Diario de thebeachcomber

As the main part of my job at the ALA, I'm working with iNat data on both the iNat and ALA ends. Under the National Framework for Restricted Access Species Data, we're trying to act consistently with the framework and make iNaturalist consistent with the state and territory sensitivity lists. Recently, Tasmania's Department of Natural Resources and Environment requested that most Tasmanian species currently being auto-obscured on iNat have their locations opened up. Some of you may have noticed, but I completed this task last week. Some explanations for the situation:

1 . Perhaps the most important point here is to clarify how obscuration works on iNat just for the benefit of those who aren't completely familiar with the process.

a) When an observation is obscured on iNat, the true coordinates entered by the observer are randomly scrambled into a ~500 sq. km box around them. Any other user viewing that record will see the randomly generated coordinates with a box around them; they know the true coordinates are somewhere inside that box, but not the actual location. In addition to the coordinates, the date and time are also removed from the observation, so that only the month and year are displayed. Further, any identifications added to the record will have their timestamp altered to also only show the month and year.
b) When these records get exported to the ALA each week, the obscuration accompanies them, so the records are also obscured in the ALA, ie the coordinates shown in the ALA are the randomly generated ones, and the coordinate uncertainty is listed as somewhere around 29,000-30,000 m.
c) There are many different channels for getting access to the true coordinates if you're a researcher, land manager etc. I won't list them all here, but they include having users 'trust' you on iNat (can be turned on in profile settings) or directly requesting the data from the ALA (the true coordinates do go into the ALA, it's just that they are not made publicly available). So locations of obscured records are by no means lost, just more difficult to access. Also, when updates to coordinates/obscuration are made on iNat, these changes are automatically reflected in the ALA after a week or so.
d) There are two different types of obscuration on iNat.
i . Geoprivacy refers to users manually obscuring their own records. This is done at an individual observation level.
ii . Taxon geoprivacy refers to the automatic obscuration of records by the system. This is done at a taxon level.

2 . Crucial point: any records that you have manually obscured have not been deobscured. This only applies to species that were getting automatically obscured by the system.

3 . The majority of Tasmanian species that were being auto-obscured on iNat before last week fell into one (or both) of two categories:
a) They were being obscured due to IUCN conservation statuses of near threatened, vulnerable, etc. Many of these statuses (for Tasmanian species, and for species in other Australian states) do not correlate with Australian statuses. In particular, there are many species that have been assigned IUCN statuses based on their specific criteria, but do not have any federal or state status in Australia. A lot of these species have been obscured on iNat for a number of years.
b) They were being obscured due to a Tasmania-specific status added earlier this year. The application of the status was correct nominally, but obscuration was accidentally applied when they should have remained open.

4 . So last week, I went through and deobscured close to 600 Tasmanian species that were being auto-obscured, but which Tasmania's Department of Natural Resources and Environment requested to be open. These decisions would have been based on the nature of the threats involved; if a species is threatened by eg increased fire regimes due to climate change, obscuration serves no purpose, and in fact is likely to be detrimental by adding extra steps for researchers to access location data.

5 . The following species have remained obscured on explicit request of the department:
a) Lomatia tasmanica

b) Prasophyllum taphanyx

c) Caladenia vulgaris var. nunguensis

d) Thymichthys politus

In addition to these, there are another 20-25 or so species occurring in Tasmania that are currently being auto-obscured across all observations, however, these are due to IUCN statuses, and I will be removing these soon.

tagging the top Tasmanian observers and identifiers:
@mftasp @wildroo @mattintas @simongrove @elainemcdonald @ben_travaglini @jggbrown @lukemcooo @george_seagull @reiner @jason_graham @annabelc @sofiazed1 @corunastylis @benkurek__ @nicfit @gumnut @tony_d @ttsquid @kallies @kevinbonham @tas56 @elusiveorchids @cowirrie @tasmanian_cryptofauna @george_vaughan @peggydnew

as always, please feel free to tag others that may be interested

Anecdotally, I think there is a public perception that bird taxonomy is quite stable, and that names and taxon concepts rarely change, at least relative to other groups such as plants. However, bird taxonomy is still very much a dynamic field, especially with the advent of molecular studies/technologies, and each year will often usher in 100+ changes, including splits, lumps and newly described species.

This year saw 3 newly described species, 124 new species gained through splits to existing species (mostly the elevation of subspecies to full species), and 16 species lost through being lumped into others, for a net total gain of 111 new bird species. For a comprehensive overview of all of these changes, there is a fantastic summary here: https://science.ebird.org/en/use-ebird-data/the-ebird-taxonomy/2023-ebird-taxonomy-update

I will note that a number of these changes, especially those considering some albatrosses and other seabirds, have already been recognised by Australian sources, some of them for a number of years. For example, the 2012 edition of Pizzey and Knight's The Field Guide to the Birds of Australia already treated the Southern Royal Albatross and Northern Royal Albatross as full species, as too the subspecies of Wandering Albatross and the subspecies of Yellow-nosed Albatross.

All of these changes have either already been implemented in iNat in the last two weeks, or will be implemented in the coming weeks. To help keep track of them all, I summarise all of the changes relevant for Australian birders below (note that I haven't addressed changes to very rare vagrants to locations such as Christmas Island).

SPLITS

1 . Lesser Sand-Plover (Charadrius mongolus) has been split into Tibetan Sand-Plover (Anarhynchus atrifrons) and Siberian Sand-Plover (Anarhynchus mongolus). Note that the genus name has also changed. The Siberian Sand-Plover is the species present in Australia.

All iNat records for Australia were automatically swapped to Siberian Sand-Plover, so no further action is required.

Here is the taxon swap: https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/133048

Here are all Australian observations: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=6744,7333,7616,10287,10293,118147&taxon_id=1505781

2 . Australian Tern (Gelochelidon macrotarsa) has been split from Gull-billed Tern (Gelochelidon nilotica), after previously being considered a subspecies (Gelochelidon nilotica ssp. macrotarsa). Both species are present in Australia.

This split does require some reassessments of previous IDs, depending on where your records are from. All records that were previously identified as Gelochelidon nilotica ssp. macrotarsa were automatically swapped to Gelochelidon macrotarsa, regardless of location. However, records identified only as Gelochelidon nilotica were treated differently depending on location:

a) Gelochelidon nilotica records from Western Australia, the northern half of the NT, and northern QLD stretching down to around Townsville were bumped back to genus. These records could be either Gelochelidon nilotica or Gelochelidon macrotarsa, so they need to each be manually reassessed.
b) Gelochelidon nilotica records from everywhere else in Australia were automatically swapped to Gelochelidon macrotarsa. Although the vast majority of these will now be correctly identified, with eBird noting that Gelochelidon nilotica is a "rare to very rare visitor to Australia", it is worth it to double check them, especially along the Queensland and northern NSW coast, in case they are actually Gelochelidon nilotica.

Here are the taxon swaps:
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/132982
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/132983

Here are all Australian observations currently identified as Gelochelidon macrotarsa: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=6744,7333,7616,10287,10293,118147&taxon_id=1505721
Here are all Australian observations currently identified as Gelochelidon macrotarsa: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=6744,7333,7616,10287,10293,118147&taxon_id=144536
Here are all Australian observations currently identified only to the genus Gelochelidon: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?lrank=genus&place_id=6744,7333,7616,10287,10293,118147&taxon_id=144325

Of particular note to me here are the (as of writing) 21 observations currently identified as Gelochelidon nilotica ssp. affinis from Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and surrounds, and Adelaide. My knowledge of seabirds is poor, so I will not add IDs to them, but I suspect most of these should actually be changed to Gelochelidon macrotarsa, as they seem unlikely to be Gelochelidon nilotica at face value (based purely on location). [having said that, there do seem to be at least a few genuine ones, so they shouldn’t just be blindly reIDed]

3 . Royal Albatross (Diomedea epomophora) will be split into Northern Royal Albatross (Diomedea sanfordi) and Southern Royal Albatross (Diomedea epomophora). Diomedea sanfordi was previously treated as a subspecies of Diomedea epomophora, Diomedea epomophora ssp. sanfordi. As of writing, this split is yet to be committed on iNat.

Australian records currently identified as Diomedea epomophora ssp. epomorpha will be swapped to Diomedea epomophora.
Australian records currently identified as Diomedea epomophora ssp. sanfordi will be swapped to Diomedea sanfordi.
I am unsure what will happen to records currently only identified to species, and whether they will be rolled back to genus or not. Whether or not they are, I would recommend reassessing any records not currently identified to subspecies as the two are very similar.

Here are all Australian observations currently identified as Diomedea epomophora ssp. epomorpha: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=6744,7333,7616,10287,10293,118147&taxon_id=508986
Here are all Australian observations currently identified as Diomedea epomophora ssp. sanfordi: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=6744,7333,7616,10287,10293,118147&taxon_id=508988
Here are all Australian observations currently identified only as Diomedea epomophora: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?lrank=species&place_id=6744,7333,7616,10287,10293,118147&taxon_id=508987

4 . Wandering Albatross (Diomedea exulans) will be split into four species: Amsterdam Albatross (Diomedea amsterdamensis), Antipodean Albatross (Diomedea antipodensis), Tristan Albatross (Diomedea dabbenena), and Snowy Albatross (Diomedea exulans), with these being currently equivalent to subspecies. As of writing, this split is yet to be committed on iNat.

