Talk:Eupithecia subalba
Latest comment: 1 month ago by William Avery in topic Proposed merge of Cabera subalba into Eupithecia subalba
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Proposed merge of Cabera subalba into Eupithecia subalba
editFit our existing taxonomic structure. UtherSRG (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think these two are the same species. U9 aloka (talk) 08:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Absolutely the same species: https://www.gbif.org/species/5143687. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. It looks like the names are objective synonyms, so there should only be one page. I've no idea what the underlying taxonomic considerations might be here. Does anybody else? There are usually molecular studies involved these days. I notice that the relevant Afromoths page places it in Cabera, but in the absence of an overriding reason we probably need to follow the global treatment offered by GBIF. Incidentally, that will leave the article Cabera subalba group inconsistent with the treatment of this species. (This reminds me of why I stopped doing anything but cosmetic edits to the Gracillariidae pages; any up-to-date global treatment is going to be original research.) William Avery (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe @Dyanega:? - UtherSRG (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- And I note that Cabera subalba group was authored by the same person as Cabera subalba. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. It looks like the names are objective synonyms, so there should only be one page. I've no idea what the underlying taxonomic considerations might be here. Does anybody else? There are usually molecular studies involved these days. I notice that the relevant Afromoths page places it in Cabera, but in the absence of an overriding reason we probably need to follow the global treatment offered by GBIF. Incidentally, that will leave the article Cabera subalba group inconsistent with the treatment of this species. (This reminds me of why I stopped doing anything but cosmetic edits to the Gracillariidae pages; any up-to-date global treatment is going to be original research.) William Avery (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Absolutely the same species: https://www.gbif.org/species/5143687. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
That GBIF record looks bogus - one name was published in 1901, the other in 1906 - and it purports that the 1901 name is junior to the 1906 name. That looks like more of GBIF's usual nonsense, and I absolutely would not trust it. If BHL wasn't offline, it should be possible to resolve this, but it's been down for a week, and no sign that it's going to be back any time soon. Definitely premature to do this merge until and unless there is a clear non-GBIF source that explains what's going on. GBIF is not a reliable source, it's super sketchy to have it included in taxonbars automatically. Dyanega (talk) 21:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Looking deeper, I see the two species are indeed distinct, as shown in the Lepindex entries: https://www.nhm.ac.uk/our-science/data/lepindex/detail/?taxonno=222958 and https://www.nhm.ac.uk/our-science/data/lepindex/detail/?taxonno=231879. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Looking again in the cold light of morning, apart from the taxonomic niceties, Eupithecia subalba was described from South America, and Cabera subalba from São Tomé Island. FWIW, I will report this through the GBIF website. William Avery (talk) 09:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)