As pointed out by @mhedin, Palpatores is not really a suborder. It's a clade that sits between order and suborder, and that's not a position that we support in the iNat taxonomy. All of the children of Palpatores have already been moved, so this swap would just retire the concept Palpatores and move all remaining records into Opiliones.
@loarie and @berkshirenaturalist, you guys created / edited this concept. Does this seem ok to you? Personally, as I wrote to Marshal, I'm not sure I see the purpose of inserting nodes like Palpatores. If a taxon has a zillion children, some additional categorization can be useful, but currently Opiliones only has 5 children, so I'm not sure what advantage an additional level of grouping confers other than mirroring phylogeny.
unknown
Yes
Added by kueda on July 31, 2017 09:41 PM
|
Committed by kueda on December 12, 2017
I was working on Harvestmen this past winter and added tons of data so I don't quite recall the concept change at hand. Whichever concept inat prefers is fine with me.
Unintended disagreements occur when a parent (B) is
thinned by swapping a child (E) to another part of the
taxonomic tree, resulting in existing IDs of the parent being interpreted
as disagreements with existing IDs of the swapped child.
Identification
ID 2 of taxon E will be an unintended disagreement with ID 1 of taxon B after the taxon swap
If thinning a parent results in more than 10 unintended disagreements, you
should split the parent after swapping the child to replace existing IDs
of the parent (B) with IDs that don't disagree.
I was working on Harvestmen this past winter and added tons of data so I don't quite recall the concept change at hand. Whichever concept inat prefers is fine with me.