Comentarios

@gparosenberg @clauden @oceanicadventures @susanhewitt @ginsengandsoon @tfrench @pliffgrieff Anyone opposed to this? It's on the larger end but it would be in line with MB now. See also:
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_merges/98263

Anotado por thomaseverest hace 7 meses (Advertencia)

@thomaseverest, the taxon swap was intended for the genus--Tritia for Ilyanassa, But not to change the species obsoleta for trivittata?

Anotado por clauden hace 7 meses (Advertencia)

@thomaseverest Thank you for asking, but I am not currently familiar enough with the taxonomic history of this group to provide an informed opinion.

Anotado por tfrench hace 7 meses (Advertencia)

@clauden Whoops thanks for that catch!

Anotado por thomaseverest hace 7 meses (Advertencia)

I see that Thomas Say, an American Naturalist originally came up with the genus 'Nassa' in his publication in 1822. I also see the French Naturalist Antoine Risso is credited with naming the genus 'Tritia' in 1865. Finally, I see William Stimpson, an American working with the Smithsonian, is credited with 'Ilyanassa' in 1865. How are you choosing to reclassify this species? Is it based on the earlier date of Thomas Say's publication? Also, Say's publication does not have drawings or images, so how can we know what he was describing is the same genus as Risso or Stimpson?

Anotado por aviewer hace 7 meses (Advertencia)

@aviewer Please see the links in the description of this swap. Yang et al. (2021) proposed the reinstatement of the genus from molecular work. Besides, we follow secondary sources (MolluscaBase in this case) to avoid having arguments over individual publications. MB made the change and so we prefer to stick with them.

Anotado por thomaseverest hace 7 meses (Advertencia)

Thanks @thomaseverest !

Anotado por clauden hace 7 meses (Advertencia)

Agregar un comentario

Entra o Regístrate para añadir comentarios