Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 52

This is an archive of closed discussions. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.

Cochabamba in... Hymenoptera?

I was recently updating articles for the leaf beetle subfamily Galerucinae when I discovered this possible mess involving the genus name Cochabamba. (I seem to have a habit of finding messes for some reason.)

Cochabamba, as far as any online sources I've found so far indicate, is a beetle genus (order Coleoptera), in family Chrysomelidae, subfamily Galerucinae. However, here on Wikispecies it appears to be placed in order Hymenoptera, family Megachilidae, subfamily Megachilinae for some reason. I have checked around on Google rather thoroughly and I can find no evidence a genus was ever placed in Hymenoptera under this name. So I can't say that any homonyms are involved here.

Additionally, Wikispecies only lists one species under Cochabamba, Cochabamba volxemi. This species does not appear at all in the PDF for the taxon page's only reference. On the other hand, online articles such as this and this suggest it is a species combination placed in the Cochabamba genus in Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae, Galerucinae.

Not only that, but the linked Wikidata item and all linked Wikipedia pages in multiple languages classify Cochabamba under Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae!

I think it's very likely that Cochabamba was accidentally given the wrong classification on Wikispecies somehow, and that it should be put under Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae, Galerucinae (I think you get the idea by now). Can someone else double check in case I went horribly wrong somewhere? Monster Iestyn (talk) 10:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can do an IRMNG search "including near matches" via the IRMNG "advanced search" page, relevant result in this instance here. Only one Cochabamba, with the author Bechyné, 1955, that IRMNG knows about (fairly complete for animal names to about 2014, but nothing else shows up under Google Scholar), in Chrysomelidae as per posts above, (in case that helps), and no near matches in Hymenoptera - just one more, again in Coleoptera, Cochabambia Marcuzzi, 1985, which therefore cannot be the source of this problem. Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

───────────────────────── Okay, so it's been 3 days since the last comment now, and there's been no response from PeterR nor has there been any new information to suggest I'm wrong here otherwise. I also just checked this list of genus group names for bees from 1997 and Cochabamba does not appear there either. Maybe I should just go and make the necessary corrections assuming I'm right? Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am 100% sure you are right, and you have discussed the issue here with no contra indications, and there is nothing in IRMNG or Google Scholar to suggest otherwise, so I would say yes, just fix the error; you might want to add a note on the talk page for the taxon name in case anyone wants to know what was done and why. BTW IRMNG ( is my go-to for genus names in the first instance (hint hint: I am the compiler) and, supplemented by Google Scholar for very recent names, should be pretty complete. Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then, I'll do that now then. That said, I personally prefer to track down and look at the actual articles where possible rather than check databases, since some of the records on the databases aren't entirely correct invariably. But the databases are good to have as a backup at least. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair call, my database (and those of others), best viewed as a pointer to the literature rather than an authoritative source in its own right, is a "best effort" and can still contain errors and omissions - although hopefully not *too* many, and these are rectified as discovered and time is available... Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While we're on the subject, if there's any corrections I can point out to be made in IRMNG (which there definitely are), is your talk page the place for that I take it? At least, I assume it is judging by existing discussions there. Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, at the present time at least... small fixes are normally done with priority, larger batches of changes needed may take longer... At some point we may come up with a better method, but this one seems to work, and provides a publicly accessible record of what was requested and action taken/place where issues can be discussed. Another route is to email which will reach me as well (plus the IRMNG IT support team), however there is then no public record of the request and response - but that one will (should) still work if I am not online for any reason. Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And all is done now! Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Large watchlist not editable

Hello fellow editors, I am not able to edit my watchlist, because is has grown too large, so that I get a timeout. Is there another possibility to edit it? Or to remove parts of it, e.g. all categories or all redirects? Thank you for any help, --Thiotrix (talk) 08:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Christian Ferrer. The raw watchlist was very helpful for removing categories and templates. Does anybody know, if there a possibility to list all redirects created by a user? --Thiotrix (talk) 10:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Thiotrix: Here is a list of the "new redirects" created by you: [2]. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. --Thiotrix (talk) 09:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Who can help me with add classes etc. I have now : Class Insecta Linné, 1758 Subclass Scarabaeona Laicharting, 1781 (= Pterygota Lang, 1888) Infraclass Gryllones Laicharting, 1781 (= Polyneoptera Martynov, 1923) Superorder Perlidea Latreille, 1802 (= Plecopteroidea Martynov, 1934) Order Cnemidolestida Handlirsch, 1937, nom. transl., Cnemidolestodea Handlirsch, 1937, Cnemidolestoidea. Type family: Cnemidolestidae Handlirsch, 1906. I can find only Subclass Pterygota (= Scarabaeona). Can I change Subclass Pterygota in Scarabaeona and then lower. I find this in Far Eastern Entomologist, 2014, no. 277 thanks PeterR (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PeterR: I guess you refer to {{Aristov, 2014}}, where Order †Cnemidolestida is revised. I'll see what I can do. Mariusm (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that in recent taxonomy Polyneoptera and Pterygota are valid and not synonyms, so please don't base your rank changes exclusively on Aristov, 2014!! Mariusm (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to this article from 2016 (particularly Chapter 4), the use of Scarabaeona instead of Pterygota at least doesn't seem to be internationally accepted, but rather part of a different classification used only by Russian entomologists? (Or at least, that's the impression I get.) I suspect there may be a similar thing going on with the other higher taxa names with stated synonyms in Aristov, 2014 and others like it. Monster Iestyn (talk) 11:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming page

