Atención: Algunas o todas las identificaciones afectadas por esta división puede haber sido reemplazada por identificaciones de Rhinolophus. Esto ocurre cuando no podemos asignar automáticamente una identificación a uno de los taxones de salida. Revisar identificaciones de Rhinolophus pusillus 40656

Taxonomic Split 40731 (Guardado el 30/03/2022)

Taiwan bats carved off as monoceros, Ryukyu Islands and Japan bats as cornutus

Mammal Diversity Database. 2019 (Referencia)
Añadido por bobby23 en 11 de octubre de 2018 a las 02:25 PM | Resuelto por loarie en 30 de marzo de 2022
dividido en

Comentarios

IUCN states: Li et al. 2006 conducted a phylogenetic analysis of east Asian small horseshoe bats and concluded that Rhinolophus monoceros (endemic to Taiwan), R. cornutus (endemic to Japan), and R. pumilis (endemic to Japan) should be considered geographical subspecies of R. pusillus. This new taxonomic arrangement is followed here.

So I would suggest to swap Rhinolophus monoceros to Rhinolophus pusillus monoceros, which is consistent with IUCN.

Anotado por kokhuitan hace casi 4 años (Advertencia)

The IUCN Red List account (http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T19561A8977661.en) is contradictory as it says "This new taxonomic arrangement is followed here" but apparently failed to update the taxonomy accordingly.

Rhinolophus monoceros has been widely accepted as the sibling species of R. pusillus endemic to Taiwan, and should be treated as such on iNat. @loarie please graft www.inaturalist.org/taxa/785254-Rhinolophus-monoceros

https://doi.org/10.1644/05-MAMM-A-395R2.1
www.researchgate.net/publication/52009489
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2006.02879.x
https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.1185

Anotado por jakob hace mas de 3 años (Advertencia)
Anotado por jakob hace mas de 3 años (Advertencia)

so Rhinolophus pusillus doesn't occur in Taiwan? Range map should be updated then

Anotado por loarie hace mas de 3 años (Advertencia)

Correct: R. monoceros replaces R. pusillus in Taiwan.

Anotado por jakob hace mas de 3 años (Advertencia)

rad thanks

Anotado por loarie hace mas de 3 años (Advertencia)

@jakob do you know which species lives on the Ryukyu Islands and Japan?

Anotado por bobby23 hace mas de 3 años (Advertencia)

https://doi.org/10.1644/05-MAMM-A-395R2.1 says "R. cornutus: main islands of Japan, and R. c. pumilus: Okinawa"

Anotado por jakob hace mas de 3 años (Advertencia)

It's a bit irritating that this swap is being shown on top of the species page at www.inaturalist.org/taxa/785254-Rhinolophus-monoceros. Is there any possibility to remove this alert apart from deleting this taxon change?

Anotado por jakob hace mas de 3 años (Advertencia)

I agree with Jakob. If we cannot, we could move this discussion to a flag / journal post, and I can delete this taxon change proposal.

Anotado por bobby23 hace mas de 3 años (Advertencia)

Based on @jakob's recommendation and my own digging, my preference would be to rely on the American Museum of Natural History's Bats of the World as arbiter for valid and curated bat taxonomy.

Anotado por bobby23 hace cerca de un año (Advertencia)

Li et al. 2006 suggested "R. monoceros, R. cornutus, and R. c. pumilus are all island subspecies of R. pusillus." Note: this would be making R. monocerus (and others) subspecies of R. pusillus (a taxon swap as it was entered at least may be incorrect).

A good later article is Wu et al. 2012 (https://repository.kulib.kyoto-u.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2433/175694/1/zsj.29.396.pdf), which explains this taxonomy was unclear with no consensus (in 2012). Note Wu et al. may make additional proposals/revisions, which would be worth considering too.

More articles (and if any published later) would be good to look further into to determine if there's enough basis to make any taxon changes (the current one or related ones). For each, I'd ask: do any subsequent papers use the proposed changes? If few or none do, do they explain why they disagree? (otherwise they might just use old names without realizing proposed changes).

In general, articles (can be) valid sources to cite (if they are valid), and iNaturalist should use valid taxonomic names.

Anotado por brian-d hace cerca de un año (Advertencia)

@bobby23 I agree there may be some major sources that can often be used. But, no single sources are typically updated/complete enough, fast enough. Examples:

Issues w/ IUCN were mentioned here.

I created a curation request to add R. affinis subspecies (See: Mao et al. 2010. Peistocene climatic cycling drives intra-specific diversification in the intermediate horseshoe bat in Southern China). These seemingly aren't listed by the AMNH source, 10 years later. Neither are many others, some of which are valid and listed on sources e.g. GBIF (yet GBIF also lists some incorrect ones, so must be evaluated case by case).

So, articles should be used as sources too, when most updated. The only caveat is if a given article were disagreed upon in the literature, unreliable (e.g. made other errors), or proposed very uncertain taxon changes. Anyway, if someone cites an article for a taxon change, if others here disagree then a discussion can simply be had like this. In my view a proposed change, should cite evidence when it seems uncertain or people disagree (disagreement should use sources too).

To clarify, I'm not saying to approve the current taxon change. For example, Wu et al. 2012 took a slightly different view. I'd need to review more papers to know (Wu open up additional taxa revision questions too). I'm just giving my view of what would be required to demonstrate evidence for or against any given change. I'd be fine if this request was closed.

Anotado por brian-d hace cerca de un año (Advertencia)

I turned this into a split and committed it

Anotado por loarie hace 5 meses (Advertencia)

Añade un comentario

Entra o Regístrate para añadir comentarios