Taxonomic Swap 86440
(Guardado el 18/12/2020)
|
|
Reemplazado con |
|
Comentarios
Hi Chuck,
In this case, my phrasing reflects that A. secticostata was previously used for this species, but then fell out of use because it was considered to be a misapplication. Huber (2010) examined the type series and found that it included two species. His lectotype designation is what confirmed that A. secticostata has priority over A. floridana. Since MollusaBase has adopted that usage, I implemented it in iNaturalist.
I'm relatively new to iNaturalist so I'm still learning the appropriate level of detail to include when making taxon swaps. What would you recommend in this situation, simplify to "has priority", or explain more fully?
Thanks,
Gary
Your explanation was fine; I was just confused by the phrase "became an older name". Also, I'm a glutton for detail so I personally would enjoy full reference details of those that you cite (like Huber 2010)--not that I am going to look up such details, but perhaps other malacologists on iNat might be interested. Thanks!
Okay, I've edited the explanation for the swap a bit adding some detail.
Gary, I was initially confused by the explanation for this taxon swap. I assume that with the phrase "became an older name", you mean it has priority. It's not that secticostata is a name used in the past and was supplanted by floridana as the correct name. I'd suggest appending the phrase "and thus has priority" for this type of situation.