Hello, I was too fast creating a reference template and I would need help to rename the page. Could anyone help me rename Dusoulier & Lupoli, 2016 in Template:Dusoulier & Lupoli, 2016. Sorry for that mistake and thanks for your help.--Hiouf (talk) 10:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I did it. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thank you very much! --Hiouf (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Damn it! I made the exact same mistake with Zhao et al., 2019b @Neferkheperre: Any chance you can help me one more time? Is there any way I can fix it myself? --Hiouf (talk) 14:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it. In the "More" tab on your tool bar, find "Move". You may need to be an administrator. Neferkheperre (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. Next time I'll use that tool. Cheers. --Hiouf (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

───────────────────────── @Hiouf: Please remember to uncheck the "Leave a redirect behind" check box when you move a wrongly named page to a new name. Leaving a redirect page in place of the old name is great when moving say, the author page "N. Smith" to "Nicholas Smith", so that links pointing to the old page will be automatically redirected to the new one. However for misspellings and such it's useless, since there's no point in having redirect pages that will never be used. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Reference template where author name isn't used

Hi. I have found a lot of uses of the following reference, and was going to create a template for it:

  • Mammal Species of the World, A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference, 3rd edition, 2005 ISBN 0801882214

However, the uses I found almost always omit the author names, but Help:Reference section#Reference Templates says template names should start with the author's name. Is it okay to create Template:Mammal Species, 2005 without the author name? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 08:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the world I move in (not Wikispecies I would point out) it is almost invariably referred to as "Wilson & Reeder". Home page here: . Preferred citation is given as: "Don E. Wilson & DeeAnn M. Reeder (editors). 2005. Mammal Species of the World. A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3rd ed), Johns Hopkins University Press, 2,142 pp". In case this helps... Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 08:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The reference template already exist {{Wilson & Reeder, 2005}}. Regards, Burmeister (talk) 12:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the template has a different ISBN? --DannyS712 (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe because that: ISBN-13: 978-0801882210 // ISBN-10: 0801882214 ? Burmeister (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, using the ISBN-10/13 converter at proves that 0-8018-8221-4 equals 978-0-8018-8221-0. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
There are a few references that aren't authors, usually because the author is taken to be a group (i.e. the ICZN opinions are usually cited with the ICZN as the author, as do certain other large groups of authors such as APG) or because it's better taken to be an external link to some database (Stephen created quite a few of those).
As a side note, special:search can be restricted to the template namespace. It's very convenient when trying to find out if a reference exists. Circeus (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cupressus s.l. versus Cupressus s.s

A genus of c. 16-20 species. Recent genetic evidence (* Little, D. P., Schwarzbach, A. E., Adams, R. P. & Hsieh, Chang-Fu. 2004. The circumscription and phylogenetic relationships of Callitropsis and the newly described genus Xanthocyparis (Cupressaceae). American Journal of Botany 91 (11): 1872–1881. Abstract) shows that the New World Cupressus are less closely related to the Old World Cupressus than previously thought, being more closely related to Callitropsis and Juniperus than to the rest of Cupressus. A change in generic classification for these species is likely in the near future, either to Callitropsis or to a new genus.

Mao et al. (2010) and Terry & Adams. (2015) reversed the circumscription which segregated Hesperocyparis, Callitropsis s.s. and Xanthocyparis s.s. into separate genera. Therefore, the segregation of this genus into Old and New World clades and genera by Little (2006) and Adams et al. (2009) cannot be sustained. The generic circumscription on the taxon page follows Govaerts et al., 2017. Andyboorman (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However, note the recently published Zhu et al. (2018), which has resurrected the proposals to segregate the above genera and revert to a Cupressus s.s. reserved for the Old World species. Govaerts et al., 2018 has decided to follow this circumscription, but with the a number of "Accepted by/Not Accepted by" provisos on their web site. Therefore, it seems that the lumping/splitting debate has not been satisfactorily resolved. Perhaps, WS should maintain a conservative approach for now and retain Cupressus s.l.? See also Christenhusz et al., (2011) Andyboorman (talk) 08:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; a broad circumscription of Cupressus is the only one that is workable - any subdivision is very premature with many taxa not yet examined, and the monophyly of Cupressus s.l. still highly likely - MPF (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You may or may not be right, however, the reversion of Cupressus s.l. to Cupressus s.s is now gaining increasing support. WS must not take a side in this discussion as that would be OR. It would be better to produce pages for the segregates with notes referring to the alternative view. The disputed tag may also be appropriate, as also taking this to the pump. Andyboorman (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One example of the problems with splitting is that Mu et al. (2006; Front. Biol. China 4: 349−352 DOI 10.1007/s 11515-006-0044-5 ) found a species pair of Cupressus funebris and C. duclouxiana (neither examined by the proponents of splitting the genus) to be sister to C. nootkatensis, with those three in turn sister to C. torulosa: i.e., "Callitropsis" nootkatensis is from their results deeply embedded among Asian Cupressus s.str. The net result is that any splitting of the genus is likely to result in extensive paraphyly somewhere in the group. - MPF (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

