Welcome to Wikispecies!

Hello, and welcome to Wikispecies! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

If you have named a taxon, then it is likely that there is (or will be) a Wikispecies page about you, and other pages about your published papers. Please see our advice and guidance for taxon authors.

If you have useful images to contribute to Wikispecies, please upload them at Wikimedia Commons. This is also true for video or audio files containing bird songs, whale vocalization, etc.

Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username (if you're logged in) and the date. Please also read the Wikispecies policy What Wikispecies is not. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or in the Village Pump. Again, welcome!
Thanks for your kind thoughts. Hope you contribute as we always need botanists. Andyboorman (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Although I have vaguely kept an eye on Wikispecies for a long time, I am unlikely to contribute (much). This is mostly due to the basic Wikispecies-policy (or the lack of one). By contrast, Wikipedia has core content policies such as NPoV, NOR and Ver (although NPoV is more honoured in the breach), but what does Wikispecies go by? It is fine to attempt to do what taxonomists have failed to do, but there are reasons that taxonomists have failed. There was a rush-job like CoL, but look at it... I am also unhappy with the creationist-like belief that there is One True Classification, even leaving aside how this should be created/discovered.
        To be more constructive, I came here through your edit here, and you write there "Type species Not yet designated for this circumscription". Two points which you may want to consider: 1) types are attached to names, and they are independent of circumscription. Indeed, it is their prime function to ignore circumscription. A type is designated in view of what the original author was doing, to have an objective standard to apply, and 2) strictly type species are not designated, and in fact do not exist at all. What we have in botany is a type (a nomenclatural type), which is a specimen or an illustration. This "type species" is a term of convenience to more easily indicate the actual type; the name of a species consists of just two parts, while a citation of a type may be quite lengthy. The usual phrase is a simple "type not designated". Hope this helps? Best, Brya (talk) 05:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Brya: Thanks for your comments and I agree with most of them 100%. I am seriously considering my re-engagement with WP and thanks for the clues, but I am sorry to see you have been blocked - is this true?. What attracted me to WS was the apparent simplicity of page creation and editing. However, I am reluctant to retreat completely at the moment just because of the attitude of a single individual.
OK I seem to have made an error with Kozlovia Lipsky (1904) as Index Nom Gen notes the type species as K. paleacea derived from Albertia Regel & Schmalh. (1877), (A. paleacea). However, in my defense older circumscriptions (eg Tropicos) of Kozlovia have it as monotypic with the species K. longiloba, which by default would be the type species. The older type would have preference, so it must now be K. paleacea or am I wrong? ! I ought to make the changes in WS with the relevant annotations. However,.... see the edit history on Kozlovia and discussions on References for my reluctance to engage in an edit war at this time! Nice to have a calm sensible discussion. Andyboorman (talk) 09:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Unfortunately, @Andyboorman: thinks that he knows more than he actually knows, so please feel free to patrol his edits and correct his errors, though don't expect any thanks from him. Stho002 (talk) 06:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Yes, the climate here does not seem very positive at the moment. Stho002's reputation precedes him: he is capable of a great deal of valuable work, but he can also carry on, and on (the latter is not as rare in the Wikimedia franchise as one would hope).
        I am not particularly interested in what the type of Kozlovia is, but looking at the original description, there is just the one species there, K. paleacea, which would therefore represent the type. I don't really see any evidence there that Kozlovia is a replacement name for Albertia.
        And yes, I was blocked at enwiki, for refusing to violate the NOR and NPoV-policies. On and off I am thinking of asking for an unblock, now that the core content policies have been tightened, so that they can no longer be overridden by consensus. There are not all that many pages on enwiki that I really care about, so I am not in a real hurry, but there are some. - Brya (talk) 11:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Refusing to violate policy, goodness me! Emwiki still seems full of "personal" approaches, as is WS of course. I tried to introduce it gently to Pridgeon et al. for Orchidaceae but this got reverted very quickly and this is just a book. Andyboorman (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Yes, there is a lot of animosity, personal or otherwise, going round. What you are saying about Orchidaceae underscores what I was saying about basic Wikispecies policy. In Wikipedia one is supposed to have all the various major taxonomies together, and it is a matter of providing due weighting, but in Wikispecies There Can Be Only One right taxonomy. So, the question becomes, which one, and why? This also means that to a significant degree Wikispecies is out of step with the rest of Wikimedia. - Brya (talk) 12:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Yeah most of the animosity here is over edit wars and attempts to unilaterally re-write WS structure and format silly really. It would be a real change to have a good old taxonomist scrap! It is difficult for some non-botanists to appreciate that "There Can Be Only One right taxonomy" does not always fit with plants. OK 90% of the time, but it gets really grey around the edges. The interest and challenge, but we usually get there on this front to be fair, as long as the backup from the sources is there, but ... Ouratea and Myricaceae? Andyboorman (talk) 14:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
The idea of "There Can Be Only One right taxonomy" fits really badly above the genus level. I keep hearing of herbaria that are still using a layout according to a system of classification of a century ago. There are plenty of different systems in use here and there.
        And, yes, formatting can be a really divisive issue, with not a few users wanting to impose their preferred format (or spelling, or whatever) on pages they have otherwise no interest in (and even being totally indifferent to the consequences, as long as they can have their preference). - Brya (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Old habits die hard! I prefer APGIII as it is based upon a solid body of work, but of course it is not strictly Linnean (Angiosperms, monocots etc), which annoys some folks. WS has dumped Angiosperm and replaced it by Magnoliopsida, but this page also includes Liliopsida within its Orders! Andyboorman (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Yes, today APG III would be the most likely candidate for a default system. I am sorry to hear that the 'Linnean ranks' monster is rearing its ugly head again. I don't really see its appeal (and clearly, Linnaeus did not use 'Linnean ranks'). In the first few years of Wikispecies, the 'Linnean ranks' monster was seriously hampering Wikispecies. What happened was that Wikispecies copied the Wikipedia System of Plant Classification (the top of the Cronquist System and the bottom of APG, with the middle left out), which was not only a NOR violation, but (in spots) nonsensical. I was glad when Wikispecies got to its senses and adopted APG II; I then put in the "APG II (down to the level of family)" in a template, which was later changed to APG III by a marketing-oriented type (without an actual adjustment to APG III being carried out. Why do the work, when the appearance will do). This Magnoliopsida page is pretty far out: as Wikispecies has no NOR-policy it can make up its own System of classification, so it is allowed, but this is not a thing of beauty (more of a bin into which everything got dumped pell-mell). The thing about a name like Magnoliopsida is that it is interchangeable with Magnoliophyta and Magnoliidae; one never really knows what it means: they can each be the angiosperms (or something else entirely). I don't really see why this page Magnoliopsida has References, as it is a point of view unique to Wikispecies.
        But of course, there does exist a 'Linnean ranked' approach to APG III (Tropicos is using it), if one really hates APG III itself, although I really don't see why APG III should be objectional. - Brya (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
As far as I can see the page Magnoliopsida is out of the line of things and does no real harm, just a bin sitting there? - Brya (talk) 06:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

