Flag for Taxon: Daubenton's Bat (Myotis daubentonii)
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| azarika | Daubenton's Bat (Myotis daubentonii) |
Myotis petax is not synonymous with Myotis daubentonii ( http://zmmu.msu.ru/bats/biblio/barcod12.htm, http://zmmu.msu.ru/bats/biblio/petax.pdf) |
Jan. 16, 2020 08:08:06 +0000 | jwidness |
see comments |
Comments
Sure! I simply do not have the time to properly curate Chiroptera here on iNat.
Wkipedia has a map. Maybe @batworker can advise if this looks reasonably good to be used here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Distribution_of_Myotis_petax.png
That's the map from the paper -- there's still a big question mark in the middle:
I think we can just leave that gap in the maps and then atlas those areas to both species.
@loarie I can't edit bats right now, any chance you can add me?
added!
There are still no verified records from the gap: plains of the Middle Siberia are not very rich in bats, therefore not so much people pay interest to work there. The only region where both M. daubentonii and M. petax found is Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug, but there also about 900 km gap between known records of these species:
Bernikov K.A., Kruskop S.V., Starikov V.P. 2011. Eastern water bat (Myotis petax Hollister, 1912) – new bat species in Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug. pp 45-49 - in: Starikov V.P. (ed.) Current problems of the biological studies in West Siberia and adjacent territories. OOO Taimer, Surgut. [in Russian]
All the animals genotyped or morphometrically studied from Altai (and eastwards) are M. petax. Association of M. daubentonii and M. petax to different species groups ("daubentonii" or Clade III, and "macrodactylus" or Clade X, respectively) was shown by Ruedi et al., 2013.
Ok, the framework is now many-to-one.
@batworker so you're ok with using the maps from Matveev 2005 (Figure 5)?
Since that it is my map, yes, its okey.
I suppose the better question is: if I split the IUCN range (the one currently being used), is that good enough? Or are there other parts of the range besides the splitting point that need to be modified?
I made new taxa and modified the IUCN map. Can you check the maps and atlases and tell me if they're ok?
https://www.inaturalist.org/atlases/26018
https://www.inaturalist.org/atlases/26019
They don't have common names or Red List statuses, what should those be?
And I also figured out why the taxon framework relationship was wrong -- M. petax had been set up separately as not internal and the relationship search didn't work quite the way I expected.
Thanks, looks good to me!
So it turned out that iNat already had an M. daubentonii sensu stricto and an M. petax that were merged in 2014 (https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/9819). Rather than use the new taxa I linked above, I deleted those and added the maps to the old inactive taxa. The draft split is here: https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/70554. Unless anyone sees an issue, I think it's ready to commit.
I think that in this case the 2 inactive taxa shouldn't be re-activated (ie reversing the previous merge), but 2 new taxa need to be created. Maybe @loarie can confirm if that's the right approach.
I don't think its a problem to reuse those taxa since they represent the same concepts of the output taxa we want. I agree there would be a problem though if we were adapting some inactive taxa with the same name that meant something else especially if it had lingering content like IDs etc that could be misinterpreted if we recycle the taxon to mean something else
Thanks. My understanding was that taxa having become inactive after a taxon change shouldn't be recycled in general, but apparently that's not the case here.
@batworker @jakob because of the size of the unknown area and the size of Russia's state-level places, some M. petax observations had their IDs reassigned to genus rather than to species. Could you please review these and @ mention anyone who might also want to change their identification? Thanks very much!!
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/37393626
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/33006396
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/32880901
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/1043755
iNat is still following IUCN's taxonomy on this one -- they include petax: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/14128/4400742. Mammal Diversity Database has them split, but they don't provide maps, so in order to do the split, someone has to make new range maps. Unfortunately, the original paper doesn't really know where the ranges split.
I'm not sure why the taxon framework seems to think this is a one-to-one match though -- https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/74702/taxonomy_details
@jakob should we at least change the relationship?