PUBLISHED DRAFT: Octopodiformes is ready to be made 'Complete' - working towards a 'Cephalopod Working Group'

@loarie, @bouteloua, @susanhewitt, @anudibranchmom, @maractwin
Hello! This post is a draft for a the first news post in the 'Cephalopod Working Group' project (as well as a formal announcement that I have made Octopodiformes 'complete'). If the Curator Guide is to believed, I did thd necessary groundwork for a 'Cephalopod Working Group' project and I hope we can start it soon. Please let me know what you guys think.

It has become evident recently that iNaturalist is working towards having complete taxon schemes and that they are an important part of the site's future. (I'm particularly excited to see how many insect orders can be completed in the future.) In order to help get as many taxa complete as possible, today I combed through Octopodiformes (the octopuses and vampire squid) to make sure our taxonomic backbone mirrors the World Register of Marine Species (WoRMS). I'm happy to report that we are now up-to-date, with the exception of the following discrepancies:

intentional deviations from WoRMS:
Japetella heathi is an unreviewed taxon on WoRMS. I did not add it to iNaturalist and I recommend waiting on clarification from WoRMS.
Eledone nigra is mysteriously not anywhere on WoRMS. It is not even a junior synonym. This taxon is not too obscure (it has its own Wikipedia page) and is acknowledged by SANBI. I think it should be considered valid here and left alone.
Polypus was not added to iNat. While it is an accepted genus on WoRMS, it has no valid children. Its only child is nomen dubium. All other members of Polypus have been moved elsewhere, primarily to Octopus or Muusoctopus.
Sasakinella was not added to iNat. It is another “accepted” genus on WoRMS with no valid children.

discrepancy from WoRMS that needs correcting:
• [FIXED] The vampire squid order is misspelled "Vampyromorphida" when it should be "Vampyromorpha". I noted it in a flag here.

other potential issues:
Opisthoteuthis albatrossi is accepted on WoRMS, but its validity is dubious. It closely resembles Opisthoteuthis californiana and some people consider them synonymous. It has not been seriously reviewed since its discovery in 1920.
Octopus hongkongensis, an accepted taxon on WoRMS, was a junior synonym of Enteroctopus dofleini on iNat. I suspect this comes from EOL’s taxonomic backbone. I added it to iNat because we recognize WoRMS as an authority over EOL, which is not always the most accurate taxonomic resource. Additional authorities like SeaLifeBase treat O. hongkongensis as its own taxon and pictures of the octopuses do not resemble E. dofleini.
Octopus sinensis, an accepted taxon on WoRMS, was a junior synonym of Octopus vulgaris on iNat. Same issue as O. hongkongensis.
Octopus stictochrus, an accepted taxon on WoRMS, was a junior synonym of Octopus penicillifer on iNat. Same issue as O. hongkongensis.
Octopus warringa, an accepted taxon on WoRMS, was a junior synonym of Octopus huttoni on iNat. Same issue as O. hongkongensis.
Scaeurgus patagiatus, an accepted taxon on WoRMS, was a junior synonym of Scaeurgus unicirrhus on iNat. Same issue as O. hongkongensis.

While I love cephalopods, I would not call myself an expert on them, so please let me know if there are any other discrepancies and I will add them to the list above. I have tagged the relevant people below who I believe would be great taxon curators.

Lähettänyt bobby23 bobby23, 6. elokuuta 2018 03:12


fantastic work bobby23 - I fixed the vampire squire issue. Looks like Julian Finn and Bruce Hayward are the WoRMS Cephalopod editors. Do you think we should raise the intentional deviations and other potential issues with them?

Do you want to proceed making this a complete node, or is the plan to tackle the whole Cephalopod class first?

Lähettänyt loarie yli 4 vuotta sitten (Lippu)

Hi, Scott. I think it would be a good idea to raise these issues with Julian and Bruce. While the plan is to review all of our cephalopods - and I have already started to look at our squids - I think we can make Octopodiformes a complete node.
I would even recommend starting a 'Cephalopod Working Group' project now rather than later. It would draw attention to the fact that we are trying to make Cephalopoda complete, and I would appreciate help from others to look at the remaining squids and cuttlefishes. There are a lot more of them than there are octopods.

Lähettänyt bobby23 yli 4 vuotta sitten (Lippu)

sounds good - can you make the project and I'll mark the node as complete?

Lähettänyt loarie yli 4 vuotta sitten (Lippu)

Sure! Can I have the red mollusk logo?

Lähettänyt bobby23 yli 4 vuotta sitten (Lippu)

Hi, @loarie. I have finished reviewing Cephalopoda and it is ready to be a complete taxon. I don't know if you saw, but I posted a new journal post outlying new discrepancies I found:

Lähettänyt bobby23 yli 4 vuotta sitten (Lippu)

Lisää kommentti

Kirjaudu sisään tai Rekisteröidy lisätäksesi kommentteja