Flag for Taxon: Shining Scoparia (Eudonia diphtheralis)
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| stephen_thorpe | Shining Scoparia (Eudonia diphtheralis) |
Unaccepted combination for Scoparia diphtheralis |
Mar. 27, 2022 01:53:13 +0000 | bdagley |
additional sources were given, this taxon will be kept vs. the other one |
Comments
Further clarification of what this request is suggesting is needed. I would start out by clarifying whether the species name is valid or needs to be split into multiple taxa.
It has nothing to do with splitting. It is a question of generic placement. The combination Eudonia diphtheralis seems to be based on an obscure non-English language publication and it hasn't been accepted here in N.Z., where the species is endemic. Hence, all we need is a merge back to Scoparia diphtheralis.
It's still somewhat unclear how you phrased the request. I looked in taxon history but this species was added in the past so the user who created it isn't listed.
This seems to be the source saying E. diphtheralis is accepted and endemic to NZ: https://plant-synz.landcareresearch.co.nz/ReportForm.aspx?RecordId=1516&Type=H&ReportType=Adv&SortBy=Alpha&Biostatus=a,c,e,n.
Could there have been a taxonomic revision in literature, or what explains this? I could possibly make a taxon change but would need to confirm that the species you're saying is the valid one is valid and that the source above isn't correct.
There are conflicting sources on the preferred name. The following source is more reliable than Plant-SyNZ: https://www.nzor.org.nz/names/0207dfd6-f63b-4174-b1ae-ffa4b3b555ad
I suspect that it will end up in Eudonia, but, for now, here on iNat, we have two unconnected names for the very same species, one with over 400 obs and the other with 9 obs. It is not up to us to decide which one is "correct", particularly since generic placements are subjective and often disputed among taxonomists.
We need to merge the two names for the same species, so that we don't have two unconnected names for the same species. It makes most sense to use the name that has the most observations. If, in future, it becomes clear that the other name has become accepted, then it will be easy enough to change it then. For now, we just want 1 active name per species, so that all obs of this species are classified under the same name.
I'm not trying to decide which one is right, but it often is useful to determine which names are accepted and by what sources and which names are invalid, although there isn't always consensus. What I'm still waiting to learn is where this other name originated from, was it from a revision? Also, are the names considered synonyms or not? I'd like to read the revision if there was one, because in some cases it may make sense to use the new name, if it's a prevailing view for example. Although, I haven't looked into this issue or made a conclusion on it yet.
The answers to your question are entirely unclear at this point in time. What is clear is that there is no English language revision. What is even clearer is that we don't want two names on iNat for the same species. We need to merge them. It makes sense to merge them to the name with the most observations. If, in future, it becomes clear that the other name is to be preferred, then we can change it accordingly then. After all I have already explained, your question makes no sense: "Also, are the names considered synonyms or not?"
They are two different combinations for the same species. The only difference is whether you place the species in genus Eudonia or genus Scoparia. At the moment, we have it placed on the iNat database in both genera, making it look like two species, when in fact it is the same species.
It really is a no-brainer curatorial task just to merge the names.
Well, I said I'm unfamiliar with the matter so it's not a no-brainer, but I want to lastly ask if this taxon change is expected to be agreed on by most iNat users experienced with this matter. We still have to indicate whether a change is contested or uncontested on iNat even if it's not in literature. Or more simply, are there any particular users who added or used the other species name who could comment or agree?
@dr_robert Can you please advise on the best way to merge these two names? The best way that reflects the status quo, rather than possible future changes. Future changes can be dealt with if and when they arise. We currently have Scoparia diphtheralis (411 obs) and Eudonia diphtheralis (9 obs) on the iNat database as if they were two different species. I'm trying to get a curator to merge them, but it is proving unnecessarily difficult to do so!
@bdagley You are being unnecessarily difficult about this simple matter. Even if there were users who preferred Eudonia diphtheralis, the one thing that everyone surely agrees with is that we certainly shouldn't have two different names for the same species. That is a big no-no.
You misunderstand, because I was actually considering implementing your suggested change. I just wanted to check that the sources are valid or agreed upon, which is the obligation of the person making the request to provide the necessary information to implement it. Anyway, I'm still potentially open to making the change, but just wanted to verify it. Some requests by users are errors, so I have to assess them in this way.
The problem is that Plant-SyNZ is the only source that uses the combination Eudonia diphtheralis, but it is just an online database of plant associations, not a taxonomic authority. It is unclear why it uses that combination, but it doesn't specify why, so is probably just an error and has been ignored by all other credible sources. The true generic placement of the species is actually the subject of ongoing research, but it makes most sense to retain it in the original Scoparia for the time being. At any rate, the main problem here, as I keep having to repeat, is that the iNat database has two names for the same species, making it look like they are two different species, when this is not the case. That is the major problem which needs solving with a merge. As to which way the merge should go, that is a secondary problem. The fact that the overwhelming majority of observations are under Scoparia diphtheralis provides a good reason for retaining that name, as does the fact that the combination Eudonia diphtheralis is nowhere justified in the taxonomic literature. I can't prove that, because how can you prove the negative? You will just have to trust me. Otherwise, we retain two different names for the same species and observations can be identified as one or the other without any reason! Just fix it!
The merging of the two names will certainly not be contested, and really must be done one way or the other. It is well known that Scoparia has been used as the genus for most Scopariinae where the male genitalia have not been examined (it used to include all species now recognised as Eudonia as well as Scoparia).
I would have suggested continuing with Scoparia, but a very reliable online source (the Globiz Pyraloidea website) lists the species in Eudonia. http://www.pyraloidea.org/index.php?id=10 . I generally follow this site, which is run by world experts. The change possibly derives from this paper https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.8.e58841 where diphtheralis was recovered close to Eudonia submarginalis based on barcodes, and the combination E. diphtheralis was used (though misspelt as diphteralis). The new combination was not flagged or discussed as such in that publication, which is unfortunate.
So probably there is sufficient evidence for using Eudonia diphtheralis. I don’t mind one way or another myself, but the merge should be done and I am sure no-one will object to either combination; very few people are heavily invested in the nomenclature of NZ microlepidoptera…!
Cheers,
Dr Robert.
Thanks @dr_robert
I also don't really mind which way around the merge is done. I was just hoping to get someone to do the merge, without getting bogged down in too much unnecessary detail.
So, @bdagley Robert (who is N.Z.'s only full-time moth scientist) agrees with me that the merge needs to be done. There isn't however certainty which way around the merge should be done, but that is a secondary problem. Robert has argued more for Eudonia diphtheralis. I don't care either way. I just want the merge to be done, so we don't have two names for the same species!
I just read through all the comments now. @stephen_thorpe There was good reason why I asked for more information as we now can see, it wasn't unnecessary in this case. It does matter (and is often contested) when deciding between using one species vs another. I also understand you'd also be okay with keeping the other species suggested by @dr_robert, which I will follow, although which wasn't the original recommendation.
@bdagley Thanks for doing the merge. That was the main issue.
Most iNat obs of this species (411) are IDed as Scoparia diphtheralis. Only 9 obs are IDed as Eudonia diphtheralis.