Gelechioidea Revisions

Heikkilä et al. 2013/14

I added Heikkilä et al. 2013/14 to Books (1). I also changed the topic name of this thread.

I was unaware that Charley Eiseman has already addressed this topic in the Taxonomy Proposals forum under "Bringing some microleps up to date" here. It had already been decided that we follow Heikkilä et al. 2013/14. I've gotten about half way through and found a few more changes which I'm running by Charley.

I will post changes here as they are addressed. As of today Amphisbatidae has been removed and it's genera, Machimia and Psilocorsis, placed in Depressariidae without subfamily assignment.

… Steve Nanz, 26 March, 2016 - 1:34pm

I would hesitate to delete co

I would hesitate to delete correct/valid taxa that have already been created, and to create correct/valid taxa before they're needed.

"...there is a subfamily for Autostichinae with only one species." --one species on BugGuide, or one species, period?

… John Schneider, 30 January, 2016 - 1:24pm

I already deleted Autostichinae. My apologies. I can undo that easily enough though.

There are several genera in this subfamily but I believe there is only one species, Autosticha kyotensis, in NA and it is a non-native. I'm using MPG's 2011 checklist. I have reached out to a couple experts for help and have no intention of proceeding further until I've heard back.

It may be worn mentioning that images have been moved to both Autostichinae and to Autosticha. If Autosticha kyotensis is the only species for this subfamily found in NA, genus and subfamily really should not be an option. If it's not Autosticha kyotensis, it should be placed in Autostichidae or higher.

… Steve Nanz, 30 January, 2016 - 2:14pm

Thanks

I'm fine with whatever you decide. FWIW, I think Autostichidae looks fine without the subfamily.

… John Schneider, 30 January, 2016 - 2:21pm

Nice sleuthing

I favor keeping subfamilies. Do you plan on moving Amphisbatidae and Depressariidae to Elachistidae?

… Kyhl Austin, 29 January, 2016 - 11:21pm

Yes

The paper mentions that most genera are moved to Elachistidae but does not mention which are omitted. I need to first find out which are omitted and where they go. Also, there is a 2014 paper here which, among other changes, could break up Elachistidae and reinstate Depressariidae. I've sent out a couple emails asking for help. If you have answers, let me know.

I should point out that there are many other changes to the higher taxonomy of other superfamilies.

I'm holding off on adding subfamilies containing only one genus for now.

… Steve Nanz, 30 January, 2016 - 4:48am

Heikkilä et al. 2013/14

The paper you linked to was the basis for splitting off Depressariidae from Elachistidae, among other changes. We should favor that paper over van Nieukerken et al. (2011), where there are discrepancies.

… Charley Eiseman, 6 February, 2016 - 4:26pm

Sohn et al. 2016

Not sure what changes result from Sohn et al. (2016)(1) but should we be looking into this?

… Steve Nanz, 29 July, 2017 - 5:02am

I seem to remember checking that out already...

Let me know if you see any discrepancies.

… Charley Eiseman, 29 July, 2017 - 1:10pm

More changes in Gelechioidea

Also eliminated in Gelechioidea are Amphisbatidae and Depressariidae. This paper deals with higher taxonomy. I'm sure there are changes in other superfamilies that need to be addressed. Not sure when I will be able to get them all. I hardly started on the Pyraloidea checklist.

… Steve Nanz, 27 January, 2016 - 2:30pm

Our vote would be for eliminating it

It is easier for us to drill down through the taxonomy when we are looking for things if it is not there. It also makes Browse work better, in our opinion. But we know others feel otherwise. Hoping that in 2.0 we will be able to disable those in our personal profile so that we don't see them even when they are there. Guess we'll see.

… john and jane balaban, 27 January, 2016 - 2:11pm