pbrockPhas
commented
11 months ago Discussed during the meeting on 4 October, clearly a complex issue with 3 different pulchrifolium all listed as valid! Well beyond me. For my part, ready to add references that have dropped off the software due to being regarded as 'invalid' - in due course. Good to now have magdelainei back as a synonym of pulchrifolium instead of bioculatum.
https://sfg.taxonworks.org/tasks/nomenclature/browse?taxon_name_id=960337 for Pulchriphyllium bioculatum shows Phyllium magdelainei as a synonym. In old PSF, the valid species for magdelainei is correctly recorded as Pulchriphyllium pulchrifolium. Possibly because of subspecies and changes, the software picked this up as a synonym of bioculatum, in error, although it used to be years ago!
1) There seems to be a link missing somewhere, but I need a citation by Seow-Choen, 2018: 675 to read that Phyllium magdelainei is a new synonym of Phyllium (Pulchriphyllium) pulchrifolium (which was in old PSF software). Later, the subgenus was made valid in 2021 by another author, so the correct combination is now, as recorded, Pulchriphyllium pulchrifolium.
2) I cannot see this citation at all (under magdelainei in old PSF): Delfosse, Cliquennois, Depraetere & Robillard. 2019. Zoosystema 41(11):211 sciencepress.mnhn.fr >> Note: Type material in MNHN, Paris >> Phyllium (Pulchriphyllium) pulchrifolium
3) Possibly the above is linked to 'unavailable or invalid' citations, linked to Pulchriphyllium pulchrifolium https://sfg.taxonworks.org/tasks/nomenclature/browse?taxon_name_id=960342. Is this likely to be the case here and where I have seen 'unavailable or invalid' citations elsewhere?
I am making progress with keying papers on TW, including new species, new synonym, citations, so getting used to the basics, but this is beyond me - yet!