The aim of The Plant List is to be a comprehensive resource for species of Vascular plant and of Bryophytes, as shown in the home page.
Constantly many works on systematics and taxonomy are published, both general and more specific. So we need the help from these kinds of constantly updated tools. I think TPL is one of the best, especially if you need a quick resolution. Obviously, the best way to resolve any doubt is to go to the original publications. But I would like to know your opinion about this. How much confidence do you have in TPL?
http://www.theplantlist.org/
@ Yes, this is good. One can just enter the name and get the results. To my mind it is very helpful for the people working on taxonomic aspects. The plants can be identified even in the study area if one has the online facility along with.
Regards
As I said, The Plant List is a very good reference that I use frequently. However it can be confusing in some cases.
E. g. Aster squamatus (Spreng.) Hieron. was synonymous with Symphyotrichum squamatum (Spreng.) G.L.Nesom in version 1 of TPL. I have found some recent work on local flora which was given the name of Symphyotrichum squamatum what so far was consided as Aster squamatus.
However, in the new version, TPL considers both names relating to different taxa. Therefore, it could lead to confusion and really Symphyotrichum should be rectified to Aster in these publications: Aster is found in this territory, not both taxa.
For possible misunderstandings like this is why I proposed the question.
I appreciate the opinions of Arash and M. Sidhu.
Best regards.
Perhaps you'll find interesting... this is a video about the aims of The Plant List... it lasts few minutes.
http://www.mobot.org/theplantlist/
Generally, The Plant List is a good resource. However, it is some kind of construction site. In my experience, you have to regard "confidence level", and of course it makes a big difference which source is given. If a TPL entry is based on the Kew Checklist (WCSP), this can be regarded as very reliable information. However, entries based especially on The Global Compositae Checklist (TICA) often are problematic. In your example of Aster/Symphyotrichum, it is nonsense to have two diffferent "accepted" names, which are based on the same basionym Conyza squamata Spreng. This simply is not in accordance with the International Code of Nomenclature. In the record of Aster squamatus (http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl1.1/record/gcc-148725 ), an indication is given that a "cross-taxon basionym link was ignored". If you find something like this, I think you should switch to Tropicos, WCSP or the African Plant Database.
The plant list is very much useful for everyone and also it is given very much correct status of plant species. Moreover, currently updating all information and related publications of plant species. They have clearly mentioned valued; in-valed;
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Botany