jhpoelen
commented
1 year ago @n8upham thanks for publicly sharing your notes. Your notes gave me specific examples of (casual?) language used to find consensus between existing taxonomic resources.
Open n8upham opened 1 year ago
jhpoelen
commented
1 year ago @n8upham thanks for publicly sharing your notes. Your notes gave me specific examples of (casual?) language used to find consensus between existing taxonomic resources.
n8upham
commented
1 year ago Nice! Glad that is helpful @jhpoelen -- yes it seems good to keep these exchanges in the public record to some extent if we can. Connor will join here soon too and there should be more direct exchange via GH Issues on reconciling these two taxonomies
JelleZijlstra
commented
1 year ago Formatted version:
Straightforward accepted changes:
MDD recognizes this species; I don't. I have some misgivings about this because the cited source shows that C. lycaon are essentially just C. lupus with some hybrid coyote ancestry, but I'll accept it.
I treat Lycalopex as feminine and consequently use the specific epithets grisea, gymnocerca, and vetula. MDD uses names in -us instead.
Lycalopex derives from the Greek ἀλώπηξ alôpêx "fox", which is feminine (LSJ).
The specific epithets griseus ("gray") and vetulus ("elderly") are definitely adjectives, so they should change with the gender of the genus; gymnocercus ("naked-tailed") could conceivably be interpreted as a noun in apposition instead to preserve the original form.
AI: Confirm the specific epithet changes are right and publish.
MDD synonymizes Galerella under Herpestes based on an mtDNA study that found Galerella to be paraphyletic. The decision is probably right, but I would prefer to wait for a peer-reviewed reference that explicitly makes the suggestion.
Three differences:
The generic name is feminine, so in the first two Hesperomys is wrong and I will correct it.
However, vitticollis is a third-declension adjective and the feminine form is also vitticollis. Urva vitticollis is right.
I recognize Poecilictis as a genus; MDD includes it in Ictonyx. I may have done this because Koepfli et al. (2008) found Ictonyx to be paraphyletic, but that goes against my own admonition to avoid making changes that haven't been explicitly proposed. I am synonymizing the two. Ref: Koepfli, K.-P., Deere, K.A., Slater, G.J., Begg, C., Begg, K., Grassman, L., Lucherini, M., Veron, G. and Wayne, R.K. 2008. Multigene phylogeny of the Mustelidae: Resolving relationships, tempo and biogeographic history of a mammalian adaptive radiation. BMC Biology 6(10):1-22. doi:10.1186/1741-7007-6-10
The spelling comment in MDD seems wrong: libyca is definitely an adjective, not a noun.
MDD accepts a recent proposal to lump Lutrogale, Amblonyx, and Aonyx into Lutra. This is a rather invasive change. It creates at least two homonymies among fossil species (robusta and indica). There are a couple of fossil genera closely related to Lutra that perhaps should also be synonymized (Algarolutra, Lutraeximia, Sardolutra). However, I will accept the change as I like reducing the number of (nearly) monotypic genera.
The original spelling is in fact strigodorsa, but virtually nobody has used that spelling since. The form strigidorsa can probably be declared a justified emendation through prevailing usage.
AI: Confirm this and publish it.
I have carcinophagus (interpreting the epithet as an adjective agreeing in gender with masculine Lobodon), MDD has carcinophaga, interpreting the name as a noun in apposition. Rice (1998) argued that it was a noun in apposition. I am skeptical this is what the original authors intended, but it's not worth disturbing the established nomenclature, and I'll switch to carcinophaga.
The name Genetta maculata was explicitly rejected by the ICZN because it was preoccupied by Viverra maculata Kerr = Dasyurus maculatus.
This was a rather complex nomenclatural situation, with a neotype designation and significant disagreement among authors who commented on the ICZN application. But the name maculata is definitely invalid, and fieldiana appears to be the oldest available name for the species, as Grubb (2004) called out.
Ref:
Three differences:
I accept change (1) to add the two species recognized by Veron et al. (2014).
For (2), MDD comments say that musanga is an adjective and therefore should agree in gender with the species name. But it's clearly not a classical Latin adjective. Raffles (1821), who named this species, writes that the Malay name of the animal is "Musang bulan", so he must have slightly Latinized that name by adding -a to create the scientific name. The name sounds like a noun in apposition to me. The previous name on the page is Viverra genetta, another similar noun in apposition. (I wonder what he meant by that, as Genetta doesn't occur on Sumatra. Maybe Viverricula?)
