catalogueoflife/data-vespoidea

ColDP archive for the vespid wasps in Catalogue of Life, originally created by ZOBODAT.

data-vespoidea's Issues

Delta xanthurum xanthurum is missing and needs to be added

Five subspecies are currently included on GBIF (https://www.gbif.org/species/5036734), which have been referred to in literature by Soika 1958 and recently by Carpenter 2023. The nominate subspecies Delta xanthurum xanthurum (de Saussure, 1852) is currently missing and needs to be added.

Agalaia centralis is a mispelling of Agelaia centralis

Mispelled genus taxon: https://www.gbif.org/species/1310189

Mispelled species taxon: https://www.gbif.org/species/1310190 (there are 4 occurrence records)

The errors originate from Biologiezentrum Linz/ZOBODAT and may also be on COL.

Correct genus taxon: https://www.gbif.org/species/1310134

Correct species taxon: https://www.gbif.org/species/1310153

Ancistrocerus catskill albophaleratus needs to be Ancistrocerus albophaleratus

Ancistrocerus catskill albophaleratus (https://www.gbif.org/species/5037455) needs to become the existing Ancistrocerus albophaleratus (de Saussure, 1855) (https://www.gbif.org/species/9923387).

Source: https://cjai.biologicalsurvey.ca/bmc_05/03a_albophaleratus.html.

Polistes japonicus subspecies can be synonymized/removed

Polistes japonicus is currently shown having two subspecies, P. japonicus japonicus and P. japonicus formosanus (https://www.gbif.org/species/1310756).

However, taxonomic revisions elevated P. j. formosanus to become a new separate species, P. formosanus, which also means that P. japonicus japonicus is synonymized with P. japonicus, so that the separate species species P. japonicus and P. formosanus no longer have any subspecies (5884862_Polistes_formosanus_Sonan_1927_Hymenoptera_Vespidae_a_Good_Species_Supported_by_both_Morphological_and_Molecular_Phylogenetic_Analyses_and_a_Key_Social_Wasp_in_Understanding_the_Historical_Biogeograph).

GBIF also already includes a separate species P. formosanus. However, when on the taxon page for P. formosanus, it's described as an invalid synonym, and says that P. j. formosanus is the accepted name, which is the reverse of the way the relation between the names should be displayed.

Revision of two Vespula species

V. yunlongensis Dong, 2003 [part of the authority name is missing, yet doesn't affect anything here] (https://www.gbif.org/species/6247226) needs to become V. flaviceps (https://www.gbif.org/species/1311683).

V. yulongensis Dong & Wang, 2002 (https://www.gbif.org/species/6247227) needs to become V. rufa (https://www.gbif.org/species/1311676).

Source: Carpenter et al. 2015.

Pachodynerus gaullei is wrongly categorized as a no longer accepted synonym of Euodynerus gaullei (both species remain valid and aren't synonyms)

This has resulted in two South American records being labelled Euodynerus, but Euodynerus doesn't occur in South America (https://www.gbif.org/species/1332159).

See explanatory discussion: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/198932329.

Note: I am still adding certain corrections to data-vespoidea to serve as notes for the time being and to help verify or improve any possible future Vespidae taxonomy source that may be used.

Megacanothopus is a mispelling of Megacanthopus

Megacanothopus (https://www.gbif.org/species/1310320) needs to become Megacanthopus (https://www.gbif.org/species/1311701) per Felizardo 2019.

The Polistes testaceicolor page also includes records and photos of Vespa analis

Link: https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/search?taxon_key=1310852.

User: Vespa analis is not synonym of Polistes testaceicolor.

Describe the problem:
The GBIF user @RyoKuwa claims that the species 'Vespa analis' is not synonymous with 'Polistes testaceicolor'
gbif/portal-feedback#3449

Link to effected CoL webpages:
https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/4KYJQ

Literature references:
None provided.

Vespula flavopilosa Jakobson is a mispelled authority name of Vespula flavopilosa (Jacobson, 1978)

Vespula flavopilosa Jakobson (https://www.gbif.org/species/1311655) needs to become Vespula flavopilosa Jacobson (https://www.gbif.org/species/8978462/treatments).

