Atención: Algunas o todas las identificaciones afectadas por esta división puede haber sido reemplazada por identificaciones de Cyclopes. Esto ocurre cuando no podemos asignar automáticamente una identificación a uno de los taxa de salida. Revisar identificaciones de Cyclopes didactylus 47109

Taxonomic Split 61690 (Guardado el 23/06/2021)

Miranda, Flávia R., et al. "Taxonomic review of the genus Cyclopes Gray, 1821 (Xenarthra: Pilosa), with the revalidation and description of new species." Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 183.3 (2017): 687-721.

Taxonomic review of the genus Cyclope... (Referencia)
Añadido por jwidness el 29 de agosto de 2019 | Comprometido por bobby23 el 23 de junio de 2021
dividido en

Comentarios

@loarie @bobby23
The MDD website isn't updated yet, but the next version will have this split. There's also a subspecies swap involved -- https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/61688. Maybe we have to wait until the MDD website updates to push this?

Publicado por jwidness hace más de 2 años (Marca)

Also, I made up the common names because C. didactylus sensu stricto needed to be something different.

Publicado por jwidness hace más de 2 años (Marca)

My preference would be to wait -but defer to you guys

Publicado por loarie hace más de 2 años (Marca)

Normally I would agree with Scott, but @coreyjlange already added the subspecies as placeholders for these species because he couldn't draft a taxon change himself. Prior to Miranda et al. (2017), the Silky Anteater was considered monophyletic with no subspecies designation.

Since the community is interested and we are partially following this already through Corey's subspecies, I say go for it.

However, @loarie is the only one that can edit the Xenarthra framework right now.

Publicado por bobby23 hace más de 2 años (Marca)

@nateupham would you support this split or do you think it may be premature to integrate into iNaturalist?

Publicado por bobby23 hace más de 2 años (Marca)

Seems safe to me to follow the recommendations of Miranda et al. 2017 in splitting Cyclopes -- in particular because (i) they relied on a variety of different types of evidence in making these delimitations (morphology, genetics from nuclear and mtDNA); (ii) its been nearly two years in print and no direct challenges are yet published, and (iii) it follows the diagnosis-and- monophyly-based version of the phylogenetic species concept (dmPSC as per Gutierrez and Garbino 2018 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6102684/), so it more explicitly testable against future types of evidence. Next version of the MDD will have these species.

Publicado por nateupham hace más de 2 años (Marca)

Agregar un comentario

Acceder o Crear una cuenta para agregar comentarios.