Taxonomic Merge 97534
(Δημιουργήθηκε στις 05-09-2021)
|
|
συγχωνεύτηκε με |
|
Σχόλια
@bdagley sorry for the delay.
Patou et al. (2009) did include genetic samples from Taiwan (as shown in Figure 1), and they could not validate the population as distinct from the mainland populations in China and Vietnam. It is suggested that the low genetic variability in the civet derives from a population bottleneck during the Pleistocene, which is comparable to similar findings in the tiger that validated the existence of only two or three subspecies. In their conclusion, Patou et al. did not validate any subspecific designation for Paguma larvata (or at least the ones encompassed in their samplings) - only the existence of three haplogroups that they did not elevate to subspecies status. On iNaturalist, the subspecies described whose range maps are encompassed by Patou et al.'s sampling are grouped as one in accordance with these results. Patou et al. (2009) remains the most recent and most robust attempt to delineate intraspecific taxonomy in Paguma larvata.
No samples were taken from Hainan, but based on the results taken from other island populations (Hong Kong, Taiwan) and the low-genetic variability found amongst their sampling, they provisionally infer that the findings would be comparable. I think it would be best to keep it as is unless a subsequent study revalidates P. l. hainana.
I asked the co-author Veron (who I think you talked to earlier regarding a name-based flag). She said "The results obtained previously would need to be completed with further samples and markers before clearly stating if the subspecies are valid." She indicated she plans to hopefully do/publish more research later. Due to that, I suggest it's most consistent to keep the subspecies for now, until further studies suggest whether to retain them or not.
I do remember the publication said something like "our results didn't support subspecies." I agree this may sound like disproving subspecies, but may have had a different meaning (e.g. if their results weren't all that would be needed to answer the question, or not intended to answer that question). I'd note that if an article truly were disproving subspecies, they'd probably note it more and with more emphasis. Also, the subspecies weren't even mentioned by full name.
@bobby23 No problem for delays, but please check back here at some point if you can.
Sorry about that, @bdagley. I was away the past few days, and this makes it difficult to follow iNaturalist activities.
Did Dr. Veron specifically mention what she thought of our subspecies arrangement on the site? I'm a little biased here because tracking down the original literature to delineate which subspecies fall within the range of their study was not a small task. (I of course will make all any changes to reflect that taxons as legitimately understood to be, I just would appreciate clarification. It would require the reintegration of many subspecies, not just taivana and hainana.
I mentioned (only) these two subspecies being merged with the nominate subspecies (I stated the names of each), and her reply was as quoted above. Also like in my last comment, I think in general a takeaway suggestion from this for taxon changes, is publications should more unambiguously state that a change/revision is certain, and that if they don't it may indicate it isn't, so best to hesitate on making changes if their citation basis were similar to how the one here was interpreted. The changes can always be made later, if and when more certain.
That is a fair interpretation.
I will reinstate the subspecies, but it will have to wait a few days. I am leaving for the field tomorrow. Is that alright?
Sure, sounds good.
@bobby23 Could you explain more about the source for this taxon change?
I'm not sure, but in my reading it wasn't entirely clear that it would mean merging these subspecies. For example one is from the island of Hainan (which could differ from mainland populations), and individuals from Hainan weren't studied genetically. I think only ones from mainland China were, not from Taiwan either. Finally, the subspecies weren't even really mentioned by name in the source. So, I wonder if each of those subspecies should be retained for now, at least unless more clearly demonstrated in literature to no longer be valid.