Taxonomic Swap 46838 (Committed on 02-15-2022)

Recognition of Palhinhaea as a distinct genus, as in Pteridophyte Phylogeny Group 2016.


A community-derived classification fo... (Citation)
Added by jasonrgrant on February 01, 2019 11:05 PM | Committed by kai_schablewski on February 15, 2022
replaced with


Please cite the published source for this change. Happy in principle assuming this is based on published, peer-reviewed work.

Posted by craigpeter over 5 years ago

@leonperrie - are you aware of this? :)

Posted by tangatawhenua about 5 years ago

@tangatawhenua - thanks. I wasn't aware of this particular proposal in iNaturalist, but I am aware of some people's desire to split up Lycopodiella.

I don't support it, as I think it is unnecessary taxonomic change by taxonomists wanting to make a name for themselves rather than doing the best by their community of users, along the lines of what I've discussed here:

The splitting of Lycopodiella is among a bunch of changes adopted by the Pteridophyte Phylogeny Group that we won't be following for the Flora of New Zealand, as outlined here:'s_recommendations_in_relation_to_ferns_and_lycophytes_in_the_eFloraNZ

However, as much as I think splitting Lycopodiella is a bad idea, iNaturalist is a global platform, so even in New Zealand we may get caught in the poor decisions of others.

Posted by leonperrie about 5 years ago

Which would be why @craigpeter would like @jasonrgrant to cite the source :)

Posted by tangatawhenua about 5 years ago

Here is the reference:
PPG I (2016). A community‐derived classification for extant lycophytes and ferns. Journal of Systematics and Evolution:

Thanks for your comments. As a disclaimer, we contributed the Ophioglossaceae to PPG1, and I have a new postdoc working on a new worldwide molecular phylogeny of Ophioglossaceae. We also aim to disentangle the species of Sceptridium (Botrychium sub. Scetridium) worldwide, which is going to be very challenging.

As far as Lycopodiella, I'm not an expert on this group, I was simply making a suggested taxon swap based on what was accepted in PPG1.

Posted by jasonrgrant about 5 years ago

This is why I tagged Carl Rothfels and Weston Testo in the taxon swap proposal because they are experts on this specific group, and I'd be interested to get their advice.

Posted by jasonrgrant about 5 years ago


Posted by jasonrgrant almost 5 years ago

I don't have much input here. @jasonrgrant , the taxonomic system you linked here is the one I've used since I started learning about lycophytes however I am no expert yet and for now I'll rely on people that know more about this than I do to clear it up. I would like to see this change made but if it is still seen as unnecessary by a majority of users I won't push for it.

Posted by lycophyte almost 5 years ago

This, as Leon says, is a relatively "straight-forward" lumping versus splitting decision. You could recognize a single monophyletic Lycopodiella s. lat., or you could recognize four genera (as does the PPG: Lycopodiella, Pseudolycopodiella, Palhinhaea, and Lateristachys). In my opinion (and in the consensus of the pteridological community, as reflected in the PPG, which was authored by nearly 100 people) the later approach is preferable: it is more informative (the four genera are morphologically distinct lineages and, perhaps more importantly, are deeply evolutionarily distinct--the first of these genera diverged from the ancestor of the others around 120 million years ago [dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago...]--so it seems preposterous to treat them all as members of the same genus). You won't find an angiosperm genus with a crown age of 120 million years. See Testo et al. 2018 --

Posted by crothfels almost 5 years ago

I absolutely agree with @crothfels on this topic.

So far this species group is still split into Lycopodiella cernua and all other species in Palhinhaea.

I can live with both options, completely splitting or lumping these taxa, but not with with the current situation on iNaturalist.

I know that some people might not like it, but after almost three years I will now finally execute this taxonchange to finally combine Palhinhaea cernua with its other closely related species.

Posted by kai_schablewski over 2 years ago


Posted by jasonrgrant over 2 years ago

A little update: I have separated both genera and there are no duplicates left. Missing species have been created, taxon swaps have been committed, the species are now mapped
I also added many synonym names.

I haven't adjusted the taxon framework relationships yet as I'm not exactly sure how best to do it.

Posted by kai_schablewski over 2 years ago

I'll copy in @choess here, to ensure he's abreast of the situation

Posted by crothfels over 2 years ago

Thanks kai_schablewski for all your work on this.

Posted by jasonrgrant over 2 years ago

Add a Comment

Sign In or Sign Up to add comments