Flag for Taxon: Hierodula tenuidentata
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| tmvdh | Hierodula tenuidentata |
Hierodula transcaucasica and Hierodula tenuidentata have never been formally synonymized - see van der Heyden & Schwarz (2021): https://www.biodiversidadvirtual.org/taxofoto/sites/default/files/new_data_on_the_presence_of_hierodula_transcaucasica_brunner_ |
Aug. 17, 2021 13:27:16 +0000 | loarie |
committed |
Comments
Here the correct link to van der Heyden & Schwarz (2021):
https://www.biodiversidadvirtual.org/taxofoto/sites/default/files/new_data_on_the_presence_of_hierodula_transcaucasica_brunner_von_wattenwyl_1878_on_crete_greece.pdf
Thanks for catching this. it looks like our taxonomic reference, Mantid Species FIles, also treats these as separate
Hierodula tenuidentata http://mantodea.speciesfile.org/Common/basic/Taxa.aspx?TaxonNameID=1183932
Hierodula transcaucasica http://mantodea.speciesfile.org/Common/basic/Taxa.aspx?TaxonNameID=1199197
We had previously swapped Hierodula transcaucasica into Hierodula tenuidentata here
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_swaps/61280
I've reactivated Hierodula transcaucasica (https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/633860-Hierodula-transcaucasica)
@tmvdh do alot of existing obs/IDs of Hierodula tenuidentata refer to Hierodula transcaucasica? Can these species be separated by range? If so it may make sense to split Hierodula tenuidentata
@loarie Well, the obs/IDs from the Mediterranean Region/the Balkans and the Black Sea refer to Hierodula transcaucasica...
@loarie Is it possible to change (again) all mentioned obs/IDs "automatically" to Hierodula transcaucasica?
OK then we should probably split Hierodula tenuidentata which will review existing IDs and either leave them alone, replace them with IDs or Hierodula transcaucasica or replace them with IDs of the common ancestor based on range.
Does the drawing below reflect the relative ranges for the purposes of reviewing existing obs? If not can you provide an alternate drawing or description?
@loarie Yes, in my opinion the drawing reflects the relative ranges...
@loarie "Western circle": H. transcaucasica, "Eastern circle": H. tenuidentata
ok I'll set up a split, FYI @mazzeip, @borisb, @mantodea, @matthew_connors
Looks good to me but I can't say I know a huge deal about palearctic mantises. @chenhanlin @manassas @william91803 may have something to add though
I'd say for anything to be done, there has to be evidence, either genetalia or genetic. I'd like to hear reasoning for splitting or synonymising these species, with solid evidence rather than "what someone said".
https://www.gbif.org/species/1405923/treatments on Hierodula tenuidentata. Type from southern India - problem again not touched, but range specified as the eastern one of the two circles above.
I may add that there are no minimum requirements for a synonymy, other than for a species proposal, in ICZN.
"sp. A = sp. B", "sp. A (sp. B)" is "formal" enough to establish a synonymy.
Sorry for inconvenience - I will be more prudent in future.
. . . Battiston, Leandri, di Pietro & Andria, 2018, p. 402
[source presented with swap request, http://www.biodiversityjournal.com/pdf/9(4)_399-404.pdf]
"For these reasons, we decide to support the synonymy and consider H. tenuidentata a single species distributed from India to Europe."
Conclusio, and argumentation which led to it DO establish a synonymy, even if no Indian material is studied. One is free not to follow, but a disagreement should also present solid evidence, by my opinion.
Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1878 not available - I suspect that H. tenuidentata was not compared originally, but transcaucasica established just because of then assumed isolation of ranges [both presently listed for Afghanistan].
@borisb Sorry to disagree - but I have to repeat that the species have never been FORMALLY synonymized! Up to now there is no SCIENTIFIC evidence for the synonymy...
(It may be helpful to read the paper by van der Heyden & Schwarz - part "Nomenclatural notes"...)
PS: As H. transcaucasica and H. tenuidentata are (still) two valid species, there is no (additional) evidence needed to proof it - but to proof the synonymy.
@tmvdh :
The quote above from Battiston, Leandri, di Pietro & Andria, 2018 is as formal an outspoken synonymy you could wish. Demonstration, that the single assumed diagnostic difference between the taxa is intergrading within a single population I would call evidence. No study of types, or extended material is required even in delimitation of new taxa - sorry, but true.
