Taxonomic Swap 144016
(Guardado el 12/06/2024)
|
|
Reemplazado con |
|
Comentarios
@diegoalmendras I agree this is annoying, iNat does not support name changes without swapping the taxon, even if it's a minor grammatical change like this one.
I agree, but I was wondering about that change name, if the current change was neccesary or even in coordinance with nomenclatural authorities. CAS Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes mentions Myliobatis is feminine, therefore correct ending is tenuicaudata, but do Eschmeyer have the power to change the name, even if the author used tenuicaudatus from the beggining? Im asking from the ignorance.
@diegoalmendras Good questions. The stance here on iNat is to follow Catalog of Fishes. This kind of cases, while a bit annoying, do not pose as much of a problem as taxon splits or merges because if the valid name is changed again, it would be easy to just switch back. No big deal.
Where are the common names sourced from? There's a few on inat that seem wildly incongruent with what is actually widely and commonly used, and changing this from Southern Eagle Ray to Australian Bull Ray adds it to that list. ALA doesn't even list that as a "non-preferred" name.
And fwiw, this change also breaks all the "more info" links on the inat taxa page:
https://inaturalist.ala.org.au/taxa/1556594-Myliobatis-tenuicaudata
Since none of the other sites reference it by this name.
No reason to also change the common name, especially to Australian Bull Ray as the name Bull Ray is already misused across Australia to name 2 eagle rays and 4 stingrays species in both tropical and temperate waters! This is just going to cause more confusion.
The common names for all the fish species in Australia were standardized in a paper published by CSIRO in 2006. It would be good if inat followed this, particularly for Australian endemics. See https://www.cmar.csiro.au/e-print/open/yearsleygk_2006a.pdf
@clinton o.O