Afrotropical Butterflies & Skippers (Williams 2019) follows "ADUSE-POKU, K., VINGERHOEDT, E. & WAHLBERG, N. 2009. Out-of-Africa again: A phylogenetic hypothesis of the genus Charaxes (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) based on five gene regions. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 53: 463-478." which places Charaxes species in the following sub-genera:

Polyura
Eriboea
Euxanthe
Charaxes

This issue is that a subsequent study, "TOUSSAINT, E.F.A, MORINERE, J., MULLER, C.J., KUNTE, K., TURLIN, B., HAUSMANN, A. & BALKE, M. 2015. Comparative molecular species delimitation in the charismatic Nawab butterflies (Nymphalidae, Charaxinae, Polyura). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 91: 194-209." treats the largely non-African Polyura as a full genus, with the African species being in a sister-group.
According to Williams 2019, "more work needs to be done in order to clarify the situation."

Currently, in our framework here, we only have the one sub-genus, Euxanthe. I'd propose following Williams 2019 (which we use as our guide for African butterflies) and including the other sub-genera, except for the problem of Polyura.
I expect the Asian Polyura is a valid genus, so it would be destructive to sink it to a sub-genus, but that leaves the African group in limbo. I don't believe it's acceptable to have Polyura both as a genus & sub-genus.

Thoughts?

@loarie @nicovr @hkmoths @beetledude @jakob (Please tag anyone else who would be appropriate.)

@tonyrebelo

The Aduse-Poku et al, 2009 paper placed the pleione species group & the zoolina species group within the Polyura sub-genus. (I just discovered that you can read that paper here: http://www.nymphalidae.net/Aduse-Pokuetal2009.pdf).

Here's a quote from that paper:
"The recovery of Polyura within Charaxes was also unexpected. Originally planned in the study to be an outgroup, they clustered well inside the Charaxes clade with a more or less well-defined position and affinity with other Charaxes groups. On the other hand, species of Polyura in general look and behave very much like species of Charaxes, despite being given the status of a separate genus by earlier taxonomists (Smiles, 1982). Perhaps the only important morphological difference between these two closely related taxa is the venation of the hindwing cell, which is open in Polyura, but is closed in all Charaxes(Smiles, 1982). Aside from this trivial difference (known to vary considerably in Nymphalidae, e.g.Freitas and Brown, 2004), they share almost all the important synapomorphic characters used to define Charaxes (Smiles, 1982). There is even superficial resemblance in the underside pattern of some members of Polyura and Zoolina-groups. We suspect that the lack of a stable position of Polyura within the Zoolina + Pleione clade is due largely to inadequate taxon sampling of the former. We sampled only two of 21 known Polyura species. However, we must add that we believe an increase in the taxon sampling of the group will not challenge our position of Polyura being part the Charaxes clade."

But I am not helping: just confusing the issue.

this is the bottom line: Aduse-Poku et al., 2009::
Conclusion: "We have shown that the genus Charaxes is a paraphyletic group with regard to Euxanthe and Polyura, contrary to the earlier assumptions of monophyly. "
Results: "The recovery of Polyura within Charaxes was also unexpected. Originally planned in the study to be an outgroup, they clustered well inside the Charaxes clade with a more or less well-defined position and affinity with other Charaxes groups" (as a consequence only 2 of the 21 spp were sampled).
This is the most useful bit though:
"Our results suggest that Polyura and Euxanthe should be synonymized with Charaxes, a taxonomic act which is bound to cause consternation among lepidopterists, since both genera have a long history of use. The alternative would be to split the currently circumscribed Charaxes into new genera, which in practice would mean that each of the well-supported species-groups should receive a genus-level name. We do not advocate such excessive splitting and thus recommend that Polyura Billberg, 1820 (syn. nov.) and Euxanthe Hübner, 1819 (syn. nov.) should be synonymized with Charaxes Ochsenheimer, 1816. The names remain available for use as subgenera, which we feel is the least disruptive way to classify species in the genus Charaxes"

The problem is that they did not formally do anything, except to add "(syn. nov.)" which may be good enough for the code(?), but is too easily overlooked. Although they do in the end propose (as summarized at the top by Tom):

New subgenus (not named, nothing more said! Not very helpful! - for Species-group: Nichetes)
Subgenus Polyura Billberg, 1820
Subgenus Eriboea Hübner 1819
Subgenus Euxanthe Hübner, 1819
Subgenus Charaxes Ochsenheimer, 1816.

