Taxonomic Merge 79945 (Committed on 2020-07-31)

Following publication of
Phil Pugh published a monograph on the Cystonects: (supported by WoRMS)

see discussion:

Given this, and given no clear movement by the pro-many species lobby, I suggest that all four species are combined.
Rather than keep them as separate species, assign the different taxa to the observation field: Physalia Group
((all observations designated sp1, sp2 and sp3 are already assigned to this field))

Further discussion please!

Added by tonyrebelo on July 19, 2020 19:06 | Committed by tonyrebelo on July 31, 2020
merged into


Resolve by end of July??
Please state happy or objection on your comment.
I am happy to commit this option.
((Note that observations currently "Physalia utriculus" have not had the field added. Please feel free to add it if you feel that both P. utriculus and P. physalis (the "Atlantic Bluebottle") occur in the Indo-Pacific.))

I should note: sufficient people are not following the 3 undescribed species proposed as to make the enterprise worthless. The idea is thus not working, because sufficient people are not prepared to let it work.

To see the three proposed species - see here:
Full crest:
No crest:

or in explore view:
(sorry: cannot be done: the ( & ) in the field interfere with the encoding)

Posted by tonyrebelo over 1 year ago (Flag)

Thanks for following up. That is all I am qualified to say.🤐(!)

Posted by davemmdave over 1 year ago (Flag)

I thought the pro-many species lobby had created a few observation fields but I guess not. If they want to track that data, they always can using a project.

Thanks for reviving this Tony!

The WoRMS position is a single species.

Posted by wyattp11 over 1 year ago (Flag)

There is only one project on Bluebottles that I can find:

However, a Project for this is not really needed. Just add the Observation Field "Physalia Group". It is not difficult to remember: in the O.F. type in the genus (or part of it - e.g."phys") and this is the only match.
If you are keen on this, then bookmark the field collection:
(but note: after the merger all the IDs will be Physalia physalis. )

Posted by tonyrebelo over 1 year ago (Flag)

I've long ago given up worrying about the churn of scientific names from species to sub-species to separate species that happens on iNat. I seem to remember a previous split then later merge of this species, though that might have been a difference in how handled them before it was merged into iNat. But I do wonder why there has been no comments from the "pro-many species lobby" - perhaps because few people tend to see flags or merger proposals before they are ir-reversably committed.

Posted by tony_wills about 1 year ago (Flag)

Interestingly, BOLDsystems has specimens collected in 2010 from NSW Australis appearing in 2 different genetic groupings (BINs), associated as Physalia physalia or Physalia urticulus, respectively. Perhaps future work may still be needed.

Posted by clauden about 1 year ago (Flag)

I am certain that the last word on the issue is far from being penned.
But no data are lost: all the different morphs are still documented, and can be readily extracted should general consensus swing or new data shed light on differences.
Watching with interest ...

The only obvious difference in the AA pattern between the two bins is the starting "G" that is absent in one and and I-V replacement in position 69. I have no idea of the significance of this one substitution in the binning.

Posted by tonyrebelo about 1 year ago (Flag)

Add a Comment

Sign In or Sign Up to add comments