Flag for Taxon: Bumble Bees (Genus Bombus)
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| kyleprice1 | Bumble Bees (Genus Bombus) |
Proposal to add species complex for Bombus vagans. |
Feb. 25, 2023 18:01:15 +0000 | loarie |
see comments |
Comments
The problem is species complexes aren’t just visually similar they are also genetically very similar (I've heard that fervidus complex still has debate regarding californicus as a species). B vagans and sandersoni while being visually extremely similar are not that closely related from what I understand and I don’t think would be accepted as a complex. Species group would work, but currently iNat doesn’t allow for that.
Having said that, I wouldn't mind if they were a complex.
@neylon thanks for explaining use in regards to species complexes. I mainly just think we can do better for those who are familiar with the species ID of B.sandersoni and B.vagans in overlapping ranges rather than just designating Pyrobombus.
Same can be said in regions where sandersoni has never been recorded/potentially never existed. For those who are comfortable and confident with ID of B.vagans. Until a proper record of the species is recorded I don't see the purpose in leaving at a subgenus level just because of worry a species could exist without zero proof. Most if not all bombus species ranges are as we know are being expanded/pushed north and not the opposite due to climatic changes as well as many other attributes to decline. I would think it would be less likely to have sandersoni's range expand further south, unless proper documentation never occurred in southern expanse of its range. which is certainly possible but less likely at a large scale? With the recorded declines for vagans through out the range, us leaving these specimens that are almost certainly vagans labeled as a subgenus doesn't really help monitor population trends or occurances. My purpose for IDing bombus on Inaturalist is to help attribute data and occasionally teach others id. Not to mention its down right fun and challenging to do by photo and really helps out in the field when conversing with some of you on ID techniques.
I wouldn't mind adding it if everyone were to agree, but will give a few clarifications. One is that the complex ID could be used in theory in any state, just to clarify that the ID option itself isn't geographically restricted. The second main question would be which species to include, just vagans and sandersoni or also more, and some may prefer to add additional species although I have no preference. Finally re: complex and group, the iNat taxon rank "complex" is often used interchangeably with species group since there is no iNat species group taxon rank. So, it can and probably should be considered a species group, not a complex in the genetic sense, although the species also are related to some extent (same subgenus).
Hell yea!! I think that makes sense @bdagley
the only other species I personally think could be useful would be perplexus but that could make it quite broad and steer from the point narrowing the data. A lot of perplexus can be IDed by photo but of course not all especially with the queens which is a constant toss up.
Sounds good let's see what people say and maybe we'll add it soon.
Another issue of course is what kind of can of worms does this open? There are a lot of visually similar species that are not closely related that this argument could be used for that may in the end over complicate the taxonomy on here:
centralis/flavifrons, ternarius/sylvicola, vosnesenskii/caligonosus, ect.
Or just add groups for each of them? haha Although it is seriously worthwhile to also consider possible pros and cons. I've added some (official) groups as complexes for Nomada, Sphecodes, etc., and it hasn't seemed to cause much overcomplication for those genera at least. Although it is true that each additional layer added to the taxonomy does increase the complexity in a way that could at times take identifiers longer to read, select to ID, or remember what species each group includes.
Not to mention possibility of same species in different groups: ternarius/sylvicola/huntii/bifarius (which is already a complex) could be a bit of a hodge-podge. For Lake Superior we could throw in ternarius/melanopygus.
Well thats a good point
but that being said
Ternarius/ sylvicola range hardly overlap and seem distinct enough to ID separately in most cases. (Although) I have little experience with ternarius and no experience with sylvicola. so my comment holds little to no weight.
Centralis and flavifrons supposedly have closely related DNA bar codes and range overlaps greatly so a complex would be more fitting. (Another group of species I have zero experience with)
Vosnesekii and caligonosus, range seems to be mostly the same and similar issue with ID (Another group no experience with)
Maybe this is what would be needed with some of these pyrobombus species as the group is so large simply IDing to subgenus by photo only gets the data so far with species who are highly complicated for ID. Further splitting the group could be more beneficial that saying idk its a pyrobombus. but I agree at some point there has to be a end but I don't think it creates negative data more so opening up a larger use of what's available.
when a complex is designated couldn't we specify the species within on the tab?
