Created Object Flagger Reason Resolved by Resolve Comment
Thu, 04 Jan 2018 22:23:47 +0000 White-lored Yellow-throated Warbler (Subspecies Setophaga dominica albilora) fogartyf

TLDR version: albilora is no longer recognized as a subspecies due to recent molecular and morphological work.

rjq

No action needed

Comments

Thumb

Clement's now lists it under the rather opaque unit of 'group (monotypic)', which reflects that it is mostly field identifiable (I would question its monotypic status, though, given recent morphological work) but is not considered a valid subspecies (or any taxon) at this point. My hunch is that the option will be removed entirely in coming versions of the checklist in favor of a monotypic species.

Posted by fogartyf over 1 year ago (Flag)
Thumb

Since Clements does still recognize the subspecies, and iNat follows Clements, it might be best to keep it active on iNat for the time being (although you could maybe leave a comment about it here, and also contact cornellbirds@cornell.edu if you haven't already to make sure that the change will be considered for Clements v2018).

(On the Clements checklist, the designation "group (monotypic)" just means it's a subspecies recognized by Clements that's field identifiable [as opposed to "group (polytypic)", which refers to groups of subspecies that may not be easily identifiable from each other in the field, but can be separated as a whole from other subspecies - e.g. Oregon Junco, which is listed as Junco hyemalis [oreganus Group] and includes seven subspecies]; 2380 subspecies on the Clements checklist are currently listed as monotypic groups, so if you want to see a list of all the subspecies on the Clements checklist, make sure to select both "subspecies" and "group (monotypic)" under the Category column)

Posted by maxkirsch over 1 year ago (Flag)
Thumb

Thanks for that, I realize that I was misinterpreting how Clement's has it coded...I was going by the assumption that they must have removed albilora years back and seeing what I wanted to see! I agree it should remain on iNat for consistency, although it's baffling to me that Clement's still recognizes the taxa with several papers refuting its validity dating back at least a decade.

Posted by fogartyf over 1 year ago (Flag)

Add a Comment

Sign In or Sign Up to add comments