Content Author Object Flagger Flag Created Reason Resolved by Resolution
Laphria canis cotinis Fri, 22 Mar 2019 14:53:03 +0000

Members of this group are usually not identifiable to biological species from photographs. (However maintaining a grouping of similar species seems useful.) See discussion at https://bugguide.net/node/view/957261

Not Resolved

Comments

Thumb

Hi @cotinis, does it fulfill the criteria listed here?
https://www.inaturalist.org/pages/curator+guide#complexes

Posted by bouteloua about 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb

Yes, I think it fits those criteria, though I am not familiar with the primary literature. This is the term used on BugGuide, where there is quite a bit of expert vetting, and I also see the term used on such sites as this:
https://www.marylandbiodiversity.com/viewSpecies.php?species=17968
That site has a discussion of ID issues.
I will add that my understanding is that some male members of the complex can be identified to species from good photographs, but others only tentatively, and females not at all.

Posted by cotinis about 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb

All complexes used on BugGuide are legitimate complexes and, specifically, monophyletic units.

Posted by jonathan142 about 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb

Great, for more background, do they also always use the oldest valid name?

Posted by bouteloua about 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb

Quoting the BugGuide page: "Species included in the complex are Laphria canis, L. sicula, L. winnemana, at least two undescribed eastern species, plus L. franciscana" (L. franciscana is western, others are eastern.)
Laphria canis Williston 1883, and L. franciscana is described 1878 according to Nomina Nearctica, which might not be reliable. (Only thing I have handy.) However if iNaturalist starts using something other than "Laphria canis complex", it will be alone and nobody will understand what is meant, IMHO.

Posted by cotinis about 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb

BugGuide uses the official name assigned to the complex as these are actual taxonomic units. Applying a different name to the complex on iNat would not be appropriate and would be creating criteria not accepted as valid anywhere else. So the only appropriate name to use here is the " Laphria canis complex". Note that at least 4 complexes are recognized for the US, and each has a single taxonomic name applied to it.

https://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1248&context=tgle

Posted by jonathan142 about 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb

Thanks, that would be a good issue to raise with the site staff to add more nuance to the curator guide if needed.

Posted by bouteloua about 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb

Great, how do we raise this sort of issue? I am fairly new here.

Posted by cotinis about 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb

Probably best to either raise the issue on the forum or email the staff

Posted by bouteloua about 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb

I've made a species complex for this group: https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/894731-Laphria-canis-complex

See my journal entry about asilid species complexes here: https://www.inaturalist.org/journal/myelaphus/25109-species-complexes-in-asilidae

If anyone has issues with this, please let me know.

Posted by myelaphus almost 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb

I get a 404 error with that first link, but perhaps this one is correct?
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/894751-Laphria-canis

Posted by cotinis almost 2 years ago (Flag)
Thumb

Yes, Cassi made a different taxon after I had some troubles with the naming. I deleted the original.

Posted by myelaphus almost 2 years ago (Flag)

Add a Comment

Sign In or Sign Up to add comments