Hybrids

[Charlie Hohn]

Just wondering if anyone had ideas on how to deal with hyrids that don't pop up in external name providers. For instance I think this: http://www.inaturalist.org/observations/1093676#comment-211139 is a hybrid between Rhus integrifolia and R. ovata but I wasn't able to find anything that made sense to use here. I don't want to create a new taxa if not necessary but I think things like this are good to track. This hybrid is not uncommon and I've seen them several times in the Santa Monica Mountains in person. Any thoughts?

[bouteloua]

Here's one take: http://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/346676-Quercus-lobata---douglasii , with the taxonomic rank set as hybrid

[Ken-ichi]

There's a section on adding hybrids in the curators guide: http://www.inaturalist.org/pages/curator+guide#policies

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "iNaturalist" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to inaturalist...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to inatu...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/inaturalist.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Charlie Hohn]

Awesome Ken-Ichi, I'd forgotten that was there, thanks.

--

============================
Charlie Hohn
Montpelier, Vermont

coyot.es/slowwatermovement

[tony rebelo]

I am not sure I agree with the guidelines (I dont disagree: I think that they are not complete enough).

Please correct me if I am wrong, but the way that I understand it is:

Hybrids exist in the wild.  Thus  crossings of Quercus gambelii and Quercus turbinella are frequently found.

The correct way to describe this is Quercus gambelii × turbinella  (- the hybrid formula: with the rule, female parent first, or alphabetically if unknown)

Sometimes hybrids are inadvertently/mistakenly/ignorantly/ or deliberately described as a species.  One such case is Quercus undulata for this particular hybrid.

When such a name is discovered to be a hybrid, it is designated as such and the name Quercus × undulata  (note the space) should be used.

But note: this is a formal type, and may not encompass the variation of the entire hybrid.  It is thus a "synonym" of the hybrid, but is not (necessarily) equivalent to the hybrid: it is a particular instance of the hybrid.   I would suggest in these cases that the hybrid formula is used, and the formal name just listed as a synonym.  Similarly, if users want to access all the registered cultivar names for any particular hybrids, they can be listed as "common names" under the hybrid, rather than creating dozens of cultivar names in the dictionary.

This distinction is especially crucial when that hybrid is registered as a cultivar and widely planted or grown (the classical case would be Populus × canescens (a hybrid of Populus alba × tremula) which is widely grown - and occ. invasive throughout the world).  In these cases the designation of the hybrid species name should be used.  But then the iNat dictionary should surely list it as a cultivar under the hybrid name, and not as an alternative hybrid, and also not with the hybrid formula as a synonym of the cultivar?

An exception is also where there are alternative interpretations where some authorities regard Quercus undulata as a valid species (Quercus undulata) versus others that regard it as a hybrid (Quercus × undulata) or even others who regard it as a hybrid that has become a species (i.e. a genetically isolated but interbreeding population(s)) and consider it Quercus undulata.   

If so, then 

* we must not expect to find many hybrids in POWO: most will not feature.  They are still valid hybrids and we should use them as hybrids.  They are not equivalent to unidentified generic level names.   (although one can argue that hybrids where one parent is known, but the other is uncertain, are generic level uncertainties - and in fact, most cases will end up being classified as such).

* hybrid taxa in POWO should in the majority of cases be made synonyms of their hybrid formula.  The most obvious exceptions being popular cultivars of rare hybrids, and specific cultivars that are becoming problem cases (e.g. alien invasives), where a very specific hybrid is an issue.

* in the event alternative interpretations of species/hybrids follow POWO?

* we dont identify cultivars on iNaturalist.  But may we add these names as synonyms to their hybrids (or species, in the case of species selections)?  

