Update your content

Taxonomic Swap 13601 (Committed on 2015-12-26)

HEADS UP: this swap has been partially reverted to try and stay aligned with Pelham (see comments below). It can't be fully reverted because it subsumed a superfamily into a family, and we can't really separate out records that *were* associated with the superfamily post-swap. So, please leave Hesperoidea in its active state, even though this swap was committed.

Also, please, PLEASE check http://www.inaturalist.org/pages/curator+guide#policies before committing massive changes like this, or at least call in some other curators to get a couple more opinions.

Several additional recent papers have supported Hesperiidae being embedded within Papilionoidea (thus rendering Hesperioidea obsolete), including:
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/279/1731/1093
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/281/1788/20140970
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/277/1695/2839.short
http://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2148-9-280

This taxonomy has been adopted by BugGuide but not yet Pelham's US/Canada butterfly catalogue (I emailed about it but have not heard back yet).

Order Lepidoptera Linnaeus, 1758. In:... (Citation)
Yes
Added by nlblock on December 24, 2015 11:04 PM | Committed by nlblock on December 26, 2015
replaced with

Comments

interesting - @kueda did you know about this?

Posted by loarie over 8 years ago

Ugh, I didn't know, but this violates our policy of following Pelham. @nlblock, please read http://www.inaturalist.org/pages/curator+guide#policies and abide by the policies. If you cannot, we will revoke your curator privileges.

Posted by kueda over 8 years ago

I sincerely apologize! This followed someone else moving Hesperiidae into Papilionoidea, leaving Hesperioidea stranded with nothing underneath it. I thought it made sense to make this swap because of that. I should have just noted that the move of Hesperiidae didn't follow the Pelham policy and left it at that. Sorry for mucking things up.

Posted by nlblock over 8 years ago

If you notice something like that switch in the future, please just let us know about it. We don't police taxonomic changes as aggressively as we should, but at least we can talk about these issues if we know about them.

Posted by kueda over 8 years ago

Will do. Should I move things back to match Pelham?

Posted by nlblock over 8 years ago

I apologize again for inadvertently being a pain in the ass. It's the last thing I want to be on iNat (particularly because I think the butterfly taxonomy policy is excellent!). I feel really guilty about this.

Posted by nlblock over 8 years ago

I guess we can move Hesperiidae back under Hesperoidea without any damage. Any opinion, Scott?

Posted by kueda over 8 years ago

I don't have an opinion, this is a fairly painless one to toggle back and forth. I don't have strong feelings either way

Posted by loarie over 8 years ago

I got a complaint by someone with a 'must be in Papilionoidea' rule about skippers mixed in, and looks like Pelham still treats Hesperoidea as its own superfamily so I finally got around to reverting this. Hope thats cool with everyone

Posted by loarie about 8 years ago

hmm - and someone re-reverted it? What happened here?

Posted by loarie about 8 years ago

Sorry, changed the is_active status on Hesperoidea because I thought this had been committed and I forgot about this discussion. Adding some text to the description to make sure I don't do that again...

Posted by kueda about 8 years ago

@hugoalvarezg I saw you moved Hesperidae from Hesperoidea to Papilionoidea - see above - we're still going with the treatment of Hesperidae in Hesperoidea at the moment so I moved it back

Posted by loarie about 8 years ago

Add a Comment

Sign In or Sign Up to add comments
Member of the iNaturalist Network   |   Powered by iNaturalist open source software |   Documentation for developers