Hesperian

Welcome to Wikispecies, Hesperian! We like having new people contributing to Wikispecies. Here are a few things that may be interesting: Have a look at Done and to do. See also Wikispecies PR Please ask further questions in the Village Pump. Please don't upload files to Wikispecies unless there's a special reason to do so; use the Wikimedia Commons instead. We hope you'll enjoy the time you spend on Wikispecies!

- UtherSRG (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Acacia Genus to be split

They're going to split the Acacia genus up into sub-genera - [1]. Thought you'd like to know. - 220.237.30.150 22:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Ssp work

Thank you for your work on this. I never expected this could be done in reasonable time :) --Kempm 07:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Banksia

I am wondering why you made some of the changes to Banksia. In Help:Name section#Synonyms it says to use a level-3 subheading for "Synonyms" and to call the section "Synonyms", not "Synonymy" . --Georgeryp 13:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah

It seems like a job half done - and I havent even started making a mess of your list of lichen yet :) - I managed a connection with the states eminent lichenologist last week and he translated my commons images to names - that was a real thrill! but slowly does it, no bots just hands - it all takes time :| SatuSuro (talk) 23:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Euc eremophila - v names for the main and subs - worth creating a separate page or simply do it on that page? SatuSuro (talk) 00:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually - erythronema 3 variants with all the same v name - any ideas? SatuSuro (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you're asking. I wouldn't bother creating a separate species template. Hesperian 23:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

OK I see - no problems, I was considering if the sep subsp had sufficient info about its variance would it have been worth creating a separate - but I see no real point to it... sorry about the pointless thinking aloud SatuSuro (talk) 01:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Re:Wells again

On the contrary, it is very far from being a "no brainer". This isn't about any of Wells' opinions, it is about nomenclature. In zoological nomenclature, the valid name for a taxon is determined by priority, not by popular consensus. Actually, Wells' opinion on Wollumbinia is exactly THE SAME as Thomson & Georges opinion on Myuchelys, just under a different name. So, EVERYTHING depends on whether Wells' name was validly published according to the ICZN, and I see no proof that it was not --Stho002 (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The ICZN rules for valid publication are actually hopelessly vague. It is pretty much impossible to prove that a publication was not validly published. The PDF states that the article was published in compliance with the Code, and that printed paper copies were made available from the date of publication, upon request. Maybe that is a lie, but I don't know that, and neither do Thomson or Georges - their "reasons" for considering Wells' publication to be invalidly published are little more than a dogmatic statement to that effect, and given the long history of conflict between them and Wells, this means nothing. At Wikispecies, it is not our job to judge whether articles are validly published or not. All we can do is to present the facts as they appear, and flag any potential or actual problems, which I have done in this case. If we (or anybody else) starts to reject publications on such flimsy grounds, then the end result could be chaos --Stho002 (talk) 23:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I do not say that they are validly published, I say that I don't know (and will therefore give Wells the benefit of the doubt), and I say that nothing anybody ("reliable source", or otherwise) has told me (or published) amounts to anything like a convincing argument. Thomson and Georges just publishing an unargued for statement to the effect that "in their opinion, Wells' article wasn't validly published", just doesn't cut any ice with me --Stho002 (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

>How about Fritz, U. & Havas, P. (2007), "Checklist of Chelonians of the World", Vertebrate Zoology 57(2): 162:

"The worst case represent online-publications in a journal fake named Australian Biodiversity Record (Wells 2002a, b, 2007a, b, c). These online-publications do not constitute published works according to Articles 8.6 and 9.7 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN 1999), which is why none of the names or nomenclatural acts published therein exists under the rules of the code."[2]

That is an unambiguous statement, by authors who appear to be unaffiliated with Thomson and Georges. Does this also fail to "amount to anything like a convincing argument?"

Again, this is little more than a dogmatic statement of wishful thinking. It would be true if it really was an ONLINE-PUBLICATION only, but that is the point: the online PDF states that hard copies were printed on the publication date and made available on request. I give Wells the benefit of the doubt on that. Besides, the argument by Fritz & Havas seems to be based a faulty premise: that a bogus ISSN number invalidates the publication according to the ICZN Code. They say: 'The National Library of Australia helped much in assessing the status of the faked journal ...', but all that they can know is if it is a LEGAL publication according to Australian Law, but this has NOTHING to do with being a VALID publication according to the ICZN. The ISSN number may well be faked, and so it fails to be a legal publication according to Australian law, but this is irrelevant...the argument just isn't convincing...

