Taxonomic Swap 135161
(Guardado el 26/11/2023)
|
|
Reemplazado con |
|
Comentarios
The genitals of the Helicarion species have flagella, but this species does not have this feature, so the classification of the genus is incorrect. Although this species should be effective, I believe the accuracy of classification must be ensured first, so I have temporarily retained the family, but this species may also belong to Trochomorphoidea.
Thanks for your comment.
＞The genitals of the Helicarion species have flagella, but this species does not have this feature, so the classification of the genus is incorrect.
What is the source of this info (about the absence of flagella)? Is there such a published report about this species?
This taxon swap (from species to familial status) is a drastic change. We need the source (proof) for this change.
The description of the genitalia of this species can be known from the original literature. It has one obvious difference from the Helicarion species (absence of flagella). From a morphological point of view, it does not support that this species belongs to Helicarion, so I temporarily exchanged it to a roughly correct taxon.
No. I am neither asking about the original 1873 description of this species nor the details of its morphology (the absence of flagella). I am only asking if there is any source info about this taxon swap.
Or Is this based on your own interpretation of the morphology of the species? Not based on the subsequent publication (revision of this species)?
You can think so. There are currently no recent studies on this species, but whether it belongs to the genus Helicarion is undoubtedly controversial (uncertain status on MB and differences in genitalia), so this classification change is a temporary measure, and if you feel it is inappropriate, then I'm here to say sorry!
What is this taxon swap for? I wonder why the species was replaced with the family. Any source information for this act?
The species name Helicarion permolle Stoliczka, 1873 is valid and is available under the ICZN. That is, there should be no issues in nomenclature.
A taxonomic problem?