I would like to raise a taxonomic issue concerning the two iNaturalist taxon pages linked above, Teleopsis quadriguttataand Megalabops quadriguttata. As far as I can tell, these do not represent two distinct species, but rather two alternative generic placements for the same nominal species originally described as Diopsis quadriguttata by Walker. In other words, this appears to be a genus-level classification disagreement, not a species-level split.
At present, major general-purpose taxonomic backbones still treat the species under Teleopsis. GBIF Backbone Taxonomy lists Teleopsis quadriguttata as the accepted name and includes Diopsis quadriguttata as a synonym, while the Catalogue of Life likewise lists Teleopsis quadriguttata based on Systema Dipterorum.
However, there is also a well-known specialist treatment arguing that the quadriguttata group should be removed from Teleopsis sensu stricto and placed in a resurrected genus, Megalabops. Feijen (2011) explicitly states that Teleopsis quadriguttata is the type species of Megalabops and argues that resurrecting Megalabops is the more coherent solution for this lineage. Feijen & Feijen (2019) continued to use Megalabops as a valid genus and referred to the Megalabops quadriguttata species-group.
For that reason, the current duplication on iNaturalist seems potentially misleading. If iNaturalist follows a backbone closer to GBIF / Catalogue of Life / Systema Dipterorum, then Megalabops quadriguttata should probably be treated as a synonym or inactive alternate combination under Teleopsis quadriguttata. If, instead, curators prefer to follow Feijen’s specialist interpretation, then the accepted taxon should be Megalabops quadriguttata, with Teleopsis quadriguttataretained only as an alternate combination or synonym. In either case, it would be helpful to avoid having two parallel active taxa for what appears to be the same biological species under competing genus concepts.
My main point is therefore not that one of these names is “obviously wrong,” but that both names seem to refer to the same taxon under different taxonomic concepts. It would be very helpful if curators could review the relevant authority being followed here and standardize the treatment accordingly, either by merging the duplicate concept or by explicitly designating one name as the accepted one and the other as its synonym / alternate combination.
References
Walker, 1856; GBIF Backbone Taxonomy; Catalogue of Life (Systema Dipterorum);
Feijen 2011, Zoologische Mededelingen 85: 79–140;
Feijen & Feijen 2019, Israel Journal of Entomology 49(2): 35–72.
