Taxonomic Swap 101595
(Tehty 17-11-2021)
|
|
korvattu seuraavalla: |
|
Kommentit
@djringer Thanks for letting me know, I hadn't noticed that. I'll get on it right now.
There is a flag here: https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/550972
I've committed the split: https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/101665
Should take effect soon.
It's possible further changes might need to be made regarding E. pustulosa, but I'm not sure how to approach that.
Thanks for that @zdanko, I think that split is the best way to go about it. We can just go through and manually fix the E. pustulosa sightings if needed
Yes, thank you! I am looking at some of these now; it seems like the split helped a lot and the only unfortunate thing is that some E. pustulosa are now stuck, e.g.: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/61091254. But in this narrow case, that was going to happen anyway when the species got reassigned to its new genus soon.
However, in an instance where a genus (or any higher-level taxon) was split and species in BOTH resulting taxa occurred in a given geographical region, we'd need to kick them up a level to reduce conflicts.
Thanks!
No problem! Is there an impending issue with the New Zealand observations? The paper didn't show any Hortophora there so I was a little confused since it's supposed to be for the entire Australasian region, I thought.
New Zealand is fine, I think—of the species at issue, they only have E. pustulosa, so the way you did the split, it's all good, see example here: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/99418471
Great, thanks!
@zdanko thank you for working on these WSC updates! Because H. transmarina and the other species that are now placed in Hortophora were moved with taxon swaps, and the genus Eriophora was not also split, there appear to be up to ~1,800 observations in Australasia that now have one of the following two problems:
-- Any observations that had both a species-level ID and a genus-level ID have gotten bumped up to sub-family level, e.g. https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/68147691.
-- Any observations that had only genus-level IDs as Eriophora are now likely to be incorrect because they all still have IDs of Eriophora, which if I understand the paper correctly that resulted in the split, is no longer considered to occur in the Australasian region: https://evolsyst.pensoft.net/article/72474/?fbclid=IwAR2u8U_xZB_3JDzvYAlq80qDqShHiTCvg7l8xeDAU3kFLYDUrio3Lcr4rb8. (One somewhat confounding factor: The authors left E. pustulosa in Eriophora but said a new genus will be erected for it soon.)
Perhaps I missed a discussion on these swaps (I'm not a curator) and there are reasons for how it's rolling out, but wanted to flag. This type of taxonomic issue seems to occur pretty frequently on iNat, across a range of taxa. Thanks much.
cc @matthew_connors FYI