The taxon provincialis is not accepted as a species by most of the recent authorities, eg., the European checklist by Wiemers etal (2018), etc. The only place I am aware of where this taxon has the species level is the Italian checklist by Balletto etal (2014). I am not aware of any justification of the species status of this taxon.
As a result, there is mess here: some observations (of clearly the same taxon) are listed under provincialis, some -- under aurinia. We need to treat this somehow.
If you object, please comment here. In such a case, it would be useful to provide a justification of the specific status: eg., molecular evidence, etc.
Reasons for this change:
The taxon provincialis is not accepted as a species by most of the recent authorities, eg., the European checklist by Wiemers etal (2018), etc. The only place I am aware of where this taxon has the species level is the Italian checklist by Balletto etal (2014). I am not aware of any justification of the species status of this taxon.
As a result, there is mess here: some observations (of clearly the same taxon) are listed under provincialis, some -- under aurinia. We need to treat this somehow.
If you object, please comment here. In such a case, it would be useful to provide a justification of the specific status: eg., molecular evidence, etc.
@chrisvanswaay @leo_dapporto @sindic @roberto_sindaco @leibele @heinerziegler