A bin! Stuck out the way in a corner and harmless so true. I would prefer we follow Topicos, but was struck down by an insect expert! Andyboorman (talk) 08:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply



Hi Brya. What do you think of these pages Kozlovia and species? Andyboorman (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

It looks OK to me (but I had never heard of Kozlovia until a few days ago). I would prefer to have a ≡ sign instead of a =, and I would prefer to indicate a later homonym properly rather than just an indication of "nom. illeg."
        Given that The Plant List is confused here and that there is a weird little error in Tropicos, this looks really good, in comparison. - Brya (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Camptoloma (Chloephorini)


Hi Brya,
you redirected: Camptoloma (Chloephorini), but now there are some informations lost from the original page (species, reference). Could you please update the page Camptoloma (Arctiidae) with this informations? Thanks --Murma174 (talk) 12:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I thought about this for a moment, but a) this is not on my path as I am just eliminating duplicate pages and b) as I have not the least idea about relevance and quality of this reference I could not in good faith make a decision about whether or not it is worth including. Thus the Terms of Use forbid me to include it. - Brya (talk) 18:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
I understand. In doubtful cases I'd suggest to leave the decision up to admins here. Thanks --Murma174 (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Autopatrolled rights


Dear Brya, You have been granted autopatrolled user rights, which may be granted to experienced Wikispecies users who have demonstrated an understanding of Wikispecies policies and guidelines. In addition to what registered users can do, autopatrollers can have one's own edits automatically marked as patrolled (autopatrol). The autopatrol user right is intended to reduce the workload of new page patrollers and causes pages created by autopatrolled users to be automatically marked as patrolled. For more information, read Wikispecies:Autopatrollers.

