Talk:Paralaxita

Species in this genus

Though the source does recognise Paralaxita hewitsoni (Röber, 1895) as a separate species, in other sources (e.g. funet) and insecta.pro say it's a subspecies of Paralaxita damajanti, which also seems to be the case in Paralaxita damajanti. Both sources additionally mention Paralaxita dora as an additional subspecies. Achaea (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can't say for certain, but the source used here, Lamas, looks better than the other two. Insecta.pro references Savela (Funet) and should be ignored, Savela uses as source "[BOR]" and the page is dated 2014 (Lamas is from 2008, but Savela is just databasing, not a tax. authority, whereas Lamas is a big kahuna), but I can't find the meaning of that reference code anywhere on his site. Ideally there'd be a recent monograph. In order for it to be classified as a subspecies, someone should have formally subsumed it, which should mean there should be a paper out there somewhere doing so. Absent all this, this checklist is the best you've got. I can't access it for some reason, but you should check the sources for Lamas' taxonomy. From the looks of it, besides Lamas, the best source is "The butterflies of the Malay Peninsula" from 1978 because Eliot bothered to reclassify the species and it would thus suffice as a monograph, but I have no access to that. I note Lamas is largely following Fruhstorfer from 1904 subgenerically. Leo Breman (talk) 01:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, looked at it again, if anyone subsumed hewitsoni it would have most likely been Eliot in 1978, because Fruhstorfer's taxonomy was still being used until at least the 1930s. If Lamas is expressly not following Eliot in this, then you/we should follow Lamas, as he is the closest thing to an authority here. If Lamas just hasn't used/read Eliot (yet, i.e. not expressly not following), don't follow him. If I am wrong in my assumption, more research is needed. Can't say more without the literature.Leo Breman (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Achaea: Concur with Leo Breman. Savela's funet is a decent database in comparison to other such Lepidoptera databases, but it's also essentially one man's effort at keeping up with the many taxonomic changes to which Lepidoptera is prone. It's a good way to find the various sources on many species and genera's taxonomic placements, and more often than most other general Lepidopteran databases reflects a recent taxonomic view. (Considering the frequency with which other such databases are outdated, however, that means perhaps less than one would wish it to.)

In general, if one compares Savela's Lepidoptera and some other Life Forms to another such database (as well as to some more geographically limited databases, to non-expert Lepidoptera databases, and to databases attempting to catalogue every lifeform in existence) and finds a difference, Savela is generally more likely to reflect the current views and placement than basically every other comparable database out there (though "more likely" does not equal "is always", of course, and care must still be taken to figure out which database is outdated, or whether this is one of the (comparatively more rare) cases where there is actual ongoing taxonomic disagreement).

If one compares Savela's database with a recent, (taxonomically) more specific source by an expert, Savela can generally be discounted unless Savela specifically lists that source on the relevant page as having also been considered. If the latter is the case, an effort should be made to find what source Savela lists as following instead, and that source itself--not solely Savela's reflection thereof in his database--should be consulted. Depending on the situation, including the quality of the source that is followed, a decision should be made; this decision should not be strictly based upon Savela's decision on who to follow.

In this case, it can safely be assumed that Savela has not yet updated this page to take into account Lamas 2008: Lamas 2005 and Lamas 2007 Revised Electronic Version are specifically cited, whereas Lamas 2008 is not. As such, our decision should be dependent on Lamas 2008 itself, not on Savela's work.

Considering that the taxon authority of genus Paralaxita is Eliot 1978, I would consider it a rather safe bet that Lamas 2008 is well aware of, and has specifically chosen not to follow, Eliot 1978 here. It is perhaps not *quite* to the level of explicitly stating so one would prefer, but close enough considering the circumstances that I would need to see some really strong evidence contrary to it to assume otherwise. As such, I'd say we should follow Lamas 2008 here. If/when someone gets around to creating an article on the actual species involved, it would likely be a good idea to include a note reflecting the species having formerly been considered a subspecies and remaining listed as such in many resources. AddWittyNameHere 04:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AddWittyNameHere: and @Leo Breman: Thanks for the in-depth explanation, I really appreciate it! Achaea (talk) 09:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Achaea: You're welcome! Taxonomy can be confusing, and especially so where an order with ~180,000 species and a dozen or so eternally partially-outdated databases is concerned. At least in this case the article listed an actual reference, which certainly made this one easier to puzzle out, relatively speaking, than some of our moth&butterfly articles. (There's far too many articles where, rather than actually updating the article or redirecting it to the valid taxon, someone has just added something like "it is now considered part of [genus]" without referencing or clarifying in text, talk page or even just edit summary whether that's based on one of the (far too often not-inlined) references already at the bottom of the article, something in the taxonbar, or another source altogether--much less which exact source. Not helped by it not infrequently being anywhere from a year up to a decade before someone even gets around to dealing with it, by which point the editor that added the line generally isn't around any longer and/or can't remember what they based it on themselves) AddWittyNameHere 11:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]