Talk:Trypaea australiensis

Arthropods Low‑importance

	Arthropods portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of arthropods on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArthropodsWikipedia:WikiProject ArthropodsTemplate:WikiProject ArthropodsArthropods articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Merge discussion[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge, as the genus is not monotypic, including at least Trypaea australiensis and Trypaea mizunamensis; improvement warranted. Klbrain (talk) 07:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Jlwoodwa, who forgot to start this discussion. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 12:36, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge rationale: WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA. The species article was created by Qbugbot, seemingly in error since the edit summary of

qBugbot replaced self-redirect with article. 03:10, 26 January 2020

was incorrect (it was not a self-redirect). jlwoodwa (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Trypaea Dana, 1852 sensu Sakai, 2010 is not monotypic. Although NCBI only showcases Trypaea australiensis, this is because it is the only sequenced species. Other Trypaea species that I have found with a quick search are:^[1]

—Snoteleks (Talk) 16:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WoRMS describes the genus as monotypic, and each species you listed as unaccepted > superseded combination in favor of placement in another genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jlwoodwa Oh wow... I just took a look at the WoRMS page and it is quite a hot mess. Some of the unaccepted taxa aren't explained, while others have a more recent paper to back them up. This is more controversial than I initially thought, I revert my opposition until further research on my part. I don't trust WoRMS as the reliable authority, so I think the best thing to do here is to research every species one by one and see which ones are accepted in recent literature and which ones aren't. —Snoteleks (Talk) 17:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Snoteleks and Jlwoodwa: Here's what my rounds of the taxonomic databases shows:

CoL: Not listed.
GBIF: Three species.
WoRMS: quite a hot mess indeed.
OBIS: one accepted species.

Like Snoteleks, I'll withdraw my opposition until we find out what's going on.

Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 17:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Atlas of Living Australia follows OBIS & WoRMS, EOL sort of follows GBIF. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 17:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. After a surprisingly quick research, I found the newest taxonomic revision of the entire Callianassidae (as of 2019)^[2] and it says:

“ Sakai (1999a) synonymised Trypaea and eight other genera with Callianassa, and later, Sakai (2005b) added a further two genera to this synonymy. Sakai (2011) revived the genus and synonymised five genera with Trypaea based on shared features of the male pleopods 1 and 2, which are poorly developed or absent in all callianassids. In doing so, he included 53 species. ”

So it seems that this Sakai individual made a lot of sudden taxonomic changes back and forth during the early 2000's. Right now, the revision only accepts Trypaea australiensis as the only species, while the rest of the species are comb. nov.'d as different genera:
T. andamaniensis as Scallasis andamaniensis (Sakai, 2010) comb. nov.

T. kowalevski as Jocullianassa kowalevski (Sakai, 2010) comb. nov.

T. rotundocola as Incertae sedis rotundocula Sakai & Türkay, 2014

T. spinorostra as Jocullianassa spinorostra (Sakai, 2010) comb. nov.

T. vietnamensis as Jocullianassa vietnamensis (Sakai, 2010) comb. nov.

~~I expect the rest of the species have been displaced to other genera in previous years, judging by how they are not mentioned here. Anyways, mystery solved I think?~~ —Snoteleks (Talk) 17:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC) —Snoteleks (Talk) 17:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right -- According to WoRMS, these are members of other genera now. The two extinct species are the only accepted ones I could find. Bob Webster (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Nevermind. The two extinct species Trypaea inornata and Trypaea mizunamensis make it not monotypic. I revert my support. —Snoteleks (Talk) 17:32, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, I seem to find no literature record of Trypaea inornata, while Trypaea mizunamensis is very much present.^[3]^[4] —Snoteleks (Talk) 17:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Trypaea duplicates Trypaea australiensis, yes, but the genus isn't monotypic here. The problem is that the Trypaea article needs a rewrite.

Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 12:36, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently states:

the only species in the genus Trypaea

Was another species added recently? jlwoodwa (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: According to WoRMS, there are two extinct species in this genus, in addition to australiensis, the only accepted extant species. I've added these to Trypaea. If the articles are not merged, it would be good idea to make sure all the species specific information in the genus article appears in the species article, and to make the first sentence of Trypaea about the genus instead of the species. (The species article was created by Qbugbot because there was a self-direct link in the genus article. It was in the caption of a photo, so not a big deal.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edibobb (talk • contribs)

References

^ SAKAI K (December 2010). "CALLIANASSOIDEA FROM THE GULF OF TONKIN AND THE RED SEA, IN THE ZOOLOGICAL MUSEUM OF MOSCOW UNIVERSITY (DECAPODA, THALASSINIDEA)". Crustaceana. 83 (12): 1431–1467.
^ Poore GC, Dworschak PC, Robles RA, Mantelatto FL, Felder DL (January 2019). "A new classification of Callianassidae and related families (Crustacea: Decapoda: Axiidea) derived from a molecular phylogeny with morphological support". Memoirs of Museum Victoria. 78: 73–146.
^ Karasawa H, Ohara M (2012). "Decapoda from the Miocene Kumano Group, Wakayama Prefecture, Japan" (PDF). Bulletin of the Mizunami Fossil Museum. 38: 53–57.
^ Hyžný M, Klompmaker AA (2015). "Systematics, phylogeny, and taphonomy of ghost shrimps (Decapoda): a perspective from the fossil record" (PDF). Arthropod Systematics & Phylogeny. 73 (3): 401–437.

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.

[Sakai-1] SAKAI K (December 2010). "CALLIANASSOIDEA FROM THE GULF OF TONKIN AND THE RED SEA, IN THE ZOOLOGICAL MUSEUM OF MOSCOW UNIVERSITY (DECAPODA, THALASSINIDEA)". Crustaceana. 83 (12): 1431–1467.

[2] Poore GC, Dworschak PC, Robles RA, Mantelatto FL, Felder DL (January 2019). "A new classification of Callianassidae and related families (Crustacea: Decapoda: Axiidea) derived from a molecular phylogeny with morphological support". Memoirs of Museum Victoria. 78: 73–146.

[3] Karasawa H, Ohara M (2012). "Decapoda from the Miocene Kumano Group, Wakayama Prefecture, Japan" (PDF). Bulletin of the Mizunami Fossil Museum. 38: 53–57.

[4] Hyžný M, Klompmaker AA (2015). "Systematics, phylogeny, and taphonomy of ghost shrimps (Decapoda): a perspective from the fossil record" (PDF). Arthropod Systematics & Phylogeny. 73 (3): 401–437.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]