To my understanding this seems like quite a complex situation as these taxa overlap extensively, so I have no idea how the split will be executed on iNat for observations that are not currently identified to one of the subspecies. For observations that are identified to subspecies:

Diomedea exulans ssp. exulans will become Diomedea exulans. Here are all Australian observations currently identified as this subspecies: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=6744,7333,7616,10287,10293,118147&taxon_id=508989
Diomedea exulans ssp. dabbenena will become Diomedea dabbenena. There are currently no Australian observations identified as this subspecies, but it is known to be an occasional visitor.
Diomedea exulans ssp. antipodensis will become Diomedea antipodensis ssp. antipodensis. Here are all Australian observations currently identified as this subspecies: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=6744,7333,7616,10287,10293,118147&taxon_id=508989
Diomedea exulans ssp. gibsoni will become Diomedea antipodensis ssp. gibsoni. Here are all Australian observations currently identified as this subspecies: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=6744,7333,7616,10287,10293,118147&taxon_id=508992
Diomedea exulans ssp. amsterdamensis will become Diomedea amsterdamensis. There are currently no Australian observations identified as this subspecies, but it is known to be a rare visitor off the WA coast.
Here are all Australian observations currently identified only as Diomedea exulans: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?lrank=species&place_id=6744,7333,7616,10287,10293,118147&taxon_id=508990. These will need to be reassessed to determine which new species they fall into.

5 . Yellow-nosed Albatross (Thalassarche chlororhynchos) will be split into Indian Yellow-nosed Albatross (Thalassarche carteri) and Atlantic Yellow-nosed Albatross (Thalassarche chlororhynchos). Thalassarche carteri was previously treated as a subspecies of Thalassarche chlororhynchos, Thalassarche chlororhynchos ssp. carteri As of writing, this split is yet to be committed on iNat.

Australian records currently identified as Thalassarche chlororhynchos ssp. chlororhynchos will be swapped to Thalassarche chlororhynchos.
Australian records currently identified as Thalassarche chlororhynchos ssp. carteri will be swapped to Thalassarche carteri.
I am unsure what will happen to records currently only identified to species, and whether they will be rolled back to genus or not. Whether or not they are, I would recommend reassessing any records not currently identified to subspecies as the two are very similar.

Here are all Australian observations currently identified as Thalassarche chlororhynchos ssp. chlororhynchos: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=6744,7333,7616,10287,10293,118147&taxon_id=501159
Here are all Australian observations currently identified as Thalassarche chlororhynchos ssp. carteri: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=6744,7333,7616,10287,10293,118147&taxon_id=501158
Here are all Australian observations currently identified only as Thalassarche chlororhynchos: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?lrank=species&place_id=6744,7333,7616,10287,10293,118147&taxon_id=4091

6 . Cattle Egret (Bubulcus ibis) will be split into Eastern Cattle Egret (Bubulcus coromandus) and Western Cattle Egret (Bubulcus ibis), with these being currently equivalent to subspecies. The Eastern Cattle Egret is the species present in Australia. As of writing, this split is yet to be committed on iNat, but it will be a straightforward one for Australia.

All iNat records for Australia, including those only identified as Cattle Egret and those identified to the subspecies Bubulcus ibis ssp. coromandus, will be automatically swapped to Eastern Cattle Egret, so no further action is required.

Here are all Australian observations: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=6744,7333,7616,10287,10293,118147&taxon_id=5017

7 . Intermediate Egret (Ardea intermedia) was split into Plumed Egret (Ardea plumifera), Yellow-billed Egret (Ardea brachyrhyncha), and Medium Egret (Ardea intermedia), with these previously being currently equivalent to subspecies.

Whilst all Australian observations were automatically swapped to Plumed Egret, including those only identified as Plumed Egret and those identified to the subspecies Ardea intermedia ssp. plumifera, and Plumed Egret is the expected species at any location in Australia (see exceptions below), Ardea intermedia sensu strictu has been documented from Australia (see this paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364226893_Taxonomic_revision_occurrence_and_identification_of_Intermediate_Egret_Ardea_intermedia_in_North_Queensland_Australia), so it's worth keeping an eye out!

Here are the taxon swaps:
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/133047
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/133045

Here are all Australian observations: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=6744,7333,7616,10287,10293,118147&taxon_id=1505779

There are two exceptions here, with two observations of Medium Egret currently in Australian territories, one at Cocos (Keeling) Islands and one at Christmas Island: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=6744,7333,7616,10287,10293,118147&taxon_id=558445

8 . Eclectus Parrot (Eclectus roratus) was split into four species: Moluccan Eclectus (Eclectus roratus), Sumba Eclectus (Eclectus cornelia), Tanimbar Eclectus (Eclectus riedeli), and Papuan Eclectus (Eclectus polychloros). The Papuan Eclectus is the species present in Australia.

All iNat records for Australia were automatically swapped to Papuan Eclectus, so no further action is required.

Here is the taxon swap: https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/133353

Here are all Australian observations: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=6744,7333,7616,10287,10293,118147&taxon_id=19224

9 . Macquarie Parakeet (Cyanoramphus erythrotis) will be split from Red-crowned Parakeet (Cyanoramphus novaezelandiae), after previously being considered a subspecies (Cyanoramphus novaezelandiae ssp. erythrotis). As of writing, this split is yet to be committed on iNat. However, this split is of no consequence in iNat as the Macquarie Parakeet went extinct in the late 1800s (and indeed eBird notes that it may be re-lumped into Cyanoramphus novaezelandiae in 2024).

10 . North Papuan Pitta (Erythropitta habenichti) and South Papuan Pitta (Erythropitta macklotii) will be split from Papuan Pitta (Erythropitta macklotii), after Erythropitta habenichti previously being considered a subspecies (Erythropitta macklotii ssp. habenichti). As of writing, this split is yet to be committed on iNat.

South Papuan Pitta is the species present in Australia, but note that, other than the common name, there is no actual change here for Australia, as Erythropitta habenichti is New Guinea only.

11 . Supertramp Fantail (Rhipidura semicollaris) will be split from Arafura Fantail (Rhipidura dryas), after Rhipidura semicollaris previously being considered a subspecies (Rhipidura dryas ssp. semicollaris). As of writing, this split is yet to be committed on iNat.

Arafura Fantail is the species present in Australia, but this change has no impact on Australian observations as Supertramp Fantail is not in Australia.

12 . Rufous Fantail (Rhipidura rufifrons) will be split into six species: Gilolo Fantail (Rhipidura torrida), Louisiade Fantail (Rhipidura louisiadensis), Australian Rufous Fantail (Rhipidura rufifrons), Santa Cruz Fantail (Rhipidura melaenolaema), Micronesian Rufous Fantail (Rhipidura versicolor), and Solomons Rufous Fantail (Rhipidura rufofronta), with these being currently equivalent to subspecies. As of writing, this split is yet to be committed on iNat.

Australian Rufous Fantail is the species present in Australia, but note that, other than the common name, there is no actual change here for Australia, as the other species are not found in Australia.

13 . Pink-breasted Flowerpecker (Dicaeum keiense) will be split from Mistletoebird (Dicaeum hirundinaceum), after Dicaeum keiense previously being considered a subspecies (Dicaeum hirundinaceum spp. keiense). As of writing, this split is yet to be committed on iNat.

Mistletoebird is the species present in Australia, but this change has no impact on Australian observations as Pink-breasted Flowerpecker is not in Australia.

14 . Olive-backed Sunbird (Cinnyris jugularis) was split into eight (!!) species, as follows: Ornate Sunbird (Cinnyris ornatus), Tukangbesi Sunbird (Cinnyris infrenatus), Sahul Sunbird (Cinnyris frenatus), Palawan Sunbird (Cinnyris aurora), South Moluccan Sunbird (Cinnyris clementiae), Flores Sea Sunbird (Cinnyris teysmanni), Mamberamo Sunbird (Cinnyris idenburgi), and Garden Sunbird (Cinnyris jugularis). The Sahul Sunbird is the species present in Australia.

All iNat records for Australia were automatically swapped to Sahul Sunbird, so no further action is required.

