BSBI Distribution Database > message board

Sagina apetala records

Any queries about using the BSBI database

Sagina apetala records

by davidbroughton » Sun May 27, 2018 11:03 am

Would value thoughts on the records of Sagina apetala in the DDB. It is a species I have undoubtedly been overlooking but is it as widespread as records indicate? I guess a more useful query is what happened with the original sens. lat. records when apetala and filicaulis were subsequently raised to species level? Presumably a number of records were of the agg., were these records segregated as a sens. lat. grouping or lumped with apetala sens. str? Looking at VC64 there seem to be a lot of dots which are not supporting by any records I am aware of. There has not been a culture of recording subspecies in local recording groups who have contributed most of the records over recent decades, and this species was treated as sens. lat. in the County Atlas with only a note that 'both subspecies appear to be equally widespread'. The map in the Atlas is suspiciously similar to one generated from the DDB, and the lack of resolution in the underlying records of the latter does not reassure.
davidbroughton
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 8:05 pm
name: David Broughton

Re: Sagina apetala records

by AndyAmphlett » Mon May 28, 2018 12:54 pm

Most of the potential confusions arising from name changes in Stace 3rd edition are listed in this MapMate Newsletter - http://www.mapmate.co.uk/newsletters/102. But Sagina is not mentioned.

There are a suspiciously high number of records for Sagina apetala for date class 1987 - 1999 cf post 1999, and I suggest that anything recorded as Sagina apetala (without subspecies) before Stace 3 should probably be referred to the s.l. taxon, which is an option available in the DDb. Records could be bulk edited with an explanation as to why the edit was made. From a quick look at vcs I know, it looks looks like the issue is widespread, but VCRs would need to carefully investigate records for their vcs.

As this may be a general problem, it may be best for Tom to deal with it. Kevin Walker mentioned to me a few days ago that he and Tom were identifying 'problem' taxa such as this.
AndyAmphlett
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 9:32 am
name: Andy Amphlett

Re: Sagina apetala records

by admin » Tue May 29, 2018 11:56 am

Thanks for highlighting this issue. I'm meeting with Kevin next week, I'll discuss that with him then.
Tom Humphrey
Database Officer, Botanical Society of Britain and Ireland (BSBI)
c/o Centre for Ecology and Hydrology,Maclean Building, Crowmarsh Gifford, Wallingford, Oxon, OX10 8BB, UK.
tom.humphrey@bsbi.org
User avatar
admin
 
Posts: 367
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:16 pm
name: Tom Humphrey

Re: Sagina apetala records

by davidbroughton » Tue May 29, 2018 7:04 pm

Thanks for looking at this. I have also been suspicious of the volume of historic records for Rumex acetosella subsp. acteosella? Were that many people really recording this historically or should these be just Rumex acetosella?
davidbroughton
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 8:05 pm
name: David Broughton


Return to Help and support

cron