Toussaint et al (2015) deal with this as follows:
"Molecular phylogenetic investigations of the group have revealed an affiliation of closely related clades within Charaxes despite a lack of morphological evidence (Aduse-Poku et al., 2009). Despite some taxonomic suggestions (Aduse-Poku et al., 2009), the systematics of Charaxes and its close relatives the genera Euxanthe and Polyura remain contentious. It is likely that Charaxes represents a complex paraphyletic series."
In other words they dismiss "some taxonomical suggestions" (told you it was not formal enough) in two sentences without any literature support, and never mention the issue again.

I agree that it seems safe then to propose:

Polyura - Genus (Asia & Afr)
Charaxes - Genus with subgenera:

none (file under genus species-group: Nichetes - in Afr)
Eriboea (7 spp groups in Afr)
Euxanthe (2 spp groups in Afr)
Charaxes (11 spp groups in Afr)

If in the future Polyura is sunk into a subgenus, then that is a problem for then ...

I think we're all on the same page. It's a work in progress.

I like @tonyrebelo 's proposal. Are we ok to place the African Polyura within that genus (as opposed to sub-genus) when there are no supporting publications?
I believe iNaturalist would become the only place where we'd see Polyura zoolina as opposed to Charaxes (Polyura) zoolina (Williams) or Charaxes zoolina(most publications).

@tonyrebelo - agreed. We face that impediment as and when (rather than if, I suspect) the time comes.

I will repost my comments from the observation in question, concerning Charaxes (Polyura) kahldeni from Central African Republic.

It may be understandable that Asian lepidopterists want to preserve Polyura as a genus while African lepidopterists want to preserve Charaxes, but by using Polyura for an African species, iNaturalist has taken a position in this debate (incorrectly in my view). In any case, this was not my point. My point is that current evidence does not support the view that Charaxes and Polyura are sister groups, therefore it should not be flagged as a disagreement when 'Charaxes" is refined to P. zoolina, even if iNaturalist is going to insist on Polyura here. There is no disagreement about the identity of the observation, there may be a disagreement about the nomenclature.

After more than two years, this observation is still flagged as 'needs id', which is false. It has been identified with certainty. Personally I am not very concerned about iNaturalist's opinion on nomenclatural issues. I am drawing attention to the fact that its system is preventing a perfectly simple observation being tagged as 'identified', apparently indefinitely (since no-one has corrected this in more than two years).

Here: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/62996753#activity_comment_2c04c75a-2a2b-44dd-a692-48a96b50f349

Would it be terrible to sink the African Polyura to sub-genus of Charaxes and let the folks focussed on Asian leps make the move later on, when they've caught up?

If iNaturalist were to follow Cabintom's suggestion (provisionally place Polyura as a subgenus for African taxa, so that Charaxes and Polyura are not seen as conflicting), observations could be identified. Waiting (how long?) for a publication means that observations will falsely be regarded as unidentified by iNaturalist, which seem contrary to the purpose of the site.

Are you placing too much importance on the Toussaint papers, which seem simply to have maintained the status quo ante, not formally addressing the issues raised by Aduse-Poku?

@tonyrebelo @stevewoodhall
Did you look at this issue again, with all the changes you've had implemented?

not in correct subgenus: Please change parent

Charaxes mutinondoensis 0 = > Charaxes (Eriboea) mutinondoensis
Charaxes mutuiae 0 = > Charaxes (Eriboea) mutuiae

Unplaced in Afrotropical Butterfly database: - so correct.
Charaxes amandae 0
Charaxes carteri 1
Charaxes dubiosus 0
Charaxes figueirai 0
Charaxes nichetes Manx Charaxes 9
Charaxes virescens 0

Not African? (not in Afrotropical Butterfly database in Charaxes, but I dont have synonym lists, so these may well be old names not in my version of the database, but I am assuming no issues.)
Charaxes affinis 26
Charaxes amycus 1
Charaxes antonius 0
Charaxes bajula 0
Charaxes bupalus 0
Charaxes clitarchus 5
Charaxes distanti Malay Rajah 7
Charaxes elwesi 0
Charaxes eurialus 1
Charaxes fabius 0
Charaxes fervens 0
Charaxes hannibal 1
Charaxes inopinatus 0
Charaxes katangae 0
Charaxes kigeziensis 0
Charaxes latona Orange Emperor 2
Charaxes mars Iron Rajah 8
Charaxes musashi 6
Charaxes nitebis 9
Charaxes ocellatus 1
Charaxes orilus 1
Charaxes plateni 0
Charaxes polyxena 0
Charaxes sempronius Tailed Emperor 746
Charaxes setan 1

If so, it need not concern us now.

Time to close this flag?