───────────────────────── You make my point for me. I will migrate the discussion to the Pump. Andyboorman (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that it does! It makes the case for splitting much worse, as it makes acceptance of Callitropsis containing only Cupressus nootkatensis (sensu Zhu et al.) untenable - MPF (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside on the wider Cupressaceae questions, I can see the case for lumping the Callitroid genera into one genus, but when the proposers of the lump themselves say further evidence is needed ("Further molecular data are needed to test these results and explore the cause of the conflict between these estimates of the phylogeny within the group" - Piggin & Bruhl 2010), the lumping done by the Kew List is I think premature. Other options (particularly the transfer of the New Caledonian Callitris to Neocallitropsis, and recognition of Octoclinis) need to be considered. - MPF (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I am not clear about what you mean in relation of the Kew List lumping. Are you writing about genera other than Cupressus e.g. Callitris? Andyboorman (talk) 10:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thought that was clear from the 'as an aside on the wider ...' mention! - MPF (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the above taken from the Cupressus discussion page, do a search and comment. Thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that there are now two diametrically opposite taxonomic opinions of a well known genus. Both Cupressus s.l and Cupressus s.s. have scientific support, but there is no definitive evidence for one or the other. Therefore, as an example, Govaerts et al. on WCSP and supported by Christenhusz, Fay & Chase (2017) in their Plants of the World project favour s.s. with segregate genera. However, Earle on the Gymnosperm Database project advocate s.l. with the putative genera as sections. Can WS legitimately take one side over another irrespective of personal, but obviously well informed opinions, of our editors? Andyboorman (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody have a strong objection to me modifying the Cupressus taxon page in order to reflect the two main differing taxonomic opinions? Andyboorman (talk) 14:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I fear I do :-) I'd very strongly say we should retain it as one genus, as a minimum until every taxon has been tested. - MPF (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why? It is illogical to retain a disputed species list, whichever way the coin eventually falls. Particularly, as only a very few taxa have not been tested and some of these may turn out to be in synonymy. At least there must be note on the taxon page itself, as well as a disputed tag and not just in the Discussion Page. Leaving the present situation is favouring one valid opinion over another, which is contrary to Wiki policy, as well as science. If there was an editorial consensus here, then I would follow the majority view. My purpose for this thread was to stimulate discussion, which unfortunately has not happened Andyboorman (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Folklore

Hello Folks,

Wiki Loves Love is back again in 2020 iteration as Wiki Loves Folklore from 1 February, 2020 - 29 February, 2020. Join us to celebrate the local cultural heritage of your region with the theme of folklore in the international photography contest at Wikimedia Commons. Images, videos and audios representing different forms of folk cultures and new forms of heritage that haven’t otherwise been documented so far are welcome submissions in Wiki Loves Folklore. Learn more about the contest at Meta-Wiki and Commons.

Kind regards,
Wiki Loves Folklore International Team
— Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk)
sent using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

How do you find the common name

How do you find the common name of an animal on his page cuz most people like me can't use the scientific name I like that it's on there but still would like the common name. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Datnip (talkcontribs) 20:51, 16 January 2020.

We have a section called 'Vernacular names' near the end of each page, giving the name in various different languages. Of course not all species have common names, lots of less conspicuous insects and plants don't have any. - MPF (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MPF is correct. I can add that there is also a "Search Wikispecies" function near the top right of all our pages. Enter a search string there and hit "enter" to search for scientific names, vernacular names, journals, authors etc... –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
@Datnip: When no common name is given in a Wikispecies article, you can also just click on one of the Wikipedia links (i.e. the language names in the left column) to see if they have one. --LamBoet (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I wanted to create a subgenus page for this genus, and I wonder I will have to use {{Sgsps}} or {{Sgsp}}, Help:Taxonavigation section suggest to use the second, but that implies to create species in this form. I think to have understood that this is not the preferred way. In summary, is it the good way? Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel you absolutely must show the subgenus page i specie sname on the page for that subgenus (which seems redundant to me... I mean, what other subgenus are they supposed to be in??), then {{Sgsps}} is the one. Last I knew, consensus was well away from including subgenus in pagenames of species. I've personally come to be on the fence about whether to use "Genus (Subgenus)" or "Subgenus" for the page title of the subgenus, though. Circeus (talk) 03:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your fist sentence, what is redundant? only the species that are not affected to a subgenus are currently listed in the the genus page, it's not me who did that, I found the page like that. I just wanted to create Ophiura (Dictenophiura), as suggested by the red link in the genus page, in order to have the possibility to list some more species that are not yet available there. But thanks you, you confirmed what I was thinking, I will use {{Sgsps}}. Though this should be made clear in Help:Taxonavigation section, as it is currently suggested there to use {{Sgsp}}. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For your last sentence "Genus (Subgenus)" is likely the best solution, as in some cases it will avoid confusions, example [3] vs [4], it is maybe not the best example as the both taxa are not accepted, but well... Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wasn't clear. What I mean is that
  1. Regardless of the way they are written in the subgenus page, the species page title should be "Genus species", not "Genus (Subgenus) species" (that is because the subgenus is not part of the actual species name. ICZN art. 6.1)
  2. On the page "Genus (subgenus)", it seems redundant to list species as "G. (Subg.) sp." because... why do that on that page? Of course they are species of that one subgenus if we are listing them there!
  3. The case you mention regarding "Subgenus" vs. "Genus (Subgenus)" for the page title wouldn't be a problem because they are the same name/synonyms, they literally could not be two separate pages. That it increases the chances of homonyms needing disambiguation (i.e. it reveals otherwise unnoticed genus-subgenus or subgenus-subgenus homonyms) is a feature in my opinion. Also, it makes it easier when genus-group taxa are moved around, since we no longer have to rename these pages, just adjust the taxobox accordingly. (The main issue that remains is the nomnotypical subgenus, for which there is no elegant solution...).
Circeus (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See Geostiba for my way of treating subgenera: (1) No use of "Genus (Subgenus) species", only "Genus species" for page titles (2) use only "Subgenus" as the subgenus-page title (3) use of "Genus (Subgenus) species" only in the name section (4) no special page for "Genus s. str.". Mariusm (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ok, Circeus, thanks, now I understood what you said. Thanks you Mariusm, for your example, I will follow it regarding the section "overview...", but regarding the page name the issue is when we have a subgenus with same name as the genus, you can not have two pages with the same name. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think Mariusm was saying he doesn't bother with a separate page for a subgenus with the same name as the genus, but just lists the species for that subgenus under "Genus s.str.". Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite new to these discussions on Wikispecies, but I don't understand why any page should be named "Genus (Subgenus)" at all. A subgenus name consists of one single word, and the Code only mentions putting it in parentheses when it is between the genus and species name in a binomen or trinomen. By using "Genus (Subgenus)" alone, Wikispecies is spreading bad practice.--LamBoet (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since for the longest time I dealt exclusively with plant names, I really don't know how it happened, sorry. We're left with a mix of the two systems now. Circeus (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Monster Iestyn, I did not noticed that. I listed the species in an overview section. But I found a little issue, I don't know how to deal with that case: 2 binonem homonyms that are accepeted within the same genus, see Ophiura costata Rasmussen, 1972 † vs Ophiura (Ophiuroglypha) costata (Lyman, 1878). Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's a species-level homonym. That happens sometimes. Unless you intend to publish a new named for O. costata Rasmussen yourself, you'll have to grit your teeth, disambiguate the pages and use {{Homonym}}. Circeus (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it seems, indeed. @Mariusm: what does exactly mean the abbreviation "s.str."? Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know I'm not Mariusm, but "s.str." is short for "sensu stricto". Monster Iestyn (talk) 10:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Christian Ferrer: Please note that Genus and Subgenus are both in the genus-type category, so Ophiura (Dictenophiura) and Dictenophiura must be synonyms! An example for "Genus (s.str.)" is Ophiura (Ophiura). Mariusm (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks you Mariusm, and thank you everyone. If the page I created: Ophiura (Dictenophiura) is not OK we can still move it. Incidentally as well as all the other pages about subgenus if one day there is a consensus to harmonize the pages in one way or another. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Small caps for authors name

