שימו לב: כל הזיהויים או חלקם שהושפעו מפיצול זה הוחלפו בזיהויים של Pachycephala. זה קורה כשאין ביכולתנו להגדיר זיהוי לאחד הטקסונים היוצאים באופן אוטומטי. מעבר על זיהויים של Pachycephala pectoralis 506043
עדכון התוכן שלך

Taxonomic Split 99303 (הועלה ב 2022-04-11)

Clements Checklist v2021 (ציטוט) | split#62 - Pachycephala pectoralis
| אושר על ידי loarie בתאריך אפריל 11, 2022
מתפצל אל

תגובות

Joseph et al. 2021

פורסם על-ידי jwidness לפני יותר מ 2 שנים

Currently 26 obs are getting bumped to genus, but unclear if that's too conservative or not conservative enough. The above map from Joseph et al. shows a fairly large gap between samples, but they do provide a dividing line. The same paper also shows a map that's based only on plumage, which suggests the division should maybe be further east?

@thebeachcomber @davidsando @ratite you've identified birds in this area, can you say anything about where the split should be?

פורסם על-ידי jwidness לפני יותר מ 2 שנים

So is there a zone/threshold at the junction of the two areas in which records go back to genus?

פורסם על-ידי thebeachcomber לפני יותר מ 2 שנים

The way the atlases are set right now, these 26 observations will have their IDs raised to genus: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?id=96763793,94197866,92896427,92542525,90129751,90129639,82663818,65980425,58491827,54902694,52320523,44955765,44956343,44341779,42817005,41892155,41151514,40944048,40732500,40221698,40218570,38171113,36371127,35515991,35401526,34101334&place_id=any&subview=table&verifiable=any

The question is whether that list can be narrowed down (e.g. because you can look at the photos and can tell which way to split), or whether it should be broadened (e.g. because the maps from Joseph 2021 aren't precise enough).

פורסם על-ידי jwidness לפני יותר מ 2 שנים

I can't truthfully say I'd be able to separate the two here looking at the plumage in those pics, so I would personally be in favour of broadening it a bit

פורסם על-ידי thebeachcomber לפני יותר מ 2 שנים

I'd agree with keeping it a little bit broad like it is, just as the plumage features can be a bit tricky from looking at the photos. Unfortunately I wouldn't be able to confidently separate them either

פורסם על-ידי ratite לפני יותר מ 2 שנים

here's the current summary -- fuliginosa atlas and range map in green, pectoralis atlas and range map in orange, red points will get bumped to genus, blue points on the left (e.g. around Adelaide) go to fuliginosa, blue points on the right (e.g. around Melbourne) stay pectoralis

פורסם על-ידי jwidness לפני יותר מ 2 שנים

looks good to me; unfortunately there won't be a notification for users when theirs get bumped to genus right? I'll go through each of those 60 odd and let people know if that's the case

פורסם על-ידי thebeachcomber לפני יותר מ 2 שנים

The IDs won't get bumped if they've opted out of having IDs automatically reassigned. For those that haven't opted out, there should be a dashboard notification, but I don't think it shows up in the header notifications.

פורסם על-ידי jwidness לפני יותר מ 2 שנים

any timeline on this swap?

פורסם על-ידי thebeachcomber לפני יותר מ 2 שנים

Also worth noting there seems to be a population of Western Whistler in the whipstick north of Bendigo which won't be picked up by this filter swap.

פורסם על-ידי scarletmyzomela לפני יותר מ 2 שנים

@jwidness @loarie Something has gone wrong with this split as there are observations that there should be no doubt about that have been reverted to genus
e.g. https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/38659843#activity_identification_bf54de81-0033-4642-ad00-999f648724a7

פורסם על-ידי rfoster לפני בערך 2 שנים

Everything in region Adelaide Hills-Bal, SA, AU seems to have been affected. It seems it wasn't properly atlased when the split was committed. Not sure if restricted to this place or is a wider problem.

פורסם על-ידי rfoster לפני בערך 2 שנים

So we're on the same page, nothing unexpected happened here. The atlases were configured to replace nearly all (all but 182 out of 7344) existing IDs to one of the outputs with just 182 being replaced by the genus. The idea is that anything coarsened by those 182 IDs replaced with genus can be refined manually - here's a link to the obs in question if it will help people spend some time ID'ing them

פורסם על-ידי loarie לפני בערך 2 שנים

That doesn't explain why observations in the Adelaide hills got "coarsened" unnecessarily as there is no doubt that they are P. fuliginosa based on locality. The affected records are not included in the link.

פורסם על-ידי rfoster לפני בערך 2 שנים

hmm - good point that is weird I'm not sure why https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/38659843#activity_identification_bf54de81-0033-4642-ad00-999f648724a7 was coarsened based on that location. There don't seem to be a ton of other examples though (or at least examples that haven't been refined manually) https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?locale=en&lrank=genus&preferred_place_id=1&subview=map&taxon_id=7902 I wonder if there was something weird with https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/38659843 e.g. like its location was changed and somehow didn't get properly indexed or something. Odd

פורסם על-ידי loarie לפני בערך 2 שנים

From what I can see all records from within the below encompassing place were affected. I think it must have inadvertently been included in the atlases of both species when the split was committed. Looks like the records have mostly been tidied up manually, now.
Oceania (Continent)
Australia (Country)
South Australia, AU (State)
Adelaide Hills-Bal, SA, AU (County)

פורסם על-ידי rfoster לפני בערך 2 שנים

הוספת תגובה

כניסה או הרשמה להוספת הערות
חבר.ה ברשת iNaturalist   |   מופעל באמצעות תוכנת קוד פתוח של iNaturalist |   דוקומנטציה בשביל מפתחות.ים