The MONA fascicle 6.2 Callima account says:

"Epicallima Dyar, [1903], U. S. Natl. Mus.
Bull., 52: 525.

Type-species: Callima argenticinctella Clemens,

Type-species of Callima.
NOTE-Epicallima Dyar is an invalid replacement
for Callima Clemens, 1860, which was
thought to be a homonym of Kallima Westwood,
I 849, in the Insecta."

I drafted a taxon change at https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/92563 but am still checking that every Epicallima species should undergo this change.

@treichard - It's Dafa formosella following Hodges 1974 which we believe to be the most recent formal interpretation.

"In retaining Dafa formosella as valid we are simply following Hodges 1974." - J-F Landry (pers. comm. 4/6/2021)

The situation is complicated but I can assure you that Pohl and others will be following Hodges 1974 with respect to formosella.

@kharkovbut - It would appear that Hodges (1974) is the most recent published work formally addressing the Dafa and Epicallima issues. There are checklists, etc., i.e. Lvovsky et al. (2020), which do not follow Hodges (1974) but none seem to properly make a taxonomic change overruling it. Lvovsky et al. (2020) address Hodges (1974) but does so inconsistently and without proper explanation.

As mentioned above, Epicallima Dyar, [1903] is an unnecessary replacement of Callima Clemens, 1860 thought to be a homonym of Callima Herrich-Schäffer, 1858, a misspelling of the name Kallima Westwood, 1849. The correction was made in Hodges (1974) per ICZN Article 33. Epicallima must be treated as invalid even if a later author perpetuates Dyar's error. I miswrote a portion of my original entry and have since edited it.

Dafa Hodges (1974) was created with formosella as the type. While some authors may have failed to follow that treatment, we found none that have formally overturned it directly or intentionally overturned it by inference. Listing with the wrong genus should not by itself constitute a taxonomic change.

So following Hodges (1974) does appear to be the most appropriate action. Waiting for publications to correct errors which do not establish taxonomic changes is unnecessary. I may be wrong and welcome corrections.

Formosella is the only species in the genus Dafa which appears to have been erected using sound reasoning. I am not aware of any published refutation and this should have no affect on any other species for now. The name Epicallima is incorrect as pointed out by Hodges per Code. Likewise, I am not aware of any published refutation of that finding.

As I infer at MPG, "formosella" is likely species complex. The Nearctic population likely represents a cryptic species. With one exception DNA barcode does in fact separate the "formosella complex" from the rest of Epicallima (=Callima) which lends support for Dafa as a good genus. (The one exception is the species "Epicallima mikkolai" which barcode places within in the "formosella complex" so that warrants further investigation. But I don't think speculation on the possible misplacement of mikkolai or any other species should be relevant to the validity of Dafa.) DNA barcodes for members of the "formosella complex" are more similar to several other genera than to other specimens in "Epicallima".

I'm fine with whatever iNaturalist does provided notes are included. I'm just trying to inform and I appreciate your perspective on this. It's good to see that my recommendations are not blindly followed.

No, but it is easily reproducible. The specimen in the "formosella complex" (I use quotes because this is not a published term), which is closest to others in (Epi)callima, is BOLD Sample CNCLEP00005859. If you copy the COI sequence to the search field under Identification, you can generate a list with distances of nearest neighbors by barcode. A tree can also be generated. You can also do a search under Workbench for "Epicallima" to generate a list of all public specimens identified as "Epicallima". Once generated, you can make a tree and generate a distance summary. Together, the results of these two processes demonstrate the my point. Please email me if you need assistance.

There are a lot of (Epi)callima species for which there are no barcodes so it is possible that some will eventually bridge the gap. But I don't think that should matter for the purposes of this discussion. And to be clear, I'm not saying Hodges must be right. I'm only saying that I am not aware of any published refutation and the evidence I've been able to dig up seems to support his findings.

So what to do for iNat's taxonomy, based on the mismatched taxonomy of the regional literatures.

I think that (1) iNaturalist should reflect the mismatched taxonomy in the literature. Correcting it isn't iNat's duty or role. (2) iNat should avoid creating new binomial combinations not found in the literature or taxonomic authorities. Those works should catch up with the names first.

My drafted taxon change that fully synonymizes Epicallima with Callima is not the answer. It would create new combinations. I have deleted that proposed change.

My inclination is to move 2 N. Am. species (argenticinctella and nathrax) from Epicallima to Callima to match the N. Am. literature and Moth Photographers Group/BugGuide, the latter being an official taxonomic authority to follow until the new peer-reviewed checklist of N. Am. fauna is published. I am also inclined to leave the other Epicallima species (formosella aside) in Epicallima to avoid making new combinations and to keep those in sync with regional literature.

However I'm rather torn on whether iNat's formosella should remain in Epicallima (matches more recent and regional literature where the moth is most widespread) or moved back to Dafa (apparently more correct). Whether I synonymize the currently empty genus Dafa into Epicallima to keep formosella in Epicallima, or move formosella to Dafa, one taxon change must be made. So there is no "do nothing" option.

What I propose is that for now, to make the change that causes the least disruption to users' records: I would synonymize Dafa into Epicallima and leave formosella in Epicallima. Then at a later time, if new peer-reviewed literature argues for formosella to still belong in Dafa and/or the non-N. Am. Epicallima species be moved to Callima, iNat should mimic those changes after they are published.

In iNat taxonomy, this would leave formosella in the technically wrong genus, and congeneric Callima/Epicallima species in different genera. But these imperfections in iNat taxonomy would be mimicking the imperfections taxonomy in the literature.

Thoughts on this proposal?

@ treichard - That's fine. You explained your reasoning in the changes and that's what's important. Thanks to you and @kharkovbut for your attention to this matter!

For me, the @treichard proposals are fine, at least as a temporary solution.

The new North American (north of Mexico) Lepidoptera checklist has been published. This is the one mentioned in my preceding post.

I have updated the names of the 3 N. Am. species to place them in Callima and Dafa. All other Epicallima species remain in Epicallima for now.