Προσοχή!: Some or all of the identifications affected by this split may have been replaced with identifications of Cyclopes. This happens when we can't automatically assign an identification to one of the output taxa. Review identifications of Cyclopes didactylus 47109

Taxonomic Split 61690 (Δημιουργήθηκε στις 23-06-2021)

Miranda, Flávia R., et al. "Taxonomic review of the genus Cyclopes Gray, 1821 (Xenarthra: Pilosa), with the revalidation and description of new species." Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 183.3 (2017): 687-721.

Taxonomic review of the genus Cyclope... (Αναφορά)
Προστέθηκε από jwidness στις Αύγουστος 29, 2019 1002 ΜΜ | Δημιουργήθηκε από bobby23 στις Ιούνιος 23, 2021
διάσπαση σε

Σχόλια

@loarie @bobby23
The MDD website isn't updated yet, but the next version will have this split. There's also a subspecies swap involved -- https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/61688. Maybe we have to wait until the MDD website updates to push this?

Αναρτήθηκε από jwidness περίπου 2 χρόνια πριν (Αναφορά)

Also, I made up the common names because C. didactylus sensu stricto needed to be something different.

Αναρτήθηκε από jwidness περίπου 2 χρόνια πριν (Αναφορά)

My preference would be to wait -but defer to you guys

Αναρτήθηκε από loarie περίπου 2 χρόνια πριν (Αναφορά)

Normally I would agree with Scott, but @coreyjlange already added the subspecies as placeholders for these species because he couldn't draft a taxon change himself. Prior to Miranda et al. (2017), the Silky Anteater was considered monophyletic with no subspecies designation.

Since the community is interested and we are partially following this already through Corey's subspecies, I say go for it.

However, @loarie is the only one that can edit the Xenarthra framework right now.

Αναρτήθηκε από bobby23 περίπου 2 χρόνια πριν (Αναφορά)

@nateupham would you support this split or do you think it may be premature to integrate into iNaturalist?

Αναρτήθηκε από bobby23 περίπου 2 χρόνια πριν (Αναφορά)

Seems safe to me to follow the recommendations of Miranda et al. 2017 in splitting Cyclopes -- in particular because (i) they relied on a variety of different types of evidence in making these delimitations (morphology, genetics from nuclear and mtDNA); (ii) its been nearly two years in print and no direct challenges are yet published, and (iii) it follows the diagnosis-and- monophyly-based version of the phylogenetic species concept (dmPSC as per Gutierrez and Garbino 2018 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6102684/), so it more explicitly testable against future types of evidence. Next version of the MDD will have these species.

Αναρτήθηκε από nateupham σχεδόν 2 χρόνια πριν (Αναφορά)

Προσθήκη σχόλιου

Συνδεθείτε ή Εγγραφή για να προσθέσετε σχόλια