Hi all, I am curious about the use of small caps for the authors name. The ICZN doesn't say anything about using a special typography for the authors name, and the Code always use normal font and size in all its examples. As far as I know the small caps are not used in en.wikipedia or fr.wikipedia but seems to be a standard in de.wikipedia and it.wikipedia. So I would be interested in knowing the reasons for the small caps and perhaps talk the French wiki into it. Best. --Hiouf (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It comes about through the extensive use of the templates {{A|a}} and {{Aut|aut}} in names and references. Andyboorman (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the story behind Wikispecies' specific choice of style, but on a more general note it's quite common that different nomenclatural publications have their own praxis for preferred composition, syntax, and stylistics. Andy is correct in that "our" small caps are generated by the {{a}} and {{aut}} plus the unrecommended {{Auth|auth}} templates, but it would of course be very easy to change the templates to omit the small caps, should we chose to do so. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Don't get me wrong, I'm very fine with the use of small caps, I find it easier to read a taxa and identify the author, but that's just a personal preference. And of course I use those templates all the times with Wikispecies. That's why I would love to introduce the French wiki with small caps but this choice has to be justified. If the ICZN doesn't recommend it and journals like Zootaxa don't use it, I really wonder what was the reasoning for the small caps. My German and Italian skills are not good enough to ask their respective wikis, but I was hoping you could give me some hints. --Hiouf (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get me wrong either – I like small caps a lot and sometimes even overuse them, at least outside of Wikispecies. :-) Perhaps our admin @Thiotrix can assist? She speaks German as a first language and way better than me. Unfortunately my skills in speaking German are getting rustier by the day: I took German classes for six years in school, but nowadays (30 years after school...) I very seldom speak or read German anymore and tend to forget a lot of the grammar. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
From my own experience so far, the only zoological journal I've actually seen use small caps for author names is Genus. On the other hand, the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, which is published by the ICZN themselves (I think), uses small caps not for author names but for family-group names apparently! It's right there in their own guidelines for the journal. I don't think I've seen that latter use of small caps anywhere else at all except maybe a few ZooKeys articles.
That aside, should we be using {{Aut|aut}} at all in the titles of reference templates? I've been doing that for a while out of habit, but never thought to actually ask about that for some reason. Monster Iestyn (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hiouf, Andyboorman, Tommy Kronkvist, and Monster Iestyn: small caps are used in the ICZN for family-group names. ICZN recommend that family-groupe names are written in a distinctive way, but doesn’t use italics. The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature follows the ICZN. I have seen many other publications like that. TED (talk) 14:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the use of smallcaps for name authors (NOT reference authors) is a weird style quirk specific to wikispecies (a little like bolding volume numbers on Wikipedia). Does anyone knows whether that predates Stephen's rise to power? I know it's somewhat uncharitable, but it's true that quite a few quirks (some of them reversed, some not) on Wikispecies are direct consequences of his... heavy handed approach. Circeus (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's no odder than the style on Wikipedia, which prints authors' names and publication dates in a smaller size font inside of Taxoboxes. It's primarily a means of distinguishing the author names from taxon names and other information, so that the reader can visually parse the text. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The use of small caps for authors of taxonomical names is quite common in German botanical literature (e.g., Rothmaler: Exkursionsflora) and international Floras (e.g., Flora Iranica). Small caps are generally used as a method of emphasis or distinctiveness. In my zoological books, authority names are either normal or in uppercase letters (e.g., Stresemann: Exkursionsfauna). This is just a typographical decision and nothing that is ruled by the botanical or zoological codes. --Thiotrix (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Small caps are certainly used in English Wikipedia. Taxobox templates automatically put authorities in small caps, as do templates designed to format lists of taxa (e.g. en:Template:Species_list). Manually formatted lists of taxa on English Wikipedia don't always have small caps for authorities, but probably have small caps more often than not, and are slowly being standardized to use them. Looking at my edits (under a different account) on Wikispecies from early 2008 (pre-Stephen), small caps do not appear to have been standard at that time; not sure if Stephen was the instrumental in introducing them though. Plantdrew (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my four personal and very subjective takes on the notes above:
  1. The {{a}} and {{aut}} templates should be reserved for author names, since they can be extended with author-specific data in the future. If you need to use small caps for journal names etc. please use {{Smallcaps}} instead (or the {{sc}} shortcut).
  2. I like the use of small caps on Author Names, since it makes them stick out but still in a somewhat modest way.
  3. Using all uppercase letters for AUTHOR NAMES is far too shouty and should be avoided. Sure it makes the names stand out, but in such a harsh way that the focus of the rest of the citation is almost lost. This is especially true when there are SEVERAL AUTHOR NAMES MENTIONED AFTER EACH OTHER. I find it ugly, less legible, and well-nigh visually offensive.
  4. Italics for family-group names is bonkers. In my opinion italics should only be used for supergenera and lower ranks. And of course for book/journal titles and the names of ships!
Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist: : italics are used for all names (including family-group names and above) in the International code of nomenclature for algae, fungi and plants, and the ICZN uses small caps for family-group names (and above). TED (talk) 12:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Code may say it, but no one actually does it. Not even Taxon, the official IAPT publication. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Circeus (talkcontribs) 15:13, 20 January 2020.
@Thiotrix: the few publications (always journals) I've seen that do that are actually treating all citations that way (and the proof of that is they never put the author citation after a name without parentheses). Circeus (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I really appreciate small caps because it highlights the names. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I'm not a huge fan of small caps, but I don't mind them so badly as to want to be rid of them. - MPF (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I guess we're trying to achieve a consensus on this issue? I never see small caps in the mycology literature, but I do appreciate how it looks on WS. What I do see often, particularly in old literature, is having the taxon name in bold and then regular text for the author. I don't really see a need for changing the templates though. Voganaa (talk) 09:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I really like our current small-cap author formatting, I think it improves legibility a lot, better than the smaller font size used by the French and English Wikipedias, and without the aggressivity of full uppercase. I have seen these small caps often enough in literature that they don't feel unnatural. Sure, the Code says nothing about this, but I don't think it forbids it? --LamBoet (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Small caps are used in the ICZN and many publications for family-group names (and above family), and therefore shouldn't be used for authors. TED (talk) 12:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What "many publications"? 'cause I've never seen any that actually did it outside the code and the Bulletin. Circeus (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment It is used in a number of journals outside the ICZN, eg Chelonian Conservation and Biology, however this is not relevant. Yes it predates Stephen and seems to have been set up when Wikispecies first started. I do not think it makes any difference and have no interest in changing it. It does not effect even datamining software if its used well. Personally I prefer if people only used the {{A}} template as by adding the parameter |nolink=y to it it will display exactly as {{Aut}} meaning only one template can do both formats with or without the link. What the IUCN does is not relevant here, this is about formatting onsite and hence is only about our manual of style. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 20:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Movement Learning and Leadership Development Project


