Taxonomic Swap 97672 (Guardado el 29/08/2021)

Añadido por kitty12 el 27 de agosto de 2021 03:16 | Comprometido por thomaseverest el 29 de agosto de 2021
Reemplazado con


@extraneus Just double-checking this is in line with the community as we have a decent number of observations. Also @adrian2370 who flagged the taxon.

Publicado por thomaseverest hace más de 2 años

Thanks, Thomas.

Publicado por kitty12 hace más de 2 años

I am perplexed. I checked what WoRMS is doing, and cannot find the motivation for the nomenclatural change. In fact, they did not really put G. lamellosa (Lamarck, 1822) in the synonymy of G. commutata (Monterosato, 1877), but selected for it the term "alternate representation". Actually, if they discard Lamarck earlier name (1822) for the later one (1877), that would mean that Lamarck's name has some intrinsic faults (the most common of which is that the older name is a "jounger omonym"). But what about G. lamellosa? I see no specific indication on WoRMS. Perhaps we should read what Kilburn, 1972 says (it's the source of synonymy).

Publicado por extraneus hace más de 2 años

I have stayed out of the Gyroscala lamellosa quagmire previously. So long as it stayed G. lamellosa, little harm was being done. I can no longer stay silent. The "taxon" "Scalaria lamellosa Lamarck 1822" has a long and convoluted history. It begins, in fact, with Turbo Clathrus Linnaeus 1758. Some of the figures cited by Linnaeus are unquestionably of that species. The name "Scalaria clathrus" referred primarily to the "lamellosa" concept up until the mid-19th and even into the start of the 20th century, when it flipped to the "communis" concept of Lamarck. No valid type has ever been designated for either Turbo clathrus Linnaeus or Scalaria lamellosa Lamarck. (Clench & Turner's designation of a Paris specimen was not a Lamarckian specimen and not a neotype, and Lamarck's specimens are extant in Geneva, so it is invalid.) Monterosato, as Appolloni et al. 2018 rightly point out, specifically did NOT create Scalaria commutata as a replacement for Scalaria lamellosa Lamarck, which he considered an "Antillean" species, different from the Mediterranean one. The two are absolutely separable, eith experience, when intermixed. Note that Appolloni et al., cited by MolluscaBase, come to the similar conclusion that G. commutata is NOT the same as G. lamellosa, contra MolluscaBase, and it is at best a valid taxon and at worst a taxon inquirendum. If the species Scalaria lamellosa is considered an extraordinarily variable pantropical species (more variable than most any other species in the family considered valid), then there are older names than commutata that would apply. If the species be considered composite, then S. lamellosa or another name would apply to the Antillean species, S. commutata would apply to the Mediterranean species, a name would be needed for the species in the eastern Atlantic outside the Strait of Gibraltar (which is distinct from commutata), a name would be needed for the Indian Ocean species, and G. perplexa and possibly G. pyramis would apply in the western and central Pacific. In my own collection, I have them listed tentatively as G. lamellosa lamellosa, G. lamellosa commutata, and G. perplexa (and E. commune). Now that I'm retired and have ALL the appropriate literature, one of my first tasks is to follow the twisted history of the names and concepts associated with Turbo clathrus and Scalaria lamellosa before anyone else muddies the waters further. I urge you not to follow MolluscaBase blindly, but to trust those who specialize in the family.

Publicado por bruceneville hace más de 2 años

@bruceneville Thanks for the thorough information. My – absolutely inconclusive - considerations were based on what I found on WoRMS, which was very confusing. As I also wrote in other occasions, WoRMS cannot be considered as The Authority. It is WoRMS’ curators themselves that claim that the website is not such an authority. They just update the website by adding any new pieces of information produced by scholars, and re-arranging the taxonomy accordingly. If a mistake is published, it goes in the website.

Publicado por extraneus hace más de 2 años

My apologies for not responding sooner. I did attempt to reach out to the community, and @bruceneville please accept my apologies for neglecting to include you in that. You definitely have the most experience here and just because you weren't in the top list of IDers I shouldn't have forgotten you are the expert in the family. If someone could email MolluscaBase at that would be very helpful. I'm not sure what exactly they would want as evidence to change something, but the fact that G. lamellosa is listed as unaccepted but other combinations are listed as alternate representations seems like an error. I've never seen a species listed as an alternate representation of another species so that also seems strange. Usually they are good about responding, but if there is no update we can deviate here. As far as we are concerned, WoRMS/MolluscaBase is the authority for iNat as described in the curator guide. We can deviate if necessary, but we prefer to follow them and have them update first.

Publicado por thomaseverest hace alrededor de 2 años

Agregar un comentario

Acceder o Crear una cuenta para agregar comentarios.