Megacollybia. This
happens when we can't automatically assign an identification to one of the
output taxa.
Review identifications of Megacollybia platyphylla 63284
Taxonomic Split 77906
(Submetido em 11-06-2020)
|
|
dividido em |
Comentários
@jameskm cool, I didn't know atlasing was a thing. What's up with the blue dots (Megacollybia platyphylla) in North America? I suppose the taxa on the right and number of observations should reflect what will happen after the splitting, and the map reflects this as well. They just don't seem to line up, which is confusing to me.
The numbers and dots are everything as it is now. Once committed, everything identified as Megacollybia platyphylla will be switched to another name based on the atlases. Everything in Europe will be M. platyphylla for instance, but in Texas, where both texensis and rodmanii are found, observations should get kicked up to Megacollybia. Mostly I am looking to make sure the atlases look okay. I think I have most observations accounted for, except the southern/southeast Asian ones.
Am I correct in thinking all those European M. platyphylla as input would become ambiguous in the output? i.e., the output layer for platyphylla contains no dots.
Is that because of the overlap of marginata/platyphylla sensu stricto? But then in Asia the sequence data indicate there is clitocyboidea and marginata so unique mapping of marginata is equally ambiguous - unless these things look very different. I haven't investigated.
our last responses overlapped - but I don't platyphylla in the output.
Europe and central Asia are only in the atlas for the output, new M. platyphylla (1097548, not 63284), so these SHOULD all just get swapped to the new M. platyphylla. I made sure to atlas all the output taxa this time, so we shouldn't get the fiasco from last time.
again according to sequences marginata is found in europe, south korea, russia and japan. Most sequences from Europe
Ah, right. That sequence. I wasn't quite sure what to do with it. In the Korean paper it was interpreted as being part of M. marginata, and in the original paper it was interpreted as a basal member of M. platyphylla. I also notice that the "M. marginata" clade in the Korean paper is unsupported.
Or, am I missing some other piece of information?
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.funbio.2019.03.004 Ah, I see this paper has it from the Czech Republic.
I doubt whether many 'atlases' would be definitive for fungi - perhaps easiest to with a first approximation, which is what you had.
As long as platyphyllla doesn't end up bank then I'm happy.
It looks like it worked out fine. I sorted through some of the outputs that got bumped up to Megacollybia. Not too many, all told.
@aldendirks and @cooperj, does this split look good to you? I tried to atlas the species as best I could.