Flag for Taxon: Genus Eriophora
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| dustaway | Genus Eriophora |
redescriptions of Australasian Eriophora>now Hortophora, Framenau et al 2021 |
Nov. 11, 2021 14:13:48 +0000 | matthew_connors |
All moved and other things fixed up |
Comments
presumably this will be a somewhat tricky change, because although most Eriophora have moved to Hortophora, not all have, eg Eriophora pustulosa has stayed for now (and will actually move to a different genus)
I think best thing to do here is to swap all species-level IDs into their correct place (keeping E. pustulosa though), and then move all genus-level IDs withing Australia to Hortophora, if that's possible.
As an aside, what do you think of making a species complex taxon for H. biapicata and H. transmarina? They're the two most common species, they're difficult to tell apart, and going by current knowledge they're very likely sister species.
@zdanko @cmcheatle bumping
@thebeachcomber do you think it's a good idea to make a complex for H. biapicata/H. transmarina?
personally I would be fine with it, but one of the requirements is meant to be that it's a complex recognised in the literature (see https://www.inaturalist.org/pages/curator+guide#complexes); did they mention them as a complex in the paper?
Hi, I've done some of the work, but there's a lot to do, and I just don't really have much time/patience right now. I'm checking with Tony to see if he can substitute a taxon curator or two for me, especially seeing as Chris hasn't been quite active lately.
Hmmmmmmm I wasn't aware of that requirement. They don't refer to them as a complex but they do state that they are most similar to each other. It also doesn't seem like that requirement is being enforced very strictly though. Most of the complexes with high numbers of observations or that are covered by frameworks are recognised in the literature, but outside of that there seem to be many that are not recognised as complexes by literature. E.g. these four:
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/1030028-Cinctus
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/983466-Ophion-pteridis-group
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/1122999-Rutilia-sabrata
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/1266318-Melanoplus-aridus
So what to do in these situations then? We should be consistent, and personally I'm in favour of a more lenient category simply because it is more useful that way, rather than going through and removing all of these unsupported ones.
@matthew_connors I say go for it
@zdanko cheers :)
Thanks for that @zdanko
@thebeachcomber we'll still need one of the curators to put it in unfortunately
Another thing that needs to be done is to move Hortophora to Araneinae
I've just done that. The only stuff that takes a lot of time is adding the new combinations, swapping the old combinations into the new ones, and adding taxon framework relationships.
Thanks @zdanko, there's no rush for any of this so take your time
@matthew_connors @thebeachcomber Araneae is now an open taxon, so any curator can edit the children. Please try to add TFRs for any new taxa created.
great, thanks for that
Perfect, thanks. I've never made a TFR before but I'll give it a go
You just need to enter the taxon name for the taxa in iNat, the taxon name for what the taxon is called in the WSC (should always be the same as the internal taxon unless you're doing a deviation), and then link to the WSC page. Notes are for certain cases such as rankings that aren't included in the WSC (subfamilies, nominate subspecies, etc) or any other deviation or necessary fact.
Thanks, that doesn't sound too hard
Okay I have worked out how to add a TFR, and everything should be resolved now so I'll close the flag
paper at https://evolsyst.pensoft.net/articles.php?id=72474&journal_name=evolsyst&fbclid=IwAR0OXBBJ4su761JjSJsIVyUm7Wb9w4-OxRERSO4qcs9kVFuGRDZ3DAAlNLM
names now accepted by WSC: https://wsc.nmbe.ch/search?sFamily=&fMt=begin&sGenus=hortophora&gMt=begin&sSpecies=&sMt=begin&multiPurpose=slsid&sMulti=&mMt=contain&searchSpec=s
@cmcheatle
fyi @matthew_connors