Could you please add Pulsatilla campanella and Pulsatilla turczaninovii to your plant list?
Thanks,
growitall

The genus Pulsatilla no longer exists. All of the Pulsatillas have been reclassified as Anemones.

Well, I meant in whatever way you have chosen on this database to deal with these changes.

Curiously, The Plant List shows both as "accepted" although I realize that authorities don't necessarily agree... would sure be nice if they were unanimous.
http://www.theplantlist.org/tp...
http://www.theplantlist.org/tp...

How reliable is 'The Plant List'? http://www.theplantlist.org/br...

Here is what I found at 'ITIS': http://www.itis.gov/servlet/Si...


I see that the 'Plant List' records are from the 1930's, the ones from 'ITIS' are mostly from early 2000's.

It would be great if the taxonomic databases were to agree, but some still have obsolete information. The Pulsatilla information on The Plant List dates back to 1930 in most cases. ITIS and GRIN are more up to date, but P. campanella is not mentioned on either of those databases, and Pulsatilla turczaninovii is mentioned on GRIN, but only to say that it's now an Anemone and no further decisions have been made.

http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bi...

If you have photos of these plants, they'll have to go on the Anemone entry page for now. You can note their previous names in the photo captions and move them later if more up-to-date decisions are made available to us.

Anemones (Anemone)

I see Lynn and I are cross-posting about this.

I have found both of her plants listed as accepted plants in the past. Would it not be feasible to make new entries as Anemone turczaninovii and Anemone campanella, with the old naming as a synonym? Then it would be much easier to make changes when things are finalized for these plants? They have been around for a very long time under the names listed.

This is all up to the taxonomists to decide and history shows that taxonomical changes are cyclical - the lumpers rule for a while and then the splitters rule for a while, and then the lumpers again and.. back and forth.

I sort of suspect that the creators of The Plant List (which by the way came out in 2010) would vehemently disagree their interpretations are "out of date".
http://www.theplantlist.org/ab...

Anyway, no problem.

We can't add entries for species that don't exist. The problem, Lynn, is that they won't necessarily be classified as Anemone campanella and Anemone turczaninovi. They're much more likely to be added to an existing Anemone species. It all depends on DNA tests, I suppose.

The problem with The Plant List is that it's sometimes so hopelessly out of date that the necessary changes in classification are no longer listed in the more current databases.

zuzu said: The problem with The Plant List is that it's sometimes so hopelessly out of date that the necessary changes in classification are no longer listed in the more current databases.

It appears so. Even though it was published in 2010, many of the entries were/are based on information that is waaay older than that! (understatement)

The Plant List may have come out in 2010, but its sources of information are much older in most cases. ITIS and GRIN are more current, but they aren't as comprehensive. I dream of a day when we can refer to a comprehensive and current taxonomic database.

I was curious about the apparent absence within ITIS of any treatment of European and Asian Pulsatilla species (other than the former P. vulgaris and P. patens). Entering one of these species in ITIS gives back the response: "No data found."

So I sent an e-mail to ask about it, and was sent some clarification on how to use ITIS, as follows.

I was informed that these species are "outside the area presently covered by ITIS". The response stated that there was controversy around the treatment of Pulsatilla versus Anemone, and that the treatment of N. American species favours Anemone (see eFloras of N. America) but that the ITIS treatment of North American species does not necessarily comment on "extralimital species".

So, a search result of "No data found" (assuming the species name has been entered correctly with no typos) appears to mean that the species has not been evaluated by ITIS. It's not that Pulsatilla campanella and Pulsatilla turczaninovii "don't exist" because they aren't in ITIS - instead, it appears that ITIS simply hasn't dealt with them (and I've gotten the same "No data found" response when searching on many other species in ITIS).

If ITIS does eventually deal with these species, perhaps they will be reassigned to Anemone, but for now, there doesn't seem to be any reason to exclude them from the species list here.

Just thought I'd pass this along in case it's helpful for deciphering the info at ITIS site, at least.

Lori

I find that GRIN is more comprehensive than ITIS. It still lists Pulsatilla georgica and P. turczaninovii as accepted species names (as of 2007-2008), but it posts the same comment for each:

"Comment: belongs in Anemone, but combination not yet made"

It says nothing about Pulsatilla campanella.

http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bi...

I tried to provide the link to all of the Pulsatilla entries, but it just went back to the general page. Just enter Pulsatilla in the search box on the general queries page.

