ITIS - missing basionym for Caenolestes fuliginosus (Tomes, 1863)

[ManonGros]

Describe the problem: Related to this issue: https://github.com/gbif/backbone-feedback/issues/310 logged by @ApoSimon on the GBIF Feedback Portal:

The basionym of Caenolestes fuliginosus (Tomes, 1863) is Hyracodon fuliginosus Tomes, 1863.

I assume this is for @DaveNicolson to review.

Link to effected CoL webpages: https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/5X4V9

Literature references: @ApoSimon do you have any reference?

[yroskov]

For @DaveNicolson consideration

[DaveNicolson]

Thanks for this, we will be adding more synonymy (including original names/combinations) when we next update this mammal group. There is not a timeframe for this update yet, but we will get to this as priorities & staff time permit.

[ApoSimon]

• Original publication: Tomes, R.F. 1863: Notice of a new American form of marsupial. Proceedings of the Scientific Meetings of the Zoological Society of London 1863: 50-51, pl. VIII (https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/96445#page/86/mode/1up)

• Accepted combination: Gardner, A.L. 2005. Order Paucituberculata. In: Wilson, D.E. & Reeder, D.M. (eds.) Mammal Species of the World, Third Edition. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore: 19-20. (http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/biology/resources/msw3/browse.asp?id=10500009) Timm, R.M. & Patterson, B.D. 2007: Genus Ceanolestes O. Thomas, 1895. In: Gardner, A.L. (ed.) Mammals of South America, vol. 1. Marsupials, xenarthrans, shrews, and bats, University of Chicago Press, Chicago: 120-124.

[DaveNicolson]

Thank you, ApoSimon, for the additional information. As I noted, we are not currently working on this family, but we plan to do so, and at that time we will be expanding the synonymy. Note also that Mammal Species of the World volumes have expressed synonymy in an ambiguous format, as they don't provide full name combinations there, just epithet & authorship (with parentheses if the original genus was not the current genus). From just MSW3, it is impossible to tell if the original combination was a binomen or a trinomen, or what the original genus was (unless it is still in the original genus, but even then it doesn't indicate the rank of the original combination as species or subspecies etc... note also that the synonymous "combinations" given in the index might never have appeared anywhere else in the literature, as they represent the synonymous epithet combined with the current genus genus, although there is no way to be sure without additional research). For that reason it was not possible to provide the original name/combination in synonymy without consulting additional source(s), such as those you kindly supplied, something that had not yet been done with this group by ITIS when it was last updated in ITIS. We will update this in time in ITIS, at which time it will propagate to COL and GBIF (etc.).