For publication of new taxa, ICZN does require minimum standards, raised a bit in the last 20 years, but still no "evidence" is needed beyond the type specimen(s) available to study. When published, a "new species" is valid even if the neglect to test for possible identity with taxa described earlier is evident.
Example for that I have turned up: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/12292101
I have seen several synonymies, which have been established just by subsuming one name under the other, with no word of explanation. Bad practice, I agree!, but valid, insofar published, and be it in a mere listing of names, e.g. faunal list, or catalogue.
. . . not to be understood as disagreement with the iNaturalist split by my side. Please tell if help is needed in restoring H. transcaucasica identifications within our network :-)
Of course, would have to work into the differences vs. similar spp. (Hierodula patellifera, Sphodromantis viridis) to do it properly: http://www.biodiversityjournal.com/pdf/11(3)_799-802.pdf
@loarie Well, it seems the split can be set up...
PS: It is correct, that H. patellifera and S. viridis are similar species, but many/most of the obs of H. transcaucasica in the region of the "Western circle" were identified by specialists. Thus, I guess it won't be necessary to check (again) every single observation in this region. (It seems to be much easier and less work to set up the split as offered by @loarie. Single IDs which might be incorrect could be changed later.)
@borisb BTW: Talking about "formal" and "informal" synonymies:
Quote from the recent paper by van der Heyden & Schwarz (2021):
"However, the two species have never been formally synonymized. Nevertheless, several authors prematurely accepted the synonymy (BATTISTON et al., 2018, 2019, 2020b; MOULIN, 2020; PINTILIOAIE et al., 2021; VUJIĆ et al., 2021), while others continued to use H. transcaucasica (CIANFERONI et al., 2018; VAN DER HEYDEN, 2018c; ROMANOWSKI et al., 2019; SCHWARZ & EHRMANN, 2019; ZLATKOV et al., 2020). This unfortunate development may lead to the false assumption that we are dealing with two different species in Europe instead of one. This is all the more worrying since the very similar Hierodula patellifera (Audinet-Serville, 1838) has also become established in Europe (BATTISTON et al., 2020a; MOULIN, 2020) and might lead to further confusion. All three taxa belong to a subset of Hierodula species exhibiting rather uniform genital morphology, while external morphology is characterized by relatively similar habitus but high intraspecific variability. For this reason, SCHWARZ et al. (2018) pointed out that the investigation of a considerable number of specimens from across the whole range of H. tenuidentata and H. transcaucasica is necessary to validate or refute the synonymy. Until the two species receive a proper taxonomic treatment, we suggest to only use H. transcaucasica for the European populations."
Following your argumentation (see above) one could say:
Conclusio, and argumentation which led to it DO disband/refute the synonymy established before by Battiston et al. (2018)...
@tmvdh : You are right. There are the same "no minimum requirements" for not to adopt a synonymy. Same is for new combinations, changes in rank, etc.
We are speaking of two different "rules":
A) the rules of good taxonomical practice, in which such steps should be formally undertaken, indicated in the abstract with the words "new synonymy" and "new combination", and explained, based on evidence, in the publication;
B) the rules as codified in the ICZN, which do not require this, but on the other hand, guarantee for eternal potential validity of any taxonomic step. All synonyms remain available combinations, and are not "invalid", just out of usage.
thanks for discussing this folks. Another consideration is that iNat is supposed to be following Mantid Species Files for mantid taxonomy (see discussion around that decision here https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/488850)
Looks like MSF is treating Hierodula transcaucasica and Hierodula tenuidentata as separate so my inclination would be to follow MSF unless there's consensus to deviate.
http://mantodea.speciesfile.org/Common/basic/Taxa.aspx?TaxonNameID=1183932
http://mantodea.speciesfile.org/Common/basic/Taxa.aspx?TaxonNameID=1199197
But sounds like there's consensus here to follow MSF and separate these taxa? If so I'll set up the split
O.K. by me, sure!
OK with me - without any doubt!
Yes I think stay with MSF unless there is a clear reason not to
OK this is ready to commit - https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/97418 I'll do so at off hours (late night North America time) to minimize site load impacts
@loarie Many thanks!
