merged into |
|
So are you saying that as one of iNat's taxonomic 'curators' you can just chose not to implement changes if you don't find proposals convincing enough? I was under the impression that once a change was agreed upon by some taxonomic review committee it was a done deal. And as I write this I'm not even sure how that process works. Is there some sort of international committee like that, and how do they reach any consensus?
Ah well I was more talking theoretically in the broad sense. iNat prefers to follow external sources for taxonomy, and so we use MolluscaBase for mollusks. This merge is consistent with MolluscaBase. I just didn't want to start merging a whole bunch of names when there are folks on iNat who know way more about these animals than I do. I've ruffled feathers before and would prefer to avoid that again. :)
@redgarter Here's another from the same paper. It almost appears to support subspecies, but doesn't explicitly say it. Johnson et al. (2018) was a similar study: both looked at shell shape, geography, and DNA. However, Johnson et al. (2018) used nuclear sequencing in addition to 2 types of mitochondrial sequencing (Lopes-Lima et al. [2019] just did the 2 mitochondrial types). Their results would not support subspecies, but also didn't look at much morphology.
Also tagging @srichard89, who brought this up, and top IDer @dbarclay.