Taxonomic Swap 74768
(Tehty 03-04-2024)
|
|
korvattu seuraavalla: |
|
Kommentit
I'll defer to @wmaddisn, but I can't imagine that he'd mind if you wanted to curate the swap. thanks for volunteering!!
Woah that's pretty crazy!
I'm the only one who can do it, no volunteering involved. I don't think there is any reason not to implement it, but we've had significant pushback on what you would think are non controversial changes before so just trying to be proactive in seeing if there are concerns.
Thanks so much for doing the changes! I haven't checked, but if there are Sitticus records from Mexico or south, then they almost certainly NOT Attulus, but Attinella, Tomis, or Jollas.
So, looking at the map, I've corrected a couple, but I must stay, "Sitticus fasciger" is an invasive species in two respects. It is one in real life, as it was introduced from the Old World to North America. And now, it's one bioinformatically. Quite a few specimens from Mexico and south have been identified as it, and probably none of them is Attulus fasciger, not even close. Most are probably Mexigonus. This mistake is probably propagating by iNaturalist being the source of people's identifications.... I guess people like me who know are supposed to be the stopgap to viral misidentification. Perhaps after the swap is made, I can scan the "Attulus".
I think all the changes are staged and drafted for implementation : https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes?utf8=%E2%9C%93&filters%5Bsplit%5D=0&filters%5Bmerge%5D=0&filters%5Bswap%5D=0&filters%5Bstage%5D=0&filters%5Bdrop%5D=0&filters%5Bchange_group%5D=2020+Sitticine+Revision&filters%5Btaxon_scheme_id%5D=&filters%5Bcommitted%5D=&filters%5Biconic_taxon_id%5D=&filters%5Btaxon_name%5D=&filters%5Btaxon_id%5D=&filters%5Bancestor_taxon_name%5D=&filters%5Bancestor_taxon_id%5D=&filters%5Bsource_id%5D=&filters%5Buser_id%5D=
Right now plans would be to wait a few days, perhaps the weekend to see if any objections are raised, an if not, then activate.
Hopefully after implementation, if any are missed it will be pretty easy to find them.
@wmaddisn - yes ' I guess people like me who know are supposed to be the stopgap to viral misidentification' really this is the best way especially in cases where the misidentifications are of a genus/species that is still found in that place.
The only one I can see that isn't in that list is (Sitticus) Attinella concolor.
And that is crazy that a Heliophanus was hiding in Sitticus for so long!
Its there : https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/75085
I just missed filling in the change group dropdown
Awe, okay, I see it now.
Wow! Looking forward to seeing the outcome!
OK, I have activated the change this morning. Now the equally big task of making sure the outcome matches what it should be. Already I've found 3 species that were unaccounted for in the draft changes. In the end rather than applying genus level changes, I'm thinking it will be better to simply inactivate the empty genera.
It is sad that this has got no love for two whole months! bump
@calebcam It is actually done. It just needed to be done 1 at a time if you read the thread, and this request to do a bulk one never got deleted
Oh, okay.
It was done within a day or two of this flag, and involved several dozen individual changes. Just do not want to delete the discussion history here.
Wooboy! That's a lot of work. @wmaddisn and @mhedin Congratulations on getting published in a timely manner during a tumultuous time! If you guys need another curator for this quite large swapping, I volunteer. If not, then good luck and again, congratulations on getting such a massive paper published. Looking forward to reading it all and seeing my Sitticus concolor change to Attinella concolor.