Taxonomic Swap 43448
(提交於 2018-11-26)
|
|
替代為 |
|
評論
There is still some work to be done on iNat, below the family level, but I don't have access just at the moment to the full article cited above, so it'll have to wait a few days.
Doesn't the article suggest that the Ascapaphidae are now the Ascalaphinae within Myrmeleontidae?
Yes, but there was an Ascalaphinae in Ascalaphidae already, along with other subfamilies, so it still needs sorting out when I get the chance to read the full article.
I will be eagerly awaiting the outcome. :)
I would presume any subfamilies within Ascalaphine (former treatment) would become tribes in the new treatment of Ascalaphinae, then any tribes from the former treatment would just disappear?? Not sure exactly how taxon lumps work.
Not necessarily like that! Depends on the results of their phylogenetic analysis
Registering interest.
Just a thoughlet: should we be making taxonomic changes on iNat based on papers that no one has actually read or reviewed yet...?
The paper has been through peer review, so any further "review" is not needed. The changes I made initially were from reading the abstract of the paper, so it wasn't entirely "unread". A few days later I obtained a copy of the full paper and I am in the process of incorporating all the changes (but it is quite a big task!)
Progress update: I have tidied it up to subfamily level now (except that someone has added the fossil genus Neadelphus, which is difficult to place). Tribes will have to wait for another day.
Apologies, just flagged the 'why not just shift all Ascalaphidae to Ascalaphinae rather than reverting to the sea of Myrmeleontidae' issue without seeing it had already been raised here. Will try to remove flag, but sentiment remains.
Hi Stephen,
Are there any subfamilies within the former Ascalaphidae that are still treated as different subfamilies (to the "new" Ascalaphinae) in this new treatment?