Swarthy Tiny Greenhood at QPRC LGA
Identification history
| Speculantha furva | 9 Mar 2024 | MattM | ||
| Speculantha furva | 8 Mar 2024 | Tapirlord |
Identify this sighting
Please Login or Register to identify this sighting.
User's notes
Could also be rubescens
5 comments
MattM
wrote:
9 Mar 2024
This is on the edge of both species range so could be either. I will confirm as furva as furva has been recorded in this area before. I have also heard that someone in NSW is looking into the two species to confirm if they are actually different species or the same species.
Did you want to use Pterostylis or Speculantha?
Did you want to use Pterostylis or Speculantha?
Csteele4
wrote:
9 Mar 2024
@MattM I had a long chat with the botany lecturer up at UNE a few weeks ago, and I think the consensus is leaning towards combining the two...but genetic analysis will be the determining factor.
(I vote Pterostylis 😛)
(I vote Pterostylis 😛)
Tapirlord
wrote:
9 Mar 2024
Haha, it seems this one is coming back to haunt me. We had the two entities in our system and I had them merged into Pterostylis thinking it wouldn’t be relevant to CNM. I’m using Pterostylis for SCNM as that is the existing infrastructure.
Now, to the bigger issue. Matt, you and I had a discussion about this and you know that I feel we should move toward using the broadly accepted names. Ultimately, I feel like we are making a bit of statement by maintaining these names and I can’t see that there are particularly good reasons for continuing do so.
However, and I know it’s not the point, I do feel that David’s approach is a good one. The morphological and ecological evidence for these spilts is pretty strong, and the herbaria have not provided overly strong evidence for the decisions not to accept them. To be perfectly honest my feeling is that David’s reputation (and the damage the Caladenia spilts did) are mostly to blame. Guess we will see what the molecules say. Although I should say there are points to be made as to whether or not molecular genetics should have the final say in speciation; the creation of cryptic species for one (though this is already an issue in orchidaceae). Plus, despite the impression genetic evidence is not always conclusive.Anyhow, this is something that will decided by more knowledgeable people.
In the meantime let’s look at moving CNM to restricted Pterostylis.
Now, to the bigger issue. Matt, you and I had a discussion about this and you know that I feel we should move toward using the broadly accepted names. Ultimately, I feel like we are making a bit of statement by maintaining these names and I can’t see that there are particularly good reasons for continuing do so.
However, and I know it’s not the point, I do feel that David’s approach is a good one. The morphological and ecological evidence for these spilts is pretty strong, and the herbaria have not provided overly strong evidence for the decisions not to accept them. To be perfectly honest my feeling is that David’s reputation (and the damage the Caladenia spilts did) are mostly to blame. Guess we will see what the molecules say. Although I should say there are points to be made as to whether or not molecular genetics should have the final say in speciation; the creation of cryptic species for one (though this is already an issue in orchidaceae). Plus, despite the impression genetic evidence is not always conclusive.Anyhow, this is something that will decided by more knowledgeable people.
In the meantime let’s look at moving CNM to restricted Pterostylis.
MattM
wrote:
9 Mar 2024
Oh sorry. My question was about this sighting in particular because you had selected Pterostylis rather than Speculantha.
@Csteele4 I am glad to hear that there the study of furva/rubescens is looking to lump them because they do look the same, and it will make ID easier haha.
I will be sad to see the Pterostylidae lumped together, but I understand it is long overdue.
@Csteele4 I am glad to hear that there the study of furva/rubescens is looking to lump them because they do look the same, and it will make ID easier haha.
I will be sad to see the Pterostylidae lumped together, but I understand it is long overdue.
Tapirlord
wrote:
9 Mar 2024
Ahhh, whoops. Got distracted 😂.
Yeah so we used to have this one in speculantha, but I merged it into Pterostylis for SCNM. Not much more to my suggestion than that.
Yeah so we used to have this one in speculantha, but I merged it into Pterostylis for SCNM. Not much more to my suggestion than that.
Location information
- Maps Mongarlowe River
- Places Mongarlowe, NSW
Sighting information
- 20 Abundance
- Tapirlord Recorded by
-
Collections
Plants Orchids Tapirlord Canberra & Southern Tablelands NatureMapr
Additional information
- True In flower
- Less than 10cm Plant height
Species information
- Speculantha furva Scientific name
- Swarthy Tiny Greenhood Common name
- Sensitive
- Rare or uncommon native
- Non-invasive or negligible
- Machine learning
-
In flower
- External link More information
-
Synonyms
Speculantha furva Pterostylis furva
Record quality
- Images or audio
- More than one media file
- Verified by an expert moderator
- Nearby sighting(s) of same species
- GPS evidence of location
- Description
- Additional attributes
