Flag for Taxon: Boloria eupales
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| adam187 | Boloria eupales |
it is a duplicate of Boloria pales ssp. eupales |
Apr. 30, 2023 01:50:44 +0000 | sbrobeson |
swapped |
Comments
do you have a preferred source that suggests which should be the accepted name/rank? neither B. eupales nor B. pales is listed in Butterflies of America.
It's a Eurasian taxon, so no surprise it's not in Butterflies of America!
I've found quite a number of non-academic treatments with it as a subspecies - e.g. https://insecta.pro/taxonomy/8560 , and that is how it was originally described: https://archive.org/details/societasentomolo1518190004inte/page/124/mode/1up?view=theater
Treatments as a species are far scanter, though I do find a 2010 article -
https://www.academia.edu/17896116/The_evolutionary_history_of_Boloria_Lepidoptera_Nymphalidae_phylogeny_zoogeography_and_larval_foodplant_relationships , which says at the end:
"The subgenus Boloria is comprised by the species inclade 3 in Fig. 5, and the following species not in-cluded in the study: pyrenesmiscens Warren; eupales (Fruhstorfer); frigidalis Warren; purpurea Churkin; sipora(Moore); banghaasi (Seitz; roddi Kosterin. These seven species are assigned to the subgenus based on Tuzov &Bozano (2006)".
I don't have that Tuzoy & Bozano book.
I'd say the more important thing is probably picking a treatment, rather than having both.
smacking my forehead here... of course, that makes sense if it's on another continent... this happened with other Eurasian species just the other day too.
the Insecta.pro page seems to sum it up alright. I'm not overly surprised the literature is somewhat sparse...
swap drafted: https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/126536
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/564112-Boloria-pales-eupales
One of these two should be marked invalid.