Taxonomic Swap 101040
(Guardado el 14/11/2021)
|
|
Reemplazado con |
|
Comentarios
Looks good to me! ... in regard to implementation that is (not looked at literature)
Thank you muchly
@edanko @trinaroberts @phycus @gerrit_oehm @dipterajere @flo-dycob @christian_heintzen I set this up for a single species, but I notice that there are several species affected. Is there a consensus about whether Megasyrphus should be a separate genus (as it seems to me), or a subgenus of Eriozona? Would you be happy for me to go ahead and shift/merge things to Genus Megasyrphus as appropriate?
The changes I would propose are:
Move E alashayicus to new M alashayicus
Merge E catalina into M catalina
E laxa and E laxus into M laxus
E erratica into M erraticus
M annulipes into M erraticus (synonym)
I can't claim to have gone too too deep into the literature, but the recent molecular evidence certainly supports separating Megasyrphus. Plus, on iNat it should certainly be one or the other, not the combination of both that we seem to have at the moment. I think your proposed swaps make sense.
I think Megasyrphus goes as it's own genus.
Thanks guys, that was my understanding too, there are European sources in agreement, and as you say, the key thing is to have one or the other. So I'll get on with it.
@christian_heintzen I wanted to tag you in on this because you're currently the only person who has used Eriozona erratica, in case you have any comments to make. @sbushes would you mind checking for me that this taxon swap is correctly constituted? (My first one that will actually affect observations)