Heads up: Some or all of the identifications affected by this split may have been replaced with identifications of Stagmomantis. This happens when we can't automatically assign an identification to one of the output taxa. Review identifications of Stagmomantis carolina 119989

Taxonomic Split 84106 (Committed on 2020-10-20)

NOTE: This taxon split was reverted. Please discuss at https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/507649

Original description:
Stagmomantis conspurcata was recently split off from S. carolina in "Revalidation of Stagmomantis (Stagmomantis) conspurcata (Serville, 1839)". The paper can be found here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344211369_Revalidation_of_Stagmomantis_Stagmomantis_conspurcata_Serville_1839

Revalidation of Stagmomantis (Stagmom... (Citation)
Added by i_fox on October 21, 2020 06:24 AM | Committed by i_fox on October 20, 2020
split into

Comments

I'm in the process of reverting this split b/c it contradicts the authority for mantids we've listed in the Curator's Guide, specifically because Stagmomantis conspurcata isn't listed in Mantodea Species File. If iNat needs to diverge from the authority we're following, that divergence should be registered in the form of a "deviation" from that authority (see https://www.inaturalist.org/pages/taxon_frameworks) before being used in a split.

The lack of atlases here also meant that all observations of S. carolina got re-identified at the genus level, so atlases for output taxa are also an important pre-req for a good split.

The recommendation of several curators at https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/507649 and https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/problematic-stagmomantis-carolina-taxon-split/17500 was to revert, with the possibility of re-committing this in the future after the deviation has been registered and atlases made, so I've executed the reversion part of that.

I'm hoping the reversion will be complete some time today.

Posted by kueda over 3 years ago

Any progress on this front? I realize the Mantodea Species File has not updated, but other works have been published since that also validate Anderson's findings.

Example: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362137178_Synopsis_of_the_mantises_Insecta_Mantodea_of_Nuevo_Leon_Mexico

Personally, I have attempted breeding of several Stagmomantis specimens from central Texas, where supposed S. Conspurcata and recognized S. Carolina populations converge. I also attempted breeding a female S. Carolina specimen I had brought with me from Augusta, GA with several males caught near Temple, TX. No attempted mating of any male matching the habitus of Conspurcata and female matching that of Carolina or vice versa ever provided fertile oothecae, whereas breeding of matching habitus did. I wish I had done better logging of my efforts (although I was not yet aware of Anderson's work, so I was distinctly under the prevailing thought that every Stagmomantis specimen I had caught was a S. Carolina), but I was less knowledgeable at the time, as well as being a hobbyist rather than an accredited entomologist. When I return to Texas, I plan to conduct better experiments, properly cataloging my findings this time.

All that said, I have no doubt the two populations are indeed different species, considering the genitalia seem to differ enough to prevent copulation, as well as the numerous differences in size, proportions and coloration.

Perhaps other collaborative Mantodea species lists, such as Mantodea Mundi, could also be recognized as a source for validating taxa?

As a side note, this would also justify the reclassification of S. Californica to S. Wheeleri.

Posted by mikenepo 6 months ago

Add a Comment

Sign In or Sign Up to add comments