Taxonomic Swap 143683
(Submetido em 08-07-2024)
|
|
replaced with |
|
Comentários
Sifner does not seem to state this unequivocally (?) ...or at least I find it a little confusing. :
"I have not yet been able to examine the type specimen of Cordylura rufipes Mg. (the name rufipes may be a synonym of *pubera auct.)"*
Sifner follows with list of species and then still uses pubera ( allbeit with the notation auct.nev. - what does auct.nev mean? )
Vockeroth is straightforward enough with regard to type specimen, but doesn't mention pubera at all due to context...
and if this was accepted in 1965, why is it not in use now?
Ozerov & Krivosheina do use pubera as a junior synonym, but without any further commentary or explication like Sifner.
There is a bit more detail in this other paper by them, but still it's limited...
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Re: UK checklist
The UK recording scheme key by Ball uses pubera and is dated later than the Sifner paper fwiw
The UK database lists rufipes as an unaccepted synonym.
It seems to be not just the UK databases that use pubera though ...e.g. Norway
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
and in terms of more European-wide/global databases:
PESI uses pubera without mention of rufipes.
BOLD systems list pubera but not rufipes.
So I wonder if iNat would be more of an outlier than not if we use rufipes... ?
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I don't know how this impacts other countries in terms of data.
But in UK at least ... due to the bridge to iRecord, as far as I understood, names with different synonyms in use to the UKSI will simply not be imported.
@ophrys probably knows the truth in that regard though.
Ultimately, this only impacts 2 records in the UK in 10 years of iNat!
( one of which is unconfirmed and mine ).....so really not a big deal anyway in that regard haha
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
If this is the correct name I agree we should use it, but to me it doesn't seem 100% black and white.
Thanks for your thoughts!
The "Since I have not yet been able to examine the type..." is a quote from Vockeroth's unpublished manuscript. However, on the next page, Šifner writes, "In this paper I accept the priority of the opinion by VOCKEROTH (1965: 827) and consider Cordylura rufipes Meigen, 1826, as the type species of the genus Cordilura Fallén, 1810." To me this is equivalent to accepting that C. pubera as interpreted by Fallén (the type species of Cordilura) is the same species as C. rufipes. (The UK checklist agrees on this too, but Chandler continues to prefer pubera and lists rufipes as a synonym).
I'm not sure why Šifner decided to list this species as Cordilura pubera auct., nec Linnaeus (this means "pubera of [other] authors, not Linnaeus"). Maybe because his checklist was compiled partly from literature records, and, as stated on page 117, C. pubera has also been interpreted as a synonym of C. rufimana (e.g., in the Palaearctic Catalogue), so reports of C. pubera may have been either species. However, immediately below, he writes "Musca pubera Linnaeus, 1758: 598 (misidentification)" and then gives C. rufipes as a synonym.
Šifner (2018) (note #10) later affirmed the use of rufipes for pubera, writing:
ŠIFNER (2008) accepted the priority of the opinion of VOCKEROTH (1965: 827), considering Cordylura rufipes MEIGEN, 1826 as the type-species of the genus Cordilura FALLÉN, 1810 and he proposed provisional use of the name of Cordilura pubera LINNAEUS, 1758 as Cordilura pubera (auct., nec LINNAEUS , 1758). Ozerov & Krivosheina (2014) considered Cordilura pubera (auct., nec LINNAEUS, 1758) as synonym of Cordilura rufipes (MEIGEN, 1826); as did BAGADANOVA et al. (2016). I accept completely OZEROV’S (2014) nomenclatural act with the following comment: the author’s conclusion is completely logical and objective. The MEIGEN’S original description of Cordylura rufipes is brief but precise in the Latine and German versions including the accompanyig text; the identity of Cordilura pubera (auct., nec LINNAEUS , 1758) in the form of the new name Cordilura rufipes (MEIGEN, 1826) is clear, unambiguous and definitive.
Ok, that's much clearer.
Then I just wonder why Chandler held back... and why we aren't seeing adoption elsewhere.
I guess the bigger sites are slow to change.
I wonder about other national databases.
More broadly I wonder about whether we should follow primary literature or the more global databases.
On this other flag I raised, people suggested the latter was the norm...but I don't know what's best or if there's really a clear precedence one way or the other. And it's a very different issue in any case...
There isn't consensus among all databases, but Systema Dipterorum lists C. rufipes as accepted and doesn't list C. pubera at all (GBIF and Catalogue of Life both follow SD). Diptera.info uses pubera in their Scathophagidae gallery, and the UK list uses this name as well.
@sbushes @dipterajere @ophrys @erikas_diptera FYI - These are clearly different names in use for the same species. C. pubera is still on the UK checklist but that seems to be an error, given the sources linked above. Is there any objection to replacing pubera with ruficeps?