Flag for Taxon: Bark Anole (Anolis distichus)
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| jasonhernandez74 | Bark Anole (Anolis distichus) |
the taxonomy is disputed |
Apr. 12, 2023 23:23:18 +0000 | mack911 |
Comments
Here's an observation in which the two users each explain their rationale: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/147952446
And here's a forum thread relating to this issue: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/questions-on-taxon-curation/4134/7
It's fine for different iNat users to have their own views on which taxonomic approach is best, but these should not be expressed via adding IDs that disregard the current iNat taxonomy.
iNat has a single taxonomy that is sourced to external authorities wherever possible. If you feel it's wrong in some aspect, you can attempt to get the external authority adjusted, or make the case directly on this platform (via a flag like this) as to why iNat should deviate from the external authority.
In the meantime, if you want to ID observations that would be affected, you need to do that within the scope of the current iNat taxonomy. In this case, that could mean adding an ID for Anolis ignigularis, even though you view this as a subspecies of Anolis distichus, or even as a synonym. Later, if iNat's taxonomy changes, that Anolis ignigularis ID might then get moved to be a subspecies, or to be Anolis distichus, as part of the taxon change process.
Tagging @sullivanribbit, who may also have useful input.
I agree with @rupertclayton in this situation. I'm a little familiar with the mess that is Anolis distichus taxonomy, and, since iNat has one taxonomy, the appropriate IDs in this situation are either the "new" species or an ID of Anolis (could be agreeing or disagreeing) but not a disagreement to A. distichus - that ID essentially just represents a disagreement with iNat taxonomy. I don't think that adding some sort of infrageneric rank would be the best solution - there's so much mess in this specific situation that it wouldn't be clear what this rank really represents.
Hello everyone. Since the rationale for my id's has been I explained, I'd like to propose that on this instance a deviation should be made that reflects the most recent literature. If this is not acceptable then I'll follow @rupertclayton suggestion and contact The Reptile Database to see if the change can be made over there. If this doesn't work then I'll go back to the observations and withdraw the id's that prevent them from moving past genus, and let this issue to be resolved later in a more definitive way.
My main reason for this is that I've seen a lot of people confused regarding the field marks that can be used to distinguish these species. I've handled lots of these lizards in the field and I don't see any these marks. Other than the geographical boundaries defined in the MacGuigan et al. paper there's very little to go.
I appreciate being tagged in to this discussion. I agree with @rupertclayton on the importance of following iNaturalist's taxonomy. I don't know the current science well enough to know whether the Anolis distichus split is likely to remain or be overturned by herpetological consensus (as reflected by The Reptile Database). If it is overturned sooner or later, it's straightforward enough to mass-migrate the baby species back to their parent.
I agree with @sullivanribbit - this is an easy switch to merge offspring species back to A. distichus if needed, so it's not a huge problem either way (thankfully!). Checking in with Reptile Database is a good idea - if they are planning to update by backing off of these species, that would be good to know. I don't think there's enough here to warrant an explicit deviation from/disagreement with RD in this situation.
I'm glad that everyone is being quite open about ways to resolve this issue. Certainly, I don't have any useful knowledge to contribute about the taxonomic distinctions at the heart of the matter. Working with the Reptile Database does seem to be the best way to approach this. If that results in a taxonomy that some still disagree with, they may need to decide whether to make IDs using the taxon concepts that iNat recognizes or avoid IDs below genus for these disputed taxa.
More broadly, it's great to have knowledgeable and interested people willing to ID observations like these, and no one wants to put difficulties in the way of encouraging that effort.
The Reptile Database was recently updated and the subspecies of A. distichus were left as species. I'll make the changes to the observations and once I'm done this flag can be resolved.
I hope that I may tag in people who are involved? So that they can participate in the flag?
@paniaguanaturalista has linked to a paper in which this species was split into many locally endemic species, including, for example, Anolis ignigularis and Anolis dominicensis. When asked how to tell them apart, they went mainly by location.
On the other side of the debate, @mack911 considers that the evidence is insufficient to justify elevating these to species level.
The end result is that they are all stuck at Genus Anolis, since there is no infrageneric taxon encompassing these species. I have no opinion as to the taxonomy, but I do not belive that simply leaving them at genus is useful.