Next, Vespula flavopilosa Jacobson (https://www.gbif.org/species/8978462/treatments) needs to be spelled as Vespula flavopilosa (Jacobson, 1978), per Perrard and Loope 2015.

Synonymizing Zeta argillaceum subspecies

The subspecies of Zeta argillaceum (https://www.gbif.org/species/5036624) by de Soika where later synonymized by Carpenter in literature. Based on this, the subspecies should become the species Zeta argillaceum.

Corrections for Ancistrocerus

A. boreanus (https://www.gbif.org/species/5037365) needs to become A. borneanus (https://www.gbif.org/species/5037274).

A. roubaudi Bequard (https://www.gbif.org/species/11013410) [mispelled authority name] needs to become A. roubaudi (Berquaert, 1916) (https://www.gbif.org/species/5037406).

A. rufopictus (Meade-Waldo, 1915) (https://www.gbif.org/species/11063080) and A. rufopictus Kostylev, 1940 (https://www.gbif.org/species/5037354) need to become Ancistrocerus rufofrustius Tan & Carpenter (a taxon that must be created), per Tan et al. 2018 ("Two replacement names are proposed for junior primary homonyms: Ancistrocerus rufofrustius Tan & Carpenter, nom. n. replacing Ancistrocerus rufopictus (Kostylev)").

A. scoticus (Wesm.) (https://www.gbif.org/species/5037298) needs to become A. scoticus (Curtis, 1826) (https://www.gbif.org/species/10641571), per Kim and Yamane 2009 (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/19768354.2009.9647192).

A. stevensonii Giordani Soika (https://www.gbif.org/species/6247485) needs to become A. stevensoni Giordani Soika (https://www.gbif.org/species/5037339) per Carpenter et al. 2010.

Ancistrocerus spec de Saussure (https://www.gbif.org/species/11681313) means "species," so could become an unranked taxon or deleted.

Alastor has two genus pages, one of which is misspelled.

Wasp genus Alstor (mispelling of Alastor) is currently a direct child of family Vespidae (https://www.gbif.org/species/1330244/treatments).

The source and reference taxon, IRMNG, and presumably COL which it cites, also have this error (https://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1005216). Furthermore, they indicate it is one of many Vespidae errors (many probably aren't even noted yet) originating from ZOBODAT.

The correct genus (child of "family Eumeninae," which itself is supposed to be a subfamily of Vespidae) is here: https://www.gbif.org/species/1328335.

Revision and corrections for Eumenes

Note: many of the Eumenes, Delta, and Phimenes species listed here have multiple currently valid subspecies, although below I only listed the species pages, not subspecies. In any species move from Eumenes to Delta or Phimenes, the taxon would correspond to the nominate subspecies. For example, for the change from Eumenes esuriens to Delta esuriens, the taxon being moved would correspond to the subspecies Delta esuriens esuriens.

Eumenes species that need to be Delta species:

E. alluaudi (https://www.gbif.org/species/5036842) --> D. alluaudi (https://www.gbif.org/species/5036731)

E. bicinctus (https://www.gbif.org/species/5036970) --> D. bicinctum (https://www.gbif.org/species/5036661)

E. campaniforme (https://www.gbif.org/species/5037008) --> D. campaniforme (https://www.gbif.org/species/5036664)

E. esuriens (https://www.gbif.org/species/10730576) --> D. esuriens (https://www.gbif.org/species/5036741)

E. philanthes (https://www.gbif.org/species/5037130) --> D. philanthes (https://www.gbif.org/species/5036733). Secondly, the species spelling needs to be corrected to D. philantes (no second H).

