|
replaced with |
It's in Haines/GoBotany as canadensis. https://gobotany.newenglandwild.org/species/sambucus/nigra/ And iNat doesn't use all of those names but often uses them where there aren't conflicts elsewhere. For instance we thankfully don't use their mutilation of cornus.
Just trying to fully understand how iNaturalist works with taxonomy conflicts. According to the curator guide policies (link below), the reasoning is this:
"We try to follow regional floras as they tend to be more useful and up-to-date. When regional floras conflict, we resort to The Plant List. For example, if Calflora thinks a dogwood is in Cornus and GoBotany thinks it's in Swida, we choose the placement favored by The Plant List."
Was there such a conflict regarding Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea, between Calflora and another regional flora, or was the decision to go with primary sources and the Plant List made for some other reason?
Sambucus nigra subsp. canadensis was also pulled out into S. canadensis by other regional North American authorities and here on iNaturalist. So while iNaturalist taxonomy usually works on a species by species basis to determine the appropriate authority and conclusion, if thinking more broadly about the scheme of S. nigra sensu lato, to me it makes sense to also pull cerulea out into its own species here.
The newer Plants of the World Online, which iNaturalist is likely to move to once its more complete, also splits them out from S. nigra.
http://plantsoftheworldonline.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:30018446-2#children
certainly these western ones seem different than Sambucus nigra out east. Would this include what was previously called Sambucus mexicana?