Replace ppo:floral structure with po:reproductive shoot system

[ramonawalls]

ppo:floral structure is defined as po:flower OR po:infloresence, but both of those are subclasses of po:reproductive shoot system. It might be better to just add an alternative label to reproductive shoot system. I don't remember the logic for creating a new union class.

[edenny]

Makes sense! I think we created floral structures because of counts in the NPN data. Observers are allowed to give estimated counts for either individual flowers or inflorescences depending on species (e.g. a birch catkin counts as 1 unit). But makes no difference if we use "repro shoot system" instead of "floral structure" I don't think.

[edenny]

Oh.... but we do have traits for "open flowers" (individual flowers), "open flower heads" (inflorescences), "open floral structures" (either flowers or inflorescences). We also have "pollen-releasing...", "unopened..." and "non-senesced.." of each of those.

Does it work to instead have "open reproductive shoot system", "pollen-releasing reproductive shoot system", "unopened reproductive shoot system" and "non-senesced reproductive shoot system"?