I think a lot of the western species are left at genus and subgenus due to these issues. but if we opened a larger floor I might be tempted to attempt more western species in a attempt to narrow down distributions I could imagine the same for others.
this could be a really good thing for community science contribuations
Good point on centralis/flavifrons. I think those two would be the ones most likely to be able to get into a complex.
The ones I mentioned are just examples of what might come up if this went through. When you think about it; how often have you heard of pensylvanicus and auricomus listed as a group, and they are very identifiable. I could potentially see a whole bunch subjective arguments for why certain species pairs should be linked, which would be interesting for the flags.
Let's maybe just stick to the question of this pyrobombus group for now. I haven't looked into the additional groups and agree we'd want to avoid species being in overlapping groups or any other complications. johnascher will also probably comment on this page at some point.
Anybody want to write a TL,DR for this?
Should a complex representing a species group be created for Bombus vagans and sandersoni, to increase the precision of IDs for photos that otherwise could only be identified to subgenus Pyrobombus?
Even if this doesn't go through I think the discussion is note worthy. I mean I personally think its exciting.
Maybe it would be best if the ball was to get rolling, to stick within Subgenus groups.
I think pyrobombus is more fitting for splitting up simply based on size of group.
I hope Johnascher does join in
I recommend letting this simmer a while before serving--there's no rush. Someone should contact John Ascher (private message as he doesn't follow @s) and get his opinion.
I sent the message and no rush intended
I also sent him a message.
The problem as noted by neylon is that species pairs that may be closest visually may belong to different clades so cannot form an exclusive (monophyletic) species group in a phylogenetic scheme.
I worry that extension of "complexes" to such cases may be opposed by some admin/curators and may somewhat discredit the reputation of "complexes" even though most of those for bees at least are clearly monophyletic.
If the site were set up to track "identifiable forms" or to accomodate either/or species pairs that would solve this problem.
Not clear to me why iNat requires very rigorous formal taxonomy in these cases while eschewing taxonomic best practices in many other ways.
The practical needs of identifiers and downstream data users are not a high enough priority on the site.
Some more serious attempt should be made to accommodate our legitimate needs as determined by groups of qualified contributors (as assembled here).
I'll give my best arguments for adding the group although they may not be agreed with. iNat doesn't have a rank for species group (which I prefer were added), so complexes can be used both for complexes described in the literature and for other species groups. For bees which I've made most of the taxon changes for recently, very few complexes were added that weren't described in literature, and even people here who suggested against them also requested adding some. I just want to clarify that, because the comments could make it seem like we or I were adding many unofficial complexes, vs. I added virtually none.
I suggest that this specific vagans group be considered without a link being drawn to other complexes or general trends, and the monophyletic requirement also seems less clear than implied, since many bee groups haven't yet been investigated genetically but remain valid. I agree that the monophyletic matter does have relevance, although not necessarily preventing creating the group in my view. Re: the vagans group, I also was thinking about the similarity to bugguide "no taxon" taxa like "vagans or sandersoni" (used on BG). Although, mostly thought of the request as a species group vs. an either/or for two species, and it may actually make more sense to add more than two to it if considering adding it.
Ideally although not necessarily as a requirement, it would also be best for the complex to be referenced in literature and/or websites like BG, so viewers of iNat/GBIF external to iNat would understand what the taxon means. It also seems implied that this group would be new and considered somewhat informally defined, and so would be something of an exception to the usual process, but not imply that we should do this for many additional taxa. It could also be possible to get opinions on the idea on a larger platform like the bee_monitoring listserv (although I don't plan to post it), or additional taxonomists and others could comment on it here. It won't be added at this time unless more consensus is reached though.