Here we are again on this spiny species! I have to disagree with this geographical split. As previously discussed, the taxonomy of these populations is problematic and it is not useful to perpetrate further confusion by keeping two species nobody is able to separate. All the specimens found, from India to Italy have all the characters of both species as described in historical literature. If a formal synonymy would not be here accepted, util further and wider researches, that’s fine, but here in iNat we must give to the observers practical indications for identifications. On which observable characters this geographical split has been made? If you can give any good characters to identify western individuals as H. transcaucasica and eastern ones as H. tenuidentata, this is fine, otherwise it is just a personal opinion.
If the taxonomical synonymy would not here accepted (even if there are A LOT of scientific evidences on it), since H. tenuidentata is the oldest one described, priority on identifications should be given to this one, and H. transcaucasica may be maintained, until further researches, only for Caucasian – near Astrabad (Type locality) records, according its original description.
All further splits should be supported by splitting characters or are just personal opinions.
@shiderob mostly it is that iNat follows Mantodea Species File, and they currently do not recognise the synonymy. MSF is not always up to date though and iNat is more than happy to deviate from them if there is consensus that they are wrong (as we have done several times now). However, looking at the discussion here it seems as though there is not really a consensus among the interested parties here, so unless you can convince them I think we should stick to MSF for now. Even if you are right, it's better for us to follow an external database because it gives iNat some stability, and ensures that any changes are at least documented. iNat isn't really a great place to debate taxonomic questions; it's better for us to leave it to external authorities (unless there is consensus that they're obviously wrong). The other option of course is that you can email MSF and get them to change. They usually welcome community input and corrections (and they're well aware that it's difficult to keep up with every single change and thus that they are likely to miss something), and if you get them to synonymise the names then iNat will follow suit!
@matthew_connors I perfectly understand that this is not the place to make new taxonomy, for this reason I specified that leaving the two species as valid here can be an option. My concerns are on the geographical split made on opinions and not on scientific data. If you keep H. transcaucasica as valid, the type locality (eventually including the locality of the allotype I described in 2008: https://media.agiati.org/page/attachments/atti-b-2008-battiston-massa-p.5.pdf) is the only place where it can be maintained. If you set up other localities you must give the users of iNat some discriminative characters they can use to verify the identifications of you will create just confusion.
Remember also that there are other external databases with distribution maps: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/118892125/118892175
That's all well and good @shiderob, but as I said iNat follows the MSF. It's not me you have to convince - I really don't know enough about the situation and there isn't really anything I can do about it. If you can get everyone here to agree with you then we can make a deviation from MSF, or alternatively if you get the MSF to accept the synonymy then iNat will follow that. There are plenty of confusing taxonomic situations that iNat has not attempted to resolve and this situation is no different (one relevant one that comes to mind is the treatment of Orthodera gunnii and O. marginata)
@matthew_connors I completely agree with you. To me it seems that there IS a consensus among nearly all participants in the discussion here. The only one who clearly disagrees is Roberto Battiston (@shiderob) which is somehow understandable - as he is trying to defend the synonymy supported by him (and colleagues) in 2018.
MY consensus is limited to the question whether Mantodea Species File should be followed in principle.
Anyone who is interested to look at our data may easily combine both ranges into one, if he/she is as convinced as iucnredlist.org seems to be, showing range of "tenuidentata" all the way down to Sumatra.
The synonymy, as presented by @shiderob appears plausible to me (a coleopterologist), and I would think as him that unless it can't be told which of the two taxa the population studied in detail belongs to, it is just "I want it like that!" to keep them apart.
In fact we don't know from where the European populations originated - it may be from the "transcaucasica" range by natural expansion, or via import from who-knows-where. Mantid oothecae are quite liable to be glued onto export goods, or transportation equipment.
Just stating a fact, even if there appears to be a geographical divide between the species as show in the map above, according to records on iNat or anywhere else, there may not actually be a zone where neither species are found, but rather it's due to the area being poorly recorded because of a variety of reasons (war, poverty, internet connection etc.). For example, western China is also rich in Mantodea, but there are only very few records because the area is poorly populated, and with very few people there we get very few records. Same with central Australia. Drawing circles is not the way to solve the problem, we do need to find other ways to differentiate the two species, even if genetalia is required, therefore more studies needs to be done to properly survey the entire distribution of the two species.
@borisb Nobody said or wrote "I want it like that!"
BTW: Even Roberto Battiston (and colleagues) reported specimens from the "Western circle" as H. transcaucasica - before/more or less at the same time he started to prefer the possible synonymy....