The Wikimedia Foundation’s Community Development team is seeking to learn more about the way volunteers learn and develop into the many different roles that exist in the movement. Our goal is to build a movement informed framework that provides shared clarity and outlines accessible pathways on how to grow and develop skills within the movement. To this end, we are looking to speak with you, our community to learn about your journey as a Wikimedia volunteer. Whether you joined yesterday or have been here from the very start, we want to hear about the many ways volunteers join and contribute to our movement.

To learn more about the project, please visit the Meta page. If you are interested in participating in the project, please complete this simple Google form. Although we may not be able to speak to everyone who expresses interest, we encourage you to complete this short form if you are interested in participating!

-- LMiranda (WMF) (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone. I am quite new but I like the project. I have one suggestion. Shouldn't we be translating all this things over translatewiki or some other system that allows for easier translation? Bothering admins or interface editors for every translation seems like making things hard for the sake. --Ninovolador (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ninovolador: Welcome. Translatewiki is not a WMF project and if you have any alternatives for how we can translate (e.g. by drawing lexeme data from Wikidata using templates), I'm happy to hear it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ninovolador: For clarity, "WMF" is short for the "Wikimedia Foundation" e.g. the non-profit organisation that supports and oversees all the different Wikimedia sister projects, including Wikipedia, Commons, Wkisource, Wikispecies, etc. However, even though they (mostly) use the same software and have a similar name, Translatewiki is not a project run by Wikimedia, hence hasn't got full access to all of the Wikimedia data. So in effect it would be like trying to use any other translation service (for example Google Translate) and we would soon run into issues with user- and data integrity, incompatible software licenses, and much else.
I guess in theory we could use some of the Translatewiki features if they were implemented in the Wikimedia software, but that's nothing we can arrange from Wikispecies. Such things must be handled centrally by MediaWiki and/or Phabricator, and I think it's very unlikely to happen. We do need a better system for translations though, so as Justin says new ideas are very welcome. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist: I have an idea... the reason (as far as I can tell) that we use the localization system in place is so that we can easily translate specific short messages. We can use int:... for existing messages added by core, and those added by extensions. Perhaps an extension custom for wikispecies that only serves to add messages, thus allowing localization to take place at translatewiki? --DannyS712 (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyS712: Perhaps, but we need to make sure we can maintain a way to localize Wikispecies in the event that Translatewiki is suddenly shut down, changes its license model, is monetized or starts coming with some sort of advertising, starts running on another type of (commercial) software, loses its funding from Netcup and/or Open Progess, is taken over by monoglot aliens from far side of the Moon, et cetera, et cetera... Sure, most if not all of those scenarios are unlikely to happen, but still. In order to maintain the Wikimedia Founding principles and other guidelines it would be better to have an in-house Wikimedia system. Or at least a system mirrored from the Translatewiki servers to ours in a way that would maintain the present license model for us in the event that Translatewiki changes (e.g. gets bought by a company and put to sleep). –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
If any of those situations occur, I'm sure the WMF would copy everything hosted on translatewiki. For perspective, the entire mediawiki message system, along with all extensions, is translated entirely on translatewiki. --DannyS712 (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So basically we should get on the horn to the appropriate working group within the WMF and tell them we need this! Personally I don't really know how it works though, at least not anymore. I do have an account at but I've only made three edits there and that was back in 2016... Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 07:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
If there is support for moving localization to translatewiki, then it would be pretty simple to do so. We could add the messages to the WikimediaMessages extension, in a separate folder. Once that is set up, I can copy all of the translations over to translatewiki, and then we can delete them here. All uses of int:foo would still work the same, and it would be easier to translate in the future. --DannyS712 (talk) 08:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reference template for chapters within a book

