Flag for Taxon: Common Grass Blue (Zizina labradus)
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| jon_sullivan | Common Grass Blue (Zizina labradus) |
This and Zizina otis labradus are the same taxon but on iNat as two. One needs to merge into the other, but it's not immediately clear which one should be retained. |
Mar. 8, 2019 05:15:22 +0000 | reiner |
change comitted |
Comments
Yes, I agree the line in Gillespie is not a lot to go on but favour it over treating Z. labradus as a subspecies of Z. otis. Despite advocating the use of Zizina labradus on the basis of this statement I am happy to be wrong if it is deemed insufficient. Figure 4 of Yago et al. (Zootaxa 1746: 15–38) is at the crux of the matter. This Bayesian Tree shows all the specimens of Z. labradus tested nested within those of Z. otis. I only have a vague understanding these sorts of figures, however, the two taxa are not muddled together but occupy separate sub-branches (3) and Z. oxley a very separate branch. Mike Braby's latest book on Australian butterflies might give a bit more weight to one of these alternatives but I do not have a copy. M.F. Braby (2016) The Complete Field Guide to the Butterflies of Australia 2nd Edition. It is supposed to contain all new and "reclassified" species. What do you think about this issue Robert? (@dr_robert)
Ross Field (formerly of NMV) sent me a paper 2008 paper and accordingly he considers it should be the ssp. we should be using. ALA/AFD also currently accepts it as the ssp. Does NZ have a similar name authority?
I propose that until some future time (e.g. when hybridization occurs) we merge Zizina labradus into the Zizina otis labradus ssp. as we definitely should have two names for the same species. The draft taxo swap is here.
See also flag 467508, which I just resolved as its the same as this.
I guess, if we are relying on published information, we are stuck with this decision, which I disagree with. However, I guess my opinion is irrelevant in the greater scheme. Perhaps you should track down and contact Mike Braby who is the relevant expert in Australiasian butterflies and seek his opinion. On external morphology, in particular hindwing pattern, Z. oxylei and Z. labradus are very similar while Z. otis (based on specimens I have from SE Asia) is quite a bit different. So, the DNA based results of Yago et al. seem anomalous.
I have committed the change to ssp - its can easily enough be reverted if someone publishes an update.
Groan, yet another rubbish decision!
Thanks @nhudson for the citation to the Gillespie et al. (2013) article in your comment. Yes, one of the two needs to merge into the other because they're the same taxon. But which one to use? That line in Gillespie et al. (2013) isn't a lot to go on:
Especially since George Gibbs is one of the authors on that paper, I'm tending to side with them until there's further work done. Do you agree? It might be worth reaching out to Robert Hoare for his opinion on this too.