genus Dinomyrmex was resurrected as a proper genus and species updates

[CecSve]

The genus Dinomyrmex is listed vas doubtfull, and is considered as a subgenus in the GBIF database. However, it was resurrected as a proper genus in 2015 by Ward et al. (reference below).

Dinomyrmex consists of just a single species, which should also be adjusted in the database: Camponotus (Dinomyrmex) gigas => should be => Dinomyrmex gigas

Ward, P. S., Blaimer, B. B., & Fisher, B. L. (2016). A revised phylogenetic classification of the ant subfamily Formicinae (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), with resurrection of the genera Colobopsis and Dinomyrmex. Zootaxa, 4072(3), 343-357.

[CecSve]

The record is published by The Interim Register of Marine and Nonmarine Genera. The Plazi treatment links to the revised taxonomy.

[CecSve]

The new catalogue of life should include the species in the checklist and then the genus would become accepted.

[TonyRees]

Thanks for that alert. I have updated the relevant IRMNG record for the genus Dinomyrmex so this will no longer appear doubtful in the next release (due by approx. July 2024). The species record will not, however, appear in IRMNG since IRMNG species are rather patchy (many missing) and not routinely added at this time, and those that exist have not been revised for >10 years, unfortunately. (Also taken the opportunity to demote to "accepted" the former genera Forelophilus and Phasmomyrmex, now treated as subgenera in that work; there are some additional changes at subgenus but those are not normally treated in IRMNG); updated IRMNG record is at https://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1184273 .

As a point of interest, changes like this (rank changes e.g. subgenera becoming accepted genera and vice versa, without any proposed new names) are not routinely picked up by IRMNG literature scans, which by default look for newly proposed genus/subgenus names, although they are sometimes picked up adventitiously, for example by comparison with other catalogues, however on this occasion not so (IRMNG would not normally have "discovered" this paper by its regular processes, although it might eventually have discovered that the name is now "accepted" via other routes).

I am not sure on this occasion from where GBIF will obtain the new species record but maybe it will do from another source. Regards - Tony Rees, IRMNG

[CecSve]

Thank you for your input and for fixing it on your end @TonyRees! If the species record does not appear, then we will probably still interpret the genus as doubtful since this is one of the automated checks we run (no species associated with the genus = doubtful). We are in the process of switching from the GBIF taxonomic backbone to Catalogue of Life, so eventually all taxonomic information will be managed by Catalogue of Life.

[camiplata]

This is under editorial review on the COL side, this will be fixed by iether the base release or the xrelease Also related to this COL issues