Taxon swap aaaaaa 48px Taxonomic Swap 45890 (Guardado el 13/01/2019)

Pantomorus and Neopactus are paraphyletic taxa.
Cf. Staglini et al. (2005)

Añadido por vitalfranz el 13 de enero de 2019 | Comprometido por vitalfranz el 13 de enero de 2019
Reemplazado con



I made a single edit above: @vitalfranz gave the year 2015 for the Scataglini-Lanteri-Confalonieri paper, but it should have been 2005. This is really important since several more relevant taxonomic/phylogenetic works on Naupactus and "Pantomorus" have been published after 2005, but not necessarily after 2015.
The statement above:
   ►"Pantomorus and Neopactus are paraphyletic taxa."
is an overly simplistic representation of a major problem, and the statement is not necessarily true after/since the cited 2005 paper.
This taxon change is going against professional consensus among weevil workers with whom I collaborate. It also is a reversal of an earlier taxon change (which was, in my opinion, correct). See here:
I believe this new taxon change is the wrong way around, again. I may add that there is worldwide standardisation on Naupactus instead of Pantomorus:
      • Southern Africa: Prinsloo & Uys (2015)
      • Australia: Pullen, Jennings & Oberprieler (2014).
      • Palaearctic: Alonso-Zarazaga, Barrios, Borovec et al. (2017).
      • Nearctic: apparently, as reflected by and
More about this taxon change anon. I want to consult the ultimate Naupactini expert, Dr Analía Lanteri of La Plata.

As always, all citations and most literature are available upon request.
@loarie (your previous swap reversed here)

Publicado por beetledude hace más de 1 año (Marca)

Ok, no problem.
But all species of the subgenus Pantomorus were mentioned as such, not as Naupactus.
You should change the name of all.

Publicado por vitalfranz hace más de 1 año (Marca)

Yes, I think Pantomorus needs to disappear. But as far as I know, the synonymy has not [yet] been formally published, which is the reason why I want to write to Analía.

(Also note that is based on a personal communication from Charlie O'Brien, and not on a publication.)

Thanks for understanding, @vitalfranz.

Publicado por beetledude hace más de 1 año (Marca)

Why was this committed (on 2019-01-13) if from the discussion last year it was agreed that this was wrong?
What has changed?
Why was this done?
but : (but cites no references after 2000, and Naupactus is not mentioned).

Publicado por tonyrebelo hace 8 meses (Marca)

Agregar un comentario

Acceder o Crear una cuenta para agregar comentarios.