search

gbif / backbone-feedback

2 stars 0 forks source link

Species also appear in genus Piophila #452

Open gbif-portal opened 5 years ago

gbif-portal commented 5 years ago

Species also appear in genus Piophila

All the named, extant species in this taxon, Mycetaulus costalis, M. hispanicus, M. latipennis, M. nigritellus, and M. polypori, also currently appear under Piophila.

Mycetaulus is sometimes (rarely) considered a subgenus of Piophila. The species Piophila asiaticus, P. bipunctatus, confusus, P. longipennis, and P. subdolus also belong to this (sub)genus. Wherever they end up, they should probably be kept together.

User: See in registry System: Chrome 78.0.3904 / Windows 10.0.0 Referer: https://www.gbif.org/species/1522353 Window size: width 1039 - height 712 API log&_a=(columns:!(_source),index:'prod-varnish-',interval:auto,query:(query_string:(analyze_wildcard:!t,query:'response:%3E499')),sort:!('@timestamp',desc))) Site log&_a=(columns:!(_source),index:'prod-portal-',interval:auto,query:(query_string:(analyze_wildcard:!t,query:'response:%3E499')),sort:!('@timestamp',desc))) System health at time of feedback: OPERATIONAL

ManonGros commented 5 years ago

I don't think I understand the issue here. Should the species under the Mycetaulus taxon be under Piophila?

Chris-Angell commented 4 years ago

Hi Manon, I was the person who submitted this issue.

The main problem is that some species are appearing twice as separate entries under different genera, as a result of the different taxonomic schemes used by different sources. This used to be really bad in this family on GBIF, with several species appearing 3 times in different genera, but it got cleaned up in the past year.

The underlying issue is that some authors consider Mycetaulus to be a genus in itself, while others consider it to be a subgenus of Piophila. Since the cleanup, GBIF appears to be following the second convention, including the traditional "Mycetaulus" species in genus Piophila. However, five of the ten Piophila (Mycetaulus) species on GBIF are listed again under a separate genus Mycetaulus. I personally prefer Mycetaulus to be a full genus (I am not a taxonomist, but if you look at Piophila bipunctatus, you will see that Mycetaulus bipunctatus is the prevailing usage by far), but for consistency's sake I suppose I am suggesting that they be listed as synonyms of the Piophila spp.

I'm not sure what to do with Mycetaulus incretus, a fossil species that I have never seen placed under Piophila (probably because it is rarely included in taxonomic checklists).

ManonGros commented 3 years ago

@mdoering we have consistency issue here DynTaxa and the CoL use different classifications: for Dyntaxa Mycetaulus is an accepted genus while for the CoL it isn't (and the Mycetaulus species are synonym of the Piophila species like here: https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/4J2WN). This means that some Mycetaulus species are found under either genus.

Do you have any recommendation for this type of issue? Should we try to fix it in a patch? (having Mycetaulus attached to Piophila?) Should we try to contact one of the sources? Or perhaps leave them the classification as it is?

mdoering commented 3 years ago

If I understand the problem correctly the main issue is not to have redundant species placed under both genera M+P. Which is the main accepted one is not really key, we should just make sure to have only a single accepted name from each of the pairs. If COL accepts Piophila, this would be the main genus to use. Ideally these homotypic species would be spotted by the basionym detection, I will try to find out why that did not happen.

Curating these all in patches is scary as we will have to actively maintain and review the patch list over the years.

jhnwllr commented 3 years ago

The genus

Mycetaulus Loew, 1845 https://www.gbif.org/species/1522353

Only one species remaining. Mycetaulus bipunctatus Fallén, 1823 https://www.gbif.org/species/4516167

Should we try to get it moved to? Piophila Fallen, 1810 https://www.gbif.org/species/1444550

@Chris-Angell

Chris-Angell commented 3 years ago

Hi John,

I disagree with Systema Dipterorum's (diptera.org) decision to lump Mycetaulus into Piophila. I don't think that classification scheme is widely used by entomologists. But if you are following them, then yes Mycetaulus bipunctatus is a synonym of Piophila bipunctata, which is already on GBIF.

I have been meaning to get in contact with the folks at SD to ask them about this.

Chris

jhnwllr commented 3 years ago

ok I will write to the publisher. Thanks @Chris-Angell

Chris-Angell commented 3 years ago

I've spoken with Thomas Pape and Neil Evenhuis at SD and they just updated the piophilidae taxonomy at the beginning of the month! There are still a few small things out of place, but you should see a restoration of Mycetaulus and Protopiophila flowing from them to CoL and then to you. :)

Chris

On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 7:24 AM John Waller @.***> wrote:

ok I will write to the publisher. Thanks @Chris-Angell https://github.com/Chris-Angell

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/gbif/backbone-feedback/issues/452, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AINOZHG6S5IE4ZDNULCYST3UMONHFANCNFSM4JTIPNYQ . Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675 or Android https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub.