When merging junior synonyms into an existing taxon, is it necessary to create a new taxon concept for the existing taxon?
When I try to save a draft taxon merge merging Monomorium binatu, Monomorium exchao, and Monomorium termitobium into Monomorium termitobium I get an error message saying I need to have unique input and output taxa
Also in this case do I put Monomorium termitobium as one of the inputs or not?
This is my first attempt at a taxon change and the curator guide is not entirely specific as to how this is done
I planned to create a draft and then ask other curators if it looked right, but apparently the draft won’t save if there are errors
I don’t know the specifics of this case but looks like you would not include M. termitobium as one of the inputs.
Yes. This should is the issue.
I’m not sure what you mean here?
If you want to merge taxa A and B into C then you cannot have C as both an input and an output.
You currently have A, B, C as inputs and then C as the output. C being on both sides as an input and output is triggering the error.
You can also think of it this way, if you have your two junior synonyms, then these are your inputs. The accepted name is your output. You were trying to have accepted name as an input too. You can’t merge the accepted taxon into itself, so that’s why there’s an error.
I get that, the part I am now wondering is whether I need to create a new taxon concept for C if C existed prior to the merge I want to do
It depends on the framework for the group. I’d draft the swap and then tag people on the flag.
this is not covered by a taxon framework
I don’t think you have to mess with a framework if there’s no external authority. Am I correct @bouteloua ?
it’s not possible to create taxon framework relationships when there is no taxon framework. Sources should be documented on the taxon itself and the taxon change.
No. The inputs should be Monomorium binatu and Monomorium exchao, and the output should be the existing Monomorium termitobium taxon. The description of what a merge does on the taxonomic change page (“Several old taxa lumped into one new taxon”) is misleading.