ADD: There is internal evidence that Raffles (1821) treated the name as a noun in apposition. In the rest of the paper, specific epithets are capitalized if they are based on a geographical term (e.g. Mephitis Javanensis p. 251) or are a noun in apposition (e.g. Viverra Genetta p. 252). Adjectival names are lowercase (e.g. Tupaia ferruginea p. 256). The specific epithet musanga is capitalized (Viverra Musanga p. 252). It's not a geographical term, so he must have treated it as a noun in apposition.
For (3), I base myself on Groves et al. (2009, p. 249). Their main conclusion (that there are three species of golden palm civets on Sri Lanka) has been rejected, but I haven't seen any reason to doubt their argument that the name zeylonensis was more likely based on a common palm civet (P. hermaphroditus), which also occurs on Sri Lanka. That leaves aureus as the oldest name for the golden palm civet.
connorjburgin
commented
1 year ago I gave comments to this one over email that I'll eventually add here, but it's a bit of work to put it into a good commenting format, so give me a bit.
JelleZijlstra
commented
1 year ago I decided to look more into the Nyctereutes viverrinus albus situation. In summary, I don't think there's anything worth following up on at the moment.
The two different albus names in my database seem to be just because I uncritically added names from various lists. The two descriptions are:
Both are based on the same specimen, a living animal in the New York zoo that was brought from Japan, acquired in Nagasaki but supposedly caught in the "northern portion of Japan". Based on the dates on the works themselves, Hornaday's description is unquestionably earlier. Hornaday is a formal description and Beard is a popular account in Scientific American. Nevertheless Beard (1904) is fairly regularly cited in the literature, maybe because it is easier to find than the zoo's annual report.
The current classification in the Japanese literature recognizes subspecies albus from Hokkaido and subspecies viverrinus from the rest of Japan. The 1904 sources don't even claim that the holotype came from Hokkaido; the "northern portion of Japan" could as well be northern Honshu. There is a specimen in the AMNH (AMNH 22792) with data that suggest it could be the holotype of albus, but Asahara (2016) found that it is not referable to the Hokkaido subspecies and probably isn't the holotype.
Ref: Asahara, M. 2016. Provenance of a raccoon dog specimen from the New York Zoological Society in 1905. Departmental Bulletin Paper 1:23-28. https://mie-u.repo.nii.ac.jp/index.php?active_action=repository_view_main_item_detail&page_id=13&block_id=21&item_id=6930&item_no=1
This author cites Yoshiyuki (1988) which might have more discussion about this matter, but I can't find it online. (Yoshiyuki M. (1988) Notes on the Yezo raccoon-dog, Nyctereutes procyonoides albus from Okushiri Island off Hokkaido, Japan. Memoirs of the National Science Museum 21: 189-197.)
Regardless, if this has already been considered in the literature, it seems fine to stick with the current classification.
Conversation with @JelleZijlstra, Connor Burgin, and @n8upham (Jan 22, 2023):
Carnivora
Straightforward accepted changes:
New mergers Eupleres major -> E. goudotii Galidictis grandidieri -> G. fasciata Salanoia durrelli -> S. concolor Mustela subpalmata -> M. nivalis Arctophoca -> Arctocephalus Nasuella meridensis -> Nasua olivacea Nasuella -> Nasua New splits Ailurus styani < A. fulgens Nyctereutes viverrinus < N. procyonoides Doesn't affect the species list but I'm skeptical about the subspecies albus for Hokkaido. It was apparently named twice in 1904 by two different authors (not clear which was first), one said to come from Nagasaki and the other from Hokkaido. Leopardus emiliae < L. tigrinus Bdeogale omnivora < B. crassicauda Proteles septentrionalis < P. cristatus Melogale subaurantiaca < M. moschata Neogale < Mustela Recently extinct species omitted from my database export Dusicyon avus (though I am surprised to learn it went extinct in the last 500 years; found a reference establishing that it did in the IUCN account) Cryptoprocta spelea I don't think there's evidence this species lived past 1500 so it might not belong in the MDD, though it is on the Red List. I'm personally also somewhat skeptical it's really distinct, since it is diagnosed purely on the basis of size. Other changes Leopardus fasciatus is a senior synonym of L. munoai Canidae
Canis lycaon (+)
MDD recognizes this species; I don't. I have some misgivings about this because the cited source shows that C. lycaon are essentially just C. lupus with some hybrid coyote ancestry, but I'll accept it.
Lycalopex spelling (-)
I treat Lycalopex as feminine and consequently use the specific epithets grisea, gymnocerca, and vetula. MDD uses names in -us instead.
Lycalopex derives from the Greek ἀλώπηξ alôpêx "fox", which is feminine (LSJ).
The specific epithets griseus ("gray") and vetulus ("elderly") are definitely adjectives, so they should change with the gender of the genus; gymnocercus ("naked-tailed") could conceivably be interpreted as a noun in apposition instead to preserve the original form.
