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-lineage 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: Mixed colours always turn brown or clear in two generations Supported: mixing undocumented breeding populations can reduce consistency when selection and records stop. Not established: every named-line cross has one phenotype or reaches it on a universal F1 or F2 calendar. Next action: choose display or breeding as the goal, record parents and follow all offspring beyond one generation. Claim page: https://moltandmoss.com/care/claims/mixed-colours Guide: https://moltandmoss.com/care/colours Evidence dossier: https://moltandmoss.com/research/guides/colours ASSIGNMENT SCOPE Selection reason: The project separates visible phenotype, environmental plasticity, pigmentation mechanisms and documented ancestry while rejecting deterministic seller-chart inheritance claims. Reviewer scope: Audit whether the wording distinguishes phenotype, line name, pedigree, source population, genetic inference and complete F1 or F2 outcome records without overstating molecular studies. Consequential failure to check: The project implies that named colour lines have authenticated genetic identity, predicts an undocumented cross or converts environmental colour change into evidence for or against inherited lineage. EXACT EVIDENCE RECORDS Evidence id: tropea-2022-sibling-mating Role: interpretive-context Use in this claim: Shows that documented relatedness and reproduction require actual crosses and outcomes. 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/tropea-2022-sibling-mating Evidence id: sganga-2019-maternal-colour Role: interpretive-context Use in this claim: Measures maternal coloration and offspring endpoints without producing named-line segregation ratios. 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/sganga-2019-maternal-colour Evidence id: lu-2022-chromatophore-development Role: interpretive-context Use in this claim: Describes chromatophore development in three strains without predicting arbitrary named-line crosses. 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/lu-2022-chromatophore-development SUPPORTING AUTHORITIES Authority id: decanet-neocaridina-davidi Use in this claim: Keeps accepted species identity separate from trade-line inheritance. Record: https://moltandmoss.com/research/authorities/decanet-neocaridina-davidi 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: Visible colour can change without proving inherited identity Question: Do environmental colour effects conflict with genetic pigmentation findings? Why it looks conflicting: Background and diet studies show measurable appearance changes, while molecular studies identify pigmentation pathways and market labels imply inherited lines. Bounded reconciliation: Environmental plasticity and biological pigmentation mechanisms can both be real. A visible phenotype reflects genes, development, environment, measurement and selection history; changing one visible measure does not authenticate ancestry or genetic purity. Still unresolved: The corpus cannot map every named trade line to a validated genotype, predict offspring from seller labels or separate all environmental and inherited contributions from a photograph. Decision boundary: Use appearance to describe the animal in front of you. Use documented pedigrees, controlled crosses and appropriate molecular evidence for inheritance claims; do not substitute a photo, substrate response or single marker. Comparison page: https://moltandmoss.com/research/disagreements/colour-phenotype-and-identity 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.