Flag for Taxon: Subgenus Gnathacmaeops
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| xpda | Subgenus Gnathacmaeops |
Please review. I'm new. I promoted this subgenus to genus, per GBIF, New World Cerambycidae, and Bugguide.. |
Dec. 5, 2019 22:35:27 +0000 | borisb |
Comments
@ianswift, @vitalfranz [@xpda]
Re-opening these taxa as an issue; i'd prefer to adopt the scheme below, that seems to me more consistent with the main source provider - Catalog of Life CoL. That now follows TITAN database. GBIF should (largely) follow CoL.
If just focus on Gnathacmaeops, i decided to continue here as both points above are useful and informative. My main question then on Gnathacmaeops Linsley & Chemsak, 1972, is which sources subsequently prefer it as a subgenus within Acmaeops? Which if any formally propose that as an explicity revised combination?
Acmaeops LeConte, 1850
Acmaeops discoideus (Haldeman, 1847)
Acmaeops proteus (Kirby, 1837)
Acmaeops proteus durangoensis Linsley & Chemsak, 1972
Euracmaeops Danilevsky, 2014
Eracmaeops angusticollis (Gebler, 1833)
Euracmaeops marginatus (Fabricius, 1781)
Euracmaeops septentrionis (C. G. Thomson, 1866)
Euracmaeops smaragdulus (Fabricius, 1793)
Gnathacmaeops Linsley & Chemsak, 1972
Gnathacmaeops brachypterus (K. Daniel & J. Daniel, 1898)
Gnathacmaeops pratensis (Laicharting, 1784)
Comacmaeops Linsley & Chemsak, 1972
Comacmaeops brunneus (Knull, 1962)
Comacmaeops parvus Linsley & Chemsak, 1972
Metacmaeops Linsley & Chemsak, 1972
Metacmaeops vittatus (Swederus, 1787)
Have installed Euracmaeops and A. s.str. as subgenera, and sorted species into them.
Remains an inconsistency in spelling: Feminine and masculine endings are found.
LeConte, 1850, §2 treated genus as masculine, and that should be the gender of all combinations with XY-acmaeops, no?
I think so. GBIF seems to use masculine, with the possible exception of "brachyptera". (Unfortunately, even though I once lived next door to a Latin teacher, I don't know whether "brachyptera" has a gender.) I'll make them agree with GBIF.
Thanks for replies. I was away a month, so didnt see comments until now.
Well, firstly, the species names should all be masculine, following an obscure line in ICZN - article 30.1.4.3. "A compound genus-group name ending in -ops is to be treated as masculine, regardless of its derivation or of its treatment by its author."
Regardless of genus of any combination, by adopting the above ICZN guideline, all these should be masculine - and technically that can overrule all inconsistencies and earlier usages. That adoption of masculine is well integrated into these as presented on Catalog of Life CoL, which follows TITAN database (again, seems consistently adopted). Specifically for "brachycera/us", that's latinized greek as an First/second-declension adjective, and therefore does need the species name to fall inline with those same principles. i.e. per here https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/brachypterus
As I said "GBIF should (largely) follow CoL." but interesting to note the cases here where it doesn't. It looks like the Cerambycids on GBIF are pulled from multiple providers, so i've put a request to revise two of them (namely "brachyptera/us" and "vittata/us" on their system
https://github.com/gbif/portal-feedback/issues/5075
https://github.com/gbif/portal-feedback/issues/5074
I would not support any general goals to 'just follow GBIF" as to me the taxon names they adopt for many lineages are haphazard and frequently malformed etc. The content is hugely variable when it comes to quality of taxonomy - with little or no expert assessment after integration.
Anyway, at this stage, i'm near happy enough with the scheme we present for the moment, except that i really want to swap "Metacmaeops vittata " into Metacmaeops vittatus unless any strong objections. Whether Euracmaeops and Gnathacmaeops should be distinct genera or not seems poorly resolved in what little literature i could check direction - so for now if they continue under Acmaeops, then so be it.
[Note on combination - SEE DANILEVSKY 2014. Longicorn beetles (Coleoptera, Cerambycoidea) of Russia and adjacent countries. Part 1. http://cerambycidae.net/Danilevsky_2014_monographia.pdf
Includes Acmaeops brachypterus and Acmaeops (Gnathacmaeops) brachypterus as other published combinations after preference as revised combination Gnathacmaeops brachypterus]
Metacmaeops vittata to vittatus, last change done. Flag closed :-)
@borisb - thanks for doing that last swap!
The taxonomy is almost debated, but the majority seems to consider this taxon as a subgenus, considering the small differences in comparison with other Acmaeops, e.g. A. marginata.
Moreover, a strong fragmentation of the taxa is counterproductive for the identification of the species in iNaturalist.