Mountain birch (1 Viewer)

[JTweedie]

Is there often a tension between what terminology or names people use, and that which is considered to be the "accepted" form?

For example, I've been reading a bit today about the mountain birch. Many of the articles I've read from people working to understand and conserve this tree use the name Betula pubescens tortuosa, but when I was on Wikipedia looking at a more general article about Betula pubescens, it linked to a website which said that Betula pubescens pumila is the "Accepted" name, while the former is an "Unaccepted" name, a synonym.

How do we know what the definitive name is? If I was to write about this should I use the names that other writers are using, or should I be using the "Accepted" name? What would an academic scientist use or a professional writer?

 

[Butty]

The scientific name most widely accepted by those currently working in the field. I don't recognise the dichotomy you're describing.

 

[JTweedie]

The people working in the field (literally), and whose work I've been reading about, are using Betula pubescens tortuosa.

But the article I linked to is saying the accepted name, which I'm reading as the "official" name, is Betula pubescens pumila.

It was this difference I'm querying.

 

[Butty]

If your former statement is correct, the latter is presumably incorrect. Or vice versa.

 

[JTweedie]

Here's an example of people using the first example: The Mountain Birch Project

 

[Richard D]

I think pumila supercedes tortuosa, but they're effectively synonyms at variety level.

 

[Butty]

I'm not clear what your point or difficulty is. Views differ. There is no One Truth in taxonomy.

 

[JTweedie]

I'm not clear what your point or difficulty is. Views differ. There is no One Truth in taxonomy.

Well that's my entire question. If I was to write about this and chose one of the names, my question was - would people know what I'm talking about or whether the name I used was valid.

 

[foresttwitcher]

Perhaps explain the existence of the synonyms in the introduction, at the time of first use or as a footnote.

 

[Butty]

I'm still not clear that there's a problem here. Again... there is no definitive position on what 'accepted' is. If you, as (I think?) a non-specialist, have read around a given issue and been able to get on top of what the available names/synonyms/etc are, then so can anyone else - and the specialists will already know the situation and others probably won't care that much about which name is used. And obviously, as described by FTwitcher, you will provide a half-sentence aside noting the issue. There is no difficulty.

 

[JTweedie]

You see, I was taking it as there being a "correct" name, such that perhaps something is given a new name and that's meant to be it for everyone. But perhaps I'm reading more into this than I should, and that there's more leeway among varieties or subspecies than there are among species.

 

[Butty]

No, that's not the point. The point is, as I've said, that there are no 'correct' views in taxonomy - merely views which, at a given time, may or may not be widely/generally accepted. Views change, and their acceptance changes. As I've said, in the absence of specialist knowledge of your own, use the name which appears currently to be the most widely accepted. If other alternative names are also in current use, say so. That's all.

 

[JTweedie]

I must add that I'm not that familiar with plant names other than their common names. So I was just looking up differences between subspecies and varieties and I see that there's a difference between zoology and botany in that zoology doesn't use varieties.

 

[JTweedie]

No, that's not the point. The point is, as I've said, that there are no 'correct' views in taxonomy - merely views which, at a given time, may or may not be widely/generally accepted. Views change, and their acceptance changes. As I've said, in the absence of specialist knowledge of your own, use the name which appears currently to be the most widely accepted. If other alternative names are also in current use, say so. That's all.

But I don't know what is most widely used. Just what I've read in a few articles. For all I knew the other name was the most widely used and the articles I'd read were in the minority.

 

[Butty]

Plump for one. No big deal. You're mentioning the other(s) anyway.

 

[Xenospiza]

I must add that I'm not that familiar with plant names other than their common names. So I was just looking up differences between subspecies and varieties and I see that there's a difference between zoology and botany in that zoology doesn't use varieties.

Probably the best source for accepted scientific names is Kew's "Plants of the World Online" (POWO).
This lists Betula pubescens var. pumila as the accepted name (originally described as Betula pumila in 1770), with tortuosa as a synonym (described as Betula alba subsp tortuosa in 1850).

Betula pubescens var. pumila (G.Zanoni ex Murray) Govaerts | Plants of the World Online | Kew Science

The native range of this variety is Newfoundland to Greenland, N. Europe to Siberia. It is a shrub or tree and grows primarily in the temperate biome.

powo.science.kew.org

It may be that the people working on the Mountain Birch consider pumila to be something different from tortuosa (even if that is not the view from Kew), which means they need to use a different name.

 

[Xenospiza]

The BSBI (Botanical Society of Britain and Ireland) uses Betula pubescens subsp. tortuosa, so that explains it I guess:

https://bsbi.org/maps?taxonid=2cd4p9h.ydb

 

[JTweedie]

Probably the best source for accepted scientific names is Kew's "Plants of the World Online" (POWO).
This lists Betula pubescens var. pumila as the accepted name (originally described as Betula pumila in 1770), with tortuosa as a synonym (described as Betula alba subsp tortuosa in 1850).

Betula pubescens var. pumila (G.Zanoni ex Murray) Govaerts | Plants of the World Online | Kew Science

The native range of this variety is Newfoundland to Greenland, N. Europe to Siberia. It is a shrub or tree and grows primarily in the temperate biome.

powo.science.kew.org

It may be that the people working on the Mountain Birch consider pumila to be something different from tortuosa (even if that is not the view from Kew), which means they need to use a different name.

Thank you. I think my main confusion here arises from a misunderstanding of what a synonym was in taxonomy, but I've read up on this now. I was reading it originally in its common usage as alternative names for the same thing, for example a pavement or a sidewalk.

 

[THE_FERN]

As others have said, when the taxonomic concept is the same (i.e. everyone agrees it's the same thing) then the international nomenclature rules apply---generally the first published name for the form is the correct one. However, there can be inertia (for example when recent research shows that an established name doesn't have priority), and sometimes disputes over whether something is truly a synonym (refers to the same form), is "published" (according to the rules) etc. Names will always diverge when people disagree on what form something is of course

 

[Welsh Peregrine]

Just saw this thread; no information about the actual case, but hopefully these thoughts may help.
The first name validly applied to a taxon should be the accepted name, therefore if pumila and tortuosa refer to the same thing, pumila is the valid name, and tortuosa is a junior synonym. If they are different taxa, both names are valid, for the different forms. However, under certain circumstances, the oldest name could be officially rejected, eg if everyone had used tortuosa for years and years, and pumila had basically been ignored. These decisions are listed as special cases. Similarly, there are rare cases where a special decision may be taken for a particular reason, an animal example is suppressing the generic name Cobra, which by priority would refer to some vipers; as cobra and viper antivenins are totally different the potential for confusion is obvious! This does not specifically answer your query but does indicate something of the underlying rules. (I have done some taxonomic research; one of my problems was deciding whether “petit” was enough of a description of differences between a new species and one already known!)