| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| willc-t | billreynolds | Atlantic Saltmarsh Cicada (Subspecies Diceroprocta viridifascia viridifascia) |
Taxon split, see commen |
Jul. 26, 2020 12:20:49 +0000 | bouteloua |
committed taxon changes |
Comments
Technically iNaturalist is meant to reference BugGuide as a taxonomic authority for insects other than the ones listed here: http://inaturalist.org/pages/curator+guide#authorities (e.g. AntWeb for ants)
BugGuide has two pages for the "Gulf Coast cicada":
https://bugguide.net/node/view/596507 as sp.
https://bugguide.net/node/view/687308 as "var." of viridifascia
Are you able to merge those?
BugGuide aside, to make this change on iNaturalist, to make this change involves:
1./ Creating new taxa for D. bequaerti and D. viridifascia sensu stricto
2./ Taxon change 1: D. v. bequaerti ---merge into---> D. bequaerti
3./ Taxon change 2: D. v. viridifascia ---merge into---> D. viridifascia sensu stricto
4./ Taxon change 3: D. viridfascia sensu lato ---split into---> D. viridifascia sensu stricto + D. bequaerti
Ahead of those taxon changes, you'll want to ID as many observations to rank subspecies as possible, so that they get assigned to the correct output taxon rather than potentially being bumped back to genus.
Does that sound right?
@bouteloua I do not know why Bill set up D. v. bequaerti as a page because it hasn't been accurate for over 100 years. There are no observations under either page and (none in iNaturalist) and I can simply delete the page, but I'm reluctant to do so. Those two links are conspecific, just one is the current taxonomy.
If @dan_johnson agrees it's ready, all D. v. viridifascia have been moved up to subspecies I think. @silversea_starsong Would you be able to enact this taxon change? It's complicated and I don't want to mess it up. I can make the page for bequaerti.
@bouteloua I labeled the subspecies in Bugguide as an inactive taxon rather than deleting all the information with a short explanation of the current taxonomy change under the remarks. This is the preserve the information while keeping the taxonomy current. The proposed taxonomy change can be enacted if Dan thinks it's ready.
Looks ready to me.
Looks like it's already been handled. Thanks all!
Current taxonomy as of Sanborn and Heath 2017 treats Diceroprocta viridifascia ssp. viridifascia and D. viridifascia ssp. bequaerti as separate species but they are listed as subspecies of D. viridifascia under iNat taxonomy. They need to be split into separate species but I'm not sure how to do it without messing things up @silversea_starsong
It seems to be a mistake to begin with as D. viridifascia bequaerti was only associated with viridifascia in 1915 when it was described but in 1917 made a subspecies of vitripennis but was elevated by Davis in 1930 to full species and was never associated with viridifascia after its initial description.
@dan_johnson has been fixing the viridifascia ssp. viridfascia ID's but let him weigh in before initiating the taxon split.
I flagged both but I'm not sure if you only need to do it for one of them.