If the type species of a subgenus is moved to a different genus, what happens to the subgenus?
For example, let’s say species A (B) C is the type species of subgenus B, but is moved to genus D. What happens to subgenus B?
1 Like
I think we may need more context to interpret this. Can you provide the species, subgenus and genera involved? Do you have a link to the paper where the change was made?
In general, I would expect that the answer will depend in part on whether our taxonomic authority accepts the new combination for the species (assuming iNat doesn’t deviate from this change). If not, then no change. If our authority accepts the new species combination, then we have some decisions to make.
Many of our authorities cover species and genera but not intermediate ranks such as subgenera, which means that if we want to include them, we (iNat curators) need to make our own decisions based on published names. Ideally, the publication that made the new combination for the species will also have explictly specified what changes should be made to the subgenus. Maybe the subgenus and all members were moved to the new genus wholesale; maybe only a subset of species are being moved and the rest of the subgenus is staying, with a new type species/specimen (neotype) designated.
If the publication that made the new species combination failed to address any change to the subgenus, then I think iNat curators would need to decide whether to keep the subgenus under the original genus, move it or remove it, depending on context.
1 Like
Are you asking what happens taxonomically or what happens on iNat? Taxonomically I would think that either the subgenus is moved to the new genus or the subgenus is a junior synonym of the new genus (if the genus name has priority). But yes the exact scenario depends on the details of the specific situation.
To add more details –
I’m in an AP Research class and I’m doing my paper on the African Episcaphula species (or at least a handful of them to start) and what subgenera they fit into, and if all goes well, I may publish it after the class as well. So, this isn’t really related to iNat taxonomy, more just in general.
The subgenus in question is Lanugodacne (Heller) and type species Episcapha trifasciata (Heller). Episcapha trifasciata used to be in Episcaphula and was designated as the type species of Lanugodacne by Heller in 1918 but was moved to Episcapha in 1954 by Delkeskamp, and because Delkeskamp didn’t refer to Episcaphula as a genus, but rather a subgenus of Megalodacne, he didn’t do anything with Lanugodance. Delkeskamp doesn’t exactly list any reasoning for switching E. trifaciata to Episcapha, but after reading the original description, it does fit better within Episcapha than Episcaphula. The main separation between Episcaphula and Episcapha is an elongated third antennal segment, which is not really seen in E. trifasciata, but is seen in the other Episcaphula (Lanugodacne) species (minus Episcapha scenica which was also moved to Episcapha).
Hopefully this helps!
1 Like
Sounds like you need a trip to Dresden 
Are the other species in the newly-assigned genus also assigned to subgenera? If not, the subgenus might be omitted. I think for a subgenus to be recognized, all members of a genus must be assigned to subgenera.
Most are, only the ones from Africa aren’t. The majority of Episcapha are found in Asia and are sorted into the subgenera Ephicaspa, Episcapha, and Psiloscapha. Only the few Episcapha from Africa are unassigned. Same goes for Episcaphula.