Heads up: Some or all of the identifications affected by this split may have been replaced with identifications of Stylocheilus. This happens when we can't automatically assign an identification to one of the output taxa. Review identifications of Stylocheilus striatus 48654

Taxonomic Split 88466 (Committed on 2023-02-05)

Work in progress, PLEASE DON'T COMMIT!

Bazziculapo et al. (2020) split the wide-ranging S. striatus into three distinct, allopatric taxa based on genetic and internal characters. As far as I can tell from the paper, there is no way to distinguish these new species concepts by external morphology, so all people on iNat can probably do is adjust based on geography:

  • S. striatus (sensu stricto): "Indo-Pacific tropics, from Red Sea to Hawaiian Islands."
  • Stylocheilus rickettsi: "Eastern Pacific Ocean, from Baja California to Galápagos Islands."
  • Stylocheilus polyomma: "Western Atlantic Ocean, from Florida to Brazil."
Added by kueda on January 30, 2021 03:25 AM | Committed by kueda on February 5, 2023
split into

Comments

Some of us did already correct most of the Stylocheilus spp. IDs on iNat after the publication of Bazziculapo et al. (2020).
But now some observations with correct IDs have been move into genus level... one example: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/141354132

Posted by hsini_lin about 1 year ago

@hsini_lin, we have an established method for dealing with splits: making a taxon split record on iNat. That saves everyone time and executes the change in a way that everyone affected can see why the split was made and how to address situations where the changes could not be automated. We do not advise trying to fix these situations by adding IDs before adding a split record, because it makes more work for everyone and because it results in situations like the one you noted.

To deal with the current situation, I advise manually reviewing observations identified as the input taxon that are above species level: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/identify?reviewed=any&ident_taxon_id=48654&lrank=complex&place_id=any

If you'd like to learn more about changing iNat's taxonomy, please see https://www.inaturalist.org/pages/curator%252Bguide#changes

Posted by kueda about 1 year ago

@kueda I understand. I'm more stupid, so every time I did spend my time to review one by one the photos, not only because it was a good chance to review all the IDs but also an opportunity to find the exceptions that the authors of the papers did not consider or when the sampling was not done completely, or incases there are sympatric species. ;)

What I can't understand is: the example I attached was from Australia and, from the map here above I saw Australia is included in the Indo-Pacific correctly, so why It has been moved into genus level from correct ID Stylocheilus striatus after the split?

Posted by hsini_lin about 1 year ago

For https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/141354132, iNat doesn't think it is in Australia, so the atlas-based changed didn't apply. If you click "Details" under the map, you'll see the "Standard Places" list is empty, meaning the coordinates are not in any of the place boundaries that we on staff control (continents, countries, states, etc). Looking at the place boundary at https://www.inaturalist.org/places/australia, it looks like a lot of the outer reefs in that area are not within Australia according to iNat. I'm not 100% sure if we have a protocol for dealing with this beyond flagging the place. @loarie might be able to provide more input as he added a lot of these place boundaries.

Posted by kueda about 1 year ago

Thank you!

Posted by hsini_lin about 1 year ago

yes the iNat standard places are the GADM with a 0.05 degree coastal buffer https://inaturalist.org/pages/standard+places
that location falls outside of the resulting Australia Standard place boundary

Posted by loarie about 1 year ago

Add a Comment

Sign In or Sign Up to add comments

Gracias al apoyo de:

¿Quiere apoyarnos? Pregúntenos cómo escribiendo a snib.guatemala@gmail.com