Taxonomic Swap 135432
(提交於 2023-12-01)
|
|
替代為 |
|
評論
Yes, this species certainly doesn't belong to the genus Gracillaria; in the original description, this species was misspelled "Gracilaria quinquistrigella", so I have provisionally used that name here until the correct generic placement can be determined.
Very creative!
Interesting - thanks for asking the question. I was wondering the same thing.
So if Gracilaria is spelled incorrectly, and it doesn't belong to Gracillaria, what's wrong with Acrocercops? Are there other species in that genus that are still valid?
I see bugguide has them in "Genus-undetermined" :)
The species belongs in the subfamily Ornixolinae, so it definitely doesn't make sense to keep it in Acrocercops (Acrocercopinae), which just happens to be where it was placed in the 1983 checklist. It's standard practice, when generic placement is uncertain, to list species with their original combination (ideally with the genus in quotes, but iNaturalist and BugGuide don't allow for that possibility). We would have done that in the new checklist too, but because that list divides the Gracillariidae up by subfamily, Greg Pohl made the editorial decision to list it with no genus, because it didn't make sense to have headings for Gracil(l)aria both under Gracillariinae and Ornixolinae. The different formats of that publication, iNat, and BugGuide resulted in different decisions about how to deal with this species in each case.
Is there some reason this generic name is spelled with one "l" in this taxon swap, i.e. "Gracilaria", instead of Gracillaria?