Taxonomic Swap 71929
(Guardado el 17/02/2020)
|
|
reemplazar con |
|
Comentarios
I did not change it "like nothing". The research behind the taxonomic change was published in this paper: https://www.pnas.org/content/116/13/6232 (see the Appendix for a list of taxonomic changes). The Pelham catalogue (http://butterfliesofamerica.com/US-Can-Cat.htm) has accepted those changes, and it is the unofficial (used to be official) taxonomic authority for iNat butterflies for the region it covers. Thus, I made the corresponding changes in iNat.
I cant agree with that
The research shows that the Burnsius species (inclulding communis) are more closely related to Heliopetes species than they are to the "original" Pyrgus species, so it makes sense to me that they should be moved out of Pyrgus into their own genus.
I dont think so.
Thanks Nick.
I'm no taxonomist, but this looks up to par from what I can see. I couldn't find any dissent in the published literature.
http://zoobank.org/NomenclaturalActs/48996b74-3ab1-4dea-9a64-b8f112e62343
https://lepsurvey.carolinanature.com/ttr/ttr-8-1.pdf
Best Regards,
Corey
My only issue with this change is how it was implemented here on iNat. There are many observations only identified to genus Pyrgus that are likely Burnsius. We need a taxon change to split the genus too, not just move a couple of species out of it. That way observations only IDed to genus will end up at the tribe level and no be incorrect (though less accurate than they might be).
I agree, @maractwin. Based on a brief discussion about the buckeye split, I think I royally screwed up this and the buckeye split because I didn't think a taxon split would apply. I feel pretty shitty about it, to be honest. I'm not sure the best way to resolve it at the moment, as I haven't had time to look into it in detail.
I dont like this change, I dont think its ok just to change the genus like nothing, and this butterfly is supposed to be Pyrgus.