Here is the taxon swap: https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/132792

Here are all Australian observations: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=6744,7333,7616,10287,10293,118147&taxon_id=144404

LUMPS
No lumps affected Australian species

NEW SPECIES
No newly described Australian species

SUBSPECIES RESHUFFLES
None affecting Australian species

OTHER ASSORTED SHUFFLES
None affecting Australian species

SCIENTIFIC NAME CHANGES
It is important to check observations of these as, where genus names have changed, there may now be unintended disagreements between IDs. For example, the White-Bellied Sea-eagle has changed from Haliaeetus leucogaster –> Icthyophaga leucogaster. If an observation's IDs looked like this:

IDer 1: Haliaeetus

IDer 2: Haliaeetus leucogaster
IDer3: Haliaeetus leucogaster
Overall ID = Haliaeetus leucogaster

That observation will now look like this after the change:

IDer 1: Haliaeetus

IDer 2: Icthyophaga leucogaster
IDer3: Icthyophaga leucogaster
Overall ID = Accipitridae

1 . Norfolk Ground Dove: Alopecoenas norfolkensis –> Pampusana norfolkensis
2 . Hooded Plover: Thinornis cucullatus –> Charadrius cucullatus
3 . Black-fronted Dotterel: Elseyornis melanops –> Charadrius melanops
4 . Oriental Plover: Charadrius veredus –> Anarhynchus veredus
5 . Siberian Sand-Plover: Charadrius mongolus ssp. mongolus/stegmanni –> Anarhynchus mongolus
6 . Greater Sand-Plover: Charadrius leschenaultii –> Anarhynchus leschenaultii
7 . Double-banded Plover: Charadrius bicinctus –> Anarhynchus bicinctus
8 . Red-capped Plover: Charadrius ruficapillus –> Anarhynchus ruficapillus
9 . Kentish Plover: Charadrius alexandrinus –> Anarhynchus alexandrinus
10 . White-bellied Sea-Eagle: Haliaeetus leucogaster –> Icthyophaga leucogaster
11 . Pink Cockatoo: Lophochroa leadbeateri –> Cacatua leadbeateri
12 . Mulga Parrot: Psephotus varius –> Psephotellus varius
13 . Hooded Parrot: Psephotus dissimilis –> Psephotellus dissimilis
14 . Golden-shouldered Parrot: Psephotus chrysopterygius –> Psephotellus chrysopterygius
15 . Paradise Parrot [extinct]: Psephotus pulcherrimus –> Psephotellus pulcherrimus
16 . Golden Bowerbird: Amblyornis newtoniana –> Prionodura newtoniana
17 . Black Butcherbird: Cracticus quoyi –> Melloria quoyi
18 . Mangrove Robin: Eopsaltria pulverulenta –> Melanodryas pulverulenta
19 . Pale-yellow Robin: Tregellasia capito –> Eopsaltria capito
20 . White-faced Robin: Tregellasia leucops –> Eopsaltria leucops

Unfortunately an Australian user with thousands (tens of thousands from memory) of identifications, mostly of Ericaceae (especially on the east coast), deleted their account a few weeks ago. These IDs have all now been lost.

I won't get into a discussion here about the pros/cons of allowing all content to be deleted (there are numerous forum threads about this issue, I recommend having a read of those), but I wanted to make this post as I believe most people won't have realised this user deleted their account and thus all of their IDs (I only even realised as @jackiemiles brought it to my attention today). Unfortunately the deletion was long enough ago now (> two weeks) that staff basically cannot retrieve a backup without shutting down all of iNat, which obviously is not feasible.

So I'm tagging top IDers and observers of Ericaceae in Australia (mostly east coast) here; if you have some time over the next week or two, it would be great to go back through old records and add IDs where you can. In particular, there will be many observations of easily IDed species that were RG but have now shifted back to Needs ID (eg there are now over 100 records of Epacris longiflora that have shifted back to Needs ID where only two IDs were present, the observer and the deleted user).

Also, and perhaps most importantly, there will now be records with incorrect IDs due to the deleted IDs having been corrective.

Given I do not know why the user deleted their account, please do not name them here if you do know who I'm referring to, and don't speculate as to why they deleted their account, as I do not think this is productive.

As usual, please tag anyone else I may have missed

@alan_dandie @mftasp @george_seagull @jggbrown @reiner @elizabethhatfield @cynthia_c @bushbandit @iancastle @bean_ar @mattintas @cobaltducks @gtaseski @insiderelic @michaelcincotta @annabelc @margaretjb @gregtasney @nicklambert @possumpete @heathwallum @scottwgavins @aavankampen @lukemcooo @chrisclarke @dustaway @onetapir @rfoster @vireyajacquard @helen_y @dj_maple @adrian2370 @buffsky

Gazania is a relatively small genus of 19 species (plus one hybrid taxon) in Asteraceae native to southern Africa. Many Australians are familiar with the genus not only because it's a popular garden plant and widely planted along median strips, in suburban parks, and in other public settings by councils, but unfortunately because it's a very widespread and often abundant weed. Naturalised in every Australian state and territory except the Northern Territory (although the AVH does contain a single collection from Alice Springs which, based on the collection notes, was clearly not planted), as well as Norfolk Island, Gazania are usually found growing as weeds in grassy wastelands, along road verges, or in back dunes and sandy areas along the coast. In some regions, including areas in southwestern Australia, they can become hugely prolific and dominate large areas.

The Australian Plant Census, and all state floras, recognise two species as naturalised in Australia: Gazania linearis and Gazania rigens.

Here is the NSW genus treatment: https://plantnet.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/cgi-bin/NSWfl.pl?page=nswfl&lvl=gn&name=Gazania
Victoria: https://vicflora.rbg.vic.gov.au/flora/taxon/2cc9dfd7-92e1-49b0-b5a7-2d96691afd3a

At time of writing, the AVH contains 385 collections of Gazania from Australia, dating all the way back to 1902. Fifteen of these are currently only determined to genus, 112 as G. rigens, and 258 as G. linearis. I have no doubt that at least a small percentage of these collections represent cultivated specimens which have not been annotated as such, but overall the collections seem to paint a clear picture of these two species being widely naturalised, especially G. linearis.

However, thanks to the knowledge of South African botanists @steven_molteno and @jeremygilmore, it seems almost certain that the name G. linearis has been misapplied in Australia, and that all collections actually represent the hybrid taxon Gazania × splendens.

Comments regarding this situation are distributed across a number of observations, but a very good summary of the most important information can be found in the conversation here: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/63065542 [UPDATE: at some point in the past few weeks, either the user who uploaded this observation deleted it, or they deleted their account entirely. I have no idea why, but this observation is now gone forever, and unfortunately the very useful comments lost with it. I have tagged Jeremy and Steven below in the comments to try retype some of them]

Long story short: Gazania linearis is almost certainly not present in Australia, not being found in the nursery trade; the best name to apply to specimens from Australia is Gazania × splendens; G. rigens is legitimately naturalised in Australia, although it can be very difficult to ID many specimens/differentiate them from Gazania × splendens, and indeed:
"The original cultivars that naturalised were already interspecies hybrids, even before they went feral. Since going invasive they've undoubtedly just continued mixing even further...They can all [including rigens] safely, correctly and easily be swept into the x splendens basket!

There's an interesting 2009 paper titled Globally grown, but poorly known: Species limits and biogeography of Gazania Gaertn. (Asteraceae) inferred from chloroplast and nuclear DNA sequence data, which can be downloaded from this link. One of their main findings was that:
"Of the 15 species sampled, only 7 are supported as monophyletic. Most of the remaining taxa form a large, poorly resolved clade corresponding to a large, morphologically variable species complex."

Gazania linearis and Gazania rigens both fall under this complex (the 'K-R complex').

Decided to do some clean-up work for iNat obs of vascular plants for Norfolk Island.

First important thing to note here is that, within iNat, Norfolk does not count as part of Australia (place ID = 6744), but rather is its own separate entity (place ID = 7333). One consequence of this is that non-native species that have already been marked as introduced for Australia have to be marked again for Norfolk, so this is one task I'll be doing.

Second task is marking clearly planted/cultivated plants as such.

Third is to try ID observations to species where possible. I'm only noting ones where a 'new' species is added to the island inventory due to my ID (so IDing the 10th observation of a species with 9 observations already is irrelevant here).

Tasks

Marked as introduced

1. Rubus grabowskii
2. Megathyrsus maximus
3. Rumex hypogaeus
4. Verbena incompta
5. Chenopodiastrum murale
6. Cyperus brevifolius
7. Geranium gardneri
8. Cheilanthes viridis
9. Gladiolus dalenii
10. Macadamia tetraphylla
11. Citrus × taitensis (tentative, may be cultivated)
12. Lycium ferocissimum
13. Pelargonium × hybridum
14. Kalanchoe pinnata
15. Hypoestes phyllostachya
16. Lepidium bonariense
17. Hydrocleys nymphoides
18. Gamochaeta americana
19. Musa acuminata
20. Howea forsteriana
21. Phlebodium aureum
22. Alpinia zerumbet
23. Setaria parviflora
24. Stenotaphrum secundatum
25. Petroselinum crispum
26. Modiola caroliniana
27. Juncus articulatus
28. Gamochaeta calviceps
29. Eriobotrya japonica
30. Erigeron karvinskianus
31. Gazania rigens
32. Saccharum
33. Verbascum virgatum
34. Arundo donax
35. Mentha spicata
36. Ammophila arenaria
37. Polycarpon tetraphyllum
38. Orobanche minor
39. Bromus catharticus
40. Capsella bursa-pastoris
41. Papaver rhoeas
42. Hypochaeris radicata
43. Trifolium pratense
44. Senna septemtrionalis
45. Prunus persica
46. Nerium oleander
47. Yucca aloifolia
48. Ranunculus muricatus
49. Paspalum mandiocanum
50. Bidens alba
51. Hakea salicifolia
52. Cyperus alternifolius
53. Dipogon lignosus
54. Phyllanthus tenellus
55. Furcraea foetida
56. Verbena bonariensis
57. Asparagus setaceus
58. Verbena litoralis
59. Coffea arabica
60. Agave americana
61. Egeria densa
62. Vicia hirsuta
63. Datura stramonium
64. Melia azedarach
65. Foeniculum vulgare
66. Nephrolepis cordifolia
67. Potentilla indica
68. Azolla pinnata
69. Sigesbeckia orientalis
70. Abutilon grandifolium
71. Rivina humilis
72. Canna indica
73. Metrosideros kermadecensis
74. Petunia axillaris
75. Argemone subfusiformis
76. Salvinia molesta
77. Frankenia pulverulenta
78. Cyrtomium falcatum
79. Portulaca oleracea
80. Euphorbia prostrata
81. Desmodium incanum
82. Salvia coccinea
83. Oenothera rosea
84. Sporobolus africanus
85. Erigeron bonariensis
86. Lotus angustissimus
87. Ludwigia peploides
88. Cyperus polystachyos
89. Facelis retusa
90. Eleusine indica
91. Dimorphotheca ecklonis
92. Juncus pallidus

