Taxonomic Swap 125450
(Guardado el 19/04/2023)
|
|
Reemplazado con |
|
Comentarios
@v_polecat It is not based on "law" but on a diverging opinion in the scientific community. Based on what Davide Puddu (@davidepuddu ) said, their data is even sufficient to doubt from their results as the isolated sequences in the same clade as Cyanoboletus/Cupreoboletus are nowadays placed in the genus Cyanoboletus. Moreover, Cyanoboletus mediterraneensis belongs to the same clade and placing Cupreoboletus in another genus would make Cyanoboletus polyphyletic.
It is as arbitrary as keeping it in a separated genus as it makes Cyanoboletus polyphyletic. It would require segregation of more genera from Cyanoboletus The old generic boundaries were based on undersampled phylogenies and data backing it up were unsufficient.
reference please? data please?
otherwise, it's an opinion, like any that anyone can have.
First Science, then 'law'.
Wait for the publication (if accepted by the peers) and then make the appropriate changes. It's a really bad precedent otherwise.
PS- supporting any claim with "Based on what X said", is a red flag for 'argument from authority'. Let us wait for the data and publication and then act accordingly. Inaturalist should not front run the reviewing process, as it's downstream from it.
@v_polecat It's not an 'argument from authority' as I'm citing verifiable facts. It's better to manipulate concepts you understand before claiming people use dishonest rhetorical techniques. But I see you're more interested in criticizing the change than finding the reasoning behind... I didn't verify the claim of Davide Puddu because I have other more important things to do (sorry!). I expressly mentioned that it wasn't my finding but the one of a peer I trust to show that I'm not the one who discovered this (aka being honest).
Here's how to check this claim (what you should have done instead of just rejecting it because you don't like it):
Read the original publication of the combination of Cupreoboletus poikilochromus by Gelardi et al., 2015.
Find the phylogenetic tree and find the isolated sequences I was talking about.
Pick one of them and try to look for it's current identification (I picked HKAS59554 for example). It's an herbarium number so it can't be found with a BLAST search. To find another reference, I searched it in Google Scholar.
See that it is currently named as Cyanoboletus instabilis in Chai et al., 2019 and previously combined in this genus by Wu et al., 2016
You can see that Cupreoboletus genus makes no sense even in the phylogeny from the original publication!
No need to escalate or attack others with accusations (watch out for that 'manipulating' accusation). I didn't claim anywhere you were 'dishonest'.
Read what I wrote carefully and objectively.
You are stating I "don't like the change" and that I "reject" it. Don't assume that. I have nowhere gave an opinion about my agreement or disagreement towards the proposal. Read carefully.
I am well aware of all that literature and all the public sequences. I'm also well informed of all the background and I do not intend to discuss that.
The point I tried to make - apparently unsuccessfully, but I will try again - is to try to understand the strength of the scientific method and what it means.
As for the moment, we have no way to know what the journals or reviewers are considering and reporting back to the authors (assuming there is a manuscript). iNat has to wait for this process. Wait for the reviewers work and feedback to the authors. More often than not (almost always actually), authors have to adjust or correct their manuscript before their paper is accepted. Sometimes the revision is very significant and the paper's shape flips completely. We don't know if at this very moment the reviewers are not suggesting the authors to go for 'splitting' instead of 'lumping' (which is the trend anyways). Or perhaps the 'lumping' engulfs yet more genera. We don't know any this. Wait for the publication where the data is presented, reviewed and accepted. Then make the appropriate changes. But before this process is complete, iNat should not take a position (nothing to do with 'honesty'...the scientific method does not and cannot depend on 'trust').
You, me or anyone can have any opinion about this proposal, we might like or not, we might even debated freely as individuals. But iNat shouldn't act on a change until there is a convincing publication reviewed by the pairs. That is the very point of my post (nothing to do with you, me or the pope as individuals).
If iNat would keep doing this, what ends up happening is that there will be daily changes back and forth for dozens (hundreds, probably) of taxa, and completely subjective to bias (we all have it, it doesn't make us bad people, but we should keep it in check).
I might like the proposal even more than you, you just don't know. But my feelings cannot front run the scientific process. The message for iNat is:
In the future, mycology or whatnot, wait for the publication, read it, act upon it (It will actually save a lot of time and effort).
Hope the point went through this time. No hard feelings, let's keep it cool.
I don't think it's accurate to make such changes so easily only based on 'law'... We should be more critical thinking and wait for convincing data supporting such proposal.