I think we have indeed successfully avoided the potentially controversial practice of adding unofficial complex.
We do require a "no taxon" like BG but I don't think this site endorses such pragmatic identifiable forms that do not match official taxonomy/phylogeny.
From a bee perspective some of these either/or "no taxa" would be very helpful and well received. However, it is not clear that they are endorsed more generally be site admin and curators.
I've expressed that I'd be fine adding the complex/group if there were enough consensus, although it isn't really a big deal to me either way, and I don't want to be the one to decide until hearing from more people who think it's a good idea. Lastly if it were ever to be added, it would need to be decided if only the two species or if additional would be included in the group.
Having read the comments above, I don't have any objections to adding the complex. If a complex is added, i think it should point out that "while they may be visually similar, they are not closely related."
This is a great point of discussion, and thank you Kyle for bringing us together to chat about this! Having read the comments above, I don't have much to add, as a lot on my mind has already been said. I think that creating some sort of species grouping for vagans/sandersoni would be beneficial. However, I think it's really important for that to have an asterisk* because of the relative un-relatedness of the two as mentioned above. I also strongly agree with Kyle's point regarding identifications for states where sandersoni has never been recorded. Of course, never say never, but I think it is likely that there is a range cutoff for sandersoni as you get south into Iowa and Illinois. In which case, I would be pretty comfortable with a vagans ID. Having some sort of grouping might help us be able to understand where exactly that range cutoff might be, also considering it is very possible to identify some photos to vagans (i.e. you get a really good shot of the face).
Just some of my thoughts, thanks for the discussion :)
There isn't any way to designate that a particular species complex isn't really a species complex but just a "no taxon" group. Here's what a species complex page looks like:
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/1266534-Bombus-fervidus
@pfau_tarleton That's true, although differences between complexes and species groups (which are described in literature) aren't always large especially in bees. So I don't necessarily think of all uses of bee species complexes for species groups as being arbitrarily used/a no-taxon. For some reason I'd more so favor a vagans group including more than two species, although if it included too many there would be little point because it would just come to resemble the entire subgenus Pyrobombus. I also don't think we can create many "either species 1 or species 2" taxa on here, unlike Bugguide, so generally prefer groups of 3 or more species (noting also that some official complexes/groups only have 3 or rarely even fewer species). I also considered today that maybe if any such group is created it would be good for someone or multiple people to make some reference to it in a future publication or website, to indicate that we are using the group and clarifying it's definition or basis for external viewers of iNaturalist and GBIF.
I think that discussions in the past (there are several in the forums) about species complexes/groups have brought up the point that there should be an external "authority" of some kind (even if just a journal article) that has already defined the taxon in the literature--rather than them being developed and defined here.
For example, the Complex Bombus fervidus references the source defining the taxon: https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/1266534/edit
In uncommon/exception cases additional groups like the current one can be considered, but yes what you said is usually ideal and most commonplace when creating new complexes. And relatedly it's also a good idea to let external researchers know in some way about any new groups added here, if any were to be added. That way, there's some notice of it and feedback from the broader community can be considered, which is similar to the function of publishing about a new group in writing, although as the second most ideal route.
My (temporary?) approach for vagans/sandersoni and a number of other trick groups has been to use the "species group:" observation field. Thanks to @neylon for adopting this range wide: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?verifiable=any&place_id=any&field:Species%20group=vagans%2Fsandersoni
This data doesn't get shared with GBIF as far as I know, so has to be downloaded directly from iNat, but its better than leaving them at subgenus. It also doesn't allow for community ID but is more flexible and could also add things like vagans/sandersoni/perplexus.
Lots good points and insight being mentioned, Thank you all who have so far contributed thoughts.
Pfau_tarleton thats a shame more information can't be added to groups/complexes, would be a nice if a description box could be imported as to leave less room for interpretation.
I would be happy to try and reach out to the bee_monitoring listserv and see if they would be interested. pretty jam packed schedule this week for myself but can do some poking.
