Heads up: Some or all of the identifications affected by
this split may have been replaced with identifications of 
Agathodes. This
happens when we can't automatically assign an identification to one of the
output taxa.
Review identifications of Agathodes designalis 324817
Agathodes. This
happens when we can't automatically assign an identification to one of the
output taxa.
Review identifications of Agathodes designalis 324817
Taxonomic Split 102521
(Committed on 19-02-2023)
|
|
split into |
|
Comments
@gcwarbler - the red and blue do represent observations of designalis & monstralis as you stated.
But that doesn't have anything to do with the atlases. That atlases can be updated here:
https://www.inaturalist.org/atlases/43779
https://www.inaturalist.org/atlases/43780
They are the places that will be used to replace existing IDs of designalis with designalis, monstralis, or coarsened genus level obs
So it appears that red represents observations presently IDed as monstralis and blue is designalis. If so, the present "Atlasing" is partially in error. The Sourakov et al. (2015) paper mentions specimens of monstralis examined from Florida, Arizona, Mexico, Dominican Republic, and Costa Rica. They recite material for designalis from Argentina, Peru, Ecuador, Honduras, and Costa Rica. So the areas free of ambiguity would seem to be as follows:
monstralis: U.S., Carribean, and Mexico.
designalis: South American
Central American records from Costa Rica north at least to Honduras are ambivalent and would have to be manually examined and assigned based on the criteria in Sourakov et al. (2015). This should probably also include observations in Belize, Guatemala, and El Salvador.
So how can the atlasing be updated?
Source: Sourakov, A., et al. 2015. On the taxonomy of the erythrina moths Agathodes and Terastia (Crambidae: Spilomelinae): Two different patterns of haplotype divergence and a new species of Terastia. Trop. Lepid. Res. (35(2):80-97.