I don't know if iucnredlist.org "is convinced" - or if they are using the map as it is just because it is "based on":
R. Battiston 2020. Hierodula tenuidentata. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2021-1
No wonder that @shiderob mentioned it.
@tmvdh :
1) Ah - IUCN = kind of circular conclusion. A bit I suspected that.
2) You still believe in two seperate species - may I ask why?
Is it because of the disjunction of ranges?
That is rather narrow, and perhaps an artefact, as @chenhanlin already told. Even if it is real - compare recent areal of the lion: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%B6we#/media/Datei:Lion_distribution.png
If this species would be an insect, or even medium-sized mammal, we probably won't have historical data for reconstruction - but would we insist on keeping populations apart taxonomically, if there are no arguments other than the gap(s)?
Is it because there are morphological / ecological pointers suggesting this?
Or is it rather "question du gout", not to dump a taxon unless synonymy is proven by really thorough studies?
The latter would be what I called "I want it like that" - cases like the present one, or different opinions on rank of a taxon are a lot . . .
Keep in mind, that according to ICZN, any species-group name (subspecies included) remains available in eternity, insofar it hasn't been called a "variety" from the beginning, and 19th century taxa, even then are protected.
A taxon definition is never really lost, nor does it loose importance when backgraded to infraspecific rank.
@borisb You shouldn't try to read my mind.
I don't think that it is worth to discuss this matter here any longer...
To summarize:
-Battiston et al. 2018 made an argument for synonymy by challenging the only known characters that have been historically used to separate the two species in question. (This is a formal synonymy and it stands until a counter argument can be waged against it.)
-Some subsequent authors accepted this synonymy but others evidently ignored this synonymy (But no formal rebuttal has been made against it and ignoring a synonymy put forth by an author does not invalidate it. If there is disagreement with Battiston's findings then there needs to be a counter argument. Instilling doubt by suggesting that more studies are needed is not an argument... it's a suggestion.)
-Schwarz and van der Heyden 2021 suggested a deeper taxonomic treatment to further resolve the perceived problem (This is wise and should be followed, but suggesting additional studies does not in itself invalidate a synonymy. Thus, until said studies can be conducted and are conclusive, Battiston et al's synonymy stands. It has not been formally refuted-- just doubted.)
Conclusion:
-Maintain the split of the two species until a taxonomic argument can be put forth proving otherwise.
Commentary:
-MSF is badly outdated. Using MSF as the criteria for all decisions is not good practice. They should be a suggestive guide and nothing more. MSF is not the arbiter of taxonomy but merely an aggregation site.... and when their aggregation is backlogged, or selectively edited, or neglected, we have a problem. There needs to be an influx of support into that website to make it worthwhile and modern. They need to keep up with the work load or step aside. Until then, this is the place to discuss taxonomy outside of published reviews and revisions.
Sorry, but until I see an explanation of the practical differences between these two species, or a link to the Keys with which I can distinguish between these two species, my page will be free of the Hierodula Transcaucasica taxon.
I arrive late and find myself in the situation of having little to add. So I can only reiterate that this work has led to a synonymy, formal, after the analysis of the scientific evidences collected, and it is quite ironic that the existence of these evidences is questioned when, on the other hand, there are no concrete proofs to justify this disagreement. The synonymy is valid and will remain so until there are evidences to refute it, however it remains an option to keep both species for those who disagree. I do not dwell on the question of the distribution range because it has been debated sufficiently, as rightly said the hypothetical separation of the observations can have different reasons and does not imply the presence of two different species. Using MSF as a taxonomic reference, not being constantly updated, leads to run into problems of various kinds quite easily, it would be desirable to find an alternative in order to give the task to other more reliable solutions.
PS: In my opinion, the taxonomic swap should not have been done:
Schwarz et al. (2018) - referring to a possible synonymy of H. transcaucasica and H. tenuidentata - clearly stated: "To test this hypothesis, future studies will need to compare many more specimens across the distributional ranges of both species."
Pushkar (2016) and Schwarz & Ehrmann in "Invasive Mantodea species in Europe" (2018) treated H. transcaucasica as a valid species - without even mentioning H. tenuidentata or a possible synonymy... Thus, even Ehrmann did not repeat this possibility (mentioned by him in 2011).