Hello, I found online chapters 3 and 22 from this book. Those 2 chapters are great references and I'd like to use them in the relevant taxa and authors pages. What are the recommandations for referring to chapters within a book? Shall I make a template for the whole book or a separate template for each chapter? The first option makes more sense to me, but then how do I refer to each individual chapters? Furthermore, the book has 2 main editors, but each chapters has different authors, who will be credited as authors if I make only one template for the whole book? Many thanks in advance for your input. --Hiouf (talk) 09:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would edit 2 different templates, since authors and subjects are different. This is a good example on how I would do it: Template:Cabanis, 1844, or Template:Cabanis, 1849.--Hector Bottai (talk) 11:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I'll follow your examples. Cheers. --Hiouf (talk) 12:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC

Question about death certificate

Please see this edit summary and respond to the user (and me...) if you know the answer. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I'd say IPNI is the answer, so information can be spread further? That's what I did when I uncovered the details for Wilhelmina Gerhardina Welman (which remidns me, I have to email them again because they entered it with with a typo in her given name...). Circeus (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Acidanthera laxa

Can any botanist please have a look at the Acidanthera laxa page and set it straight in regards to genus, author name, etc? Thanks beforehand! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Well, the name has not been deposited with IPNI and zero results from Scholar. Not a good start. I would be tempted to blank and delete, except for the Tropicos entry. My best guess is that it is a synonym of Freesia laxa, but without being noted as such by WCSP, because the of the lack of an entry in IPNI. Acidanthera in general is now treated as a heterotypic synonym of Gladiolus Tourn. ex L., Sp. Pl.: 36 (1753) with the type Acidanthera bicolor Hochst., Flora 27: 25 (1844) as a synonym of Gladiolus murielae Kelway, Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 92: 107 (1932). It seems that this Tropicos Iridaceae project is much better than the main pages. Thoughts? Andyboorman (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a confusion with hand-written Anomatheca laxa. A botanical author called "Goldblume" does not seem to exist, maybe it is an error for Goldblatt. Tropicos refers to this work: Sosef, Marc S.M. 2009. Flore du Gabon 38. Alismataceae, Apiaceae, Goodeniaceae, Hernandiaceae, Huaceae, Iridaceae, Oxalidaceae, Smilacaceae, Sphenocleaceae, Taccaceae. Weikersheim: Margraf; Leiden: Backhuys, 62 pp. ISBN 978-3-8236-1562-0. -RLJ (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kyphocarpa vs. Cyphocarpa, pt. 2

I have finally gotten around to writing a pretty much final draft of a request for a decision regarding this issue. I am waiting on responses from K. Gandhi at IPNI and G. Zijlstra at ING so make sure I have not misrepresented their positions.

Anyone interested in cosigning is invited to add their name and any relevant affiliation. Circeus (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Circeus: for moving this forward - it would be good to get either 1 or 2 opinions on this! Cheers Tony (for IRMNG) Tony 1212 (talk) 08:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to change a misidentified Wikimedia Commons species photo?

A colleague has found two pictures on Wikimedia that are misidentified, see [5] and [6] - the photos depict a springtail from the family Sminthuridae but are labelled as oribatid mite. I am familiar with editing Wikipedia articles but have never edited a Wikimedia item so I was looking for help on the community pages but didn't find anything useful. Is there a step by step guide how to do this? I can imagine this happens more often than we would like. (BTW: fortunately it seems that the mislabelled photos are not used on any WP or Wikispecies pages) Wurstendbinder (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite simple: 1. Change the name of the file. Click on "more" at top right of the page, will open a "move" option, click there and a self explanatory procedure will show. Fill it. A bibliotecary will have to approve. 2. Once it is approved, you have to edit the Summary to the proper content and 3.change the category(ies) to the proper one(s). That's all.--Hector Bottai (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wurstendbinder: Hector Bottai is correct. Another way is to add this template to the very top of the Wikimedia Commons page: {{rename|Suggested new name.jpg|3|reason=Why should it be renamed?}}
You should of course replace the "Suggested new name" and "Why should it be renamed?" attributes with proper data specific for each file. The code string "reason=" must remain in front of the reason you add. Please also remember to always include the file extension with the suggested new name (e.g. ".jpg" in the above example).
The piped number "3" is important and should remain, since it adds a note about the so called "renaming criterion". Number 3 is used for "correcting obvious errors in filenames, including misspelled proper nouns, incorrect dates, and misidentified objects or organisms." If you use the above template one of Wikimedia Commons 385 designated file movers will soon do the actual renaming: usually within an hour or two. Additional information about the Wikimedia Commons renaming guideline and other renaming criteria than "3" can be found here.
–Kind regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
One more thing: don't hesitate to correct the file's categories and the file description even before issuing the file renaming request. File renaming requires approval for technical reasons, but what matters most is to put the file in the proper category and to make sure its description is correct, and this doesn't have to wait. --LamBoet (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, it seems to have worked. Wurstendbinder (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Actualizando esta familia, encuentro template:CerambCat que creo no está totalmente constuido, ya que no puede dirigirse al género o especie requerido. Agradecería que algún colega qye ha realizado este tipo de página lo actualice para poder, de este forma, agregar una referencia contrastada a las miles de especies de esta familia. Gracias.--MILEPRI (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Country names

