Flag for Taxon: Rotifers (Phylum Rotifera)
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| shanesmicroscope | Rotifers (Phylum Rotifera) |
the current taxonomic authority (WoRMS) is inadequate. |
Jun. 28, 2022 14:56:55 +0000 | tiwane |
Taxon framework changed. |
Comments
Agreed, Shane.
@tiwane Voting for Rotifer World Catalog.
I agree with Shane, in my personal experience, reliance on WORMS has been a hindrance to the state of diatom taxonomy on iNaturalist.
Diatoms.org is a much more thorough and rigorous resource. It is not entirely comprehensive, and a few things are slightly out of date, but it is generally very trustworthy. Diatoms.org is a good start, algaebase is also useful for verifying legitimacy of names but must itself be checked to verify accuracy. Check primary sources as well! No one reference is enough, and WORMS simply isn't appropriate for many freshwater diatoms.
I am no rotifer expert but I am given to understand that the Rotifer of the World Catalog would be a better resource. If it is anything like diatoms, I think the best approach is to use both sources, and we the experts in our respective fields need to be able to discern which sources are the most correct when we see inconsistencies in the literature. I think arriving at a community consensus is good when dealing with particularly tricky high level taxonomy (i.e. Rhopalodia gibba is still considered taxonomically valid, but Epithemia gibba is considered more correct by most in the field because Elizabeth Ruck does excellent work). I also think it would be advisable for curators to only curate taxa that they are truly an expert in, which may resolve this issue of a reliance on a singular (and inappropriate) resource.
@tiwane . Also, do the other diatomists active on iNat have any further input? @diatomaniac @diatomwu @karolina @sylviaslee @aheathco . I imagine the respected phycologist @roman_romanov may have some input as well.
Shane thank you for addressing this concerning and difficult problem.
Sincerely,
Lane Allen
Another vote for the Rotifer World Catalog. I rarely identify rotifers, except to redirect one that has been misidentified as a ciliate. However, it's certainly true that WoRMS is missing some valid species and genera of rotifer.
Thank you, Shane, for taking this initiative.
However, two aspects need to be separated here.
information about the organisms e.g. morphology/ ecology / phylogeny and also identification etc.
taxonomy; i.e. naming certain species (not! identifying them)
As far as the phylum rotifers is concerned, WoRMS is certainly not appropriate for these two aspects (1+2) of this group, so it is not at all suitable as a reference for the phylum Rotifera, of which only about 10% are marine species.
As Shane has already addressed, the list of taxa of rotifers listed in WoRMS is incomplete.
ad 1. The Rotifer World Catalog (RWC) is the best source of information for item 1 on individual rotifer species available on the www.
However, the RWC is no identification key! I.e. for species identification of rotifers e.g. in iNaturalist other recognized references have to be used.
ad 2: Regarding taxonomy, it is formally correct for iNaturalist to reference another source: all known species should be listed in the LAN (List of Available Names) by now. See here:
https://www.iczn.org/list-of-available-names/rotifer-lan/
should be listed.
For the phylum Rotifera, this list has already been compiled. C. Jersabek, who also maintains the Rotifer World Catalog, was and still is involved in this LAN.
Therefore, the RWC is compatible with the LAN. In addition, the RWC is constantly updated.
In this respect, the RWC is clearly preferable as a reference to the WoRMS.
I am surprised that WoRMS, which rather explicitly focuses on marine species, is treated as an authority for groups like rotifers that are so much more diverse in freshwater and terrestrial habitats. RWC is for sure a much better source in this case.
This decision should just be about taxonomy, not species identification. iNaturalist tries to follow secondary external authorities as much as possible for our taxonomy (see https://www.inaturalist.org/pages/curator%252Bguide#policies for more info).
@tiwane Hi Tony. The taxonomy on RWC does differ from that on WoRMS, but (keeping in mind that I am not very familiar with rotifer taxonomy!) this does not seem to be because of professional disagreements about classification, but mainly because RWC is more fine-grained and more complete.
For instance, on RWC, subclass Bdelloidea has three orders beneath it, Adineta, Philodonida, and Philodinavida. The first contains the family Adinetidae, with two genera, Adineta and Bradyscela. The second contains the families Habrotrochidae and Philodonidae. The third has Coronistomidae, and Philodinavidae.
On WoRMS, subclass Bdelloidea has no orders beneath it, but goes directly to the families, Adinetidae, Philodinidae and Habrotrochidae. The families Coronistomidae and Philodinavidae, and their members, are simply missing. So, if a user on WoRMS were to go looking for Abrochtha, Philodinavus or Henoceros they would find nothing. The same goes for Bradyscela. These taxa are not placed differently in WoRMS, they are simply absent.
There are good reasons to think these omissions (all of which concern genera that are more than a century old) are not intentional. On WoRMS, two curators have edited the entry on class Bdelloidea, Hendrik Segers and Christian D. Jersabek. Segers includes all the missing genera in his own annotated checklist of rotifers (https://www.mapress.com/zt/article/view/zootaxa.1564.1.1), and Jersabek happens to be in charge of quality control at the World Rotifer Catalog, where these genera and their families are listed.
(ETA : Interestingly, here on iNat the hierarchy under Bdelloidea is already more like that of WRC than WoRMS)
Thank Shane for letting me participate in this discussion.
I agree with Bruce. WoRMS data quality could vary a lot with the curators and sometimes It is not supported by evidence. I have seen this problem with other invertebrates before and with some rotifer, so even though it could have flaws, having a more complete database could improve the page. So I go for RWC.
Yes, of course, I also agree with the proposal to use the Rotifer World Catalog as the reference authority. It is much more complete than other sources mentioned.
@tiwane is there anything else you're looking to hear?
I'm sorry about the late reply, there are some technical issues with editing the taxon framework that we have to fix. Hope to do that this week.
Thanks, Tony. I'm not fussed about the timeline so long as it's not being ignored. If wheels are in motion that's good enough.
OK, the taxon framework for Rotifera has been changed to Rotifer World Catalog: https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/126917-Rotifera/taxonomy_details
Thanks, Tony. This should be a big help.
If anyone else has another microscopic taxon of interest that needs a better authority (@laneallen ?), feel free to create a flag on it and tag me.
Am I missing something, but the taxonomy details page is still actually sourced to WoRMS?
It refers to this flag but the link remains to marinespecies.org
@shanesmicroscope Have you considered applying for curator status on INat? With your excellent knowledge of species and taxonomy.
WoRMS covers down to Rotifera. RWC covers taxa under Rotifera.
@jane_trembath thanks for the vote of confidence =), but I don't have the personality to be happy in a people-facing position XD. I think I'm probably best just being the hermit quietly trying to help people with their IDs.
It looks like a curator still has to add new species manually, RWC is not picked up as an external name provider?
Trying to fix my long-waiting Limnias flag but the species isn’t picked up automatically.
Shane, a curator simply has the power to add new taxons, you don’t have to do the hard stuff like Tony ;-)
Hi @jane_trembath. I resolved that Limnias flag. The species Limnias novemceras (described in 2018) is listed in RWC as a valid taxon, but has not yet been added to WoRMS. So, the new framework is already useful. :) Feel free to tag me, if you have other problems.
Hello, all!
Per direction from @tiwane, I'm flagging the Rotifera taxon for curation because the current taxonomic authority (WoRMS) is inadequate.
The iNat curators currently will not accept any rotifer species that is not represented in the World Register of Marine Organisms (WoRMS). As most of us are aware, when it comes to microscopic life, WoRMS ranges from incomplete to inaccurate. For example, of the 29 valid Rotaria species listed in "Annotated Checklist of the Rotifers" (Zootaxa, 2007; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228384040), WoRMS only lists 6 (https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=134927). With iNat staff directing its curators to ignore the existence of the other 23 valid species, we have a bit of a problem... and that's just the one genus!
I’ve been told that I need some (rather vaguely-defined) "community buy-in" to propose a new authority reference. So, I would like to propose the Rotifer World Catalog (http://rotifera.hausdernatur.at/). The RWC contains original descriptions, notes on taxon validity, images from the published literature, and a tab for published references pertaining to the organism (example: http://rotifera.hausdernatur.at/Species/Index/1816)
I am tagging @plingfactory, @vicentefranch, @rotiferologist, and @actinophrys as our regular Rotifera identifiers. @lcapurro is a new face here but has shown some enthusiasm for rotifers.
Some of our other microscopy regulars include @bdstaylor, @jameskdouch, @mnold1, @laneallen, and @jane_trembath who, while they are not rotifer-regulars, are all familiar with the shortcomings of WoRMS as a reference for microscopic life and know that a species not being listed in WoRMS is hardly evidence against its existence.
All who fit the Venn diagram at the intersection of tagged and interested, please let the iNat staff know if you believe...
-WoRMS
OR
-the Rotifer World Catalog
...to be a better source of information for rotifers, or if you have a different suggestion. Feel free to tag anyone else you feel may have a stake in this.
Best regards,
Shane