Anthothoe. This
happens when we can't automatically assign an identification to one of the
output taxa.
Review identifications of Anthothoe chilensis 503860
Taxonomic Split 89926
(Committed on 2021-03-11)
|
|
split into |
|
Comments
you can use Anthothoe chilensis #503860 as an input and output taxon in the new system and it needs to be atlased
@tonyrebelo Do you want to change that output taxon as suggested by @bouteloua, I can see no advantage on the iNat system of having a new taxon by the same name ?
Correct. But taxonomically not correct because they are different concepts. But it makes sense to recycle names. On the other hand creating new names documents the date on iNat when the new concept was adopted, and the old concept shut down.
Although I am unclear what would happen to the extra observations if one recycles the names. Would the observations not in the two atlasses be changed to the generic ID (i.e. iNat regards the recycled name as new), or would they stay with the recycled name (i..e. iNat splits off the new names, but retains everything else in the recycled name)?
In this case because I have created atlasses for both new species iNat should behave properly. (as as properly as it can without a marine atlas).
But I would regard having to change an Atlas as a reason for creating a new taxon of the same name with a different Atlas. To my mind changing an Atlas for a change of species concept is wrong: you should create a new taxon with a new atlas: it is part of the documentation of the name change.
I prefer creating new names when concepts change for these reasons. It also alerts users that the species concept that they have been using has changed. For instance, some of us have atlassed in both southern Africa and South America.
I can understand though that for species with thousands of records and tens of thousands of IDs, one would want to limit the clutter of name changes, and THEN it might make sense to recycle the name, rather than create a new same one.
Why did this not work?: all the observations in the South African region went to the genus Anthothoa instead of the atlassed region of South Africa:
Atlasses:
https://www.inaturalist.org/atlases/30913
vs
https://www.inaturalist.org/atlases/30914
But all the South African records are now here: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?locale=en&lrank=genus&place_id=113055&preferred_place_id=113055&subview=grid&taxon_id=379605&verifiable=any
Briefly:
all observations from inside South Africa (over 200) went to genus Anthothoa instead of A. stimpsonii Not Anticipated from documentation
all observations from inside Chile-Argentina-Peru went to the new species A. chilensis Correct
all observations from outside of South Africa + outside of Chile-Argentina-Peru went to A. chilensis BUG - these should have gone to the Genus
all observations already in Anthozoa stimpsonii stayed there OK
Can we roll this back please, until the bug is sorted or the problem illucidated??
the atlas is on the wrong A. chilensis
No! The Atlas is on the output: the new species:
check: click curation:
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/1220349-Anthothoe-chilensis (new) :: - - Edit Atlas
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/503860-Anthothoe-chilensis (old) :: - - Create Atlas.
So it is the new species that is Peru-Chile-Argentinia, and the old species has no Atlas.
Yes, it does say up top - Not Atlassed, but if you open and edit it, the Atlas is there.
Had it not been there, then all the observations in South Africa should have gone to South Africa, and all other observations should have gone to the genus.
Oh, weird I thought you had fixed the taxon split so that the input was used at the output.
@tiwane - can this please be looked into ...
I suspect that there may be several bugs here:
why does the new A.c. not register its atlas, even though it appears to be there?
why did the observations in the South Africa atlas go to the genus and not A.s.?
The atlas for Anthothoe chilensis 1220349 doesn't have any atlas presence places (ie places that show up green) which is a condition for
iNat recognizing the taxon as having a (functioning) atlas and give it the "Atlased" notice above as opposed to the "Not Atlased" notice.
When only one of the output taxa of a split has a (functioning) atlas, then identifications of the input taxon are replaced by identifications of the common ancestor of the output taxa which is what happened here.
To add atlas presence places to atlas for Anthothoe chilensis 1220349 click on some of the places and click "add this place" to create atlas presence places (they show up as green rather than transparent). You can learn more about how to create an atlas here. It looks to me like the atlas has lots of exploded atlas places but no atlas presence places
Let me know how I can help. Happy to revert this split. As @bouteloua mentioned I'd recommend using the input as the output were this to be reverted and redone so existing IDs of Anthothoe chilensis don't have to be replaced
OK: I have fixed the Atlas. I did not realize there was the extra step outside of the "Edit" mode.
Happy to have it reversed and then redone please.
But
I did the atlas for the new taxon, if the old one is to be retained it will need an atlas.
there are issues with the sea boundaries:
- for southern Africa I have already identified all the observations to species that will become genus level IDs.
-- for Chile there are quite a few that are outside of the Chile Atlas Place (in fact some land in Chile is outside of the Chile Atlas Place (e.g. . Area Costera Protegida Curinanco)) - those will revert to generic ID. It did warn me when I saved the atlas, but I closed the tab and cannot reconstruct the url to determine exactly how many - sorry.
Ok the split is reverting and I'll move the atlas from output Anthothoe chilensis 1220349 to input Anthothoe chilensis 503860
then we can restructure the split to replace output Anthothoe chilensis 1220349 with input Anthothoe chilensis 503860 and recommit
OK, I reverted it, copied the atlas from Anthothoe chilensis 1220349 to Anthothoe chilensis 503860 and replaced output Anthothoe chilensis 1220349 with output Anthothoe chilensis 503860
Can someone check that this looks ok and if so re commit?
Also to be clear - if an ID of Anthothoe chilensis 503860 is on an observation within a presence place on one but not both atlases, than that ID will be left alone (if its in an atlas presence place for only Anthothoe chilensis 503860 - e.g. Argentina, Peru, Chile) or replaced with an ID of Anthothoe stimpsonii 650329 (if its in an atlas presence place for only Anthothoe stimpsonii 650329 - e.g. South Africa). In all other cases, the ID will be replaced by an ID of the common ancestor (Anthothoe)
This looks OK, thanks.
But the rollback has not yet reverted.
Cool! That worked perfectly thanks.
Except. The synonym of A. chilensis was not added to Anthothoe stimpsonii
I added it, as it is the name in our field guides! If I dont add it, then everyone in South Africa will continue identifying Anthothoe stimpsonii as A. chilensis
see discussion here: https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/523692#