  This user has autopatrolled rights on Wikispecies. (verify)

You may as autopatroller use the autopatroller user box on your user page. Copy and paste the following code on your user page:

{{User Autopatroller}}

If you have a Meta-Wiki user page, you can put the Wikispecies autopatrolled user box for Meta on your Meta-Wiki user page.

Theres always a need of patrolling files edited by unregistered users, and if you think you have a good understanding of Wikispecies policies and guidelines and want to help out with patrolling, you can request patrol rights at Patroller.Dan Koehl (talk) 08:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. - Brya (talk) 05:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

genus with subgenera



You redirect species with a subgenus to species without subgenus. I friendly ask you to stop with this. You are making a mess. PeterR (talk) 07:08, 21 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi PeterR,
This is a curious reversal. After all, it is you who is creating two entries per taxon (per name), which is at odds with the aim of Wikispecies to present a directory of species. In case of two entries per subgenus I am redirecting to the proper form of the name (as prescribed by the ICZN). - Brya (talk) 07:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

That I add genera with subgenera have a reason. I add authors taxa and museum by the original combination. See Chilicola (Heteroediscelis) mantagua. PeterR (talk) 08:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

  • Chilicola mantagua is the name of the taxon.
  • Chilicola (Heteroediscelis) mantagua is an allowed, but not recommended representation of the name. I see no advantage to having it feature so prominently. It is not a synonym, but the same name, written differently. It also was not a "comb. nov." when published, but remains the same combination.
  • Chilicola (Heteroediscelis) is a violation of the zoological Code.
Looks like "a mess" to me. - Brya (talk) 08:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
The author citation in "Chilicola (Heteroediscelis) mantagua (Toro & Moldenke, 1979)" is wrong, while Chilicola (Heteroediscelis) mantagua Toro & Moldenke, 1979" is right. But, anyway, pretty silly to have both in the same page. - Brya (talk) 11:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC) Reply
Ok couple of things here. Actually Brya the formal name of a species does include all named ranks, including subgenus, that we often shorten this to Genus species is a matter of acceptable convenience. Second thing, PeterR I get why you are doing this but duplication of species is problematic and causes cross-wiki issues also. The way I deal with this is label the page by its genus + species name but use the hierarchy to go through the subgenera. Original combination can and should be on the same page as the current combination and in reality subgenera are more linked to their parent genus rather than the species they contain, from a nomenclatural perspective. Authors etc for anything on the page can go there too. For an example look at how I have set up the genus Elseya which has three subgenera. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 18:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
I am fine with the page Elseya, but let me quote the Glossary entry of the zoological Code on "binomen""
"The combination of two names, the first being a generic name and the second a specific name, that together constitute the scientific name of a species [Art. 5.1]. Any interpolated names [Art. 6] are not counted as components of a binomen."
Brya (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
Your over reading that. This is defining what a binomen is for purposes of application of the code. The binomen is only part of the name and the Code only applies in general to the genus and species. It does have some things to say on other higher orders but its strict rules apply to the Binomen which has to be defined to the exclusion of other names which independently follow their parent names, ie subspecies follow species, subgenera follow genera for interpretations. However in general nomenclature, of which the code is just one part, and changes between phyla, the name of a species is every named rank from Kingdom down. After all the purpose of the nomenclature is to define the classification, by relationship. You need the whole name to do this. Cheers Faendalimas talk 19:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
The purpose of a Code of nomenclature is to have names, divorced from classification; relationships are not defined by names (with the exception of placement in a genus or species), but by taxonomy. And the world at large does use the binomen (after all, that is what it is for). - Brya (talk) 06:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Application for Checkuser


Referring to earlier discussions regarding a local Checkuser policy, I herebye apply to get Checkuser user rights, although we havnt reached a consensus reg Checkuser policy, but I want to give it a try if I can get the required votes. For a request to succeed a minimum of 25 support votes and an 80% positive vote are required (subject to the normal bureaucrat discretion). Requests for checkuser run for two weeks, and I ask kindly that somone starts the poll, like we do for adminship applications.

