Flag for Taxon: Spotless Tree Toad (Hyla immaculata)
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| amarzee | loarie | Spotless Tree Toad (Hyla immaculata) |
there are three species now: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0234299 |
Jun. 25, 2020 03:38:45 +0000 | loarie |
see comments |
Comments
The ASOW is strangely confusing about this taxon (suweonensis). (https://amphibiansoftheworld.amnh.org/Amphibia/Anura/Hylidae/Hylinae/Dryophytes/Dryophytes-immaculatus). They mention the several recent authors who recognize it but regard it as a synonym of immaculatus with no explanation or justification to their synonmy.
I think iNaturalist should deviate from ASOW in this regard since there is significant support for the recognition of the taxa and ASOW provides no support for their taxonomic position.
The paper by amarzee has a good range map for the three species.
Thank you @sandboa ASOW is now corrected as well, the three species are listed independently:
https://amphibiansoftheworld.amnh.org/index.php/Amphibia/Anura/Hylidae/Hylinae/Dryophytes/Dryophytes-suweonensis
https://amphibiansoftheworld.amnh.org/index.php/Amphibia/Anura/Hylidae/Hylinae/Dryophytes/Dryophytes-flaviventris
amphibiansoftheworld.amnh.org/index.php/Amphibia/Anura/Hylidae/Hylinae/Dryophytes/Dryophytes-immaculatus
So Hyla immaculata (sensu stricto) would be restricted to China and Hyla flaviventris & Hyla suweonensis restricted to Korea? Do the Korea species overlap?
next steps for a curator to do here would be to:
(1) create inactive taxa for Hyla flaviventris, Hyla suweonensis, and Hyla immaculata (sensu stricto)
(2) create atlaes for them and ideally taxon ranges
(3) create a draft taxon split with Hyla immaculata (sensu lato) as the input and the above as the outputs
@loarie
D. suweonensis is restricted to China, D suweonensis to ROK and DPRK and D. flaviventris to ROK. There is no overlap in range, they are separated by mountains chains.
(1) could the old pages be re-used for D immaculatus and D suweonensis? I tried creating a new taxa page for D. flaviventris but it did not work, I think you wrote somewhere that you are the only one who can do that for amphibians now.
(2) I'm happy to prepare all of that, which format is needed for the ranges? I have prepared .shp files for range maps for the IUCN Red List and they can be used here as well. Where should I upload them? A link to any resource/directives page would be most welcome!
you can create new grafted amphibian taxa as long as they are inactive (I'm the only one who can activate them or commit a taxon change that would activate them)
you can upload kmls directly here https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_ranges/new (use the new inactive taxon for the taxon_id)
@loarie - I can work through this one to "get my feet wet" if that is OK.
@loarie - I created flaviventris but can't do the split until flaviventris becomes an active taxon.
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/1112602-Hyla-flaviventris
once you've created the inactive taxa for Hyla flaviventris, Hyla suweonensis, and Hyla immaculata (sensu stricto) - you need to create a draft taxon split with Hyla immaculata (sensu lato) as the input and the inactive taxa as outputs
OK, I figured that out. (I was trying to use the active taxa in the ouput). The change is done but we just need SHP/KML files for suweonensis and flaviventris. IUCN treats them as one taxon.
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/79912
Chris
the draft taxon change and inactive output taxa look good. But if I'm understanding correctly you have a taxon range for flaviventris that is the union of what we want for flaviventris and suweonensis? If thats the case one option is just to remove the range (which sort of sucks because its nice to have range data) or dive into editing the range file (e.g. splitting it into 2 files) which is a pain but here's a tutorial
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/taxon-range-map-editing/146
Correct. The current range map we have for suweonensis is actually the range of both suweonensis and flaviventris combined. Effectively flaviventris is being split off from suweonensis (in our current iNat definition).
