Content Author Object Flagger Flag Created Reason Resolved by Resolution
Common Woolly Monkey (Lagothrix lagotricha) jwidness Mon, 18 May 2020 16:35:49 +0000

merge Lagothrix species?


see comments


MDD currently lists lagotricha, cana, and poeppigii as full species.
IUCN lists lagotricha, cana, poeppigii, and also lugens as full species.

Ruiz-García et al. 2014 sinks all of them into one species: "Our results, in disagreement with Groves (2001), suggest that L. lugens, L. lagotricha, L. poeppigii and L. cana are not full species."

Checklist of Mammals of the World sinks all of them and presumably the next version of MDD will as well.

Thoughts on sinking them now?

@bobby23 @jorgebrito @camilojotage @diego_amazonia

Posted by jwidness over 2 years ago (Flag)

This is confusing to me. The currently published page for the MMD page for this species cites Ruiz-Gracía et al. (2014) as the “source of data to generate this page” which would make me think that they would follow suite and lump all these species together for the current version of the site, but they don’t.

Regardless, I am fine with merging these taxa, but I’m curious to know what others thinks.

Posted by bobby23 over 2 years ago (Flag)

I think the MDD citation was supposed to be for the third volume of Handbook of Mammals of the World -- they use the three species taxonomy.

Posted by jwidness over 2 years ago (Flag)

I drafted a taxon change just so people can see -- we don't necessarily have to commit it.

Posted by jwidness over 2 years ago (Flag)

Unless anyone objects, I'd like to go ahead with this one.

Posted by jwidness over 2 years ago (Flag)

looks good to me - FWIW this would bring things in line with IUCN

Posted by loarie over 2 years ago (Flag)

I suspect at least some users want to continue to recognize these populations at the subspecies level (not least because they don't all have the same red list status), but there are some issues with how to do that.

I guess the most reasonable method would be to move L. poeppigii to L. l. poeppigii, L. cana to L. l. cana, and L. lugens to L. l. lugens. But we can't move L. lagotricha to L. l. lagothricha because people have already been using it sensu lato (see, for example). Maybe we just move it directly to L. lagothricha s.l. and people can add subspecies later if they want? It's sort of frustrating to force information loss because some identifiers refuse to use iNat's taxonomy. The alternative is to move L. lagotricha with atlases, but that runs into two more problems: the subspecies boundaries are somewhat disputed, and the level 2 political boundaries aren't fine enough even where there is agreement.

The other issue is that IUCN now recognizes five subspecies and we only have four. If we want to recognize five, we shouldn't be moving all the L. cana IDs over to L. l. cana, most of them belong to the fifth subspecies, L. l. tschudii.

Posted by jwidness over 2 years ago (Flag)

update IUCN and MDD now both list just Lagothrix flavicauda & Lagothrix lagothricha

I'm going to make the following swaps unless anyone objects
Lagothrix lugens -> L. lagothricha lugens
Lagothrix flavicauda
Lagothrix lagotricha -> L. lagothricha lagothricha
Lagothrix poeppigii -> L. lagothricha poeppigii
Lagothrix cana -> L. lagothricha
Lagothrix cana cana -> L. lagothricha cana
Lagothrix cana tschudii -> L. lagothricha tschudii

Posted by loarie 8 months ago (Flag)

Ok changes made iNat is now aligned with MDD and IUCN on this

Posted by loarie 8 months ago (Flag)

Add a Comment

Sign In or Sign Up to add comments