These names are all in Afrotropical Butterflies:
FULL SCIENTIFIC NAME AUTHOR ENGLISH NAME
Charaxes amandae Rydon, 1989 Yellow-spotted Black Prince
Charaxes carteri Butler, 1881 Perplexed Black Prince
Charaxes dubiosus Röber, 1936 Dubious Emperor
Charaxes figueirai Bivar-de-Sousa & Mendes, 2014 Angola Emperor
Charaxes nichetes bouchei Plantrou, 1974 Atlantic Orange Squire
Charaxes nichetes leoninus Butler, 1895 Pale Orange Squire
Charaxes nichetes leopardinus Plantrou, 1974 Northern Orange Squire
Charaxes nichetes nichetes Grose-Smith, 1883 Orange Squire
Charaxes nichetes pantherinus Rousseau-Decelle, 1934 Bright Orange Squire
Charaxes nichetes ssese Turlin & Lequeux, 2002 Ssese Orange Squire
Charaxes virescens Bouyer, 1991 Verdant Green Prince

@tonyrebelo & @stevewoodhall - many thanks.

After close to 4 years, the situation is still not resolved. The "solution" we are employing is an awkward middle ground. iNaturalist is the only place that is using the combination Polyura kahldeni (for e.g.). Everywhere else this is Charaxes kahldeni or (even better imo) Charaxes (Polyura) kahldeni. At present, GBIF is using Charaxes kahldeni.

So, we have 4 options as I see it:
1) Leave things as is (therefore unresolved).
2) Place the African species in the Polyura subgenus (following Williams, which will make iNaturalist internally inconsistent and therefore a poor resolution).
3) Move the African Polyura back into Charaxes but without subgenus (ignoring Williams, and meaning we're inconsistent and out of line with our framework and therefore a poor resolution).
4) Move all Polyura into Charaxes as a subgenus (this is the "nuclear" option, which our Australasian & Indomalaysian Lepidopterist brethren would not agree with).

Is there harm in leaving the flag open?

But if nothing has been published since 2009, and if nothing has been done, then I dont see anything further happening and the need for this flag. Rather add another flag when a new publication is out (one way or another). '

Personally, if we decide to leave things as they are, then we have resolved the situation and this flag is redundant, until someone motivates to bring it up again, presumably after another publication, and then the matter can be opened again.

So long as there are no duplicates species in Charaxes and Polyura, then we are consistent at the species level, and have resolved to leave it inconsistent at genus - subgenus level.

As a matter of interest, would the Australian/Indomalaysian bretheren really object? Have they been sounded out?
Why not create the swap (but dont commit it) and invite opinion and see how the wind is blowing?
A simple:
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/125647-Polyura SWAP to Subgenus (Charaxes)-Polyura

I see that Roger Kendrick (@hkmoths) has seen this debate. We know each other - we met recently for the first time when he visited SA. Roger, what's your take on this? Have you read the paper where Polyura was sunk? Any idea what the reaction will be from Asia?

Afrotropical Butterfly Database at present
does not have Genus Polyura

It just has the subgenus:

Charaxes (Polyura) betsimisaraka
Charaxes (Polyura) ehmckei
Charaxes (Polyura) kahldeni
Charaxes (Polyura) mafugensis
Charaxes (Polyura) paphianus falcata
Charaxes (Polyura) paphianus paphianus
Charaxes (Polyura) paphianus subpallida
Charaxes (Polyura) pleione bebra
Charaxes (Polyura) pleione congoensis
Charaxes (Polyura) pleione delvauxi
Charaxes (Polyura) pleione oriens
Charaxes (Polyura) pleione pleione
Charaxes (Polyura) zoolina

So, if we follow this will all our species link to GBIF?

Are we prepared to go here?

Hello All
I am the user who first identified this observation and raised the issue regarding iNaturalists' stance on taxonomy and identification criteria. Clearly, you guys can discuss whether Polyura is a subgenus until the cows come home. I do have an opinion on that issue, but it is tangential to my main point. That is that iNaturalist is allowing disagreement over the alternative status of genera and subgenera to obscure identifications. It is treating a disagreement over whether Polyura or Charaxes is the genus as though there was a disagreement over which species this is. Thus, the site structure has a flaw in what I take to be its main goal, which is to be a repository of identified observations. You seem to take the view that this should be addressed by finally resolving the status of Polyura and Charaxes, but this is both difficult, slow, and specific to only a few observations, not a general solution to a problem that is probably arising elsewhere as well. In my opinion, this flaw should be escalated to the people who actually code the site.
I am of the opinion that Polyura should be treated as a subgenus of Charaxes. I have not joined this debate because I am an amateur when it comes to taxonomy and know nothing of the 'Code'. I reason on general principles only. I am sure there are at least a dozen reasons why Polyura should be a subgenus, perhaps more, but I am not going to take the time to list them all unless requested, you are all more expert than I, no doubt.
regards
Nick Baker

That is that iNaturalist is allowing disagreement over the alternative status of genera and subgenera to obscure identifications. It is treating a disagreement over whether Polyura or Charaxes is the genus as though there was a disagreement over which species this is. Thus, the site structure has a flaw in what I take to be its main goal, which is to be a repository of identified observations.