AI: Confirm the specific epithet changes are right and publish.
Herpestidae
Galerella vs. Herpestes (-)
MDD synonymizes Galerella under Herpestes based on an mtDNA study that found Galerella to be paraphyletic. The decision is probably right, but I would prefer to wait for a peer-reviewed reference that explicitly makes the suggestion.
Urva spelling (+/-)
Three differences:
MDD fusca vs. Hesp fuscus MDD javanica vs. Hesp javanicus MDD vitticolla vs. Hesp vitticollis The generic name is feminine, so in the first two Hesperomys is wrong and I will correct it.
However, vitticollis is a third-declension adjective and the feminine form is also vitticollis. Urva vitticollis is right.
Mustelidae
Ictonyx vs. Poecilictis (+)
I recognize Poecilictis as a genus; MDD includes it in Ictonyx. I may have done this because Koepfli et al. (2008) found Ictonyx to be paraphyletic, but that goes against my own admonition to avoid making changes that haven't been explicitly proposed. I am synonymizing the two. Ref: Koepfli, K.-P., Deere, K.A., Slater, G.J., Begg, C., Begg, K., Grassman, L., Lucherini, M., Veron, G. and Wayne, R.K. 2008. Multigene phylogeny of the Mustelidae: Resolving relationships, tempo and biogeographic history of a mammalian adaptive radiation. BMC Biology 6(10):1-22. doi:10.1186/1741-7007-6-10
The spelling comment in MDD seems wrong: libyca is definitely an adjective, not a noun.
Lutra and related genera (+)
MDD accepts a recent proposal to lump Lutrogale, Amblonyx, and Aonyx into Lutra. This is a rather invasive change. It creates at least two homonymies among fossil species (robusta and indica). There are a couple of fossil genera closely related to Lutra that perhaps should also be synonymized (Algarolutra, Lutraeximia, Sardolutra). However, I will accept the change as I like reducing the number of (nearly) monotypic genera.
Mustela strigodorsa vs. strigidorsa (+)
The original spelling is in fact strigodorsa, but virtually nobody has used that spelling since. The form strigidorsa can probably be declared a justified emendation through prevailing usage.
AI: Confirm this and publish it.
Phocidae
Lobodon carcinophaga vs. carcinophagus (+)
I have carcinophagus (interpreting the epithet as an adjective agreeing in gender with masculine Lobodon), MDD has carcinophaga, interpreting the name as a noun in apposition. Rice (1998) argued that it was a noun in apposition. I am skeptical this is what the original authors intended, but it's not worth disturbing the established nomenclature, and I'll switch to carcinophaga.
Viverridae
Genetta fieldiana vs. maculata (-!)
The name Genetta maculata was explicitly rejected by the ICZN because it was preoccupied by Viverra maculata Kerr = Dasyurus maculatus.
This was a rather complex nomenclatural situation, with a neotype designation and significant disagreement among authors who commented on the ICZN application. But the name maculata is definitely invalid, and fieldiana appears to be the oldest available name for the species, as Grubb (2004) called out.
Ref:
Grubb, P. 2004. Comment on the proposed conservation of Viverra maculata Gray, 1830 (currently Genetta maculata; Mammalia, Carnivora). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 61(2):119-122. International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 2007. Opinion 2183 (Case 3204). Viverra maculata Gray, 1830 (currently Genetta maculata; Mammalia, Carnivora): specific name not conserved. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3):205-206. Paradoxurus (+/-)
Three differences:
MDD adds two species, P. musangus and P. philippinensis MDD uses the spelling musangus, I use musanga (for a subspecies at the moment) MDD calls the Sri Lanka golden palm civet zeylonensis, I use aureus I accept change (1) to add the two species recognized by Veron et al. (2014).
For (2), MDD comments say that musanga is an adjective and therefore should agree in gender with the species name. But it's clearly not a classical Latin adjective. Raffles (1821), who named this species, writes that the Malay name of the animal is "Musang bulan", so he must have slightly Latinized that name by adding -a to create the scientific name. The name sounds like a noun in apposition to me. The previous name on the page is Viverra genetta, another similar noun in apposition. (I wonder what he meant by that, as Genetta doesn't occur on Sumatra. Maybe Viverricula?)
For (3), I base myself on Groves et al. (2009, p. 249). Their main conclusion (that there are three species of golden palm civets on Sri Lanka) has been rejected, but I haven't seen any reason to doubt their argument that the name zeylonensis was more likely based on a common palm civet (P. hermaphroditus), which also occurs on Sri Lanka. That leaves aureus as the oldest name for the golden palm civet.