The three Phoebis with tails were initially regarded as valid
species (Brown, 1929; d’Almeida, 1940) but treated as subspecies
in recent times (Lamas, 2004), probably due the allopatry
of populations and an inconsistent application of the subspecies
concept. Monroe (2016) resurrected the views of Brown
(1929), who acknowledged phenotypic differences, including
size and wing pattern, but also in their genitalia. Their barcodes
are distinctive (Fig. S1) and they were recovered as separated
lineages by all our bpp analyses, regardless the combination of
species assignment and priors used (Fig. 2), leading us to recognize
P. neocypris stat. rev., P. rurina (Felder and Felder) stat.
rev. and P. virgo (Butler) stat. rev. as valid species (Núñez et al., 2019)
Núñez, R., Genaro, J. A., Pérez-Asso, A., Murillo-Ramos, L.,
Janzen, D. H., Hallwachs, W., Wahlberg, N., & Hausmann, A.
(2019). Species delimitation and evolutionary relationships
among Phoebis New World sulphur butterflies (Lepidoptera,
Pieridae, Coliadinae). Systematic Entomology, 45(2),
481-492. https://doi.org/doi/abs/10.1111/syen.12408 (Link)
Unintended disagreements occur when a parent (B) is
thinned by swapping a child (E) to another part of the
taxonomic tree, resulting in existing IDs of the parent being interpreted
as disagreements with existing IDs of the swapped child.
Identification
ID 2 of taxon E will be an unintended disagreement with ID 1 of taxon B after the taxon swap
If thinning a parent results in more than 10 unintended disagreements, you
should split the parent after swapping the child to replace existing IDs
of the parent (B) with IDs that don't disagree.