Hello, thanks for add ing all those Curcuma species. And I hope you speak English. One thing: if a taxon is invalid there shouldn't be an entry. For example Curcuma wenchowensis has the addition nomen illegit. (meaning invalid name) That shouldn't be placed. If there's a synonym it should redirect to the correct page. --Kempm 19:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I should add some more information, since this example is a little more complex. Curcuma wenchowensis, on the basis written in chinese characters is identical to Curcuma wenyujin. But translated by the first author to latin, its name was given as "Curcuma wenchowensis", although these chinese characters could also be translated for "Curcuma wenyujin" (that's just a problem of transliteration). The anonymous author did not give a latin diagnosis (expect for the name C. wenchowensis) or no type speciem in the first publication, but a good picture was given (which makes it valid in a little way). There is no scientific disagreement, that these two species are different, but the "invalid" description makes the first name invalid, although by applying a different transliteration, the species name might be valid in some sense (applying chinese language). So, if the data for C. wenchowensis should be changed as suggested, the information might get lost. I suppose, I'll place these additional informations in the discussion area of C. wenyujin. In the second valid publication, where this species was transliterated as "C. wenyujin", there is given a (very short) latin diagnosis, thus C. wenyujin should be used more in a more correct way (in this case you should know, that the author of the valid second description was not aware of the first "invalid" description, where his "new sp." was transliterated as "C. wenchowensis". This dilema was cleared later by another author (T.L. Wu), who was aware of some more references for this sp.). But I also think, that Wikispecies should list the invalid names, especially in this case, because researchers working in this field will may find it important to find also those references of invalid descriptions. Therefore it's on their own decision, weather they include invalid species names in their (re)search. Sometimes also a invalid description turns out to be a valid one, but if you do not know about invalid descriptions, you might miss these valuable informations (and you will do the work once again, like in the case of the second author).-- 21:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at for example Monodelphis. It gives a list of known synonyms. Sometimes when a certain taxon is rejected by the scientific community, we just make a redirect from the old name to the new name, and add it to the synonym section. I think that is the best way we should work on wikispecies, so there can be no misinterpretations, whether a certain taxon is valid.
Transliterations are indeed a hard nut to crack. Same for chinese names of Sanctioning Authors. We are trying to compile a list Catalog:Taxon_Authorities for sanctioning authors, but there is probably mistakes in transliterations. --Kempm 22:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for answer. I will consider your proposal and will change it in time, as soon I have freetime of it work. Besides, how should I deal with a "invalid" description, where no synonym is yet known. Not to cite this "invalid" description would be very insufficient, since someone very probably will find a synonym or maybe rename it in future, but the invalid description - as it is - is already there and should be considered, at least here at Wikispecies, since it should bring informations to other researchers, weather valid or not. With regard of different transliteration within author names, that's indeed a problem. You may (I do) find that out by looking at the original publication and compare the affiliations to the authors and the research field. I know plenty of those examples, where are more than one name for one an the same person is given, even in cases, where publications are in the original language. Especially in chinese language, someone must be very careful with this due to many people bearing equal or very similar transliterated names at least. -- 01:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for bringing that up. I do not have a clear answer to that problem. But what if we keep an invalidly published name on the wiki, a specialist gives it a new name, but we forget we had the invalid name? Then we will have bad information. It's better to give no information than bad information. But I see your point. Perhaps it's best to discuss this in the village pump, where others can express their concerns about this. --Kempm 13:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

This is the discussion page for an anonymous user who has not created an account yet or who does not use it. We therefore have to use the numerical IP address to identify him/her. Such an IP address can be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user and feel that irrelevant comments have been directed at you, please create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users.