Taxa 'removed' due to marking as captive/cultivated'

1. Selenicereus megalanthus
2. Grevillea robusta
3. Punica granatum
4. Acacia (also updated ID to A. spirorbis)
5. Ficus macrophylla

'New' species via IDs

1. Updated the single Rubus observation to R. grabowskii. Doesn't actually increase the species (leaf) count, but good to get it to species
2. Updated Alpinia sp. to Alpinia zerumbet. Ditto Rubus re species count
3. Updated Senna sp. to Senna septemtrionalis. Ditto species count
4. Updated Prunus sp. to Prunus persica. Ditto
5. Updated Yucca sp. Yucca aloifolia. Ditto
6. Updated Ranunculus sp. to Ranunculus muricatus. Ditto
7. Updated Erigeron to Erigeron bonariensis
8. Updated Faboideae to Lotus angustissimus
9. Updated Onagraceae to Ludwigia peploides
10. Updated Cyperus to Cyperus polystachyos
11. Updated Asteraceae to Facelis retusa

'Removed' species via IDs

1. Carex dissita --> corrected ID, actually Carex neesiana (which used to be a var. of dissita)
2. Vicia tetrasperma --> misidentification of V. hirsuta
3. Geranium homeanum --> corrected ID, fairly sure actually G. gardneri
4. Lonicera japonica --> downgraded to 'Dicots', unsure what it is (but pretty sure not Lonicera)
5. Ammophila arenaria --> Spinifex sericeus instead

Pending

1. Eustachys sp. pending naturalised confirmation
2. Passiflora pallida pending discussion
3. Gloriosa superba pending naturalised confirmation
4. Dovyalis caffra pending naturalised confirmation
5. Agapanthus praecox pending naturalised confirmation
6. Parochetus sp. pending naturalised confirmation

Oxalis is a large cosmopolitan genus (currently 566 accepted species in Plants of the World Online) of mostly small herbs. It's represented in Australia by 32 recorded species, most of which (24) are non-native:

Native:
Oxalis chnoodes
Oxalis exilis
Oxalis magellanica
Oxalis perennans
Oxalis radicosa
Oxalis rubens
Oxalis sp. Pilbara (M.E. Trudgen 12725)
Oxalis thompsoniae

Non-native:
Oxalis articulata
Oxalis barrelieri
Oxalis bifurca
Oxalis bowiei
Oxalis brasiliensis
Oxalis caprina
Oxalis compressa
Oxalis corniculata
Oxalis debilis
Oxalis depressa
Oxalis dillenii
Oxalis flava
Oxalis glabra
Oxalis hirta
Oxalis incarnata
Oxalis latifolia
Oxalis laxa
Oxalis micrantha
Oxalis obtusa
Oxalis perdicaria
Oxalis pes-caprae
Oxalis polyphylla
Oxalis purpurea
Oxalis violacea

(note there is also another entity, Oxalis vallicola, which is treated as separate/valid by VicFlora, but synonymised under O. latifolia everywhere else. It is separated from latifolia in the VicFlora key as: bulbils produced from old bulbs on stolons = latifolia, bulbils sessile on old bulbs = vallicola)

Many of these species, including 7 of the 8 natives, look very similar: yellow flowers and relatively small leaflets. It can often be tricky to differentiate these species, especially from photos which often lack important diagnostic characters such as hair types, stipules or fruits/seeds (which are often not present). For the most part, however, the other species, which include pink, purple, orange and white flowers, are relatively easy to identify. This photographic guide should make it easy to identify these species when they're in flower, although I also point out other useful traits too relating to leaves and below ground structures (if relevant). There are of course many other relevant characters, but I have tried to keep each entry relatively simple; more extensive descriptions for each species can be accessed in online floras. I have mostly used photos from Australian observations, except for a few species which are yet to be observed in Australia on iNaturalist, or species for which the few photos I needed were under all rights reserved copyright licenses.

Note that this guide is most useful when observing flowering specimens. For some of the species treated here, however, the leaves are highly distinct and are the most obvious diagnostic character once you have established the genus as Oxalis. Overall, as for any plant group, taking into consideration the combination of all characters for any given species will provide the most accurate identifications.

Native species
Oxalis magellanica
Distribution in Australia: Victoria (rare, Otway Range, Central Highlands between Lake Mountain and Baw Baw Plateau, and Errinundra Plateau only), Tasmania. Also New Zealand and South America.
Flowers: petals white, pale green throat (A).
Leaves: leaflets love heart-shaped with a distinct notch at the apex. Noticeable 'fold' down the centre dividing each leaflet into two lobes, Leaflets usually very small, barely exceeding 10 mm maximum length (usually smaller) (B).
General: a small species, usually up to ~10 cm max height (C). Very distinct, difficult to confuse with anything else.

A and C - @annabelc; B - @sheriff_woody_pct

Non-native species
Oxalis articulata
Distribution in Australia: broadly distributed across southeastern Australia from Brisbane to Adelaide, including Tasmania. As far inland as around Temora in NSW, plus a few rare records along the Vic/NSW border.
Flowers: petals usually broadly rectangular- or wedge-shaped (helps to differentiate from some of the other pink-flowering Oxalis, which have round petals), pale pink through to a rich pink-purple with distinct dark striations extending upwards from the throat. Almost always with a distinct dark-purple flush encircling the throat
Leaves: leaflets love heart-shaped with a distinct notch at the apex.
General: This species is very similar to Oxalis brasiliensis. Compared to O. brasiliensis, O. articulata:

• petals seems to more consistently be more elongate rectangular (A), compared to brasiliensis which often seems to have squatter, more wedge-shaped petals (although both petal types are present in both species)
• leaflets seem to more consistently be a little longer than wide or roughly as long as wide (B), compared to brasiliensis where the leaflets seem to more consistently be a little wider than they are long.
• the notches at the leaflet apices are typically deeper/more prominent in O. articulata.
• has a woody rhizome (C) instead of bulbs + bulbils.

A and C - @nomennudum; B - @silversea_starsong

Oxalis barrelieri (no Australian iNaturalist observations at time of writing)
Distribution in Australia: Christmas Island.
Flowers: petals small, white or sometimes pale pink-purple, throat rich yellow (A).
Leaves: leaflets oval-shaped, central leaflet larger than the others (B).
General: usually erect growth habit, can reach up to 1.5 m tall (C). Highly unmistakeable and unlike any other Oxalis in Australia.

A - @deniszabin ; B - @pseudoshuigeeee ; C - @takashi_nishiki

Oxalis bifurca (no Australian iNaturalist observations at time of writing)
Distribution in Australia: Victoria (although probably now extinct, only known from three 1925 records in Little River Railway Reserve between Melbourne and Geelong), NSW (records only from Campbelltown) and South Australia (also possibly extinct, four records all from the 1960s, near Adelaide and Gawler).
Flowers: petal colour variable, including stark white (A), very pale pink, hot pink or (rarely) coral, throat yellow-green.
Leaves: each leaflet divided into two distinct, (usually) narrow lobes.
General: another unmistakeable species in comparison to other Australian Oxalis given its distinct leaves.

A - @lucstrydom; B - @jkrenz; C - @tonyrebelo; D - @mr_fab

Oxalis bowiei
Distribution in Australia: broadly distributed across southern Australia, including southern WA, South Australia, Victoria, and NSW, plus a few rare records in SE Queensland.
Flowers: petals usually quite rounded and broad, overlapping, usually very rich/hot pink, sometimes paler, yellow-green throat (A).
Leaves: leaflets large (up to ~45 mm long), very rounded, shallow notch at apex (B).
General: This species is somewhat similar to Oxalis purpurea. Compared to O. purpurea, O. bowiei:

• has many flowers per peduncle, compared to purpurea which only has one
• usually has a much less prominent throat, compared to purpurea which typically has a very prominent, rich yellow throat
• leaflets are weakly, yet nonetheless still noticeably, notched at the apex, compared to the usually unnotched and more circular leaflets of purpurea. Also, purpurea leaflets tend to be crowded to one side (whereas bowiei leaflets are arranged largely equidistant from each other on the petiole)
• greenish-yellow petal bases obvious in closed flowers, compared to the usually much stronger/richer yellow petal bases present in purpurea.