>I think you're playing verbal games when you say "I do not say that they are validly published, I say that I don't know (and will therefore give Wells the benefit of the doubt)". You could replace "Wells" with "Thomson" in that sentence and your position would be no less rational. You're only giving Wells "the benefit of the doubt" on the premise that he has priority, which is begging the question since priority is what is at issue here. Hesperian 00:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No, there is no question begging going on. Firstly, I know that there is personal animosity between parties here, and so that undermines somewhat any negative attacks. Wells isn't making any negative attacks, he just states on the PDF that it was validly published according to the ICZN. He is innocent until proven guilty ... --Stho002 (talk) 01:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

>I'm still not understanding why the benefit of the doubt goes to Wells. Wells publishes name in his own personal journal, which he edit himself, and which is not subject to any peer review, and which no library bothers to archive. Other herpetologists go on the record in reputable, independent, rigorously peer-reviewed international journals, stating that Wells' names are not validly published. Given two contrary assertions, "This journal is validly published" versus "Wells' journal is not validly published", you give the benefit of the doubt to the former, despite the latter having more supporters and much better provenance. What is going on here? Hesperian 01:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stho002"

You are quite correct - you are still not understanding ... You are confusing two different issues - nomenclature and taxonomy. The issue here is purely nomenclatural - does Wells' article describing Wollumbinia comply with the ICZN 1999 Code? If it does, then Wollumbinia is the valid name, not Myuchelys. This issue has nothing whatsoever to do with taxonomy, science in general, or peer review. I agree that Wells' article is probably of very poor quality from a taxonomic/scientific perspective, but that is irrelevant. Also, the fact that Wells' opponents have managed to get their opinions of Wells published in "reputable" peer-reviewed journals is also irrelevant, and merely a result of "politics". In a hypothetical example, given two assertions, "I am not guilty" versus "he is guilty", which would you give the benefit of the doubt to, in the absence of any actual relevant evidence??? --Stho002 (talk) 01:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, it is not just about this one case, but about the general principle --Stho002 (talk) 01:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

> The question before us is simply whether Wells' names are validly published. Wells says they are. Many herpetologists disagree. Why does Wells get the benefit of the doubt? Hesperian 01:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, let's go with that. There is doubt, and it is unclear who should get the benefit of it. So, what are we, Wikispecies, to do about that? We have to choose one name or the other to use as the valid one, but we don't know (and can't know) which it is? Well, that comes under the general heading of a "dispute" (in the sense of the Wikispecies Dispute template). How does this work? Well, we choose one alternative, go with that as the valid name, and flag the page as disputed (with an appropriate discussion on the talk page). This is what I have done. I got there and did it first, before Thomson (User:Faendalimas), so to stop the wheel warring I have protected the page with my version - end of story. --Stho002 (talk) 02:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the wheel warring (or edit warring, or whatever) is between Thomson and Wells, both of whom edit here from time to time. At any rate, it doesn't matter because the taxa are searchable under both names anyway, it is just a matter of which one is chosen to act as the page name. I chose Wollumbinia. There is no rational reason to change this decision, and Wollumbinia is in widespread usage, even on "official" biodiversity databases like Global Names Index and Index of Organism Names. It is however clear that some people have strong opinions of their own that it should be changed to Myuchelys, so clearly an edit war is inevitable with those who think Wollumbinia should stand. That is why I invoked my admin powers to protect the page. Now, please move on ... Stho002 (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Do what you like ... Stho002 (talk) 03:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, ION and GNI also list Myuchelys and all of its combinations. They list all recent names whether valid or not and do not distinguish between them. They obtain their data from each other and GNI also from Thomson Reuters. They make no nomenclatural decision or recommendation on usage. Also I have never seen any evidence that Richard Wells has edited any of the turtle pages. So how is he at war with me? Thanks for the support Hesperion. Faendalimas (talk) 04:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)