Limacia. This
happens when we can't automatically assign an identification to one of the
output taxa.
Review identifications of Limacia cockerelli 50059
Taxonomic Split 22283
(Tehty 15-11-2017)
Here's the key quote from Uribe et al. (2017) that will let you distinguish these species:
Limacia mcdonaldi sp. nov. is clearly distinguishable from L. cockerelli by having the dorsal tubercles arranged in a single line, running from the area anterior to the rhinophores to in front of the gill. These tubercles are always orange-red, whereas in L. cockerelli the dorsal tubercles are smaller, never form a line and are either white or have a central orange-red spot.
Here's a photo by Robin Agarwal showing the new L. cockerelli on the left and L. mcdonaldi on the right:
Note that the authors also described two new species, Limacia antofagastensis from Chile and Limacia janssi from the northern Gulf of California. The former is really disjunct from existing L. cockerelli records, and the latter is apparently so morphologically different that it wouldn't be mistaken for L. cockerelli.
|
|
jakaa |
|
Kommentit
Didn't mean to make my split IDs prematurely, but the name L. mcdonaldi was already in iNat, so assumed it was good to go.
No worries, just trying not to jump the gun. If this split has some clear geographic delineations, we should be able to update things automatically.
We see both at Pillar Point. I have one observation showing them side-by-side
http://www.inaturalist.org/observations/6173961
Now that it's an inactive taxon, will I have to go back and update all of them again?
No, it will be activated when I commit this change, so please just be patient.
I put it into iNat, sorry. To me it's not an issue of WoRMS supporting the new species, it's a matter of when one of the mollusc or branch editors will get around to adding it. I'm used to SCAMIT where many of the names & synonymies in our species list (revised yearly) are independent of what's in WoRMS for that reason or because our experts - who have typically seen much more material than many of the authors who publish on west coast species - disagree with what's published. But I do realize that for something as big & with as many contributors as iNat you need a different standard otherwise chaos can result.
L. cockerelli & macdonaldi overlap. The first is known from Alaska to Point Loma, CA; the second from Sonoma Co. to Cabo San Lucas, Baja, & into the Gulf of California.
I don't know who the appropriate editor would be for iNat.
I wrote to one of the editors for molluscs at WoRMS, asking if the status of L. mcdonaldi was dependent on print, rather then online, publication but did not get a reply. However, as of this morning (July 13), L. mcdonaldi is included on WoRMS as "interim unpublished", so apparently print publication of the journals is important to them.
I wish I could find it again to share..... an article in a British journal from over 100 years ago lamenting the unscrupulous american journals who pre-printed papers and the confusion it caused
Revisiting this: Limacia antofagastensis should not be included here, right? It's a newly-described species that was not formerly being called L. cockerelli, correct?
Ladies and gentlemen, we finally have lift off! http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1013008
FYI @dpom, @leslieh, and others who have been using the name L. mcdonaldi. If you folks know people at WoRMS, maybe you can nudge them into looking into this on their end?