A - @callys; B - @reginat

Oxalis brasiliensis
Distribution in Australia: similar distribution to O. articulata, spanning from the NSW border around southeastern Australia to Adelaide, but excluding Tasmania, and seemingly more restricted to major cities/large urban areas (although this may be due to sampling bias).
Flowers: petals usually broadly rectangular- or wedge-shaped (helps to differentiate from some of the other pink-flowering Oxalis, which have round petals), pale pink through to a rich pink-purple with distinct dark striations extending upwards from the throat. Almost always with a distinct dark-purple flush encircling the throat.
Leaves: leaflets usually squashed/flattened love heart-shaped with a typically quite shallow notch at the apex.
General: This species is very similar to Oxalis articulata. Compared to O. articulata, O. brasiliensis:

• petals seems to more consistently be squatter and more wedge-shaped (A), compared to articulata which often seems to have more elongate rectangular petals (although both petal types are present in both species)
• leaflets seem to more consistently be a little wider than they are long (B), compared to articulata where the leaflets seem to more consistently be a little longer than wide or roughly as long as wide.
• the notches at the leaflet apices are typically shallower in O. brasiliensis
• has bulbs + bulbils (C) instead of a woody rhizome.

A and C - @nomennudum; B - @garry34

Oxalis caprina
Distribution in Australia: WA (restricted to around Perth southwards to Bunbury), South Australia (Adelaide and a few old Kangaroo Island records) and Victoria (a single recent iNaturalist record near Truganina)
Flowers: petals usually very pale mauve or lilac, sometimes white or with faint blue-ish tinge, prominent yellow throat (A), petals with prominent yellow petal bases obvious in closed flowers (B).
Leaves: leaflets love heart-shaped, very prominently/strongly notched at the apex (C).
General: The strongly notched leaflets are quite distinct among the non-yellow flowering species, similar to those of Oxalis pes-caprae (a yellow flowering species)

A - @jamie2014; B - @plantrant; C - @willeminalunae

Oxalis debilis
Distribution in Australia: every state and territory in Australia, as well as Lord Howe Island and Norfolk Island, although most records are concentrated along the east coast from Brisbane to Sydney.
Flowers: pale to rich pink (usually towards the rich end) with distinct dark striations extending upwards from the throat, usually prominent bright green throat (A).
Leaves: leaflets love-heart shaped, usually very fat and rounded, often with quite distinct wrinkle-like veins, notched at the apex (B). Leaves consistently large and towards the maximum end of their size range (leaflets 40-45 mm long)
General: Similar to flowers of O. articulata and O. brasiliensis, but O. debilis lacks the distinct dark-purple flush encircling the throat, and the throat of O. debilis flowers is usually a much more obvious bright green compared to the subtler and less extensive yellow-green throat of the other two.

A - @russellcumming; B - @vickymills

Oxalis depressa
Distribution in Australia: WA (two 1990s records from Busselton, plus what seems to be a small population at Bunbury recorded on iNaturalist)
Flowers: petals white (both WA specimens were noted to have white flowers), pale pink or hot pink (A). Throat rich yellow, petals with prominent yellow petal bases obvious in closed flowers.
Leaves: leaflets usually very rounded, rarely notched at the apex. Leaves usually noticeably asymmetrical, with the leaflets crowded towards one side. Leaves usually with conspicuously 'pebbly' looking surface (large epidermal cells) (B).
General: This species is very similar to Oxalis purpurea. Compared to O. purpurea, O. depressa:

• has leaflets with a conspicuous 'pebbly' looking surface due to the large cells, whereas purpurea lacks these
• is largely glabrous, whereas purpurea tends to be pubescent on the stems and often on the leaflet margins
• has petals that seem to overlap less often than compared to purpurea, although this isn't the most reliable/consistent character.

A - @deans_beaver; B - @carinalochner

Oxalis flava
Distribution in Australia: WA (souhwest, mostly east of Perth), South Australia (Adelaide and surrounding region), and NSW (very rare, some 1950s records from Albury and an 1897 record from Sydney).
Flowers: petals for this species are usually yellow (sometimes with purple-brown edging, obvious in closed flowers (A)), but I have included it here as it also has a not uncommon white flowering form (and a seemingly rarer pink-purple form). For white-petalled specimens, the throat is prominent yellow (B).
Leaves: each leaf with 4-7 leaflets, leaflets usually slender, often folded lengthways and with hooked tips (C). These leaflets can be variable in shape, and are sometimes unfolded (D), but the large number of them (4-7) is a distinct feature compared to the other Oxalis here)
General: the leaves make this species unmistakeable.

A - @ydnewp2; B - @knysna_wildflowers; C - @darcywhittaker; D - @manfdot

Oxalis glabra
Distribution in Australia: WA (stretching along the eastern coast from around Jurien Bay all the way down to the south coast, although concentrated around Perth, plus a single iNaturalist record from between Ravensthorpe and Esperance), South Australia (around Adelaide) and Victoria (rare, near Melbourne and northwards).
Flowers: petals usually quite blocky/squarish, hot pink, prominent yellow throat (A), petals with prominent yellow petal bases obvious in closed flowers (B).
Leaves: leaflets small, usually elongate, slender, often weakly to moderately folded lengthways and weakly notched at the apex (C).
General: This species is quite similar to Oxalis hirta. Compared to O. hirta, O. glabra:

• has glabrous petals, whereas in hirta the exterior of the petals are hairy
• tends to have more glabrous leaves (but still often finely hairy), whereas hirta tends to be more pubescent
• has petioles as long or longer than the leaves (petioles up to 22 mm long), whereas hirta has petioles much shorter than the leaves (petioles usually just 1-2 mm long)
• has leaflets without glands on the lower surface, but with blister-like epidermal cells, whereas hirta has the opposite (many glands, no blister-like cells).
• has leaflets that tend to be narrower (usually 1-2 mm wide), whereas hirta often has broader leaflets (up to 7 mm wide).
• has mostly petiolate leaves that are mostly crowded towards the top of the stem, whereas hirta has almost sessile leaves distributed along most of the stem.

A and C - @russellcumming; B - @slaadi

Oxalis hirta
Distribution in Australia: WA (rare, very few scattered records in southwestern corner), South Australia (mostly greater Adelaide area and surrounds, one 1965 record from the Eyre Peninsula) and Victoria (mostly greater Melbourne area).
Flowers: petals usually quite blocky/squarish, hot pink (although there are also white and pale purple flowering forms), prominent yellow throat (A), petals with prominent yellow petal bases obvious in closed flowers, hairy on outside (B).
Leaves: leaflets small, usually elongate, slender, often weakly to moderately folded lengthways and weakly notched at the apex (C).
General: see comments above for comparison with Oxalis glabra

A - @insiderelic; B - @markberry; C - @alan_dandie

Oxalis incarnata
Distribution in Australia: broadly distributed across southern Australia, including WA (southwestern corner), South Australia (mostly greater Adelaide area), Victoria, NSW (Sydney southwards) and Tasmania.
Flowers: petals white or very very pale pink-purple (A), green throat, often prominent and with distinct striations extending upwards (B).
Leaves: leaflets love-heart shaped, moderately to strongly notched at the apex (C).
General: somewhat similar to Oxalis caprina, but O. incarnata has bigger flowers and an obvious green throat compared to the yellow throat of the former, plus incarnata also has a prominent stem (no aboveground stem in caprina) and only a single flower per peduncle (many per peduncle for caprina).

A - @light-up-gold; B - @bunts; C - @reiner

Oxalis latifolia
Distribution in Australia: broadly distributed across southeastern Australia from around Brisbane to Adelaide, including Tasmania, as well as scattered records near Townsville and Cairns, and a single recent iNaturalist record in Perth.
Flowers: petals pink-purple (rarely white), throat yellow with green striations (A). Each sepal with two conspicuous orange calli (calluses) at the apex (B).
Leaves: leaflets fish-tail shaped (C). Like Oxalis debilis, leaves are consistently large and towards the maximum end of their size range (leaflets 40-45 mm long)
General: largely unmistakeable given the size and shape of the leaflets.

A - @simon_hamlet; B and C - @thebeachcomber

Oxalis obtusa
Distribution in Australia: Victoria (mostly greater Melbourne, scattered records in Geelong and in regional Victoria near Bendigo, Beechworth and Seymour).
Flowers: petals very variable in colour, including very pale yellow (almost white), yellow, pink, and several shades of orange or orange-pink. Victorian plants tend to be pale yellow (A) or pink-orange. Throat rich, prominent yellow, surrounded by a rich orange ring. For most colour forms, the petals are covered in very prominent veins, visible on both surfaces (B).
Leaves: also variable, can be love-heart shaped or more linear/rectangular (C).
General: Although the leaves and flowers are both quite variable, the distinct petal venation usually makes this species quite obvious.

A - @spoonbilljames1995; B - @sequoia_l; C - @dhoare

Oxalis polyphylla (no Australian iNaturalist observations at time of writing)
Distribution in Australia: exceedingly rare (presumably as a garden escape for each record), with a single WA record (Mount Barker in the southwest), and two cemetery records (Canberra and Melbourne, possibly flowers placed on graves rather than naturalised plants). Also listed by APC as occurring in South Australia, but the ALA has zero collections or other records there.
Flowers: petals white, pale pink or pink purple, yellow throat (A).
Leaves: leaflets very elongate and slender (much longer than broad), often strongly folded lengthways (B), often clustered towards the top of the plant (C). Leaflet number variable, ranging from 3 to 8.
General: fairly distinct based on leaf morphology.