E. unguiculatus (https://www.gbif.org/species/5037058) --> D. unguiculatum https://www.gbif.org/species/5036694

E. xanthurus (https://www.gbif.org/species/5037001) --> D. xanthurum (https://www.gbif.org/species/5036734)

E. viatrix (https://www.gbif.org/species/5036951) --> D. viatrix (https://www.gbif.org/species/5036663)

Eumenes species that need to be Phimenes species:

E. arcuatus (https://www.gbif.org/species/5036959) --> Phimenes arcuatus (https://www.gbif.org/species/7217552)

E. insola (https://www.gbif.org/species/5037033) --> P. incola (https://www.gbif.org/species/1328304)

Additional corrections:

The Eumenes tricolor Smith page is not a synonym of E. floralis, so this page (https://www.gbif.org/species/7574303) needs to be corrected so that E. tricolor is a currently accepted name of a species that is separate from floralis. Floralis is also still a valid species. Longer explanation by Marco Selis: Eumenes tricolor Cameron, 1906 [https://www.gbif.org/species/5036671] is a synonym of Delta campaniforme and a junior primary homonym of Eumenes tricolor Smith, 1861, which is still a valid species and not a synonym of E. floralis [this part is currently correct on the website]. This synonymy of tricolor under floralis is not mentioned in any bibliographic reference, therefore it's clearly an error.

Two different species pages for the same Eumenes species, which also indicates that at least one of them is mispelled: https://www.gbif.org/species/5037164, https://www.gbif.org/species/10847522. Marco Selis comment: the correct spelling is Eumenes fuellebornianus. The spelling in the original description was füllebornianus, but the code states that diacritics can't be used in scientific names, making fuellebornianus the correct form.

There are 9 Eumenes spec species page. Marco Selis comment: There is no species called Eumenes spec. That's only another way to say Eumenes sp., but I don't understand what these pages refer to. They all cite the 2018 revision of New World Eumenes, but the wording "Eumenes spec" doesn't appear in that paper. My comment: therefore, these should be synonymized with Eumenes (genus taxon) or possibly deleted, depending on whether or not those pages have occurrence records.
https://www.gbif.org/species/11934528
https://www.gbif.org/species/12087521
https://www.gbif.org/species/11998498
https://www.gbif.org/species/12044548
https://www.gbif.org/species/12157940
https://www.gbif.org/species/11538526
https://www.gbif.org/species/11976076
https://www.gbif.org/species/12110542
https://www.gbif.org/species/12067406

Western United States Euodynerus boscii records need verification

This species has rarely been recorded in the western US, so the records are best to verify. There are three records from this dataset, in addition to three others from another dataset that I'm emailing separately (https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/search?has_coordinate=true&has_geospatial_issue=false&taxon_key=5037565&geometry=POLYGON((-156.76144%2026.65242,-100.22213%2026.65242,-100.22213%2049.27984,-156.76144%2049.27984,-156.76144%2026.65242))&occurrence_status=present). There is no contact information for this source, which is why I created this issue here. Ideally, specimen photos could be shared so that identifiers can verify the determinations.

Corrections and taxonomic revisions for genus Delta

Subspecies Delta campaniforme esuriens (https://www.gbif.org/species/5036678) should be species Delta esuriens (https://www.gbif.org/species/5036741). Note also that the occurrence records Hawaii and other locations need to be corrected. The Hawaii specimens were probably correctedly identified at the time, but need to change now due to taxonomic revisions since.

There is one correct species taxon Delta lepeleterii (https://www.gbif.org/species/5036723), but another mispelled species Delta lepeletierii (https://www.gbif.org/species/6248612). Each species includes subtaxa, so the following changes are needed:

Delta lepeletierii lepeletierii (https://www.gbif.org/species/7047919) becomes Delta lepeleterii lepeleterii (https://www.gbif.org/species/10887786).

Delta lepeletierii pilosellum (https://www.gbif.org/species/6248616) becomes Delta lepeleterii pilosellum (https://www.gbif.org/species/6248616).

Delta lepeleterii formosum (de Saussure, 1852) needs to be created (parent taxon: Delta lepeleterii), and then Delta lepeletierii formosum (https://www.gbif.org/species/6248615) needs to become the correctly spelled taxon.

