Flag for Taxon: Translation missing: all_taxa.bavia_kairali (Bavia kairali)
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| lera | Bavia kairali |
seems to need grafting to a curated taxon |
Aug. 2, 2020 15:08:20 +0000 | lera |
See discussion; now inactive |
Comments
Apparently described here (I can't find an electronic copy):
Samson, D and PA Sebastian. (2002). Bavia kairali, a new salticid spider from India. 20th European Colloquium of Arachnology, Szombathely. Hungary (Abstracts). pp 79.
I'm assuming later authors either didn't know of this work, as seems to be the case here: Malamel, J. J., Sankaran, P. M., & Sebastian, P. A. (2015). First record of the jumping spider genus Bavia Simon, 1877 from India, with the description of a new species. Zootaxa, 4007(4), 596-599.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Pradeep_Sankaran/publication/282465476_First_record_of_the_jumping_spider_genus_Bavia_Simon_1877_from_India_with_the_description_of_a_new_species/links/563ce7a108ae34e98c4acb25/First-record-of-the-jumping-spider-genus-Bavia-Simon-1877-from-India-with-the-description-of-a-new-species.pdf
Or that they don't recognize the original work as published, since the ICZN says:
"Article 9. What does not constitute published work
Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 8, none of the following constitutes published work within the meaning of the Code:
9.10. materials issued primarily to participants at meetings (e.g. symposia, colloquia, congresses, or workshops), including abstracts and texts of presentations or posters;"
If the name has never technically been published, it shouldn't be used, not even as a synonym.
Also see the forum discussion: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/ungrafted-spider-bavia-kairali/17961
I think it's unlikely the authors of the 2015 article were unaware of the 2002 conference paper, since PA Sebastian is an author on both!
So looks possible that Bavia insularis is the name finally proposed for this species. But would need to check in with the authors to be sure, I'll reach out via ResearchGate. Meanwhile on iNaturalist, B. insularis is a synonym for https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/985830-Indopadilla-insularis , following WSC (https://wsc.nmbe.ch/species/54395/Indopadilla_insularis). If they are indeed the same Bavia species, I suggest we can map this one onto that.
Thank you everyone for pitching in on this puzzle.
It looks like @cmcheatle as taxon curator could do a swap to assign this as an alternative name for I. insularis. Even if its not formally a synonym, it looks like its functionally a synonym given that its in use somewhat.
From a ResearchGate message with PN Sankaran, of the 2015 article listed above - " Thank you very much for your mail. In fact the name B. kairali was not yet published in any scientific journal and was not listed in the World Spider Catalog. We described this specimen as B. insularis and later we transferred it into the newly erected genus Indopadilla. So the available valid name is Indopadilla insularis."
If indeed it is unpublished, then a swap is technically not appopriate as the name should not be used. What should be done is any observations manually changed and then the taxon set inactive.
Unfortunately, if you search the web for Bavia kairali, a number of articles and sources refer to this spider by that name, possibly because of the long delay between the species' original "naming" in 2002 and the valid description in 2015. If people are likely to try to enter that name, iNat should ideally direct them to the proper one. Maybe "Bavia kairali" could be set as an invalid common name under Indopadilla insularis?
Sounds like a good solution - it effectively is a common name
No observations remain in this taxon. Can somebody inactivate it?
A note for anyone else looking. Not listed in Bavia on World Spider Catalog https://wsc.nmbe.ch/specieslist/2536