Heads up: Some or all of the identifications affected by this split may have been replaced with identifications of Cyclopes. This happens when we can't automatically assign an identification to one of the output taxa. Review identifications of Cyclopes didactylus 47109

Taxonomic Split 61690 (Tehty 23-06-2021)

Miranda, Flávia R., et al. "Taxonomic review of the genus Cyclopes Gray, 1821 (Xenarthra: Pilosa), with the revalidation and description of new species." Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 183.3 (2017): 687-721.

Taxonomic review of the genus Cyclope... (Viittaus)
Lisännyt jwidness elokuu 29, 2019 10:02 IP. | Tallentanut bobby23 kesäkuu 23, 2021
jakaa

Kommentit

@loarie @bobby23
The MDD website isn't updated yet, but the next version will have this split. There's also a subspecies swap involved -- https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/61688. Maybe we have to wait until the MDD website updates to push this?

Lähettänyt jwidness yli 4 vuotta sitten

Also, I made up the common names because C. didactylus sensu stricto needed to be something different.

Lähettänyt jwidness yli 4 vuotta sitten

My preference would be to wait -but defer to you guys

Lähettänyt loarie yli 4 vuotta sitten

Normally I would agree with Scott, but @coreyjlange already added the subspecies as placeholders for these species because he couldn't draft a taxon change himself. Prior to Miranda et al. (2017), the Silky Anteater was considered monophyletic with no subspecies designation.

Since the community is interested and we are partially following this already through Corey's subspecies, I say go for it.

However, @loarie is the only one that can edit the Xenarthra framework right now.

Lähettänyt bobby23 yli 4 vuotta sitten

@nateupham would you support this split or do you think it may be premature to integrate into iNaturalist?

Lähettänyt bobby23 yli 4 vuotta sitten

Seems safe to me to follow the recommendations of Miranda et al. 2017 in splitting Cyclopes -- in particular because (i) they relied on a variety of different types of evidence in making these delimitations (morphology, genetics from nuclear and mtDNA); (ii) its been nearly two years in print and no direct challenges are yet published, and (iii) it follows the diagnosis-and- monophyly-based version of the phylogenetic species concept (dmPSC as per Gutierrez and Garbino 2018 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6102684/), so it more explicitly testable against future types of evidence. Next version of the MDD will have these species.

Lähettänyt nateupham yli 4 vuotta sitten

Lisää kommentti

Kirjaudu sisään tai Rekisteröidy lisätäksesi kommentteja