-Mk&m=YzLP8o-T_v_Ca2nKqkjgB7LPwXnGnOhAGqUFTQaQjYk&s=7zwTRI8FaZbZ2NnuDvbUHkCEthapt9eZjNgTBp_dBrA&e=

Mobile: 510-701-3418

-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> On Behalf Of Alan Franck via Taxacom
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 2:32 AM
To: Taxa com <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Plant names

[External Email]

Hi Joey,

As I understand it, Reynoutria is the generally accepted genus from recent literature. From a global perspective, Plants of the World Online is quite helpful and often up-to-date. For identification characters, FNA is a good resource, but the Polygonaceae treatment was published in 2005 when Fallopia was thought an appropriate genus for knotweed: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__beta.floranorthamerica.org_Fallopia&d=DwIGaQ&c=sJ6xIWYx-zLMB3EPkvcnVg&r=OGgPjERRkWKTtO7Q9_R21QHBxygXmw7ucov9x-KF-Mk&m=WOR6USn1qXpCQVTQb4aKztH38M57KOyyKfD3v98y7cE&s=lkGXZ0sWGLiQcSTHxA1PESnaQIg-TyO9qesWxkgy1Y4&e=

I would advise against using Polygonum cuspidatum, as listed by the USDA, since that reflects an old concept of Polygonum s.lat. I am not aware of any recent debate concerning the use of Reynoutria.

Kind regards,

Alan

--

Alan R. Franck, Ph.D.

Curator, Wertheim Conservatory

Institute of Environment

Dept. Biological Sciences, OE 167

Florida International University

11200 SW 8th St., Miami, FL 33199

On 2/9/21, 11:04 PM, "Taxacom on behalf of Joey Slowik via Taxacom" <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu on behalf of taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu%20on%20behalf%20of%20taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>> wrote:

    Note: This message originated from outside the FIU Faculty/Staff email system.

    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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email is intended for the addressee(s) named and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. 
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and then delete it immediately.
Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender except where the sender expressly and with authority states them to be the views of the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage.

PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE PRINTING THIS EMAIL