Delta lepeleterii meruense (Cameron, 1910) needs to be created (parent taxon: Delta lepeleterii), and then Delta lepeletierii meruense (https://www.gbif.org/species/6248614) needs to become the correctly spelled taxon.

Delta pensile (https://www.gbif.org/species/5036662) is a synonym of Delta guerini (https://www.gbif.org/species/5036711), so Delta pensile should be synonymized with Delta guerini.

Delta emarginatum (https://www.gbif.org/species/5036655) has been revised in taxonomic literature to no longer have subspecies, so the two emarginatum subspecies shown at the above link should be synonymized with the species Delta emarginatum.

The information on the last two paragraphs is from Marco Selis.

Revision of genera Santamenes and Pachymenes

Grandinete et al. 2014 (https://resjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/syen.12105) synonymized the two genera and Santamenes is no longer an accepted genus. The four species currently included in Santamenes on COL and GBIF (https://www.gbif.org/species/1327628) are transferred to Pachymenes as follows.

Santamenes novarae (de Saussure)
Santamenes olympicus (Zavattari)
Santamenes peregrinus (Zavattari)
Santamenes santanna (de Saussure)
Respectively become:

Pachymenes novarae (de Saussure)
Pachymenes olympicus (Zavattari)
Pachymenes peregrinus (Zavattari)
Pachymenes santanna (de Saussure)

Delta higletti rendalli update

The taxon Delta rendalli and all of it's occurrence records (https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/search?taxon_key=5036648) should become Delta higletti subsp. rendalli (Bingham, 1902) (https://www.gbif.org/species/6248632).

Phimenes revision and corrections

For Phimenes flavopictus (https://www.gbif.org/species/6128509),

Subspecies Phimenes flavopictus andimanicus (https://www.gbif.org/species/6247950) needs to become a new species Phimenes andimanicus (Zimmermann, 1931).

Subspecies Phimenes flavopictus nicobaricus (https://www.gbif.org/species/6247948) needs to become a new species Phimenes nicobaricus (Meade-Waldo, 1910).

Source: Gawas et al. 2020.

Phimenes flavopictus (Blanchard, 1845) (https://www.gbif.org/species/6128509) needs to become Phimenes flavopictus (Blanchard, 1849).

Source: Nguyen et al. 2016

Phimenes spec (https://www.gbif.org/species/11588548) refers to the genus without a species identification, so should become unranked or deleted.

Eumenes taxa revised to Delta taxa

Eumenes campaniformis (https://www.gbif.org/species/5037008) needs to become Delta campaniforme, although the subspecies have to be revised first, explained below:

Eumenes campaniformis subsp. asinus de Saussure needs to become Delta asina https://www.gbif.org/species/5036705

Eumenes campaniformis subsp. assatus Giordani Soika needs to become Delta campaniforme assatus (https://www.gbif.org/species/5036672)

Eumenes campaniformis subsp. cameroni Bequard needs to become Delta campaniforme cameroni (https://www.gbif.org/species/5036665).

Eumenes campaniformis subsp. campaniformis needs to become Delta campaniforme campaniforme (https://www.gbif.org/species/7217563).

Eumenes campaniformis subsp. esuriens Fabricius needs to become Delta esuriens esuriens (https://www.gbif.org/species/9741734).

Eumenes campaniformis subsp. guerini de Saussure needs to become Delta guerini (https://www.gbif.org/species/5036711); secondly, Delta guerinii (with two I's) needs to be spelled Delta guerini.

Eumenes campaniformis subsp. pensilis de Saussure (https://www.gbif.org/species/5037023) is supposed to be Delta guerini (https://www.gbif.org/species/5036711).

Eumenes campaniformis subsp. stuhlmanni Schulthess (https://www.gbif.org/species/5036710) is already correctly listed as being a synonym of the valid name Delta phthisicum (https://www.gbif.org/species/5036709), although it may be best to synonymize/delete the E. c. stuhlmanni taxon (I was unsure what to do for this one).

Marco Selis (iNaturalist: marco_selis) has also provided some information that is now incorporated, for this and related eumenine or polistine Issues.

