@gparosenberg @clauden @oceanicadventures @susanhewitt @ginsengandsoon @tfrench @pliffgrieff Anyone opposed to this? It's on the larger end but it would be in line with MB now. See also:

Posted by thomaseverest over 2 years ago

@thomaseverest, the taxon swap was intended for the genus--Tritia for Ilyanassa, But not to change the species obsoleta for trivittata?

Posted by clauden over 2 years ago

@thomaseverest Thank you for asking, but I am not currently familiar enough with the taxonomic history of this group to provide an informed opinion.

Posted by tfrench over 2 years ago

@clauden Whoops thanks for that catch!

Posted by thomaseverest over 2 years ago

I see that Thomas Say, an American Naturalist originally came up with the genus 'Nassa' in his publication in 1822. I also see the French Naturalist Antoine Risso is credited with naming the genus 'Tritia' in 1865. Finally, I see William Stimpson, an American working with the Smithsonian, is credited with 'Ilyanassa' in 1865. How are you choosing to reclassify this species? Is it based on the earlier date of Thomas Say's publication? Also, Say's publication does not have drawings or images, so how can we know what he was describing is the same genus as Risso or Stimpson?

Posted by aviewer over 2 years ago

@aviewer Please see the links in the description of this swap. Yang et al. (2021) proposed the reinstatement of the genus from molecular work. Besides, we follow secondary sources (MolluscaBase in this case) to avoid having arguments over individual publications. MB made the change and so we prefer to stick with them.

Posted by thomaseverest over 2 years ago

Thanks @thomaseverest !

Posted by clauden over 2 years ago

Add a Comment

Sign In or Sign Up to add comments

Gracias al apoyo de:

¿Quiere apoyarnos? Pregúntenos cómo escribiendo a