@amarzee says he has the SHP files for the range of each, so if we could get those I'll put them in. Otherwise I can draw them myself in Google Earth and export from the map in the paper. They both have pretty small ranges and redrawing might be easier than splitting?
sounds good!
Sorry I had a very busy day, I'm very glad to see everything happening and I will upload the ranges right now!
Amael
Hi again, I've uploaded the KML files for suweonensis and flaviventris. Please let me know if there is anything missing or if I made a mistake.
It's not exactly a split of suweonensis as there is a very large range extension of suweonensis into DPRK, but yes flaviventris is segregated from the southern edge of suweonensis range.
Amael,
Apparently both kml files uploaded to the same range map (suweonensis). Plus the IUCN range map was still there overlayed.
So I deleted those range maps, and I traced the range maps from your publication and created KML files from those (I included the presumed range areas for suweonensis).
I just uploaded those to both taxa (and removed the existing ranges). It should show the correct ranges now.....I hope?
Chris
@loarie - both Amael and I have tried to upload the ranges for the two new taxa and failed. When I did mine I deleted the existing range and uploaded a new KML and nothing has changed. Do the taxa have to be active to have ranges uploaded?
I just tried again, thinking I did something wrong somewhere, so I read the tutorial again and uploaded the files again. I think I did it right, or at least following the guidelines but it doesn't seem to be working now either. I'm happy emailing you the ranges Scott. I've made a kml for each species, integrating extant, extinct, and putative for suweonensis in DPRK.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27884104/
In the paper above, Hyla japonica is more genetically diverse than Hyla immaculata, so I wonder why Hyla immaculata is only divided into three.
Although Hyla japonica's crying, shape, and size vary greatly by region, it is considered as only one. If it is based on this, is it not correct to see Hyla immaculata as one species?
I wonder if we should start with studies that classify Hyla japonica into several species.
@pintail also expressed some concern about splitting H. immaculata
@golden_eagle working on that, you can expect some updates in not too long.
Last time I spoke with Mr Kim Hyuntae he had no opposition to that, and I'm not entirely certain here how people's opinion is relevant against genomic, morphological, call properties and ecological requirements difference, published in a peer reviewed journal (there are additional differences actually, work in progress).
@loarie , what else is needed to activate the species?
@golden_eagle , I didnt get your right, sorry I think you meant calling. Yes I totally agree with you, we know there are at least two species candidates, the problem is tracing back the origin of the holotype. But the museum just sent it to a colleague so i should be solved soon. To treat them as different clades in iNat, the species would have to be officially described I guess (@loarie can confirm) and there won't be "new" species, as several species have already been described, and later on synonymised. We are working on assigning the old names to the right clade.
Also, for the D. immacualtus complex, it's better if your refer to this paper.
I have been confused by this for a month. I was thinking about how to judge what is Species.
I know that Amael has been trying to reveal and tell Hyla immacurata and Hyla suweonensis are different species from a few years ago. I also know that this time there is a group that is as different as the difference between the two, and it was announced as the new Hyla flaviventris.
I'm now using Hyla instead of Dryophtes in inaturalist, so I tried following inaturalist.
I'm just an observer of Korean creatures, and Dryophytes, Hyla and immaculata, suweonensis, and flaviventris are all confusing.
As ASW judges species based on papers, I follow it, but I think ASW seems to be too mechanically reflected.
I believe the doctors of inaturalist will sort out the species.
.........
And, in Korea, fewer than 20 people can distinguish Hyla japonica and Hyla immaculata (Hyla suweonensis) by appearance. Few people can distinguish by breeding call sound.
If Hyla suweonensis and Hyla flaviventris were divided into different species, there would be no one to judge the two as different species except Amael and some. Even me and my friends cannot distinguish them.
I don't understand why trying to divide the two.
The Hyla japonica, on the other hand, differs greatly from the east and west, the islands of the West Sea, and the south. However, it is reported as an individual variation within Species and recorded as one species. In fact, I think it is correct.
