I tried to edit the name for Anemone american to Hepatica nobilis var. obtusa but we have that entry which has nothing added to it.

I thought it best to delete the Hepatica nobilis var. obtusa entry then alter the details for Anemone americana which is a synonym of Hepatica nobilis var. obtusa according to many sources.



Liverleaf (Hepatica nobilis var. obtusa)

http://www.theplantlist.org/tp...

Trouble is, when I search on the RHS for Anemone americana I get Hepatica americana as an accepted name.

http://apps.rhs.org.uk/rhsplan...

A search for Hepatica americana on the Plant List gives it as a synonym of Hepatica nobilis var. obtusa.

http://www.theplantlist.org/tp...

It would appear that Hepatica nobilis var. obtusa is the correct name.

http://www.ct-botanical-societ...

If I go to ITIS, they have Anemone americana as the accepted name with Hepatica americana as a synonym.

A reference is from 2011, so maybe that is correct after all?

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

Now I'm really confused, but 2011 is more recent than the reference on The Plant List so maybe we should delete the Hepatica nobilis var. obtusa entry?

Anemone americana is a synonym of Hepatica nobilis var. obtusa on Tropicos but that was 1997.

http://www.tropicos.org/Name/2...

Hi Janet, I notice I have some of the same sources in my bookmarks. Tried to make sense of it a while ago but since it appeared to be under peer review decided to wait. It looks like nothing has changed.
The Catalogue of Life: 2011 Annual Checklist is silent on both.
http://www.catalogueoflife.org...

Hi Evan,

The trouble is we have two entries of the same plant. The Catalogue of Life uses ITIS as it's reference source, and ITIS has listed a 2011 source.

Ranunculaceae of North America Update, database (version 2011) Acquired: 2011

Notes: Updated for ITIS by the Flora of North America Expertise Network, in connection with an update for USDA PLANTS (2007-2010)

The Flora of North America have it as Anemone americana but the date is only 1958, I would have thought there was an earlier naming of the plant unless it was split from another species at that date.

http://www.efloras.org/florata...

Funny thing is they link to TROPICOS where the accepted name of Anemone americana is Hepatica nobilis var. obtusa.

http://www.tropicos.org/Name/2...

ITIS is out on a limb on it's own, Wiki states that some botanists include Hepatica in Anemone, maybe ITIS is run by such a botanist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...

USDA plants has it still as Hepatica nobilis var. obtusa but most sites don't update, often because there's no agreement between sources but it does state in connection "with an update for USDA PLANTS (2007-2010)" on ITIS!

http://plants.usda.gov/java/pr...

I found a Hepatica site but that is dated September 2010 ..

http://www.hepatica.eu/en/2010...

I'm afraid waiting to see what happens often doesn't happen, not for 10 years or more if ever!

Forgot to say, I have some photos so would like to know which entry to use. At the moment I'm leaning towards Hepatica nobilis var. obtusa but then we would have two differently named entries with photos of the same plant, at the moment there's only one entry with photos.

Lol, found more about nomenclature, it has already been going on for decades ..

http://www.hort.net/profile/ra...

A swarm of controversy surrounds the nomenclature of this species discussions have been going on for decades about this plant's parentage and species status. According to Swink & Wilhelm, Steyermark & Steyermark classified H. acutiloba DC. as H. nobilis Mill. var. acuta (Pursh) Steyerm. in 1960. Correspondingly, H. americana DC. was considered to be H. nobilis Mill. var obtusa (Pursh) Steyerm.

The basis for this reclassification was grounded in studies throughout Barrington in Lake County, Illinois, in which the two scientists discovered that H. americana tended to be present on more acid, leached soils at the tops of ravines and slopes, while H. acutiloba was found in more neutral and richer creek bottoms. The boundaries between the two species often crossed, and this intergradation prompted a proposed name change that taxonomists still debate to this day.

Janet, One correction. Catalogue of Life uses most of the major folks same as the Plantlist; Kew, MOBOT, ...

So botanists can't agree. Species status may be based upon environment as well as morphology. Growers/retailers use interchangeably. I don't think you can go wrong. If you decide to incorporate one into the other (syn.) a comment would explain all. Good luck.

Evan, if you look at the resource list on the right side you will see the resource is named for a particular species. There's only one other resource listed for a species on the page you linked to. Actually, I hadn't looked to see if Anemone americana was listed on Species 2000, it's not but Hepatica nobilis is giving ITIS as the source with accepted! But that's out of date too ..

ITIS, Sep 2009

Latest taxonomic scrutiny: Kartesz J., 15-Mar-2000

http://www.catalogueoflife.org...

It does seem that species status has been based on environment, not sure about morphology. I haven't found anything yet which suggests there has been DNA testing done, but the typical growth habit of flowers emerging first from the ground I found mentioned as being like Hepatica.

To say one is more typically growing on the top of a bank, the other at the bottom where it's more neutral (species adaptation?), with a crossover of species isn't in my view very scientific but may have some bearing. Quoting again ..

The basis for this reclassification was grounded in studies throughout Barrington in Lake County, Illinois, in which the two scientists discovered that H. americana tended to be present on more acid, leached soils at the tops of ravines and slopes, while H. acutiloba was found in more neutral and richer creek bottoms. The boundaries between the two species often crossed, and this intergradation prompted a proposed name change that taxonomists still debate to this day.

These two scientists must have had some powerful sway on such inefficient or insufficient observations, unless there's more to it. This difference reminds me of a certain syrphid fly. Melanosotma mellinum which has yellow patches on it's abdomen but there's another which is called M. dubium which has no pattern. It's said to be more in montane areas, where a change over from one species to the other occurs at around a certain level. I have both, and I'm not in a montane area!! Some like to think they have discovered a new species, often in the name of making themselves a name.

I'm stuck, before I place my photos in Anemone americana I would like more evidence.

Dave, we have the two, which do you choose? (passing the buck )

Maybe here's the place to bring up my confusion over variety vs. forma. The differences are so subtle botanically but often not subtle at all horticulturally.
http://apps.rhs.org.uk/rhsplan...
When is a plant a var. or f. versus "natural variability" and therefor neither?

I go with the flow but I still feel this is one significant flaw in the crossover from botanical to horticultural databases.

One thing jumped out at me when reading the link you gave .. I think this says it all!

Their designation as a varietas or forma relates partly to the degree of difference exhibited and partly to the botanical tradition of the country in which a botanist was trained.