@rstlaurent Could I ask you to review these three taxon changes (this current one and the two it links to)?

Posted by treichard almost 2 years ago (Flag)

Hi @treichard - Personally it's fine with me to revert to original spellings on iNat, though it confuses folks that do not pay special attention to nomenclature (or know about the various rules). Most Lepidopterists do not care too much about gender agreement, there are several papers on this topic, but I do know some folks that prefer to follow gender agreement and continue to do so. There is not really a consensus in the community. My opinion is to disregard gender agreement for sake of simplicity and stability of names, but I can by no means offer a definitive argument.

Posted by rstlaurent almost 2 years ago (Flag)

That's the situation as I understand it. I've been working on cleaning up iNat's lep species duplicates (another form of user confusion) where only the suffix is different between the two species taxa and merging them into the taxon with the original spelling. iNat wants to use taxonomic authorities, especially global ones like the recent Bombycoidea catalog, and nearly all of them I've found use original spelling.

I also wanted to check if anything has changed with Rothschilia species and subspecies since the 2019 catalog. I haven't found any new literature.

Posted by treichard over 1 year ago (Flag)

@treichard that makes sense, especially regarding duplicates of the same taxon with the only variation in the suffix. Those should definitely be fixed. And I think the Bombycoidea list is the best thing to follow as an iNat taxon authority, there has not been too much since then (nothing on the taxonomy of Rothschildia as far as I know though the Entomo-Satsphingia names are so numerous that I can hardly keep track). I always list that as a reference when I add missing bombycoid species to iNat, for example.

Posted by rstlaurent over 1 year ago (Flag)

Add a Comment

Sign In or Sign Up to add comments