Please also note that CheckUser actions are logged, but for privacy reasons the logs are only visible to other Checkusers. Because of this, Wikispecies must always have no fewer than two checkusers, for mutual accountability. I dont want to suggest anyone, but hope that someone feel inspired and will step forward and also apply for checkuser.

My request to the Wikispecies community is here

Dan Koehl (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Another application for Check User


As pointed out above by User:Dan Koehl, we need at least two Check Users for this wiki. I am nominating myself and would be happy to receive any feedback that you have to give (positive, negative, or neutral). Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Koavf. Thanks. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Additional Checkuser Application


I also have added my name to those willing to be a checkuser. Please see my application here Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Faendalimas. I listed this yeasterday but have been encouraged to do a mass mail. I would also take the opportunity to make sure everyone knows that any editor can vote but that it is imperative that as many do as possible, for all 4 of the current applicants, please have your say. Checkuser voting has strict policy rules regarding number of votes. You will have other messages from the other Users concerned you can also read about it in the discussion on the Village Pump - Wikispecies:Village_Pump#Application_for_Checkuser. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Standing for role of checkUser


Like some of our colleagues (who I support), I am offering to serve as a checkuser, not least to ensure adequate coverage in case one of the others is unavailable.

Please comment at Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Pigsonthewing.

[Apologies if you receive a duplicate notification; I wasn't aware of Wikispecies:Mail list/active users, and sent my original notification to the list of administrators instead.] MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society


Dear Brya,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikispecies project for ten years or more.

Best regards,

Dan Koehl (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)Reply



Dear, Brya! Would you accept to be a Patroller on Wikispecies? Wikispecies need more Patrollers and presently there is only 37 out of 150 active users.
Please see Patrollers for information about patrollers rights. If you are positive, I can nominate you on the requests for patroller rights on your behalf.

Dan Koehl (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

RFC on Checkusers


With one week to go I wanted to remind everyone of the importance of voting on the current CheckUser applications. They can all be found together on a single RFC: Wikispecies:Requests_for_Comment#Checkusers.

It is extremely important with votes such as this for everyone to be involved. There are strict rules in the Wikimedia Foundation Policy guidelines on these votes. I would urge people to have a good understanding of what a CheckUser does. This can be read up on here on the page discussing CheckUser's Wikispecies:Checkusers. Links on this page will take you to other policy information on Meta, HowTo for our site etc.

I would also urge people to look at our own policy development and some past discussion on this can be found here: Wikispecies_talk:Local_policies#Local_CU_Policy.

Wikispecies has in the past had issues that has required the intervention that is supported by the ability to do a CheckUser. Many of us are aware of this. The capacity to do this ourselves greatly speeds up this process. Although SockPuppetry can sometimes be identified without using a CheckUser in order to do the necessary steps to stop it or even prevent it requires evidence. We all know that sockpupets can do significant damage.

This is an important step for Wikispecies. It is a clear demonstration we can run ourselves as a Wiki Project part of Wiki Media Foundation. When I and several others first discussed this we knew it would be difficult at the time to meet all the criteria. We have only now decided to try and get this feature included in Wikispecies. By doing this it can lead to other areas where Wikispecies can further develop its own policies. In some areas we have unique needs, different to the other Wiki's. It is timely we were able to develop all these policies.

Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Request for vote reg use of BASEPAGENAME


The previous discussions regarding if we should subst:ing BASEPAGENAME and change all [[BASEPAGENAME]] into [[susbt:BASEPAGENAME]] did not really reach a consensus.

Please vote here on the Village pump!

