Closed peterdesmet closed 4 years ago
The taxa
spreadsheet only contains species officially listed on Wiemers et al. (2018, https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.811.28712). I think we should therefore not include the above regional names that we could not match (11 names, 18 distributions).
R: I agree
From that same article (https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.811.28712):
Polyommatus eleniae: Considered conspecific with Polyommatus orphicus based on the equal haploid chromosome number and no differences in mitochondrial DNA – barcoding gene (Vishnevskaya et al. 2016).
Is Lopinga deidamia
a synonym of Lasiommata deidamia (Eversmann, 1851)
?
From the article:
Polyommatus pljushtchi: Species status is based on erroneous sequences (opinion in Kudrna et al. (2011); Shapoval and Lukhtanov (2015).) Considered here as ssp. of Polyommatus damone (Eversmann, 1841).
From spreadsheet:
Comment Yurii Geryak: Polyommatus pljushtchi is a valid species. European endemic, restricted to the Crimea; not according to Wiemers et al. (in prep)
Aricia hyacinthus is accepted by GBIF (https://www.gbif.org/species/5140131) but not by Wiemers et al. (2018) ... Wiemers et al decided what is a species and what not and I am not going to argue with them about that. Most of the other species are only very accidentally seen in Europe, but do have accepted names in GBIF
Was already implemented. Checklist will only contain names from Wiemers et al.
All butterfly species in distributions have a matching higher classification in the
taxa
spreadsheet, except the ones below, probably because no match in GBIF was found.@dirkmaes33 @DimEvil Do we try to complete missing information for those species, especially those with a (non regional)
scientific name
?