Can we make {{Int Country}} pull lables from Wikidata? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the TDWG terminology used in botany, the floristic territories bear names of political units, but they are often not identical with these. For instance, "France" includes the Channel Islands and Monaco, but excludes Corsica and the overseas territories, "Ireland" includes Northern Ireland, "Turkey" excludes the European part, "Greece" excludes the East Aegean islands and Crete, etc. etc. That said, I think the names of these territories should be regarded as fixed technical terms, and not be translated to prevent more confusion as already exists. In Wikidata, these terms should not be directly linked to political units, but to the TDWG units. -RLJ (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bit of a tangent, but something here seems to be a bit weird... the Help pages say distribution/range data can be in talk pages, but I'm seeing pages that use {{Int Country}} including them on the main pages? Is this some new format that's not yet in our Help pages then? Or are those pages not supposed to be doing that in the first place? Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

───────────────────────── The template in question currently displays the name of the country "France", to users to the named languages, as:

List 1

de=Frankreich ca=França es=Francia fr=France ar=فرنسا it=Francia nl=Frankrijk pt=França ru=Франция zh=法国

If we use Wikidata labels, it will, at present, display them as:

List 2

aa = Faransa ab = Франциа ace = Peurancih ady = Францие aeb-arab = فرانسا aeb-latn = frànsa af = Frankryk ak = France aln = Frankreich am = ፈረንሣይ an = Francia ang = Francland ar = فرنسا arc = ܦܪܢܣܐ ary = فرانصا arz = فرنسا as = ফ্ৰান্স ast = Francia av = Франсия ay = Phransiya az = Fransa azb = فرانسه ba = Франция ban = Perancis bar = Frankreich bcl = Pransya be = Францыя be-tarask = Францыя bg = Франция bgn = په رانسه bho = फ्रांस bi = Franis bjn = Parancis bm = France bn = ফ্রান্স bo = ཧྥ་རན་སི། bpy = ফ্রান্স br = Bro-C'hall brh = Fráns bs = Francuska bug = Perancis bxr = Франци ca = França cbk-zam = Francia cdo = Huák-guók ce = Франци ceb = Pransiya ch = Francia chr = ᎦᎸᏥᏱ chy = France ckb = فەڕەنسا co = Francia crh = Frenkistan crh-latn = Frenkistan cs = Francie csb = Francëjô cu = Франкїꙗ cv = Франци cy = Ffrainc da = Frankrig de = Frankreich de-at = Frankreich de-ch = Frankreich diq = Fransa dsb = Francojska dty = फ्रान्स dv = ފަރަންސޭސިވިލާތް dz = ཕརཱནསི་ ee = France el = Γαλλία eml = Franza en = France en-ca = France en-gb = France eo = Francio es = Francia et = Prantsusmaa eu = Frantzia ext = Fráncia fa = فرانسه ff = Faransi fi = Ranska fo = Frakland fr = France frc = France frp = France frr = Frånkrik fur = France fy = Frankryk ga = An Fhrainc gag = Franțiya gan = 法國 gcr = Lafrans gd = An Fhraing gl = Francia glk = فرانسه gn = Hyãsia gom = फ्रांस gom-deva = फ्रांस gom-latn = France got = 𐍆𐍂𐌰𐌲𐌺𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹 gsw = Frankriich gu = ફ્રાન્સ gv = Yn Rank ha = Faransa hak = Fap-koet haw = Palani he = צרפת hi = फ़्रान्स hif = France hr = Francuska hsb = Francoska ht = Frans hu = Franciaország hy = Ֆրանսիա hyw = Ֆրանսա ia = Francia id = Prancis ie = Francia ig = France ilo = Pransia inh = Франци io = Francia is = Frakkland it = Francia ja = フランス jam = Frans jbo = fasygu'e jv = Prancis ka = საფრანგეთი kaa = Frantsiya kab = Fransa kbd = Фрэндж kbp = Fransɩɩ kea = Fransa kg = Fwalansa ki = Baranja kk = Франция kl = Franskit Nunaat km = បារាំង kn = ಫ್ರಾನ್ಸ್ ko = 프랑스 koi = Франс krc = Франция ks = फ्रांस ksh = Frankreich ku = Fransa kv = Франция kw = Pow Frynk ky = Франция la = Francia lad = Fransia lb = Frankräich lez = Франция lfn = Frans lg = Bufalansa li = Frankriek lij = Fransa liv = Prantsūzmō lmo = Frància ln = Falansia lo = ປະເທດຝະລັ່ງ lrc = فرانسه lt = Prancūzija ltg = Praņceja lv = Francija lzh = 法國 mai = फ़्रांस mdf = Кранцмастор mg = Frantsa mhr = Франций mi = Wīwī min = Parancih mk = Франција ml = ഫ്രാൻസ് mn = Франц mo = Франца mr = फ्रान्स ms = Perancis mt = Franza mwl = Fráncia my = ပြင်သစ်နိုင်ငံ myv = Франция Мастор mzn = فرانسه na = Prant nah = Francia nan = Hoat-kok nap = Franza nb = Frankrike nds = Frankriek nds-nl = Frankriek ne = फ्रान्स new = फ्रान्स nl = Frankrijk nn = Frankrike nov = Fransia nqo = ߝߊ߬ߙߊ߲߬ߛߌ߫ nrm = France nso = Fora nv = Dáághahii Dineʼé Bikéyah ny = France oc = França olo = Frantsii om = Firaansi or = ଫ୍ରାନ୍ସ os = Франц pa = ਫ਼ਰਾਂਸ pag = Fransia pam = Pransiya pap = Fransia pcd = Franche pdc = Frankreich pdt = Fraunkrikj pfl = Frongraisch pi = फ्रांस pih = France pl = Francja pms = Fransa pnb = فرانس pnt = Γαλλία prg = Prankrīki ps = فرانسه pt = França pt-br = França qu = Ransiya rm = Frantscha rmy = Franchiya rn = Francia ro = Franța roa-tara = Frange ru = Франция rue = Франція rup = Gallia rw = Ubufaransa sa = फ्रांस sah = Франция sat = ᱯᱷᱨᱟᱱᱥ sc = Frantza scn = Francia sco = Fraunce sd = فرانس se = Frankriika sg = Farânzi sgs = Prancūzėjė sh = Francuska si = ප් රංශය sk = Francúzsko sl = Francija sm = Farani sma = Frankriike smn = Ranska sn = France so = Faransiiska sq = Franca sr = Француска sr-ec = Француска sr-el = Francuska srn = Franskondre ss = IFulansi st = Fora stq = Frankriek su = Perancis sv = Frankrike sw = Ufaransa szl = Francyjo szy = France ta = பிரான்சு te = ఫ్రాన్స్ tet = Fransa tg = Фаронса tg-cyrl = Фаронса th = ประเทศฝรั่งเศส ti = ፈረንሳይ tk = Fransiýa tl = Pransiya tn = Fora tpi = Frens tr = Fransa ts = Furhwa tt = Франса tt-cyrl = Франция tum = France tw = France ty = Farāni tyv = Франция udm = Франция ug = فرانسىيە ug-arab = فرانسىيە ug-latn = Fransiye uk = Франція ur = فرانس uz = Fransiya ve = Fura vec = Fransa vep = Francii vi = Pháp vls = Vrankryk vo = Fransän vro = Prantsusmaa wa = France war = Fransya wo = Faraas wuu = 法国 xal = Пранцсин Орн xh = Fransi xmf = საფრანგეთი yi = פראנקרייך yo = Fránsì yue = 法國 za = Fazgoz zea = Frankriek zh = 法国 zh-cn = 法国 zh-hans = 法国 zh-hant = 法國 zh-hk = 法國 zh-mo = 法國 zh-my = 法国 zh-sg = 法国 zh-tw = 法國 zu = IFulansi