There are two taxon pages for Onychopterocheilus kiritshenkoi; one is mispelled.

Mispelled taxon page: https://www.gbif.org/species/1329274.

Correct taxon page: https://www.gbif.org/species/10794270/treatments. Related discussion with co-author of source: https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/619999.

Montezumia corrections

M. cortesa (https://www.gbif.org/species/9256840) and M. cortesia (https://www.gbif.org/species/1327569) need to become Montezumia cortesioides Willink, 1982 (https://www.gbif.org/species/1327560). Source: West-Eberhard 2005.

Only one spelling is correct for M. holmbergi (https://www.gbif.org/species/1327606) and M. holmbergii (https://www.gbif.org/species/1327600), which is to be determined.

There are multiple pages for Ancisterocerus, most of which are mispelled.

Incorrect taxon on GBIF: https://www.gbif.org/species/1327978. The error originates from ZOBODAT but is also currently on COL and IRMNG (https://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1006161).

Second incorrect taxon on GBIF: https://www.gbif.org/species/1330290.

Third incorrect taxon on GBIF: https://www.gbif.org/species/1327938

Correct taxon on GBIF: https://www.gbif.org/species/1311332.

Corrections for Euodynerus

Euodynerus velutinus (Kostylev) (https://www.gbif.org/species/10945236) needs to become:
Euodynerus velutinus Blüthgen, 1951 (https://www.gbif.org/species/5762341)

Euodynerus quadrifaciatus (Fabricius, 1793) (https://www.gbif.org/species/5037705) needs to become:
Euodynerus quadrifasciatus (Fabricius, 1793) (https://www.gbif.org/species/5037693/treatments)

Euodynerus soikae Guichard, 1986 (https://www.gbif.org/species/10714370/treatments) is mispelled and needs to become:
Euodynerus soikai Guichard, 1986 (https://www.gbif.org/species/5037641/treatments).

Euodynerus spec (Giordani Soika, 1993) Carpenter & Brown, 2021 (https://www.gbif.org/species/11573346): spec. is referring to an a genus record without species information ("species"). This taxon should possibly be deleted or at least moved to the bottom of the species listings as an unranked taxon.

Needed changes for the Parapolybia indica species group

Subspecies https://www.gbif.org/species/6247352 should be species https://www.gbif.org/species/8659384.

Subspecies https://www.gbif.org/species/6247350, which is wrongly categorized as the accepted name, should be species https://www.gbif.org/species/8672724.

Subspecies https://www.gbif.org/species/6247351, which is wrongly categorized as the accepted name, should be species https://www.gbif.org/species/8540951.

This species https://www.gbif.org/species/1311790, which is wrongly categorized as the unaccepted name for Parapolybia indica, should be categorized as a good species, while noting that P. indica also remains a valid name, so shouldn't be deleted/synonymized either.

After the above changes are completed, subspecies Parapolybia indica indica (https://www.gbif.org/species/7218053) can be deleted/synonymized with Parapolybia indica.

Source for all changes above: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lien-Nguyen-21/publication/275024906_Review_of_the_paper_wasps_of_the_Parapolybia_indica_species-group_Hymenoptera_Vespidae_Polistinae_in_eastern_parts_of_Asia/links/5652b6b508aeafc2aabac2a6/Review-of-the-paper-wasps-of-the-Parapolybia-indica-species-group-Hymenoptera-Vespidae-Polistinae-in-eastern-parts-of-Asia.pdf

Duplicate Euodynerus genera that have the wrong authority name and date

Correct Euodynerus Dalla Torre, 1904 genus page: https://www.gbif.org/species/7235993

Duplicate genus with wrong authority name and year from Zobodat: https://www.gbif.org/species/5037530

Duplicate genus with wrong authority name and year based on Ma, Chen & Li, 2017 (https://www.gbif.org/species/9623548), despite that the Ma, Chen, & Li, 2017 publication lists the correct genus authority name and date. Note: clicking Content on this only shows a GBIF email address, so it's unclear how to correct this.