Hi Lori,
Yes our understanding is that ITIS is focused primarily on North American species.

Both of these species are accepted by Tropicos per the Plant List:
http://www.theplantlist.org/tp...
http://www.tropicos.org/Name/2...
http://www.tropicos.org/Name/5...

Was there a prior declined proposal(s) or discussion of these?

Yes, that's what this thread was about (see the chain of responses).

I thought this all sounded familiar.

Even though GRIN accepts two species names for Pulsatilla (2007-2008), ITIS says that even the genus name is no longer accepted (2011).

http://www.itis.gov/servlet/Si...

The links on these sites just aren't working the right way. That was supposed to take you to all of the Pulsatilla entries, but the link reverted to a general page. Enter Pulsatilla into the search box and you'll see what I mean. Every species name has been recategorized as a species of Anemone. Pulsatilla campanella, once again, is not even named. This often means that it became a synonym so long ago that the information is no longer present on GRIN or ITIS. Tropicos' source for P. campanella is a book published in the Soviet Union in 1931.

Here's the information about Pulsatilla as a genus name:

http://www.itis.gov/servlet/Si...

The explanation for this seems pretty clear, Zuzu.
ITIS has only dealt with the following former Pulsatilla species, and has reassigned them to the genus Anemone:
From the ITIS search on "Pulsatilla":

Anemone pulsatilla L. – accepted – European pasqueflower
Pulsatilla Mill. – not accepted – pasqueflower
Pulsatilla hirsutissima (Pursh) Britton – not accepted
Pulsatilla ludoviciana A. Heller – not accepted
Pulsatilla nuttalliana (DC.) Spreng. – not accepted
Pulsatilla occidentalis (S. Watson) Freyn – not accepted – white pasqueflower
Pulsatilla patens (L.) Mill. – not accepted – American pasqueflower, eastern pasqueflower, pasqueflower
Pulsatilla patens ssp. hirsutissima (Pursh) Zämelis – not accepted
Pulsatilla patens ssp. multifida (Pritz.) Zämelis – not accepted – American pasqueflower, cutleaf anemone, sticky pasqueflower
Pulsatilla patens ssp. patens (L.) Mill. – not accepted – American pasqueflower, eastern pasqueflower
Pulsatilla vulgaris Mill. – not accepted – European pasqueflower

"Every species name has been recategorized as a species of Anemone." Yes, since ITIS has only dealt with the species above, which have been reclassified to Anemone), typing "Pulsatilla" into the search function gives the result "not accepted" for the word Pulsatilla. Do you see what I'm saying?

If you type other species of Pulsatilla into the search function (e.g. other European and Asiatic species - P. ajanensis, P. verna, P. aurea, P. turczaninovii, P. campanella, etc.), it ITIS does not say "not accepted". It says "No data found".
According to David Nicolson (Data Development Coordinator, Integrated Taxonomic Information System Biologist, USGS Core Science Systems, Core Science Analytics & Synthesis Program) this means ITIS has not dealt with the species. (If you look at the list for Anemone in ITIS, you'll see that the species accounted for there are native or introduced N. American species or ones that are circumpolar. If you do a search on an Asian one, e.g. Anemone rivularis, it also returns "No data found".)

It would seem presumptuous to assume that ITIS, without having studied the species, will conclude that they should be shoe-horned into the only species it has examined, Anemone patens and Anemone pulsatilla... or alternatively, if they can't be shoved into those species, that they would then be invalid species. Until these taxonomic sources actually "decide" on particular species (or until ITIS does, I guess, as that seems to be the main reference here), it's premature to second guess the validity (or invalidity) of a species name.

Anyway, I give up.

Then look for them on GRIN, which, as I already said, is more comprehensive. It does list Anemone rivularis.

http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bi...

It also recategorizes all Pulsatilla species as Anemone species, with the exception of two (including P. turczaninovii), but it says those two also belong in Anemone. Their placement has not been decided yet, but it eventually will be decided.

They're ba-ack!

Reviving this discussion of many moons ago, I'm pleased to report that Pulsatilla apparently is a genus again, according to the Catalogue of Life report for 26 February 2014. I've added about a hundred Pulsatilla species to our database, and tonight I'll clean up the anemones, many of which are now back in the Pulsatilla and Hepatica genera. Lori, you'll be pleased to hear that P. campanella and P. turczaninovii are among the species I added.

http://garden.org/plants/brows...