Taxonomic Merge 138983
(Guardado el 06/02/2024)
|
|
combinado en |
|
Comentarios
yep - except the split only just made it through IUCN last year https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/166731785/53961380, they are supposed to be following ASW but will probably take a few years to reverse it....
Great decision. Genetic split info in Barrow et al. (2014) lacked any spatial specificity for such a ubiquitous and adaptive amphibian. Paper literally had drawn an imaginary line through California's Klamath Mountains/ southern Oregon based on few (5) samples separated by >100 miles each. Need more research....
Not too familiar with the taxonomy, but I’m happy this merge was made, at least from an identifying standpoint. There’s often confusion between the three species since they’re morphologically indistinct. Identification now should be much more clear cut!
I'm honestly so happy to see these three different chorus frogs get lumped back into one species again. I agree with what rinaturalist said about the identifying standpoint, there is little to no distinction between any of the three frogs, both morphologically and vocally speaking. This also makes handling vagrant transplants across the U.S. as a whole a heck of a lot easier to deal with because once again they are indistinct of each other and even if its known where the frog originated from (most likely hitchhiking in potted plants from what I've seen from these vagrant sightings on iNat) there can still be two species that came from any said state that they came from so identifying to species was almost impossible. I may have lost a species to my life list from this taxon merge but I never really thought of them as different species in the first place, so I couldn't be any happier than I already am that merging them back into one species is official once more.
Now hopefully the fungus folks will catch on to this way of doing things. Gene sequencing is not the be-all end-all.
@loarie I'm working my way through cleaning up a lot of the ones that are now IDable to species, and I'm not sure why but it looks like some Sierra Treefrog IDs aren't auto-updating, or don't seem to be counting towards the ID?
For example here's some that still have Sierra IDs that didn't switch over:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/194488348
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/21024522
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/180529582
And I don't see why these didn't stay at research grade:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/195018938
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/194851975
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/128394910
Does it require a manual ID to get back to research grade after a taxon change?
@alexb0000 It looks like if another user comes and identifies observations like those it'll sort itself out. I went ahead and added IDs for them myself and it seemed to fix itself, even with the Sierra treefrog IDs, adding a new ID (even if it's just two Pacific chorus frog IDs vs one Sierra treefrog ID) overrules the inactive taxon and they all became research grade. Don't quote me on this if this how it's intended to work but that's what I found when I looked over those.
@alexb0000 some people opt out of "Account Settings -> Taxonomy Settings -> Automatically update my content for taxon changes" - I believe thats what you're seeing
@chickeroni Yeah was seeing the same thing, it seemed like the non-converted older ID didn't count towards research grade.
@loarie, thanks for the info. I didn't realize that was a user option. Oh well, more IDs to add manually.
Well, sorry to see such a great name—"hypochondriaca"—bite the dust. I would REALLY like to know what the original namer was thinking! But it sounds from other comments that the change is for a good cause.
Just noticed that all of Montana's Sierran Tree Frogs are back to P. regilla. There is a 2021 paper that has some good evidence that we have Sierrans in our state https://academic.oup.com/biolinnean/article/132/3/612/6090220 . Our Natural Heritage Program no longer recognizes P. regilla as present in the state based on this evidence. It would be great if there was a way to wind these changes back to reduce taxonomic confusion in our region.
Right back where we started from.