BSBI DDb message board

I manually put in a couple of records as E. pimpinellifolium as they were the variant with two black spots at the petal base.

The submitted records were:
Erodium cicutarium (variant with blotches at base of two or more petals – “E. pimpinellifolium”) (a) Several plants, on bank below car park for car show rooms, north-west side of access road into old chalk pit, south-west side of Coldham’s Lane, Cambridge, TL4837.5747, 12 May 2020, ACL; (b) one large plant, on disturbed bank by track along Hobson’s Conduit, west margin of Great Kneighton Country Park, Cambridge, TL4541.5468, 3 May 2020, ACL.

However in the monthly batch of DDb checks it has been synonymised with E. cicutarium s.s., which was not my intention. Neither Stace nor Sell seems to recognise as specific name for the variant, but it would be sensible to be able to record it correctly.

Jon

This issue crops up quite often, when Recorders wish to record using a taxon name unavailable in whichever taxon dictionary they are using. If using MapMate, I suggest putting the preferred name in the Comments. This name can then be searched for using a DDb query, eg. https://database.bsbi.org/search.php#re ... dafe91ee55. That finds 4 records of E. cicutarium var. pimpinellifolium. The two records you added as E. pimpinellifolium, don't appear, because the name is not mentioned in the Notes field. You could edit those two records adding the word "pimpinellifolium" to the Notes field, and the above query will then find them. Maybe not a perfect solution, but I assume Tom wishes to be conservative with names in the DDb.

Andy.