Giraffa. This
happens when we can't automatically assign an identification to one of the
output taxa.
Review identifications of Giraffa camelopardalis 42157
Taxonomic Split 134854
(Submetido em 23-11-2023)
| dividido em |
|
Comentários
Have built in some overlap in Kenya, so there will be some obs that need to be manually re-IDed
You realize that this will open up obscured data.
That is perfectly OK for southern Africa (specifically South Africa) - so that is OK for Giraffa giraffa ssp. angolensis Angolan Giraffe and Giraffa giraffa ssp. giraffa Southern African Giraffe. Please do not obscure these.
OK: no issue, I see that Giraffa tippelskirchi is obscured at the subspecies level, but perhaps given that the two subspecies are VU and EN, that IDs to species level Giraffa tippelskirchi should be obscured as well?
Can somebody please fix the Range Map - so that it reflects the new species, rather than just the genus?
@rjq maps for Kenya essentially look correct. It'll take time to go through all the coarse ID's and get users to specify new species when they originally just left it at G. camelopardalis.
@rjq have you had a look at this? https://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12915-023-01722-y
Interesting that they don't seem to find much hybridisation in tsavo along the galana river, but there's so much visual evidence of it. A few iNat research grade observations show ssp. reticulata deep in the heart of Fennessy's ssp. tippelskirchi maps.
Thanks, hadn't seen that paper.
@tonyrebelo thanks for raising the point about obscuring data. I can't work out if it is possible to obscure data without a threat assessment for the taxon (which there isn't for species level tippelskirchi)?
@rjq by the way, as the IUCN SSC Giraffe and Okapi Specialist Group recognizes only a single giraffe species, what's the iNat rationale for now recognizing the 4 separate species?
ssp. tippelskirchi is listed as Endangered on the IUCN Red List.
The ASM Mammal Diversity Database has accepted the taxon split into 4 recognized species + multiple studies support this so we are deviating from IUCN
https://www.mammaldiversity.org/
Thanks @safron
Sorry: I dont know how or if you can obscure without a threat statement.
But you can add a status of unevaluated and then obscure the data.
Thanks Tony, that looks to have worked
Fine with me!
@rjq have taxon changes been set up for the subspecies taxa?
more discussion here: https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/626861
@bobby23 yes, subspecies changes have already been committed
OLD subspecies changes committed as can be seen by the observations in the split species, and if you dig, in the NEW subspecies too. Only the observations at the old species level (which effectively, as there was only one species, was merely an ID at generic level) remain to be tackled in this split: hence the need for the atlases, otherwise all would just go to a genus level ID (which one could argue, would be more correct based on the IDs made).
Thanks, @rjq. the split looks good to me :)
@michalsloviak @zarek any comments on the atlases, especially in Kenya?