Vandijkophrynus. Esto
ocurre cuando no podemos asignar automáticamente una identificación a uno de los
taxa de salida.
Revisar identificaciones de Vandijkophrynus gariepensis 67259
Taxonomic Split 77938
(Guardado el 17/08/2021)
|
|
dividido en |
|
Comentarios
Are we having any motion on this?
The range map still needs to split in QGIS.
@alexanderr - are these on your todo list?
No we did not assess them, V. gariepensis range just needs some tweaking and V. nubicola range needs to be created and added. I can do it at some point
Is this still in limbo? Why?
This is quite simple:
Vandijkophrynus gariepensis ssp. gariepensis = 36 observations
Vandijkophrynus gariepensis ssp. nubicola = 4 observations
ID to species = 73 observations:: so 35 observations dont have ssp IDs.
But that is an artefact of the subspecies bug on iNaturalist, that does not recognise a subspecies ID unless there are two identifications at the subspecies level (only one is needed at species level or above). In fact, all observations have at least one ID to subspecies level.
If iNat worked logically, we could just assign the two subspecies to species level and there would be no issue: and no observations would require a range map.
If someone would go through the outstanding observations and verify them, then a swap could take place.
But note that the swaps would be:
Vandijkophrynus gariepensis ssp. gariepensis = > Vandijkophrynus gariepensis
Vandijkophrynus gariepensis ssp. nubicola = > Vandijkophrynus nubicola
and this particular swap Vandijkophrynus gariepensis to Vandijkophrynus gariepensis is redundant.
Link for the review of status: (currently 17:00 at 35 observations).
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/identify?reviewed=any&quality_grade=needs_id%2Cresearch%2Ccasual&taxon_id=67259&lrank=species
@bobby23 Can we commit to this? Ranges updated.
I dont see the atlas for Vandijkophrynus nubicola
Does that not mean that those observations from there will be allocated to Genus level?
Or is that irrelevant because we dont have any data for this anyway?
I am not a taxonomy curator for Amphibia, so while I can draft changes, I cannot commit them myself, unfortunately.
Good: I assume the observations in the overlapp will go to genus.
OK - I changed the inputs here to reflect that its a retroactive split (the carved off Vandijkophrynus nubicola already existed as an active taxa, and I also prefer to use the split input as the output in these cases so their less disruptive)
I committed the 2 swaps swapping the ssp with the relevant split output
and I committed this split
Thanks Loarie
To-do List:
Construct Atlases and Distribution Maps for both output taxa (accredited reference for that here: https://books.google.com/books?id=fjmgDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA133&lpg=PA133&dq=Vandijkophrynus+gariepensis+nubicola&source=bl&ots=RaLT9SyczF&sig=ACfU3U3R439bmicp1Ll5EQuiQlgl0XaCiQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiD15_PovrpAhVIQzABHYVJCPAQ6AEwBXoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=Vandijkophrynus%20gariepensis%20nubicola&f=false)
Swap the subspecies of Vandijkophrynus gariepensis sensu lato into the respective outputs (https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/77940, https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/77941)