(e,g, Bells Pride, Bells Sunrise,  Bells Supreme, Cloudbank Sunrise, Inca Gold, Jester, Katies Bush, Magenta Sunset, Maui Sunset, Highlights, Red Gem, Rising Sun, Robin Red, Safari Gold, Safari Sunset, Safari Sunshine, Silvan Red, Wilsons Wonder are all cultivars for Leucadendron laureolum × salignum that are common in the trade.  - over 90% of Proteaceae observations posted in the USA are for such cultivars and are often known as such by the observers, without a clue as to their true species (or generic or family) identity: having these names will allow these observers to make a precise ID!).

ta

Tony

[Mark Tutty]

I have similar issues with a collection of Mexican Oaks.... many hybrids not being in PoWO despite their occurrence being natural (overlapping ranges in source country). I have (mostly) got around the problem by finding the lowest level taxa that does fit, and then applying a field for “infraspecific taxa” to document the hybrid or cultivar forms.

 

For example, from Charlie’s case: iNat taxa = (genus) Rhus, and field “infraspecific taxa” = integrifolia × ovata

 

I’m very interested to see how others track these type of situations

 

cheers
Mark Tutty
kiwif...@gmail.com

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "iNaturalist" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to inaturalist...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to inatu...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/inaturalist.

[Charlie Hohn]

i wouldn't want to use fields to track things such as this Rhus. Firstly, they then won't display properly in the taxonomic chain or range maps or identotron etc, and secondly, it is impossible to keep everyone using the same fields so other people will not be dealing with them that same way. I think any valid hybrid with documented occurrence in the wild needs a taxonomic entity within the site. If it is not in POWO we should just create it (maybe with checking with the taxonomic workgroup and being very sure there's no duplicate). If there are grey areas, like plants that look intermediate between two species but there is no literature documenting the hybrid, we may need to use fields or something but I'm not sure what works best for that. 

[tony rebelo]

This never occurred to me. When I was confronted with this problem, I flagged it, got a curator to create the hybrids and proceeded. The delay was annoying, but the curation was impressively quick.

The idea of posting a "vague" identity and then adding extra data fields just feels totally wrong.

I can understand if hybrids are problematic and difficult (i.e. vague) that the difficulty might require a different approach, but when the situation is relatively straight forward, I would advocate the most precise solution, even if it means in theory that we may have to create a hybrid name between every plant on earth (thank heavens, it is usually confined to species within a genus or subgenus, and then usually just to a few promiscuous species, and even then only a small proportions observations are hybrids). 

Being busy with a review in southern African Proteaceae, I have put on all the common hybrids onto iNat (and in the last two weeks had to add one more unusual one, and decided to not add another). This is a fraction of the horticultural hybrids, most of which are not worth putting on, at least until and if they become fashionable and start featuring prominently on iNat.

More of a problem was where to put the hybrids in the larger genera: all together under the genus, or with inter-subgeneric hybrids under the subgenus (which we chose), or - for neatness - in a pseudo-section "hybrids". (not allowed!).

e.g. https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/129714-Protea versus: https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/637389-Ligulatae

The other question was whether to bother: some of these hybrids - based on the Protea Atlas database - will only be encountered when the genus approaches 50 000 observations - it is currently at nearly 5000 observations.

[Charlie Hohn]

It would be neat if there were a way to add the hybrids to iNat not as 'species' level entities but as stand alone entities at a slightly different taxonomic level that anchor to the parents somehow. For example, this Rhus might be a 'descendent' of both R. integrifolia and R. ovata and be tracked that way and maybe show a different color on thsoe range maps or something. Make it so hybrids CAN be treated as real hybrids. They are important, especially the fertile ones.

[tony rebelo]

You are opening a can of worms.  In Leucospermum we have many crosses of crosses: i.e. 4 parents!  Some hybrids hybridize more easily than their parents.  

Fortunately, these are all cultivars.  Most species that co-occur in nature have good interspecific barriers - it is by bringing species that have never overlapped together (in nurseries, orchards and - unfortunately - nature reserves (nature reserves always seem to have to have gardens or barriers or displays  with "alien" species to the area)) that hybrids are easy to create.