Taxonomic Swap 27285
(Committed on 2018-01-23)
|
|
replaced with |
|
Comments
Thanks Sascha. If Chrysophrys/Pagrus auratus was confined to Australian waters it probably wouldn't matter much which genus name we chose to use in iNat, as long as we picked one and synonymised the other. As it stands, however, we have the Australian Faunal Directory in conflict with the New Zealand Organisms Register (there are lots of NZ observations as Pagrus). The taxonomic authorities that iNat relies on, such as Fishbase, IUCN lists etc., all have the species listed as Pagrus auratus, based on Paulin (1990). I have little doubt that Chrysophrys will be resurrected and generally recognised at some stage soon. When that happens we'll have to reverse this name change but, so that all observations are gathered together under the one name, I think we'll have to go with Pagrus auratus for the present.
@rfoster @RalphTaxoMeister: The organisational taxonomist in me concurs absolutely. I can neither contribute or argue higher level tax arguments at this stage. Possibly never unless genetic test equipment drops in price. But no matter.
The work referenced by Leis (Jeff) needs to both eventuate and argue the new order, otherwise the prevailing evidence needs to enforce, and inform the current view. Pagrus > Chrysophrys
Hi folks - thanks for investigating this. They are definitely synonyms. Fishbase goes with http://www.fishbase.se/summary/Pagrus-auratus.html
should we make this swap (Chrysophrys auratus -> Pagrus auratus) or one that goes the other way?
Hang on, FishBase is meant to use Cat of Fishes as its "source of truth" so I have no idea why they haven't updated P auratus to be a synonym of C auratus.
@tomtrnski you're one of the authors in the reference for synonomy...
Here's the answer http://www.fishbase.org/Nomenclature/FBCofFNames.php
It seems FB has chosen to use a name based on work 27 years ago, whereas more recent DNA work since 2000 has cast significant doubt on that previous paper. Many published biology and fisheries papers use C auratus, including NZ journals...
Not sure what you do there... wait?
Doug Hoese has given a good summary of the reasoning behind calling the west Pacific members as Chrysophrys (C. auratus and C. major) so I don't need to repeat that. Clive Roberts and I came to same conclusion for the Fishes of NZ book. Catalog of Fishes now considers C. auratus and C. major as valid. It is now up to FishBase to catch up, but there is good reason to wait for Iwatsuki's publication to come out to finally put this nomenclature to rest. One thing that is apparent is that dentition is too variable to be a useful morphological character to define genera. Meanwhile larval morphology supports the separation of Pagrus (Atlantic) from Chrysophrys (western Pacific), as noted by Jeff Leis.
Okay, so even if the Australians and Kiwis agree that it should be Chrysophrys auratus, the sister taxon presents a problem. It seems to be almost universally known as Pagrus major where it occurs and even the CoF says this is the currently valid name [quote - "Current status: Valid as Pagrus major (Temminck & Schlegel 1843)"]. I can live with this phylogenetically inconsistent nomenclature within iNat, I think, so would like to see Chrysophrys adopted for auratus, at least. Nobody here seems to be in favour of following Fishbase so, rather than go with the draft swap here (Chrysophrys auratus -> Pagrus auratus), it seems we should should go the other way and sink Pagrus auratus into Chrysophrys auratus. Maybe Fishbase will catch up one day...
loarie, I notice you've locked down Actinopterygii so are you willing to commit the change?
OK - I switched this so the output taxon is Chrysophrys auratus and am comitting
Thanks loarie!
Doug Hoese, author of the C auratus page on the Australian Faunal Directory:
The generic placement of this species has been in dispute for many years. The species was placed in genus Chrysophrys until Paulin (1990) regarded the genus as a synonym of the Atlantic genus Pagrus. Gomon (1994, 2008) continued to use Chrysophrys, while specialists on the group followed Paulin (Carpenter 2001). Molecular work (Day 2002; Orrelll et al. 2002; Orrell & Carpenter 2004; Chiba et al. 2009) has questioned the monophyly of the subfamilies and genera within the family, including Pagrus. Mitochondrial DNA suggested more similarity between Pagrus auratus and Evynnis from Japan and Argyrops. However, many of these studies have not agreed with morphological classifications based on dentition. Leis et al. provided evidence for recognising Chrysophrys as distinct from Pagrus. Dr. Yukio Iwatsuki of Miyazaki University in Japan is soon to publish information confirming that the two genera should be separate (Leis et al. 2014), with Pagrus confined to the Atlantic Ocean. Consequently we revert to the older name Chrysophrys auratus for the Australian species.
Authors have also disputed how widely distributed this species is. Paulin (1990) and Carpenter (2001) regarded Pagrus major from the north-west Pacific as a junior synonym. Workers from Japan and China have treated Pagrus major as a distinct species. Tabata & Taniguchi (2000) found genetic differences between the two forms and recommended recognising the two groups as subspecies. We accept here the separation of the two forms as distinct species.
See: https://biodiversity.org.au/afd/taxa/Chrysophrys_auratus