I am just an amateur and a nature lover, so I will follow the will of inaturalsit's doctors. As the Genus name of ASW and inaturalsit are different, I believe that you will also make a judgment on this.
If I may, the question of the species status is not a question, it has been officially described. If less than 20 people in Korea can distinguish the species, it means that not enough people are interested, not anything else. I do want to point out though, that 20 people now is 19 people more than 10 years ago, as there would have been only one person able to do so (==> @pintail) and iNat played a strong role in getting people interested.
The question is whether iNat follows the recognized taxonomy (and science in general), and I don't see why not as decisions are so far based on the ASW. Not being able to recognise species based on morphology is pretty common in Hylids, take European or North American species as examples. But get a ruler (and time) and you can ID them based on morphology. Calls between the species are different as well, although we never hear them together as there is no range overlap and indeed remembering what you heard 3 h drive earlier is not easy. Yes they have been isolated for about 1 million years (it's not me saying it, but genomic data).
If genomic data, call properties, morphometrics and ecological requirements published in a peer reviewed journal are not enough to convince iNat staff, then I don't see where is the place of science here. I've been supporting iNat since @carrieseltzer visited Korea for a bioblitz, and doing it proudly, but I don't think the platform has an executive power regarding taxonomy.
Also, I don't see how a comparison with H. japonica applies here, and maybe we can take the discussion to that species page (yes, there are several species, not described yet, but that's work in progress)
Science worldwide seems to be losing in importance at the moment, but I don't think it's the right example to follow. The species has been described and recognised by the authority followed by iNat, and if iNat prefers to make another decision then so be it, but I'd be quite curious to understand the logic. If it is a misunderstanding, then please forgive me, and I'd be happy to help finalising the process (and help with the missing ranges for all amphibians in NEA). @loarie
My personal opinion is that its more elegant to follow ASW than to deviate. The Dryophtes deviation is mainly in place because it will be disruptive to change (it will touch tens of thousands of observations) so we're stalling, but not because it wouldn't be better to be following ASW.
The Hyla immaculata split is much less disruptive. So all other things being equal I'd prefer to follow ASW.
But I think the most important thing is brining the community along - since @pintail is the top observer and @amarzee is the top identifier - its most important to me that you two are in agreement with how to proceed. @pintail would you be ok with this split, even if its not your preference?
Thank you for clarifying this point @loarie !
Regarding Dryophytes/Hyla, I appreciate the opportunity you provide through iNat, it is an amazing platform, and if people can use "Dryophytes" and end up on the "Hyla" page, then I don't think it matters much - and I personally don't mind.
I think @pintail agrees on following your decision: "I am just an amateur and a nature lover, so I will follow the will of inaturalsit's doctors. As the Genus name of ASW and inaturalsit are different, I believe that you will also make a judgment on this".
@loarie @amarzee
First, please understand that Amarzee wrote the above by telling my name. I know that Amarzee has worked with a lot of hard work and I know that he has published it as a thesis.
I have no objection to organizing species according to the ASW list. Even if I think differently, I will follow everyone's promises and rules.
Thanks for telling a lot of good things.
Thank you~ 감사합니다 선생님!
Hi @loarie - as everyone has agreed, could you make the change? Thank you!
great thanks amarzee and pintail. The output taxa still need atlases - also it looks like some of the ranges might not have loaded properly?
Regarding ranges, these are the points we were discussing above with @sandboa . It does not seem to be loading properly.
@loarie Could I ask you to create the species, I would love to have them available for a citizen project next week without having to rely on another app. I'm happy to work on ranges or send you the files by email, but everything I've tried so far failed.
I'm happy to commit this split https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/79912 as soon as the output taxa have atlases. Just click where it says 'Not Atlased' to make them
Scott,
The taxa now have active atlases.
Chris
looks good thanks all - I committed the split
I just saw it, thank you Chris! I'll read up to see what atlasing is.
Thank you Loarie!
@loarie and I can provide everything needed to update the profiles once it's agreed :-)