Flag for Taxon: Genus Nerita
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| thomaseverest | Genus Nerita |
Add all subgenera? |
Feb. 14, 2022 18:39:50 +0000 | thomaseverest |
Swap done |
Comments
I don't think it's necessary. It will make things more complicated and we won't really use subgenera to ID any Neritid.
I agree with glycymeris.
Subgenus level helps for Australian IDs since we have two species – N. (L.) atramentosa and N. (L.) melanotragus. However, given that this would also require adding the other subgenera, I'm unsure whether to keep it. Will see others' thoughts.
I think that using subgenera make things unnecessarily complicated, so I wont use them, but I do not have issues with other people using them.
as Ben said, Lisanerita is useful for the overlap zone between those two species, especially given empty shells can't really be ID'ed to species. But not a catastrophe if it's removed
That is true, atramentosa and melanotragus can be IDed as the subgenera. But at the same time, it would be confusing for people who don't know taxonomy well, especially because Inat does not include subgenera in scientific name.
Looping in this duplicate flag https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/571339 any resoultion here? Deaviate and keep Subgenus Lisanerita or go with WoRMs. My vote is go with WoRMs
I'm happy to go with WoRMS. The only real use for this subgenus is at the overlap zone between atramentosa and melanotragus in Victoria/Tasmania, and other Nerita species aren't even found there anyway
I don't think it's too big a deal to go with WoRMS' taxonomy here, for the same reasons Thomas listed.
I agree.
Looks like Lisanerita is used for NZ observations. Should we keep it that way and add a deviation? We should add the other subgenera if so.
@ben_travaglini @thebeachcomber @predomalpha
@extraneus @susanhewitt @glycymeris