Heads up: Some or all of the identifications affected by this split may have been replaced with identifications of Bolinopsis. This happens when we can't automatically assign an identification to one of the output taxa. Review identifications of Bolinopsis infundibulum 492705

Taxonomic Split 115446 (Committed on 15-10-2022)

Bolinopsis infundibulum => Bolinopsis microptera

Name reverts to original Agassiz 1865 name for Strait of Georgia south to California at least.

For more discussion: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/74472285

@bobmcd @cemills @clauden @wyattp11

I drafted a split and began delineating an atlas for Bolinopsis microptera, as per the source. However, I have never done this before so I don't think I will be the one to commit. The atlas may need refining because by default it designates a terrestrial landmass. I have no clue how to designate an offshore area. I also created an atlas for Bolinopsis infundibulum that inverts the atlas for B. microptera, though the distribution of B. infundibulum is not clear at present. I am leaving this open for another more experienced curator to commit this split, as this is the first time I have approached an atlas-based taxon split.

Speciation of pelagic zooplankton: In... (Citation)
Added by chlorophilia on 10 October, 2022 19:26 | Committed by chlorophilia on 15 October, 2022
split into

Comments

@chlorophilia, apart from the challenge as B. i. has some overlaps and uncertainty, you touch on an aspect that is not-yet well-defined or used in iNaturalist: coastal vs offshore marine areas. There is a gazetteer (https://www.marineregions.org/) and there are some specialty group categories with names--mostly overlapping, but have their uses (IHO, MEOW, LME, NAFO, ICES, etc). @mkkennedy has long called called for more work on marine areas for the iNat atlas. It would help us to manage and update many taxonomic records on iNat, rather just the observations near coastlines. But atlas definitions are 'a lot of work' or burden, I understand. Am looking forward to seeing how this suggested split is resolved. Note: having marine map groupings are not essential, but are a very powerful way of navigating and reviewing iNat records--and is turning it into the online source of vetted biodiversity records. Claude.

Posted by clauden 4 months ago (Flag)

Thank you @loarie for reviewing this draft split.
I have reviewed and will implement it.

Heads up @bobmcd @cemills @clauden @wyattp11 @mkkennedy

@loarie made some comments on my flag, which I have included below for the consideration of the community:

"Looks pretty good - if you click "Analyze IDs" on https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/115446 you'll see this output:

Total IDs of input taxon: 360
Number of IDs Destination Atlas
72 Bolinopsis infundibulum Atlased
276 Bolinopsis microptera Atlased
12 Bolinopsis Outside of all atlases
0 Bolinopsis Overlapping atlases

The atlases are responsible for those destinations. If that looks good (you can click through to see the obs involved) then commit. Its probably hard to 100% avoid 'outside of all atlases' because of the open ocean thing you mentioned, but you can manually ID them using that link:"
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?id=129418297%2C127679253%2C122792535%2C122664190%2C117874357%2C11554514

Posted by chlorophilia 3 months ago (Flag)

@clauden I'm not sure if you are familiar with the following feature request on the iNat Forum https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/implement-standard-marine-places-for-the-worlds-oceans/1458/8
@chlorophilia thanks for your efforts

Posted by bobmcd 3 months ago (Flag)

Thanks @chlorophilia and all for this activity. Along with the feature request, there could be several marine taxa that could be updated (and split) based on marine areas. Currently, we are simply manually updating them as they appear individually--are often for observations that are based on outdated guidebooks so submitters are not aware there could be something else. I am following this carefully. And also hope to discuss these types of biodiversity matters with iNat and others at TDWG as of Sunday/Monday: https://www.tdwg.org/conferences/2022/

Posted by clauden 3 months ago (Flag)

I'm not clear on why you include the Hakai and Port Hardy observations as B. microptera. They may well be, but cannot be identified from most photographs and unless they have been studied genetically, probably can't be certainly ID'd as B. microptera.

Posted by cemills 3 months ago (Flag)

I don't understand why https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/122792535was changed out from Bolinopsis infundibulum, to just Bolinopsis, unless it was done by the observer.
The photo isn't great, but biogeographically, it is very likely to be Bolinopsis infundibulum.

Posted by cemills 3 months ago (Flag)

I don't like the way that this split makes it seem like the person who made each iNaturalist entry changed their ID, which they did not.
It ends up with no authority for why each entry was changed.

Posted by cemills 3 months ago (Flag)

@cemills —the taxon split system is imperfect. Near as I can tell, you can only select regions fairly broadly when delineating the atlases. Some manual identifications will be necessary to improve the geographic accuracy of the split. Hopefully it means a little less work in the end.

The matter of how iNat attributes the split to identifiers is another issue—something to raise on a community forum if you'd like to propose a change!

This was my first atlas-based split. I hope to learn from the process to improve my curatorial abilities in the future. If anyone is aware of what I might have done differently, please let me know.

Posted by chlorophilia 3 months ago (Flag)

Add a Comment

Sign In or Sign Up to add comments