Beeboy thanks for including as well - neylon just sent me this over as well, I will look into that as a viable option as well.
If was ever accepted and there was a desire to add more than two species to the group. I think a good candidate would be perplexus with relation to the paper I attached below. Most of you likely have already read.
https://desireelnarango.weebly.com/uploads/6/2/3/1/6231165/insects-11-00669.pdf
You might be able to add information to groups/complexes? There is a lot of information on the gray Treefrog Species Complex https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/922247-Hyla-versicolor
Neylons addition of the vagans/sandersoni species group observation field is a neat idea.
@wmct276, that information on the gray treefrog complex is just pulled from a Wikipedia page--not specific to iNat.
Thank you
Is the conclusion to not create Complex Bombus vagans?
If so, can we close?
If not, what are the species Complex Bombus vagans should contain?
No this can be closed. Thanks. B vagans and sandersoni are not close enough to be considered a Complex.
great thanks
Hey all I have a question and would like some input from you all. We all spend an enormous amount of time IDing bombus as best as possible to accurately attribute data through Inat.
So, as we all probably know there is a major complication or lack of available confirmed IDs for vagans not to mention sandersoni because of the vagans/sandersoni dilemma. I should probably include perplexus in here as well but I am mainly interested in vagans/sandersoni.
I am interested in attributing better data for vagans and sandersoni rather than leaving these species simply at a subgenus level “Pyrobombus”. In North America Pyrobombus is comprised of 19 species and the largest subgenus in the world for bombus. Leaving those specimens we know are between the two or three species at a subgenus level IMO doesn’t really help the scientific community much. Sandersoni and vagans data is lacking partially because of the complexity of ID even more so where overlap occurs. As for being in the field unless you cool the specimen down (Place in a cooler) and carry a hand lens or microscope ID is rather difficult for accuracy. The other option is to kill the specimen and preform the same and or use genetics. Which is not always an acceptable practice and genetic analysis being quite expensive. When I am in the field, I have the opportunity to record the species as vagans/sandersoni if I am unsure which a lot of times can be the case in areas where high overlap occurs. Sometimes this includes perplexus as well.
On Inaturalist I normally do leave the species at subgenus “Pyrobombus” but I’m kind of conflicted about, it especially in some locations where sandersoni has never been recorded (Indiana, Illinois) and is likely to be absent. If it fits the bill it must be vagans and the data is lacking because no one wants to call a square a square by photo myself included, which is currently very understandable. But if the specimen fits the standard bill Longer hair - T1&2 yellow – long face/OMA (Generally speaking) including all other morphological attributes that we know vagans as. I think it’s safe to call these as they are. always keeping in mind rufocinctus (cullumanbombus) and perplexus and still the option of pyrobombus/ bombus. Areas I am unsure for sandersoni but is likely absent include Missouri, Nebraska, lower 2/3s Iowa, western Ohio, Arkansas. Maybe more areas to be included in this presumption where records of sandersoni do not exists?
For areas where overlap is likely or more so possible to occur in the United States what would it take to designate a species complex and have it accepted? Maybe labeling Bombus vagans species complex. For example, in subgenus thoracombus there is a designated species complex for B. fervidus, B. Californicus in the far west due to the similarities/extreme difficulty in properly IDIng to species level without genetic sampling for most people. The same is done in the UK for the Bombus lucorum species complex which is comprised of B. terrestris B. lucorum, B. magnus, and B. cryptarum. States in the U.S that might fit the bill would include but not limited to portions of MN/WI/MI/PA/NY/VT/NH/ME/CT/NJ/MD/DE/WV/VA/NC/KY/TN/NC/GA
I am bringing this to the table for discussion and input. I am one person here and do not want to create errors in data or upset the community but if the community agrees I would like to create the species complex so we can attribute better data in which is lacking and sort of open ended for these species currently. So, what do you all say? Am I crazy or irresponsible for the thought or what?