The taxon provincialis is not accepted as a species by most of the recent authorities, eg., the European checklist by Wiemers etal (2018), etc. The only place I am aware of where this taxon has the species level is the Italian checklist by Balletto etal (2014). I am not aware of any justification of the species status of this taxon.
As a result, there is mess here: some observations (of clearly the same taxon) are listed under provincialis, some -- under aurinia. We need to treat this somehow.
If you object, please comment here. In such a case, it would be useful to provide a justification of the specific status: eg., molecular evidence, etc.
Unintended disagreements occur when a parent (B) is
thinned by swapping a child (E) to another part of the
taxonomic tree, resulting in existing IDs of the parent being interpreted
as disagreements with existing IDs of the swapped child.
Identification
ID 2 of taxon E will be an unintended disagreement with ID 1 of taxon B after the taxon swap
If thinning a parent results in more than 10 unintended disagreements, you
should split the parent after swapping the child to replace existing IDs
of the parent (B) with IDs that don't disagree.
Reasons for this change:
The taxon provincialis is not accepted as a species by most of the recent authorities, eg., the European checklist by Wiemers etal (2018), etc. The only place I am aware of where this taxon has the species level is the Italian checklist by Balletto etal (2014). I am not aware of any justification of the species status of this taxon.
As a result, there is mess here: some observations (of clearly the same taxon) are listed under provincialis, some -- under aurinia. We need to treat this somehow.
If you object, please comment here. In such a case, it would be useful to provide a justification of the specific status: eg., molecular evidence, etc.
@chrisvanswaay @leo_dapporto @sindic @roberto_sindaco @leibele @heinerziegler