Talk:Solitary fruit-eating bat

Does this even merit subspecific status?

@WolfmanSF: This is listed as fully synonymous with D. watsoni per the Catalogue of life [1] and the IUCN [2], not as a subspecies. The ASM Mammal Diversity Database also lists it as fully synonymous with D. watsoni, and they have it listed in their synthesis of changes since MSW3 was published [3]. I feel that a redirect is more appropriate. Enwebb (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Solari et al. (2009) describe it as D. w. incomitata (see last mention, p. 285) and state, "The paraphyly and specific status of watsoni/incomitata is not easily resolved." I presume any subspecies would be listed as fully synonymous with its species. What's the alternative? The choice of whether to have a separate article for a subspecies appears to rest on how significant or interesting it is regarded as, so it's a judgement call. In this case, it is restricted to a small island, which makes it interesting, from my standpoint. Also, I would say the fact that it is a critically endangered taxon makes it significant. WolfmanSF (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Not true, recognized subspecies are not regarded as fully synonymous. See Dermanura azteca minor to compare how Catalogue of Life differentiates a recognized subspecies vs. one viewed as fully synonymous[4]. I remain convinced it should be a redirect. It has lost its subspecific status since MSW3. Coverage of this population should be limited to a taxonomy section on the D. watsoni page, if anywhere at all. Perhaps we should post about this discussion on the mammal talk page to garner more input if we cannot agree. Enwebb (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

MSW3 listed this taxon as a full species in 2005. In 2009, Solari et al. demoted it to a subspecies. If Solari et al. (2009) claim that they "consider incomitata to be a synonym of watsoni" while simultaneously describing the former as D. w. incomitata, what do you conclude? That they don't know the rules? Unless someone else has published a more recent analysis, Solari et al. (2009) is the most relevant authority. If you can find a more recent journal article that denies subspecies status to the population on Isla Escudo de Veraguas, please post it. (I looked over the "cited by" articles for the 2009 paper and didn't see anything; also, the web sites you reference don't have anything more recent cited.) Otherwise, we are justified in giving it subspecies status as per the most recent authority to publish. This is not to claim that the taxonomic issue here is cut and dried. WolfmanSF (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

The abstract of the 2009 paper states "we consider incomitata to be a synonym of watsoni." Furthermore, Solari authored the 2016 IUCN assessment of D. watsoni that included D. incomitata as a synonym. I'm going to post in the mammals project asking for input because I do not believe you and I will reach a consensus. Enwebb (talk) 00:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

You are ignoring the fact that the IUCN does not consistently discuss subspecies. For example, MSW3 describes 6 for the cougar and 8 for the jaguarundi. The IUCN mentions the cougar subspecies under "Taxonomic Notes" but mentions no jaguarundi subspecies in that section. However, that doesn't mean it doesn't believe they exist; they do mention one jaguarundi subspecies under "Justification". So, whether the IUCN mentions subspecies or not carries no implication as to whether they believe there are any, and their statement about synonomy most likely means exactly what it means in the 2009 paper, i.e., it is not a full species.

Once again, if Solari et al. (2009) meant by synonymous that it was not a subspecies, they surely would not have described it as such in the 7th line of p. 285 of that paper (please read it if you haven't). Please explain your reasoning if you really think they don't believe what they say. WolfmanSF (talk) 05:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

You are getting a bit condescending now. Yes, I have read the 2009 paper. I think this whole debate has devolved into something rather beside the point. Despite ITIS, COL, and ASM not even recognizing it as such, I'll humor you and suppose it's a subspecies. Why is it notable enough to have its own page? And don't say that it's critically endangered again because that is not true. The IUCN doesn't evaluate it anymore so it's not like its past assessment is forever applicable. Your previous reasoning that it lives on an island makes it interesting enough to have its own page? I am reminded of the merger of the Chuuk flying fox and the Mortlock flying fox to Pteropus pelagicus. Both were evaluated as critically endangered before the taxonomic revision made them both subspecies of P. pelagicus. Both live on islands. Both former entities are confined to the same page to reflect current best taxonomy. Bat subspecies are rarely notable enough for their own page. All subspecies I can think of that have their own page are under the purview of the Endangered Species Act and thus have important regulatory consequences. Enwebb (talk) 13:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to break off our discussion at this juncture, given that you have declined to address the main point supporting my position. We're going nowhere and wasting time. It's not that important. Regards, WolfmanSF (talk) 05:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)