Taxacom: Carposinoidea or Copromorphoidea?

[Francisco Welter-Schultes]

A name is not valid as such, it does not have a somewhat official status 
as a valid name, initiated by some kkind of a formal procedure. This 
term refers only to an individual publication, where a name is "treated 
as valid".

If a name was treated as valid in a recent publication where the 
validity was just claimed without detailed taxonomic arguments in the 
background, then it is possible that subsequent authors would not accept 
the validity of this name, and instead continue to use the previously 
used name as valid. If the proposal to use such a name was backboned 
with a detailed taxonomic research, in such a case also with results of 
a molecular study, then it is likely that subsequent authors will adopt 
the change quickly.

So a data aggregator of an online service would normally be cautious 
when reading such new proposals, depending on the quality of the 
published study, and eventually wait some time before adopting such 
changes.

Best wishes
Francisco

Am 26.07.2024 um 13:16 schrieb Facundo Martín Labarque via Taxacom:
> Dear Soowon,
> 
> In that case, I will take a look in the papers for a formal taxonomic
> transfer of Carposinidae to Copromorphidae. Formal meaning a expressed
> written line/section that makes that statement. Otherwise, is a suggestion
> and, so, you should maintain both names even if in some analyses the
> evidence do not support those groups (non monophyly of one of those
> clades). Until someone makes the formal taxonomic transfer or synonymy of
> the families, both are valid.
> 
> Best,
> 
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 9:42 PM Soowon Cho via Taxacom <taxacom at lists.ku.edu>
> wrote:
> 
>> Dear members,
>>
>> I need your professional opinion, please.
>> Which one is right, Carposinoidea or Copromorphoidea?
>> Some consider Carposinidae may be subordinate to Copromorphidae as
>> Carposinidae have some autapomorphies while Copromorphidae do not.
>> Others consider they are different as several molecular studies on
>> Lepidoptera phylogeny at least separated the two, whether they form a
>> sister group relationship or not. Carposinidae always formed a monophyly
>> although its bootstrap support was low.
>> Therefore, I think I should retain the family name Carposinidae (as well as
>> Copromorphidae) though some may not agree and put carposinid species inside
>> Copromorphidae.
>> Well, back to my original question, do you agree that the family name
>> Copromorphidae (including all the carposinid species) is under the
>> superfamily name Carposinoidea? What about vice versa?
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> --
>> Soowon Cho
>> chosoowon at gmail.com
>> Dept Plant Medicine
>> Chungbuk Nat'l Univ
>> Cheongju, 361-763
>> KOREA
>> _______________________________________________
>> Taxacom Mailing List
>>
>> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
>> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
>> https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom
>> You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
>>
>> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 37 years, 1987-2024.
>>
>>
>>
>