Lamarckdromia. Esto
ocurre cuando no podemos asignar automáticamente una identificación a uno de los
taxa de salida.
Revisar identificaciones de Lamarckdromia globosa 705123
Taxonomic Split 141259
(Guardado el 17/03/2024)
|
|
dividido en |
|
Comentarios
Once again, there's a lack of explanation here. What are those number of reasons? What facts are lacking?
@wildroo asked me to take a look at this.
My understanding is before Mar 16, 2024, iNaturalist had Lamarckdromia globosa 705123 with 9 observations and did not Lamarckdromia excavata 1540643 which @ben_travaglini added on Mar 16, 2024.
Since iNaturalist follows WoRMs and WoRMs has both Lamarckdromia excavata https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1579237 and Lamarckdromia globosa https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=440090 that is an welcome and uncontroversial addition.
After that ben_travaglini split Lamarckdromia globosa into Lamarckdromia globosa and Lamarckdromia excavata. As explained here:
https://help.inaturalist.org/en/support/solutions/articles/151000015337-section-d-how-to-respond-to-a-flag-requesting-to-split-a-taxon
splits should be done "to keep existing identifications in sync with the taxonomy when a portion of a species is carved off as a new species"
they are not always necessary but it depends on the situation. Also when splits are done with atlases, the IDs on the input (Lamarckdromia globosa sensu lato) are moved to one of the outputs (Lamarckdromia globosa sensu stricto or Lamarckdromia excavata) but when there are no atlases as was the case here IDs are replaced with IDs of the common ancestor (Lamarckdromia)
My questions are:
1) after adding Lamarckdromia excavata did existing IDs of Lamarckdromia globosa become out of sync with the concept (as described in the help doc?) if so then a split was necessary, if not then it wasn't necessary
2) do Lamarckdromia globosa sensu stricto & Lamarckdromia excavata overlap spatially? If not, then atlases should have been made to move IDs to the proper output taxon rather than rolling them back to the common ancestor. If so then atlases wouldn't have done anything and what was done here was reasonable and Identifiers should re-identify Observations of https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/identify?reviewed=any&verifiable=true&taxon_id=705125 as either Lamarckdromia globosa sensu stricto or Lamarckdromia excavata
Let me know how I can help get everyone on the same page - and thanks to you both for all your valuable ID and curation work
Thanks for mediating, @loarie.
Before the Split, I believe @wildroo followed the traditional view that L. excavata is a synonym of L. globosa. Thus, observations of Lamarckdromia in Australia that were not L. beagle (1 observation) were called L. globosa. However, the most recent treatment of the taxa by McLay & Hosie (2022) restored the name L. excavata (with a revised genus placement). Both species supposedly overlap in distribution. The table provided by McLay & Hosie for differentiating between the two species is confusing, likely reflecting the incompleteness of the type specimen. From what I understand, some features are obscured or missing entirely. Further, there is no locality for the specimen. Regardless, the Australian Faunal Directory considers both to occur in Australia. This does not necessarily suggest that all records have been verified, though.
The Split (as noted) has pushed observations back to the genus level so that others may be able to confirm whether observations are either L. globosa or L. excavata (granted they are not L. beagle). This is beyond my expertise for now.
So to answer your questions:
1) L. excavata was added in response to the possibility that some or all observations of L. globosa sens. lat. could potentially be L. excavata, given the apparent similarity of the two species. Thus, when added, existing observations were out of sync with this concept – i.e., two similar species that have historically been confused with each other (hence the previous synonymy).
2) As noted above, the species overlap according to the AFD and Atlas of Living Australia. The reliability of this, though, is questionable – also refer to above re. verification of specimens.
Hope this answers your concerns, but do let me know if I need to elaborate more on anything. I'm a little constrained for time but will endeavour to resolve this situation .
Thanks ben_travaglini, it sounds like you took the appropriate steps given this situation.
wildroo let me know if you have any concerns, and thanks for your help IDing these crustaceans. https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/identify?reviewed=any&verifiable=true&taxon_id=705125 They are fine to sit at Lamarckdromia if there's no way to distinguish L. globosa sens. stricto from L. excavata.
we also could add a complex node above this sister pair to distinguish them from L. beagle but my preference is not to deviate from WoRMs and introduce additional complexity and nodes into the tree
I am not impressed at all by this action in fact rather annoyed that this has been done for a number of reasons and a lack of facts that need to be addressed prior to even thinking about this being done.
If this is what inats is becoming then it has lost me this is not how this should be done