Help talk:Name section

Archive

Botany: Should full name be followed by a period?

In botanical taxa pages, in the name and synonymy section, should the full name be followed by a period? Which does Wikispecies prefer (Example 1 or Example 2), and could the explicit preference be added to this help page? (If it is there, I missed it.)

Example 1 (no ending period):

Name
Symphyotrichum lateriflorum (L.) Á.Löve & D.Löve, Taxon 31: 359 (1982)

Synonymy

• Basionym
  • Solidago lateriflora L., Sp. Pl.: 877 (1753)
• Replaced synonym
  • Aster lateriflorus (L.) Britton, Trans. New York Acad. Sci. 9: 11 (1889)

OR

Example 2 (ending period):

Name
Symphyotrichum lateriflorum (L.) Á.Löve & D.Löve, Taxon 31: 359 (1982).

Synonymy

• Basionym
  • Solidago lateriflora L., Sp. Pl.: 877 (1753).
• Replaced synonym
  • Aster lateriflorus (L.) Britton, Trans. New York Acad. Sci. 9: 11 (1889).

Thanks, Eewilson (talk) 16:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I do not use a period after the date, but do add one after the page, as Solidago lateriflora L., Sp. Pl. 2: 877. (1753), but perhaps we need to revisit a discussion. Andyboorman (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I use a period at the end of the line, and no period after the page, following IPNI and WCSP.

The format
Solidago lateriflora L., Sp. Pl.: 877. 1753.

following ICN and used in many taxonomic publications should also be mentioned. RLJ (talk) 18:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

If you look on IPNI and PWO, the date is in parentheses, and this help pages says to put them in parentheses for botany. When copying and pasting the full name from IPNI, to have to remove the parentheses around each date would add two steps. There is already a period at the end on the IPNI page for the taxon. So, what you see above is exactly as it came from IPNI (example 1 removes the ending period). IPNI and PWO are where I've been getting the synonym information. Eewilson (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Etymology, eponyms, etc

Hello, while adding some primary refs to Zaglossus and Zaglossus hacketti, I came across some pretty definitive evidence for the origins of these names: Zaglossus Gill, 1877 is, per Gill BHL (and as per wiktionary), a combination of Za (augmentative (διά)) + γλῶσσα glossa (tongue), while the hacketti of Zaglossus hacketti Glauert, 1914, per Glauert BHL, honours John Winthrop Hackett. This is fundamental nomenclature-related information (and likely of interest to many users across the different language wikipedias etc). It might need to be handled carefully (eg, with a reference requirement (possibly including sources such as, for birds The Key to Scientific Names)), so as not to attract (wiki-editors') folk etymologies etc, but also might make a valuable addition. Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks for notifying. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC).

Eg BHL, as provided at Dromaius, would be perfect, straight from the horse's mouth, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 07:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)