If you are not sure on your opinion, you can read and join the discussion about the claimed advantages and disadvantages of using BASEPAGENAME

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Cephalotaxus harringtonii


HI @Brya: Could you please note this discussion on my Talk Page with reference to the legitimacy of Cephalotaxus harringtonii versus Cephalotaxus harringtonia, as it seems that you are in danger of an edit war with @MPF: on Wikidata. Lang et al. (2013) are clearly wrong in the reasons for their proposal, so the original must stand and it seems that this is not just our opinion. I have had a communication about the combinations and the basionym protologue with Kew, who agree with us and have now corrected WCSP. Otherwise I would have added {{disputed taxon}} on the page. You can read the full text of the paper using the link on the taxon page and I think you will see the reasons for my suspicions. Thanks and hope this helps Andyboorman (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I read it. I also answered MPF fully; Lang et al. (2013) have clearly followed the rules correctly. The epithet was intended as a noun in apposition, but as it was given a Latin termination, Rec 60C.1 applies and it is correctable. The notion about the name being a title is a complete red herring: many names are titles (think Lamarck). Unless Prop. 060 is accepted, it will stay harringtonii. - Brya (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
The use by Lang et al. of use of Art. 60.7, Ex.15 is incorrect according to not just our discussions. Have you read our discussion and the Kew contributions? Art 60.1 is restricted and there is no evidence an error has persisted for 178 years for a commonly known combination. Let us also not forget that knowledge of Latin was very good at the time. Well taxonomists at Kew, not just Govaerts, disagree with you. I definitely feel very comfortable going with them. WCSP changed a couple of days ago. One of the beauties of this source is that if they do get it wrong they will change. I do not know what the policy at Wikidata is, but here it is one taxon page only, although disputed can be used, but it is not necessary in this instance I feel and it will stay harringtonia. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Wikispecies Oversighter


Wikispecies has no local Oversighter. Since I had the communitys confidence regarding the previous application for Checkusers rights, as per local Oversight policy on META, I hereby apply to get Oversighters user rights, as a request to the Wikispecies community.

Application is located at Requests for Comment.

Please also note that Oversighter actions are logged, but for privacy reasons the logs are only visible to other Oversighters. Because of this, Wikispecies must always have no fewer than two oversighters, for mutual accountability. I don't want to suggest anyone, but hope that someone feel inspired and will step forward and also apply for oversighters rights.

Dan Koehl through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Oversight nomination


Please refer to Wikispecies:Oversighters/Requests/Koavf for a second Oversight nomination. Note that we must have at least two Oversigthers in order for anyone to have these user rights. All feedback is welcome. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Have you an opinion with these names


Hello Brya. I have come across a right mess - I think. It concerns the publication of a couple of "names" lodged on IPNI by a group of students in Peru. These are; Namaceae Molinari Weberbauerella 1(7): 2. 2016 [29 Feb 2016] [epublished] and Namaceae subfam. Namoideae Molinari Weberbauerella 1(7): 2. 2016 [29 Feb 2016] [epublished]. ResearchGate has the article, but the original journal has disappeared completely! I would not bother looking at Weberbauerella.org mentioned in ResearchGate! I would like you to note this comment as well. In your opinion are the "names" still validly published under ICNafp Art 29? However, this paper {{Luebert et al., 2016}} also cites the publication of the "names" and has a description on page 511. Any help would be appreciated. Andyboorman (talk) 14:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I never registered at Researchgate, so I can't see the paper. Judging by the comments (see also APweb), this author fulfilled the requirements for valid publication, which are not onerous. The fact that he did not do an impressive job (trying to publish a subfamily name which had been in existence for over a century already: Namoideae A.W.Benn., 1870.) makes no difference, and neither does the fact that the journal has gone off-line. What counts is if the requirements were met at the time of publication, and apparently they were. - Brya (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your views. Under the WS taxonomy I do not think it makes a difference. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

A couple of opinions please


Hello @Brya:. Could you look at he Pump here. I would be interested in your opinion. Also what is your view of the correct epithet for Nothofagus alessandrii/Fuscospora alessandrii. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 13:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello Andyboorman,
I haven't looked into this split but see no immediate advantage to it. As to the epithet of Nothofagus alessandrii/Fuscospora alessandrii, I did look into this. Although published as alessandri, this is simple: the species is based on a personal name Alessandri, and the rules prescribe adding an -i after a personal name ending in a vowel. So, alessandrii is correct. - Brya (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thanks just as I thought, probably an honorific for the prominent Alessandri of Chile. Andyboorman (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
Yes, one time President. - Brya (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)Reply