A - @renatakruyswijk; B - @knysna_wildflowers; C - @karooicus

Oxalis purpurea
Distribution in Australia: broad distribution across southern Australia spanning scattered records from as far north as K'gari, along the NSW coast, Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and southwestern WA (with a few scattered records extending as far north as Geraldton).
Flowers: petals usually strongly overlapping, hot pink (sometimes paler pink) (A), with a white flowering morph also common (B). Throat rich yellow, petals with prominent yellow petal bases obvious in closed flowers.
Leaves: leaflets usually very rounded, rarely notched at the apex. Leaves usually noticeably asymmetrical, with the leaflets crowded towards one side (C).
General: the stems are often bright red (D). Oxalis depressa is a very similar species, see the entry for it above for a comparison.

A - @franksteenhuisen; B - @gillbsydney; C - @kezzza4; D - @thebeachcomber

Oxalis violacea (no Australian iNaturalist observations at time of writing)
Distribution in Australia: WA (scattered records along the coast from Albany to Perth).
Flowers: petals white, pink or pale purple, throat yellow-green with a distinct white/pale ring surrounding it (A).
Leaves: leaflets love-heart, squashed love-heart, or fish-tail shaped (like Oxalis latifolia), although usually smaller. Leaflets often with distinct purple bands on upper surface (not always present though) (B), and lower surface sometimes suffused with purple also.
General: similar to a number of other species when considering individual characters, but fairly recognisable looking at the combination of all of them.

A - @illinoisbotanizer; B - @smoyers24.

Lysimachia is a fairly large genus (few hundred species), but is relatively poorly represented in Australia, with a small handful of naturalised non-native species, and a small handful of native species (although only one, L. japonica, is widely distributed in Australia, with others such as L. fortunei or L. vulgaris var. davurica known from one or very few locations, and are possibly here via waterbird dispersal from outside Australia). One species, L. arvensis, is by far the most widely distributed in Australia and certainly the most well-known as a common weed in disturbed sites such as pastures, wasteland, weedy creeklines, etc. It's found in all Australian states and territories except the NT. Perhaps its most salient feature is the presence of two different flower colour morphs: a bright orange form and a rich blue form.

Many sources, including (until recently) Plants of the World Online - the taxonomic authority we try to adhere to for plants on iNat - give these two forms official varietal names, i.e., Lysimachia arvensis var. arvensis for the orange form, and Lysimachia arvensis var. caerulea for the blue form. Although Australia's state herbaria don't formally recognise these two variety names, they do recognise the presence of both colour morphs in Australia.

Interestingly, and perhaps one of the reasons why the two morphs have been treated as the same species for so long, is that they are not only sympatric, but in many cases directly co-occur. A perfect example is this observation just uploaded today by @russellcumming: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/166499483

However, as some of you may have noticed, Lysimachia arvensis var. caerulea is no longer on iNat as of this morning; it has been elevated to full species, and is now L. loeflingii.

This change was based on this 2022 paper: https://academic.oup.com/botlinnean/article/199/2/557/6494517. It has also now been reflected in POWO (hence the change now in iNat).

Some relevant parts of the paper:

"Lysimachia arvensis (L.) Manns & Anderb. (synonym: Anagallis arvensis L.) and L. monelli (L.) Manns & Anderb. (synonym: Anagallis monelli L.) are two Mediterranean species that show intraspecific flower colour polymorphism (Ferguson, 1972; Pujadas, 1997). Petal colours are genetically determined (Freyre & Griesbach, 2004; Sánchez-Cabrera et al., 2021), and in both species blue- and red-flowered individuals are found due to the presence of different anthocyanins in their petals (Ishikura, 1981; Quintana et al., 2008; Sánchez-Cabrera et al., 2021). The species differ in ploidy, L. arvensis being tetraploid (revised by Pastor, 1992) and L. monelli being diploid (Kress, 1969; García Pérez et al., 1997).

...Blue- and red-flowered plants may appear in sympatric and allopatric populations, and pollinators show a preference for visiting blue-flowered plants in Mediterranean polymorphic populations (Ortiz et al., 2015) and high colour constancy patterns (Jiménez-López et al., 2020a). Hand-pollination between red and blue individuals gives rise to homogeneous F1 progeny with salmon-coloured flowers (Jiménez-López et al., 2020a), but these are infrequent in wild populations (Jiménez-López et al., 2020c). This ‘hybrid’ phenotype has been described as Anagallis × amoena Heldr. ex Halácsy (de Halácsy, 1904: 11). Nuclear microsatellite markers reconstructed two independent genetic groups for each colour morph, supporting this reproductive isolation between them (Jiménez-López et al., 2020b). All this ecological, morphological, reproductive and molecular evidence suggests that the two colour morphs of L. arvensis are independent lineages.

...Previous phylogenetic studies have scarcely explored the potential implications of corolla colour polymorphism in taxon delimitation in L. arvensis and L. monelli because this trait was considered part of the infraspecific variation. Consequently, only one colour morph per species was sampled in most of the molecular analyses (Martins, Oberprieler & Hellwig., 2003; Manns & Anderberg, 2005, 2007a; Anderberg, Manns & Källersjö., 2007; Yan et al., 2018).

...Lysimachia arvensis is a Mediterranean species currently distributed across the world as an alien species. It is annual, self-compatible (Gibbs & Talavera, 2001) and tetraploid (2x = 40; revised by Pastor, 1992).

...Our phylogenetic results based on nuclear ITS regions indicate that blue- and red-flowered individuals of L. arvensis and L. monelli are independent taxa (Fig. 2), reinforcing ecological, morphological and reproductive evidence.

...Although the presence of different ITS sequences in the red- and blue-flowered individuals of L. arvensis collected from the same populations had already been reported by Manns & Anderberg (2007b), the strong support of our ITS (100 BS, 0.999 PPS) and the species delimitation results (Table 4, Fig. 5) indicate that the two colour morphs of L. arvensis are different lineages and belong to different taxa. The ITS phylogenetic reconstruction is also congruent with recent studies on L. arvensis in which red- and blue-flowered plants were separated in different clades with nuclear microsatellite markers (Jiménez-López et al., 2020b).

...Flower colour constitutes a pivotal evolutionary force to speciation in several groups of plants (Carlson & Holsinger, 2015; Ellis & Field, 2016; Takahashi, Takakura & Kawata, 2016; Narbona et al., 2018), and it has been proposed as a ‘magic trait’, that is a trait ‘encoded by genes subjected to divergent selection that affect pleiotropically reproductive isolation’ (Servedio et al., 2011). However, according to ancestral state reconstruction, flower colour does not seem the trait promoting divergence between lineages of L. arvensis, although it does in L. monelli with posterior polyploidization events (see below). Ancestral state reconstruction of this trait invoked a blue-flowered common ancestor for this Mediterranean Lysimachia, and the transition to red-flowered plants probably occurred only once for the red-flowered common ancestor of red L. arvensis and red L. monelli. This kind of transition from blue to red flowers is quite frequent due to inactivation of a branch of the anthocyanin pathway (Rausher, 2008), and it has been found in L. arvensis lineages (Sánchez-Cabrera et al., 2021). In other plant groups, red-flowered species are usually derived from blue-flowered species (Kay et al., 2005; Wilson et al., 2007; Rausher, 2008; Wessinger & Rausher, 2012). In our study, the blue ancestor probably gave rise to two lineages, one entirely blue (which includes the blue lineage of L. arvensis) and another that subsequently separated into blue- and a red-flowered subclades (the latter including the red lineage of L. arvensis and L. monelli).

...Our results have taxonomic implications for the colour lineages of L. arvensis and L. monelli as each lineage should be defined as different taxa supported by morphological, phylogenetic and geographical data.

...Red-flowered plants of Lysimachia arvensis should maintain this name because Linnaeus in 1753 described the species from red-flowered plants.

...Blue plants of L. arvensis should be called with the specific epithet latifolia as it was the first name employed by Linnaeus in 1753 for plants with blue flowers. However, the epithet latifolia already exists in Lysimachia for a different taxon [Lysimachia latifolia (Hook.) Cholewa in Phytoneuron 28: 1–2 (2014) = Trientalis latifolia Hook., Fl. Bor. Amer. 2(9): 121 (1839), a plant described from Washington]. Therefore, we have selected the name L. loeflingii because Linnaeus in 1753 described blue-flowered plants from materials collected by Loefling in Spain."

So what all this means is that, anything we have been identifying as L. arvensis var. caerulea in Australia is now directly referrable to L. loeflingii. For iNat observations that were already ID'ed to this variety, no further work is needed, as the taxon swap moved them over automatically to the new species. However, in many cases, blue-flowered observations have been ID'ed only to species (which was fine and correct under the old scheme), so these are now incorrectly ID'ed. Similarly, observations that had one ID of L. arvensis and one ID of the blue variety will now have been bumped back to genus due to the now conflicting IDs. I'm going to go through today and correct IDs where I can.

