Keep as redirect
Page correctly redirected to Taophila mandjeliae. Proposal to reinstate direct.
To provide reference... Page 72 of Gomez-Zurita, 2017. In section "Taophila mandjeliae ( Jolivet, Verma & Mille, 2010), comb. n." describes mandjeliae does not belong to the genus Acronymolpus, and proposes the transfer to Taophila. "However, conversely to the other species of Stethotes described by the same authors, this species does not belong to the genus Acronymolpus."
Gómez-Zurita, J. 2017. Insights on the genus Acronymolpus Samuelson with new synonymies and exclusion of Stethotes Baly from the fauna of New Caledonia (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae, Eumolpinae). ZooKeys (720): 65–75. doi:10.3897/zookeys.720.13582. PMC 5740434. PMID 29290725. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5740434/pdf/zookeys-720-065.pdf
Trying to follow the rest is difficult...
Originally Stethotes mandjeliae (Jolivet, Verma & Mille, 2010) Synonymy with Acronymolpus jourdani, also Synonyms: A. gressitti Samuelson, 2015; A. joliveti Samuelson, 2015 This could of resulted somewhere in the combination of Acronymolpus mandjeliae, when synonymy incorrectly placed it in Acronymolpus Which is now Taophila mandjeliae. See page 72 of source above. Robertreadman (talk) 02:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, I don't agree with this because:
- The actual combination "Acronymolpus mandjeliae" has never been used in print or online to my knowledge, certainly not in in Gómez-Zurita's article you use as reference, and is not in any other article I am aware of. In fact, the only other publication (so far) besides Gomez-Zurita's that deals with Acronymolpus, to my knowledge, is the article by Samuelson in 2015, which established the genus in the first place.
- Gómez-Zurita, as far as I can tell, was only stating that the species does not belong to Acronymolpus in reference to the fact that he was transferring all three New Caledonian species of Stethotes to other genera: while S. bertiae and S. jourdani found homes in Acronymolpus, S. mandjeliae it turned out actually belonged to Taophila instead.
- This statement that it does not belong to said genus likely does not count as a combination under ICZN rules anyway, especially since it was an article published in 2017 and not the 1800s, where the rules are usually a little different. Though honestly I'm just speculating on this point, maybe the ICZN doesn't care for all I know.
- This page shows the state that the Acronymolpus mandjeliae page was left in before it was redirected to its current name (which occurred the same day after it was created), which cites Acronymolpus mandjeliae as being from page 72, which is the same page that the combination "Taophila mandjeliae" is created in.
- Rather than the species combination actually being at one point valid, I am convinced it is more likely that PeterR (the creator of the page) just accidentally misnamed Taophila mandjeliae as Acronymolpus mandjeliae when creating species pages using Gómez-Zurita's article.
- (Oddly enough though, nobody actually created the "Taophila mandjeliae" page until I did back in 2019, the "Acronymolpus mandjeliae" page was just left hanging as a broken redirect for two years until then it seems.) Monster Iestyn (talk) 09:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- It looks like you have been able to follow all of the same sources I have been able to, I cannot find one that explicitly refers to Acronymolpus mandjeliae but in the 2017 reference, I read it was implied that it had been placed in Acronymolpus incorrectly, when they stated it does not belong their. Robertreadman (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, you may have been confused by the wording of the text, as in fact Stethotes mandjelidae has never been placed in Acronymolpus. Gómez-Zurita states in the introduction that the genus "currently includes four species" (these were A. turbo, A. meteorus, A. joliveti and A. gressiti), which are shown to be synonyms of the other two Stethotes species in the article, reducing Acronymolpus from four species to two. Monster Iestyn (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)