Taxonomic Swap 129264
(Guardado el 18/08/2023)
|
|
reemplazar con |
Comentarios
My previous comment asking why I was tagged in that taxon swap was deleted for the record
@tiwane @kitty12 @antrozousamelia I'm sorry to bother you all but can I ask you to assess this situation? He has also deleted the tag towards me but I just got that message too and I hope I am interpreting it correctly but I struggle with this. I am so scared and unsettled if I am interpreting it correctly
@tiwane @kitty12 @antrozousamelia:
Given our previous interactions on iNaturalist, I honestly thought @mertensia was a curator or at least familiar with the taxon swap mechanics. The curator guide states: "Try to @ mention others to review your changes for potential errors and to discuss whether or not they're appropriate. This is especially important if you're changing a taxon based on a regional authority and it has observations outside that region. Curators have a lot of power to act unilaterally because sometimes it's just hard or impossible to get others to vet your work, but we (the site staff) would prefer a more collaborative process whenever possible." As my previous interaction made me think mertensia was familiar with the taxon change protocols, I tagged them for advice on whether I had done the swap correctly. mertensia then asked why I had tagged them when they were not a curator and did not know why they were tagged. I then realized my error, provided my reasoning for tagging as was requested of me (see comment above for the message), and deleted the tag on this post and their comment so that they would not get any unnecessary updates regarding this taxon swap. I do not know why I am being attacked over this simple misunderstanding. I have been using iNaturalist for many years but have only started doing curatorial work on the site and was hoping for some guidance.
This seems disingenuous; I said 24 days ago on the Trichostema flag that I was NOT a curator and did NOT understand the nitty gritty of curatorial work. Why would you ignore what I explicitly said? We have barely, if ever, interacted before that point and my Trichostema flag was not personal
Kschoon I am going to block you. You are the first person I have found it necessary to do so but you have really frightened me and made me feel that I am not welcome on iNaturalist. I had my feelings validated by other people, that they too would interpret your behavior as antagonistic and would feel the same discomfort. I hope that you reflect on this.
If you feel you need to block me, go ahead.
1) I made an error and tried to fix it. I made an incorrect assumption and did not see your comments about curatorial work on the comment thread.
2) I did not take the flag personally. In fact, I was very happy that I was able to learn about the iNaturalist curatorial process.
3) I cannot control how my words are interpreted in an online context. Please know that none of them are meant to be hurtful or antagonistic.
If all parties involved would think it helpful, I can delete->resubmit this taxon swap and resolve->reflag the taxon flag for Trichostema so that mertensia and I are no longer on any common threads.
I don't see evidence that kschoon was acting in a malicious manner, it seems like an honest mistake which kschoon has tried to explain and has apologized for.
was there a flag discussing the lumping of these two Sisyrinchium? I can't find one other than one comment on a very old flag for a separate issue (https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/436026)
@kschoon if you are deviating from POWO, you need to to amend the TFRs to reflect this.
it's also beneficial to discuss changes like this on a flag first so that other users can provide input, especially when they affect thousands of observations. Adding a comment to an existing flag created four years ago is not an effective way to communicate imo as it is completely buried under thousands of other flags; the only people who would have seen your comment is the small handful of users who had already commented on that flag. It is best to create a new flag so that it is easily accessed
Working in the TFR. Troubleshooting right now since the way I thought that it worked to make the new TFR is not working. Guidance on how to do that appropriately would be appreciated
so in this case you need to go to the TFR for S. micranthum (https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/284004/taxonomy_details) and set up a one to many relationship to reflect POWO's current acceptance of both species still. Click edit relationship, and then add S. rosulatum as another external taxon. Let me know if this works for you
That is what I tried to do. It only allowed me to make the change after removing the POWO relationship for S. rosulatum. I don't know if that is the proper way to do things, but otherwise I was getting an error that the external name was already a part of a taxon framework.
These two names have been contested many times but I can't access any of this supposed new research that "finally" lumps them. Are we sure this was the correct choice?
I'm not overly satisfied with the treatment...
“A special effort was put into sampling of S. micranthum, a species which shows a high level of morphological plasticity and is closely related to S. laxum and S. rosulatum.” The maximum likelihood topology, as well as the consensus tree, clearly showed that S. rosulatum (specimen from U.S.A.) is embedded within S. micranthum (specimens from Latin America), but sampling was limited. Additional genetic sampling of plants from the United States would be welcome, to corroborate the results of Chauveau et al. (2011). Meanwhile, data from Chauveau et al. and from morphology strongly sug-gest that Sisyrinchium rosulatum Bicknell is a junior synonym of S. micranthum Cavanilles, and that it is not native to the United States"
It seems that one side of the argument (genetic) is based on a very limited sample set, and that is expressed as so. So their call for synonymy is entirely based on morphological overlap which they also acknowledge could be the result of mixed phenology or hybridization.
I'm guessing too late to revert this change?
I think this highlights the value of discussing changes on flags first before implementing, especially changes involving thousands of records and that are relatively new taxonomic updates
Well, this is just my opinion. Perhaps not everyone agrees with my line of thought. I honestly don't know what the correct call is here, only that I think the evidence is not complete.
I am deeply unsettled by this. I was tagged in this taxon swap as a way to "rub my face into" when I flagged kschoon's mismanaged Trichostema changes after his paper on them was published. Instead of answering publicly, they private messaged me this:
"Hey,
Sorry about the tag. I assumed you were familiar with the taxon changing process when you flagged the Trichostema species.
Best,
Kevan"
I very much realize we are meant to assume well on this but it's been a decent amount of time since the Trichostema flag and I was calling out what, from my end as a non-curator, was the incorrect protocol following a split. I am not a curator and I do not genuinely believe that they would reach out to me over a curator and I had expressed this prior.
I am so uncomfortable