@labalaba I disagree: the way iNaturalist handles updates is really amazingly efficient and totally gets around the issue of being a mere repository of identified observations. Not only is iNat a superb repository of identified observations, but it is a superb repository of up-to-date identified observations!

The truth is that it is arbitrary to some degree (the cladists will crucify me) whether it is Charaxes (Polyura) species-a or Polyura species-a. What is more, iNat will take the name that you use, and - if necessarily - automatically convert it to the current name. If the name changes after you identified it, then iNaturalist will seamlessly (when possible) convert it to the new name, when a curator implements an update. So the way iNat works actually caters beautifully to solve the problem that you seem to be concerned about.

Do you have a specific case in mind, where things went wrong? If you do know of a case, please tell us, and we can play with it and try and improve on it.
The only way that a repository of identified observations can work long-term is when updates happen transparently (but correctly documented) and efficiency, and I think that the programmers have done an excellent job at tackling this task. If you know of ways that it can be improved, or has failed, please tell us.

@tonyrebelo as @cabintom says above 'Our African Polyura are being treated as a sister group to Polyura, and are still regarded as being within Charaxes.' Can we not treat them as we did the African taxa falling under Hesperiidae: Tagiadinae: Caprona being selectively moved to Abantis, because the Asian Caprona have been shown to have a different phylogeny?

👌👍🤦‍♀️🙏

iNaturalist may well be great but it can never be perfect and should be open to reporting any glitches. We are talking about this observation: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/62996753#activity_comment_2c04c75a-2a2b-44dd-a692-48a96b50f349. This was originally identified as genus Charaxes by two users and when I added the specific identification kahldeni iNaturalist imposed Polyura kahldeni. This was recognized as a conflicting identification, which is not correct, and led to the observation remaining unidentified and not reaching research grade for several years. Personally I care only a little whether iNaturalist wants to use Charaxes or Polyura, but it seems a defect (however minor) that observations that are clearly (unanimously) identified remain, incorrectly, on the unidentified or disputed list. Ideally, an observation of Charaxes (Polyura) kahldeni should not remain unidentified because it is undecided whether Polyura is a genus or subgenus. I don't know how this minor flaw could be corrected, because I don't know about the mechanics of the site, but perhaps a tweak could address it. Achieving consensus on whether Polyura is a genus or subgenus is another matter, and does not fully address the issue, which could arise in other genera also.

'taxonomic decisions should apply globally, so we should make a decision about whether to treat Polyura as a genus or a subgenus but then apply that conistently across all taxa'
I don't know that you have the staff to take the lead on resolving taxonomic debates. Alternatively, you could try to ensure that observations remained identified when taxonomic debates occur.

I agree with rjq. Based on my understanding, the decision that's bottlenecking things is whether iNat should treat Charaxes sensu lato or Charaxes sens stricto with Polyura carved off (or some other nuance like Polyura as a subgenus of Charaxes sensu lato). Since we don't have a global taxonomic reference for butterflies like we do for other taxa like mollusca or vascular plants, these decisions must be made by curators talking it through and reaching agreement.

Once agreement is reached, its trivial to get the iNat taxonomy to align with the taxonomy that's been agreed upon.

iNat would very much benefit from a global butterfly taxonomic reference. See this issue for a similar example of why our work is hard without one.

The quote from Mark Williams aligns very much with my own views. I think he could also have mentioned Hadrodontes Stoneham as another potential subgroup within Charaxes. I thoroughly concur that Toussaint et al simply deferred from addressing the Aduse-Poku conclusions and it seems odd to treat this avoidance as some sort of update. I will also restate, this time without referring to a 'flaw' or even to a 'glitch', that it would be great if identifications could proceed within iNaturalist while this particuar kind of taxonomic debates is ongoing. If only there were some way Charaxes sp and Polyura kahldeni were not treated as conflicting observations, in the way that Charaxes (Polyura) kahldeni and Charaxes (Polyura) zoolina would be conflicting, for example.