A paper revised a taxon from subspecies to species in the United States. Accepted by all the Pyraloidea powers that care. Typically I would add the taxon, citing BugGuide and the original paper. However, someone already brought in the taxon from Catalog of Life which is supposedly not an approved authority.
There are several obs now associated with the taxon.
I don’t see a way to “edit” the data to reflect the accepted citations. Or, do I just not bother and leave it? It is attached to the correct genus in the taxonomy.
Thanks,
Monica
2 Likes
Well it cant be edited, so that closes that question. If it is correct why would there be a need to revise it?
If you really want another external authority documented or cited just add it as a link in the About tab section called more info. Depending on the structure of the pages at the reference you can even set it up as a cascading link higher up the taxonomy so all children show that link.
According to the curator guidelines, it should have an authoritative secondary source (BugGuide in this case), and I always cite the original journal article/fascicle to any taxon addition or change I make. Perhaps curation guidelines for taxa are more relaxed now than when I started some years ago?
Thanks for the suggestion to add the link to More Info so it at least shows somewhere…
A lot of taxa are automatically imported from Catalog of Life. The sourcing requirement, to follow the listed taxonomic authorities (or deviate after discussion) really refers to when you are manually adding a new taxon or committing a taxon change. Also kudos to you for also adding the original journal article/reason for the change in addition to just BugGuide. : )
2 Likes
Well, actually I thought I was adding a new taxon. Good thing I checked. The promotion from subspecies to species in this case required that the authors of the official Checklist of Pyraloidea of North America, north of Mexico had to first approve the status revision; then it wends its weary way to BugGuide through MPG. Unfortunately the whole shebang should be a taxon split affecting the southern US through Argentina. I’ve been grappling with how best to accomplish it cuz, of course, it’s not a clear cut separation since the author didn’t have enough specimens from Mexico and the Caribbean Basin to make a determination.
Perhaps this conundrum would best be discussed by flagging the genus? My inclination now is to add the “suspect” taxon again as new taxon with appropriate citations and explanation, make an atlas for the one species for which I feel responsible (mea culpa) and swap the total 69 US obs to the new taxon. At least the US would be correct.
Sorry, I tend to babble on, and on…
Yep this sounds like it would be:
SubspeciesB --merged into–> NewSpeciesB
SubspeciesA --merged into–> Species A sensu stricto
SpeciesA sensu lato —split into—> SpeciesA sensu stricto + NewSpeciesB
Flagging the genus would be a good place to discuss/confirm and coordinate atlasing and taxon changes if needed.
2 Likes
Be prepared for the ping! Like most of the taxonomy we mess with, it ain’t gonna be pretty.
Thanks!
1 Like