Talk:Aegomorphus jaspideus

Requested move 26 July 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. No such user (talk) 12:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

---

Aegomorphus jaspideus → Psapharochrus jaspideus – Use senior synonym as page title. YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. Apart from the above two genera, the infobox mentions Scythropopsis, a third one. Whatever the right genus is, it should be applied in all places. Also, the genera articles will probably need to updated (or merged) too. Vpab15 (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

  The article Aegomorphus says that Psapharochrus is actually junior to Aegomorphus : the invalid name Psapharochrus, which was a subgenus of Acanthoderes for much of its history, and later elevated to genus rank before it was determined (in 2020) to be a junior synonym of Aegomorphus. Vpab15 (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Vpab15: Ah, thanks for that. I was looking at this which predates the reference there. Not sure what to think now? Probably leave it. There's work to be done whatever. YorkshireExpat (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. The Cerambycidae Database (TITAN) treats this as Aegomorphus jaspideus. GBIF's Cerambycidae data comes from the Cerambycidae Database; it appears that GBIF is out of date in this case. Plantdrew (talk) 21:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@YorkshireExpat:, you're misinterpreting how taxonomic priority works. The oldest generic placement isn't necessarily the accepted name (and in this case the oldest name is Lamia jaspidea). If somebody recognizes Psapharochrus as a genus, then Psapharochrus jaspideus could be correct. If Psapharochrus and Aegomorphus are not treated as separate genera, than Aegomorphus jaspideus is correct; this is because, as a genus name, Aegomorphus has priority over Psapharochrus. Similarly, one could recognize (for example) Aegomorphus krueperi (Kraatz, 1859) as a separate species from A. jaspideus; however, if kruperi/jaspideus are treated as a single species, taxonomic priority dictates that jaspideus is the correct name for the combined species. Also, note that the Cerambycidae Database (and thus GBIF) lists chresonyms, not synonyms (that is, names used in particular works, where the various authors may not have had the exact same species concept in mind). The synonym list in this article shouldn't have multiple instances of the same name with different authorship. Plantdrew (talk) 21:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Basically, priority enters the picture when there are questions of lumping or splitting in play. Lumping/splitting are ultimately subjective decisions by taxonomists (although the decisions should be guided by evidence). Given a particular subjective viewpoint on lumping or splitting, priority provides objective rules on which name(s) should be used. Plantdrew (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: Thanks for the explanation, we'll let this one die. Did you have an opinion on Aurotalis nigrisquamalis? YorkshireExpat (talk) 08:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: So looking here, would the list of synonyms presented + "Psapharochrus jaspideus Germar, 1824" (I've omitted the parentheses on the authority on purpose) be correct as a list of synonyms for Aegomorphus jaspideus? YorkshireExpat (talk) 09:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@YorkshireExpat:, the synonym list at IRMNG is better, but I'm not sure why the authority for Acanthoderes jaspidea is given as Germar, 1839; it should be (Germar, 1824). I'll take a look at Aurotalis nigrisquamalis. Plantdrew (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.