INDEPENDENT NEOCARIDINA REVIEW ASSIGNMENT PACKET Assignment packet version: 1.0 Round version: 1.0 Review packet version: 1.2 Status: Prepared locally; no invitations or completed reviews claimed Assignment: round1-taxonomy-identity Lens: Taxonomy and identity Relevant qualification: Relevant atyid taxonomy, morphology, nomenclature, population genetics or species identification experience. Lens focus: Check whether taxon names, identity assumptions, trade-line language and transfers across populations remain explicit. PUBLISHER AND REVIEW BOUNDARY - Molt & Moss is a one-person seller-publisher that intends to sell shrimp and supplies. - AI tools assisted research organization, drafting, software and consistency checks; they are not sources or reviewers. - No independent peer review of this packet is currently claimed. - Reviewers are asked to disclose relevant seller, breeder, author, employer, affiliate, paid or gifted relationships. - This assignment requests criticism of one bounded claim, not endorsement, a testimonial, consensus or validation of the whole site. EXACT CLAIM BOUNDARY Claim: Colour proves the species or purity of a line Supported: colour and pattern are observable phenotypes that can be recorded and graded under a method. Not established: one photograph or trade label proves species, genotype, pedigree, relatedness, hybrid status or genetic purity. Next action: preserve scientific-name claim, identification basis, seller label, source, grade and provenance separately. Claim page: https://moltandmoss.com/care/claims/colour-identity Guide: https://moltandmoss.com/care/species Evidence dossier: https://moltandmoss.com/research/guides/species ASSIGNMENT SCOPE Selection reason: Species names, visible phenotype, market labels and later taxonomic reassignment are easy to collapse into one identity claim, and that error can propagate through sourcing and breeding records. Reviewer scope: Audit the published source taxon, specimens, characters, loci, reference material, accepted-name use and every transfer from a population result to a photographed or traded animal. Consequential failure to check: The project silently modernizes a historical name, authenticates a photographed animal or line from colour, or treats one barcode, database or trade label as complete identity. EXACT EVIDENCE RECORDS Evidence id: schoolmann-2018-population Role: interpretive-context Use in this claim: Population identity requires evidence beyond visible aquarium color. Source availability: Matched in dated Crossref query Availability boundary: The canonical DOI appeared in the dated broad query and carried no registered update in that response. This is a metadata observation, not proof that the work has never changed. Record: https://moltandmoss.com/research/records/schoolmann-2018-population Evidence id: cai-ng-1999-serrata-revision Role: direct-support Use in this claim: Shows that specimen-based taxonomic revision can overturn a historical genus label. Source availability: Canonical DOI outside query result Availability boundary: The record has a canonical DOI but did not appear in the broad Neocaridina query. It requires DOI-specific or alternative-registry status review before any no-update statement. Record: https://moltandmoss.com/research/records/cai-ng-1999-serrata-revision Evidence id: kusmintarsih-2023-market-co1 Role: limitation-context Use in this claim: A short mitochondrial market-stock record does not establish pedigree, purity or all species alternatives. Source availability: Matched in dated Crossref query Availability boundary: The canonical DOI appeared in the dated broad query and carried no registered update in that response. This is a metadata observation, not proof that the work has never changed. Record: https://moltandmoss.com/research/records/kusmintarsih-2023-market-co1 SUPPORTING AUTHORITIES Authority id: decanet-neocaridina-davidi Use in this claim: Supplies the maintained accepted-name database role without identifying a photographed animal. Record: https://moltandmoss.com/research/authorities/decanet-neocaridina-davidi Authority id: uf-ifas-cherry-shrimp-profile Use in this claim: Provides a bounded secondary species overview rather than line ancestry. Record: https://moltandmoss.com/research/authorities/uf-ifas-cherry-shrimp-profile NAMED OPEN QUESTIONS Gap id: named-morph-crosses Current boundary: Molecular pigment studies do not provide inheritance ratios for trade lines, and seller charts are not pedigrees. Record: https://moltandmoss.com/research/gaps/named-morph-crosses ASSIGNED EVIDENCE COMPARISON Title: A published species name is evidence context, not permanent identity Question: Why can older and newer sources use different names for apparently related shrimp? Why it looks conflicting: Older field records, morphology-based revisions, mitochondrial barcodes and integrative taxonomic studies may place similar-looking material under different names or lineages. Bounded reconciliation: Taxonomic conclusions depend on the specimens, characters, loci, reference material and species concept used. Later reassignment changes how an older result should be scoped; it does not erase the observation or transfer it automatically to N. davidi. Still unresolved: The corpus does not resolve every Neocaridina species treatment, authenticate commercial animals from a photograph or make one barcode a universal identity test. Decision boundary: Retain the source taxon exactly as published, report later reassignments separately and narrow care transfer when identity is uncertain. Do not silently modernize a name and inherit all conclusions. Comparison page: https://moltandmoss.com/research/disagreements/taxonomy-name-history SOURCE ACCESS CHECK [ ] I could open every source needed for my review. [ ] A source-access barrier prevented a complete review. Inaccessible source or exact barrier: Scope conflict, relationship conflict or reason for declining: COMMON REVIEW QUESTIONS 1. Is the reviewed claim stated precisely enough to audit? Response: 2. Does the supported wording stay inside the source taxon, unit, comparison, duration and endpoint? Response: 3. Does the limitation name the nearest consequential inference the evidence cannot carry? Response: 4. Is the next action observable, measurable or reversible without becoming diagnosis or treatment authorization? Response: 5. Is a consequential source, contrary result, conflict or uncertainty missing? Response: 6. What exact wording should change, if any, and which stable source supports that change? Response: REVIEWER RESPONSE RECORD Relevant experience used for this review: Seller, breeder, author, employer, affiliate, paid, gifted or prior-collaboration relationship, or none: Stable source or sources considered: Exact wording proposed, or no change: Permission to publish identity, or anonymous attribution: SUBMISSION Submit one exact critique and one stable source at a time through https://moltandmoss.com/research/challenge. A decline, conflict or source-access barrier is useful. Molt & Moss records it without treating it as review, agreement or endorsement. A substantive completed critique receives one finite response. Reviewer identity is published only with permission.