[Taxacom] unflagged classification change question

[Tony Rees]

For a moderately complex example if interested, see the " *Taxonomic remark*"
section in my own data compilation for the dingo here:

http://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=10200772#notes

Or to save you the trouble of clicking on the link:

<snip>
Authorship is Meyer, 1793 (refer ICZN Official List) although has
previously been incorrectly cited in ITIS and Catalogue of Life (to 2018)
as Blumenbach, 1780. This species (the dingo) is presently treated in IRMNG
as a subspecies of the wolf, Canis lupus following ITIS, 2018 version,
which is based on Wilson & Reeder, Mammal Species of the World (2005
edition), although in other sources it is alternatively treated as a
subspecies of the domestic dog (Canis familiaris dingo: e.g. Déaux et al.
2016), as a race or breed of domestic dog (Canis familiaris, no subspecies:
Australian Faunal Directory, 2018), or as a full species (Canis dingo:
Crowther et al., 2014), according to the authors' preferences.
</snip>

This is an example of a "no consensus" situation in which I currently pick
a source (for simplicity in this instance) and follow it, even though it
may not be the most recent, and wait for the situation to perhaps resolve
itself more clearly - perhaps when the next edition of "Mammal Species of
the World" eventuates ... (basically there are four competing positions,
each with its own adherents, and no clear winner at this time).

Regards - Tony

Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
https://about.me/TonyRees


On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 at 08:23, Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> it seems to me that none of the options (A), (B) or (C) in the original
> post quite cover the optimal response. Basically the "new" worker needs to
> review the evidence on which the proposed synonymy was based, together with
> anything that has come to light more recently, and come to a decision as to
> whether s/he currently accepts the synonymy treatment (lumping if you will,
> let us say as most recently argued, or accepted by "Federer") or the "2
> distinct species" treatment (the splitting option, let us say as most
> recently argued, or accepted by "Nadal"). The choice of wording then
> becomes more simple, along the lines of:
>
> "Taxonomic treatment follows [Federer | Nadal] (delete as appropriate),
> although  [Nadal | Federer] treats "species B" as [an accepted species |
> a junior synomym of "species A"].
>
> Of course if there is no recent work that seriously argues splitting, then
> saying "Taxonomic treatment follows Federer" would be quite sufficient.
>
> Whether or not "Smith" is mentioned as well, or in place of "Nadal", would
> depend on the notability (perceived authoritativeness, or wide
> distribution), of the "Smith" treatment". If the "Smith" work is notable
> (for example, a widely distributed checklist of the group), I would suggest
> "Smith" replace "Nadal" in the sample wording above. If "Smith" is a minor
> work, then it may merit mention in an additional remark, or not, according
> to the author's discretion. Basically here we are talking usages, not
> nomenclatural or new taxonomic acts, which as such would not normally
> appear in a synonymy list, but may on occasion still be of value to be
> notified to a reader.
>
> That is my take, and I encounter such situations on a semi-regular basis.
>
> Regards to all - Tony
>
> Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
> https://about.me/TonyRees
>
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 2:52 PM, Derek Sikes <dssikes at alaska.edu <http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom>> wrote:
>>
>> >* All,
>> *>>* For those of you who keep track of one or more taxonomic classifications on
>> *>* which you are an authority...
>> *>>* I'd like to know how you'd react to the following (all too-realistic)
>> *>* hypothetical scenario:
>> *>>* *You find a publication by Smith in which a species name that you feel had
>> *>* been justifiably made a junior synonym some years earlier, was treated as a
>> *>* valid species with no explanation for the change. *
>> *>>* In the next publication you produce on the group do you:
>> *>>* A) list it as a valid species citing Smith's publication
>> *>>* B) re-synonymize it, cite Smith, and explain that there was no evidence
>> *>* offered by Smith for the change
>> *>>* C) ignore (don't cite) Smith and list it as a junior synonym
>> *>>* D) something else? (& for this hypothetical, imagine Smith recently died)
>> *>>* Thanks,
>> *>* Derek
>> *>>* --
>> *>>* +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> *>* Derek S. Sikes, Curator of Insects
>> *>* Associate Professor of Entomology
>> *>* University of Alaska Museum
>> *>* 1962 Yukon Drive
>> *>* Fairbanks, AK   99775-6960
>> *>>* dssikes at alaska.edu <http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom>*
>>
>>
>>