Blaberoidea. This
happens when we can't automatically assign an identification to one of the
output taxa.
Review identifications of Ectobiidae 461451
Taxonomic Split 116623
(Committed on 31-08-2023)
|
|
split into |
|
Comments
I think we should make multiple taxon swaps. I propose the following:
Ectobiidae --> Blaberoidea
Ectobiinae --> Ectobiidae
Blattellinae --> Blattellidae
Nyctiborinae --> Nyctiboridae
Pseudophyllodromiinae --> Pseudophyllodromiidae
Where there any other changes that I missed?
iNat does not list any of the lower classifications yet but it would be good to add them at some point.
Some other things before committing this though:
Do we know where Attaphilinae is now placed?
We should move the genera that are immediately under Ectobiidae into their respective subfamilies before the split if possible
@matthew_connors You right! I totally forgot the Attaphilinae. Roth (2003) placed the genus Attaphila the the subfamily Attaphilinae. While Djernæs et al.'s' (2020) result based on a 7-gene data set suggested it's placement in Blattellidae. Bohn et al. (2021) didn't agree with the result of Djernæs et al. (2020) that Attaphila might be close-related to Xestoblatta, Pseudomops, and Ischnoptera, but from their texts it appears that they tended to place the genus in Blattellidae. There're two choice regarding the placement of *Attaphila":
we can assign the genus to Blattelldae following following Djernæs et al. (2020) and swap Attaphilinae for Blattellidae, or,
we can keep Attaphila in Attaphilinae with the latter temporarily being treated as an family-undermined subfamily under Blaberoidea.
Of course, you proposal are also feasible, since I did consider that in the beginning. We will just need to erect a new Ectobiidae (different ID from the present 461451) and remove the "Ectobiidae" from the Names section of Blaberoidea. From the results they should be practically the same. I can propose all the swaps you suggested after we finish the discussion here.
And of course, during my process I will swap the subfamilies with families. I haven't proposed them because I hope we can reach some consensus here first. As you said, Ectobiinae to Ectobiidae, Blattellinae to Blattellidae, Nyctiborinae to Nyctiboridae and Pseudophyllodromiinae to Pseudophyllodromiidae. While those genera which haven't been assigned to any subfamily (family) will be placed directly under Blaberoidea.
The subfamilial and tribal classifications of "Ectobiidae" (s.l.) are rather chaotic and unstable so far (we can discuss this on Facebook if you want). At present I will not suggest to add them.
Sounds good, I am happy to leave out the lower classifications until something more stable becomes accepted. RE Attaphilinae I think leaving it directly under Blaberoidea with subfamily undetermined is best for now. Other than that though I am happy with these changes. I think given that they are so large, we should wait for some others to comment first just to make sure we are not missing anything!
Top identifiers who may have comments are: @sabutaro @hisserdude @highwaytohellgrammite @robertvlkphd @stephankleinfelder @estrada-alvarez_jc @thedlund
I'll also tag @thebeachcomber just to make sure we're not missing anything from the iNat side of things
big change hey. I would suggest when you do commit it, try to do it during an offpeak time (ie not during US peak time) as this will be a resource intensive change
just to clarify @william91803, when you say "While those genera which haven't been assigned to any subfamily (family) will be placed directly under Blaberoidea.", you're saying that if anyone has made an ID of one of those genera, you'll be bumping their ID back to Blaberoidea? Or that you're grafting them directly to Blaberoidea?
@thebeachcomber Those genera currently with (sub)familial placement undetermined, will be placed directly under Blaberoidea in the taxa system. I'm not going to do anything with the made IDs related to those genera.
May I ask when should be a proper US off peak please? Like around EST am 4:00 for instance?
Somewhere around that time would probably be best
any ideas when we'll know where those genera should be grafted (or hasn't that work been done yet?)
I can have a look when I get some time to see if they have been assigned lower ranks previously but iNat has just not put them in the relevant subfamilies
@thebeachcomber No one really knows I guess... Their taxonomic placement could only be revealed if someone studies them carefully in a modern sense and approach.
The only issue I can see with this is that iNaturalist defers to external taxonomic authorities and Cockroach Species File does not reflect this change yet while GBIF does list the new families it does not list their genera properly yet.
I do want to see this taxonomy updated though.
@matthew_connors
Matthew Connors
I agree with the replacement, from subfamilies to families, sensu Djarnaes, et al. (2020), considering this for Central America we have proposed an arrangement in Estrada-Álvarez & Sormani
(2021), in America Ectobiidae is only represented by three species introduced in Canada or the USA.
Attaphila is placed in the Blattelidae (Bohn and Klass, 2021) with left-sided genital hook (L3, h in Bohn and Klass, 2021) and the morphology of R3.
Austroectobius Vera & Schapheer, 2018
Having the genital hook on the right side (R2, L3 in Vera & Schapheer, 2018) would be included in Pseudophyllodromidae.
the american genera.
Myrmeblattina Chopard, 1926
Nymphodromia Rehn & Hebard, 1927
Paraloboptera Saussure, 1870
Phorticolea Bolívar, 1905
Sciablatta Hebard, 1921
Simblerastes Rehn & Hebard, 1927
Tairella Hebard, 1926
without family
Are we all good to commit this change?
Okay I think we are all good to change this given that there are no further comments and it seems to have been followed by all external authorities. I am aware that this is a big swap and I do not want to cause too many problems for the iNat system, so @loarie do you have any recommendations on how to go about actually making these taxon changes? I will do it during non-peak-US-time as @thebeachcomber suggested
please first move the respective genera Ectobiidae to the output taxa before splitting
Done! I will commit these in the coming days
Committed the first one, I will give it a few days and then do the others as well.
Alright, all changes have been committed. They should slowly update over the next few days
Not only Ectobiidae sensu lato, many genera/species of Blattodea are placed in wrong or inappropriate families/subfamilies/genera in Cockroach Species File now, and it seems that @matthew_connors made the changes following CSF. Dr. Beccaloni told me he's too busy to curate the CSF, and I doubt he will have time to do it after the Species File being moved to TaxonWorks. In other words, there's still no "reliable" external authority for Blattodea classification recently. What should we do with those taxa?
If we know that CSF is out of date then I have no problem with not using it, but we will see what others think. If taxa have been moved and there is some sort of reference to follow then I don't see any reason not to stick with the most up-to-date classification
As suggested by @roach_brain , I'm going to update the iNat's classification of Blaberoidea to a five-family version.
I proposed a "taxonomic split" to split the present Ectobiidae to four families, namely Ectobiidae, Blattellidae, Nyctiboridae and Pseudophyllodromiidae, so that the identifications as "Ectobiidae" so far will be replaced with "Blaberoidea" so that we don't have to check whether every "Ectobiidae" after being split really belongs to Ectobiidae sense stricto. I think it's much better than simply using "Taxon Swap" to replace subfamilies (Blattellinae, Ectobiinae, Nyctiborinae and Pseudophyllodromiinae) with families (Blattellidae, Ectobiidae, Nyctiboridae and Pseudophyllodromiidae) .
Any suggestion please?
@matthew_connors