There is one final important thing from the paper, which is the key they provide:

1 . Perennial plants, rarely annual herbs with a single stem; stem nodes with (two) three or four (five) verticillated leaves; fertile nodes with a single flower in the axil of each leaf; flowers with the corolla (14) 16–25 mm in diameter, styles 3–4 mm in length 2

• Annual plants; nodes generally with opposite leaves, rarely with three verticillated leaves; fertile nodes with two flowers, one in each leaf axil, rarely with a single flower; flowers with corolla 3–12 (14) mm in diameter; styles 1.0–2.5 mm in length 3

2 . Flowers with orange or red corolla Lysimachia collina

• Flowers with blue corolla Lysimachia monelli

3 . Plants generally compact; internodes generally shorter than the leaves; leaves, at least the upper ones, erect-patent, lanceolate or elliptic-lanceolate, acute; fruit pedicels generally shorter than internodes; flowers with blue corolla, with elliptical lobes, strongly serrated in the upper half of the margin, covered with hairs with (three) four (five) cells, the terminal elliptical or sub-cylindrical, about the size and shape of the adjacent cell, sometimes glabrous Lysimachia foemina

• Plants generally graceful; internodes often longer than leaves; leaves patent, ovate or ovate-lanceolate, obtuse or subacute; fruit pedicels generally larger than internodes; flowers with blue or orange-red corolla, with lobes broadly ovate, denticulate, with the margin densely covered with hairs with three cells, the terminal globose, larger than the underlying cell 4

4 . Flowers blue 5

• Flowers orange or red Lysimachia arvensis

5 . Small plants, generally < 10 cm in length; root neck generally covered by secondary roots; ovate leaves; flowers with blue or pale blue corolla, often surpassed by calyx; styles 1.0–1.5 mm in length; Lysimachia talaverae

• Generally large plants, up to 60 cm in length; bare root neck without secondary roots; ovate-lanceolate leaves, at least in the upper half of the stem; blue corolla, usually longer than the calyx; styles 2.0–2.5 mm in length Lysimachia loeflingii

What is immediately noticeable here is that, when separating L. arvensis and L. loeflingii, the only differentiating character provided in the key is flower colour! This has important implications because many observations in iNat are of non-flowering plants. I'm unsure what to do with all of these; reID them to genus, or leave them as L. arvensis for now? (in my personal experience at least, arvensis is far more common, at the very least in Sydney, compared to loeflingii, so on balance of probability a lot of non-flowering observations are probably of arvensis, but of course this is not a compelling argument)

The start of the paper does mention there are other differences between the orange and blue, namely:
"...colour morphs also differ in other traits such as flowering phenology or type of herkogamy (Arista et al., 2013; Jiménez-López et al., 2020c)". They also note that "The colour morphs show different geographical distributional patterns, blue-flowered plants appearing mainly in drier Mediterranean localities and red-flowered plants being predominant in more temperate areas (Arista et al., 2013)." However, given the co-occurrence of both species in Australia in the same populations (also noted in the paper: "Blue- and red-flowered plants may appear in sympatric and allopatric populations"), this geographical aspect doesn't seem like a helpful separator.

The Arista et al. paper found differences in flowering time in Mediterranean populations. A small selection of text from that paper:

"We found significant negative associations between blue morph frequency and latitude of populations, and between similarity in blue morph frequency and geographical distance of population pairs. This means that a geographical pattern of flower colour exists in L. arvensis, and it seems to be related to climatic features, which suggests that flower colour is not a neutral trait (Mayr 1965). The correlations found between blue morph frequency and the environmental variables studied indicate that blue plants are more frequent in dryer, hotter Mediterranean localities while red plants predominate in more temperate Oceanic areas. This could reflect a differential adequacy of morphs to environmental conditions that is also supported by the fact that red plants in southern mixed populations frequently occupied the wettest or shadiest places (M. Arista & P. L. Ortiz).

...In our experimental study, germination, seedling mass, seedling survival, and flower and ovule production all showed different morph-by-environment interactions. The blue morph showed lower germination in the shade and higher seedling mass in the sun treatment, while the red morph showed lower survival in the dry–sun combination, more flowers in the sun–wet combination and more ovules at sun or wet treatments. Since some treatment effects on the components of plant performance may counteract each other, they are poor predictors of the overall effect when analysed separately. Only by considering overall fitness, instead of each trait separately, enables us to assess how each colour morph is affected by the treatments (García & Ehrlen 2002). Overall male and female fitness of blue morph was markedly higher in dry conditions, and this suggests a better tolerance to more xeric environments. However, our experimental study failed to find a clear pattern of adequacy of red morph to more mesic environments as only in wet-sun but not in wet-shade conditions was overall female fitness higher (male fitness was also higher but not significantly). In fact, the wet–shade combination seems to be the less favourable for L. arvensis as both morphs showed their lowest fitness. Thus, the Mediterranean environment seems to be more suitable for the blue morph, while the red morph seems to perform better in wet and sunny places, such as those where it usually occurs in central Europe. But, it is possible that other environmental factors not considered here could also be responsible for the geographic pattern found in our survey.

...Although most of the traits studied were affected by the experimental treatments, onset of flowering was markedly earlier in the blue morph in relation to the red morph without any morph-by-environment interactions. This difference between morphs, regardless of growing conditions, is one of our most notable results and suggests that this trait is linked to flower colour and is genetically determined. This pattern of flowering can be also observed in natural mixed populations (pers. obs.)

...Taking into account all our results, we found in L. arvensis many monomorphic populations that were spatially isolated, and some mixed populations with observational and experimental evidence of divergence in flowering times between morphs. It is obvious that long-term spatial segregation can generate reproductive isolation and trigger speciation (Mayr 1965; Coyne 1992; Doebeli & Dieckmann 2003). However, even in absence of spatial barriers, differences in flowering time between morphs could cause assortative mating, leading to a decrease in gene flow between them and eventually to allochronic speciation (Fox 2003; Weis et al. 2005; Savolainen et al. 2006; Gavrilets & Vose 2007).

...The marked difference in flowering time between colour morphs leaves open the potential for assortative mating and speciation in L. arvensis"

So maybe these differences could help differentiate in Australia, but I am unsure.

The herkogamy difference (anther–stigma separation) relevant to the Jiménez-López et al. citation above, is unhelpful here as it's a flowering trait.

For now, I'm not going to touch the existing non-flowering observations and leave them IDed as L. arvensis, even though at very least a small subset of them will almost certainly be L. loeflingii. For any non-flowering ones I upload from now on, however, I will only ID to genus. But any with flowers, I will go through now and add IDs where needed.

I will also note that, even if you don't accept this change (which of course is completely fine), L. arvensis var. caerulea is now a synonym on iNat, so it is best to use the new name L. loeflingii; they refer to the same thing on iNat. If things change again in the future, it will be much easier to change Australian observations back with minimal work.

Just for reference, here is the iNat swap: https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/125737
and here is the original flag asking for the swap: https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/613934

@nicklambert @possumpete @wcornwell @hsauquet @russellbarrett @russellcumming @alx4mtmel @scottwgavins @gregtasney @reiner @bushbandit @mattintas @mftasp @rfoster @ellurasanctuary @margl @terra_australis @jackiemiles @onetapir @gtaseski @aavankampen
Please tag anyone I've missed

Many Australians, especially those on the east coast, would be familiar with the plant genus Bidens, especially the very common and widespread non-native species B. pilosa. Referred to as cobblers pegs, pitch-forks, and shepherd's needles among a number of names, many bushwalkers (especially in more disturbed areas) will have brushed against one of these at some point and had their clothes covered in the annoying achenes. However, B. pilosa isn't the only species present in Australia. Also, Bidens in Australia has seen some taxonomic confusion between similar species.

@bean_ar provided a great overview of the situation in a 2020 edition of the Australian Systematic Botany Society Newsletter (see pp. 44-45 in https://asbs.org.au/newsletter/pdf/20-sep-184.pdf). As a summary of Tony's article, plus information from the various state herbaria, the species currently recognised as occurring in Australia are:

Bidens pilosa. Non-native. Common and widespread across the country, and recorded as occurring in all states and territories (including Lord Howe Is., Norfolk Is., and Christmas Is.) except Tasmania. Many (most?) Australian herbaria/sources recognise two varieties of B. pilosa, var. pilosa and var. minor, with the former meant to be lacking any ligules/ray florets ('petals') and the latter having very small, white, often ephemeral ray florets. Tony notes in the above article that "My field observations in several locations have clearly shown that the non-ligulate form (var. pilosa) and the ligulate form (var. minor) occur mixed within the same population, even side by side. For this reason, I suggest that varieties should not be recognised in B. pilosa." Interestingly, Plants of the World Online also takes this view and does not accept the varieties, however, both are currently accepted and used on iNat as deviations.

Bidens biternata. Native. As noted by Tony, this species was previously overlooked in Australia, being misidentified as either B. pilosa (both pinnate leaves) or B. subalternans + B. bipinnata (all yellow ligules). It occurs across the Kimberley in WA (although Florabase is yet to take up this change), the Top End of the NT, and in QLD, down to within ~10 km of the NSW border based on specimens Tony has looked at.

Bidens tripartita. Non-native. Relatively uncommon in Victoria and NSW.

Bidens aurea. Non-native. Seemingly rare, recorded only from Sydney thus far.

