Species synonyms for the genus Nyctophilus in ITIS

[mdoering]

@DaveNicolson How can the genus Nyctophilus Leach, 1821 have 3 species as synonyms in ITIS?

https://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=631385#null

[DaveNicolson]

Vespertilio timoriensis E. Geoffroy, 1806 (TSN 946972)
Nyctophilus timoriensis (E. Geoffroy, 1806) (TSN 32080)
Nyctophilus timoriensis timoriensis (E. Geoffroy, 1806) (TSN 947659)

All 3 are labelled as nomina dubia, and are combinations of the same name. It is not clear which species they might correspond to, so they are linked under the genus. Comments found on the names note the irregularities, as is usually done in ITIS:

"Vespertilio timoriensis Geoffroy is regarded as nomen dubium due to uncertainty surrounding provenance of the original specimen(s), the lack of a definite type specimen, and lack of sufficient detail in the original description and illustration to relate the name to a singular, currently recognized species" (Parnaby, 2009)

"Nyctophilus timoriensis (E. Geoffroy, 1806) is considered a species inquirenda by Wilson and Mittermeier, eds. (2019)"

I hope that helps some.

[yroskov]

ITIS approach has a sense to me.

However, if the GSD flags the binomial names Vespertilio timoriensis & Nyctophilus timoriensis as nomen dubium and does not point them to an accepted parent, the CoL should recognize them as "bare names".

[mdoering]

We need some best practice for dealing with invalid names and doubtful names.
We do have rules for dealing with unplaced, but accepted species, which can be linked to a higher taxon instead of their genus.

When it is unclear or even known that a name is not valid, we often still want to place it somewhere so it can be found in taxonomic context. It is of interest to know these are (potential) bat names. Bare names cannot be placed anywhere, nomenclature does not have a classification. This is problematic. But even IPNI and other nomenclators put names into a family box to organise them. It might be best to create a new "taxonomic" status doubtful, uncertain or unresolved that still allows to classify the names, but clearly tells these names are not to be used. WFO for examples uses unchecked (A name that has not been checked by the contributing TEN) and ambiguous (A name that has been checked by the contributing TEN but could not be resolved as accepted or synonym). See also suggestion to add unplaced in ColDP.

[yroskov]

@mdoering, your suggestion requires major refactoring of the interface and calculation of statistics in the CoL. Plus, some projects do not include taxonomicly unresolved names in the taxonomic checklist as a final product. As one of our respected author said, I spent my entire professional life cleaning my checklist of the garbage of floating names that have no relation to taxonomic concepts, and I don't want anyone to put them back.

I understand the value of the library of unresolved names for indexing service, but it should not be a part of the checklist as a product. I am sure you have some libraries in the parser as a part of the tool which assists the parsing service. The library of unresolved names should have the same role.

[mdoering]

As one of our respected author said, I spent my entire professional life cleaning my checklist of the garbage of floating names that have no relation to taxonomic concepts, and I don't want anyone to put them back.

Agree, but if you never know which these names are and have them marked as "garbage" they will always creep back. We need to know about them and have a way to deal with them.