Bidens bipinnata/Bidens subalternans. Non-native. I've included these two species together here because this is a taxonomically contentious pairing. Most sources treat these two entities as separate (but similar) species. However, Tony believes that the two should be collapsed into a single species (see the linked article above for explanation). Florabase has collapsed the two, and so too has QLD, however, NSW and FloraNT still treat them separately. For completeness, here is how the two are separated by the PlantNET key:

Pappus awns erect; peduncles and margins of involucral bracts glabrous or with scattered small septate hairs; leaflet lobes usually linear to lanceolate ---> Bidens subalternans

Pappus awns spreading; peduncles and margins of involucral bracts conspicuously ciliate with spreading septate hairs; leaflet lobes rhombic to broad-lanceolate ---> Bidens bipinnata

Bidens alba. Non-native. This is the species that prompted me to make this journal post. Previously, this species was included within B. pilosa as 'var. albus', although it was often just treated/identified as B. pilosa. Recently, however, it was elevated to full species status (for anyone interested, see discussion here: https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/362565). Unfortunately, most Australian herbaria have not recognised/taken up this change yet. The variety in Australia is var. radiata.

Florabase (WA) - not recognised. There are only 6 observations of Bidens on iNat for WA, none of them alba, so I don't know whether alba does occur in WA.

SA Flora (SA) - not recognised. A brief skim of iNat records immediately shows at least one observation of B. alba, so it clearly does occur here.

FloraNT (NT) - not recognised. There's only a single Bidens observation on iNat for the NT, so I don't know whether alba does occur in WA.

VicFlora (Vic) - not recognised. A brief skim of iNat records immediately shows multiple observations of B. alba, so it clearly does occur here. The main image for B. pilosa on the VicFlora page for that species also actually depicts B. alba.

PlantNET (NSW) - not recognised. Clearly does occur in NSW, with many iNat records. There are also AVH collection records in NSW (all in northern NSW, but it clearly extends all the way down based on my records + those of others).

Queensland Herbarium - recognised, and does occur.

There is also a native lookalike genus, Glossocardia, that is often mistaken for Bidens.

The main reason I made this post is that not a lot of people realise that B. alba is a separate species from B. pilosa, there are misidentifications of alba as pilosa on iNat in Australia, and a few years ago when B. alba was recognised on iNat, all observations of B. pilosa in Australia were actually pushed back to genus, so there are now a lot of easily recognised records sitting at genus because people weren't aware of the change. I'm going to go through the Australian Bidens records and add IDs where I can to clean things up.

For now, I'm going to recognise B. subalternans as a legitimate species in NSW, and ID based on the key. If it does get collapsed into B. bipinnata in future, it will be easy to swap these records into bipinnata.

Most of my IDs will be pilosa + alba, the two common species. Here are the ways to separate them:

QLD Keybase key (Tony's):

Ligules 10-16 mm long; leaves/leaflets with 17-42 pairs of teeth; teeth 0.5-1.3 mm long on large leaflets; leaves 1-3 (rarely 5)-foliolate --> alba

Ligules 2-8 mm long or absent; leaflets with 8-20 pairs of teeth; teeth 1.1-4 mm long on large leaflets; leaves 3-7-foliolate --> pilosa (and biternata, but that has yellow ligules, and alba always has white)

Weakley 2020 and Ballard 1986 (US sources):

Ray florets 5-8, the ligule 3-18 mm long; cypselas 0-2-awned, the awns 1-2 mm long; outer phyllaries (8-) 12 (-16) --> alba

Ray florets absent (or if a few present, the ligule is only 2-3 mm long); cypselas 3 (-5)-awned, the awns 1-3 mm long; outer phyllaries 7-10 --> pilosa

CONABIO (Mexico):

Up to 8 ligules that are notably longer than wide. Relatively short external (green) bracts --> alba

Absent or reduced ligules. At least some fruits with three awns instead of two --> pilosa

So there are discrepancies + overlaps between the keys re the differences in ligule length. What we can take home regarding pilosa and alba (ignoring the other species for now):

If flowers are present, and there are no white ligules, only yellow disk florets, it is B. pilosa. A good example is here: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/155421971

If ligules are present, and they're white (if they're yellow, it's not pilosa or alba), and they're very small, it is B. pilosa. A good example is here: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/120001760

If ligules are present, and they're white, and they're large, it is B. alba. A good example is here: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/124345528

Now of course the tricky part comes when it's difficult to gauge ligule length from photos, or if plants are non-flowering. This is where ideally you would use the vegetative characters from Tony's key, although unfortunately the two species can overlap on all three leaf characters for some values/measurements.

I'm going to go through the Australian observations, ID all the easy ones first, then go back and look more carefully at the 'edge' cases.

Tagging some people who might be interested:
@bean_ar @nicklambert @gregtasney @aavankampen @scottwgavins @alx4mtmel @russellcumming @wcornwell @cesdamess @jackiemiles @insiderelic @gtaseski @onetapir @reiner @pcopping_ecp @martinbennett

feel free to tag others that I've missed

Lately, I've been curating/IDing a lot of old observations, both moving easy stuff to RG, and correcting mistakes that have been sitting around for a while. Thus far, however, I've only been adding my IDs to Needs ID obs, or RG obs that are incorrect. However, I'm going to be adding confirming IDs to a lot of RG obs from here on in for the groups that I'm curating. Aside from molluscs, I almost never do this, as I typically don't see much point in it. But one of the big tasks I've been trying to address recently is adding IDs to the tens of thousands of observations that lost them after the recent account deletion of a major Australian identifier. So for the taxa that I am doing a full review of, I think it probably is worth it to add IDs as an extra layer of protection in the event of future deleted IDs.

So apologies in advance for the notifications I may be generating for people :)

UPDATED ON 13 FEBRUARY 2023

Agaristinae is a charismatic subfamily of moths within the family Noctuidae (although sometimes treated as its own family, Agaristidae). Many species are brightly coloured or well-patterned, are highly active during the day, and are often mistaken for butterflies

According to the Australian Faunal Directory, there are currently 44 described species of Agaristinae in Australia across 21 genera.
This number should actually be 46 (and the genera 23), as there are records of the poorly known species Sarbanissa diana from Christmas Island despite it not being listed by the AFD, and there are now also records of Pseudcraspedia punctata despite it not being listed by the AFD (perhaps under a different name?). I can only assume there are also some undescribed entities (e.g., on BOLD), but for now I assume this covers all the known entities.

So how complete is Agaristinae in Australia on iNaturalist?

As of writing (13th February 2023), there are 4,730 Australian observations across 41/46 species (and within all 23 genera).

Agarista (1 species)
Agarista agricola

Agaristodes (1 species)
Agaristodes feisthamelii

Apina (1 species)
Apina callisto

Argyrolepidia (3 species)
Argyrolepidia aequalis
Argyrolepidia fractus
Argyrolepidia thoracophora

Burgena (1 species)
Burgena varia

Coenotoca (2 species)
Coenotoca subaspersa
Coenotoca unimacula

Comocrus (1 species)
Comocrus behri

Cremnophora (1 species)
Cremnophora angasii

Cruria (6 species)
Cruria donowani
Cruria epicharita --> zero observations
Cruria kochii
Cruria latifascia --> zero observations
Cruria synopla
Cruria tropica

Eutrichopidia (1 species)
Eutrichopidia latinus

Hecatesia (3 species)
Hecatesia exultans
Hecatesia fenestrata
Hecatesia thyridion

Idalima (5 species)
Idalima aethrias --> zero observations
Idalima affinis
Idalima leonora
Idalima metasticta
Idalima tasso

Ipanica (1 species)
Ipanica cornigera

Leucogonia (2 species)
Leucogonia cosmopis
Leucogonia ekeikei

Mimeusemia (3 species)
Mimeusemia centralis
Mimeusemia econia
Mimeusemia simplex --> zero observations

Periopta (2 species)
Periopta ardescens
Periopta diversa

Periscepta (2 species)
Periscepta butleri
Periscepta polysticta

Phalaenoides (2 species)
Phalaenoides glycinae
Phalaenoides tristifica

Platagarista (1 species)
Platagarista macleayi

Pseudcraspedia (1 species)
Pseudcraspedia punctata

Radinocera (2 species)
Radinocera maculosus
Radinocera vagata

Sarbanissa (1 species)
Sarbanissa diana

Zalissa (3 species)
Zalissa catocalina
Zalissa pratti
Zalissa stichograpta --> zero observations

So where should we be looking for the 5 unobserved species according to ALA records?

Cruria epicharita

Cruria latifascia

Idalima aethrias

Mimeusemia simplex

Zalissa stichograpta

Most of the 5 unobserved species have distributions confined to the Wet Tropics, from ~Cairns northwards.

Perhaps the most interesting species is Zalissa stichograpta, which is represented by a single record on the ALA, the type specimen collected in 1930 from the Bunya Mountains in SE Queensland.

@imcmaster @vicfazio3 @nicklambert @dustaway @domf @cher63 @kenharris @wellsii @dianneclarke @daviaker @hdavid @tas56 @reiner @larney @peregrine80 @ecosse28 @dhobern @davidtng @ianmcmillan @mattcampbellaus @kdbishop69 @dhfischer @sarahcobbaus @johnlenagan @jb2602 @urliup-wildlife-sanctuary @matthew_connors @paul2george @koolah @wambledyn @carolynstewart @eremophila @possumpete @dj_maple @d_kurek @gregtasney @bushbandit @kallies @leoncrang @ethanbeaver @ellurasanctuary @gumnut @twan3253 @benkurek__ @cesdamess @elainemcdonald

I have definitely missed out on tagging people here, so please tag anyone that I've forgotten