I'm not sure what we loose by doing so; nor what "TDWG terminology" has to do with this change. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TDWG terms (defined in World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions) are generally presented here encircled by {{Nadi}}, e.g.

{{nadi| * '''[Continental: ]Europe''' ** '''[Regional: ]Southwestern Europe''' *** France. }} The "France" mentioned in this template has a different geographical circumscription from the political unit treated in d:Q142. Countries given in the text, e.g. in type citations, may be identical with the political units. --RLJ (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; but again, what does this have to do with the template issue at hand? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Genus and subtribe homonyms

What's the best way to deal with a genus and subtribe homonyms? In the example I just found now, I have found "Blepharidina" is both the same of a subtribe within the tribe Alticini and a genus in the same tribe. I suspect it might be just disambiguating the two pages with "Blepharidina (subtribe)" and "Blepharidina (genus)", but I'm asking here just in case. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I would disambiguate only the subtribe, as if believe it's better to treat a major rank as the "main" article, but having a full-on disambig page is also reasonable. Besides, they will be linking to each others directly in the text too eitehr way. Circeus (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay, that makes some sort of sense. Though right now the subtribe's article is the one that already exists, while the genus has nothing yet. (I only just found out today the genus name exists at all!) Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IRMNG has a record for the genus here based on content from J. Hallan's Biology Catalog, 2012 version (unfortunately does not seem to be online any more). I'm sure there will be other external resources for it, though :) Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 04:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity I wondered how common such a situation may potentially be - turns out that you cannot search for genus name = "%ina" through the IRMNG web interface (not sure why not, I will have to ask the tech guys) but you can locally in a download file (the last is from March 2019) - yields 11,895 results!
  • Abacina
  • Abbottina
  • Abbottina
  • Abderina
  • Abditoloculina
  • Ableptina
  • Abloxurina
  • Aboudaragina
  • Abrina
  • Abriolina
So, no doubt this issue will pop up again from time to time... Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How and why the science of taxonomy is declining.

See the interesting article: "Assessing biotic diversity: The glorious past, present, and the uncertain future". Mariusm (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm so happy with the result of an extraction that I just did that I made you admire it... Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

English language issue

Hi, must we say "Synonymyzed by..." or "Synonymized by..."? Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely an i, but I don't know where wikispecies stands on the z/s spelling debate. Circeus (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks you. I will have to fix a few pages I made. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The z/s is probably another British vs American spelling thing, though I wonder if we're actually supposed to be using the phrases "synonymy in" or even "syn." instead since I've seen those around. Those would at least avoid the z/s problem altogether. Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; largely -ise = English, -ize = American, though not entirely so, exceptions occur. And agreed, best to avoid it altogether in line with Wikispecies' language neutrality policy - MPF (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Just discovered the existence of Template:BrounMan today and I am a little puzzled by this. This is a template that Stephen Thorpe (of course) created in 2012 for a series of articles by Thomas Broun, and it appears to be in high use right now. I would have updated it to use better formatting (or least have a category) but it appears to be protected. What's actually really strange though is that in 2013/2014 Stephen then created another set of templates for the same set of articles!

Since it's obviously silly to have both BrounMan and the other templates (what on earth was Stephen doing), which of them do we keep? I prefer the later templates myself, but that may be because we can actually edit them and not BrounMan. Monster Iestyn (talk) 02:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Templates like this are a bad idea because unless it's, like the Old Man Linnaeus himself (i.e. {{LSP}}), it's really difficult to properly order templates like this because they lack a date (though at least this one has the author name... but you can't predict the date WTF). Circeus (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So sounds like BrounMan should indeed be the one to go then... should we get a bot involved maybe? After all, there are over a hundred pages currently using the template, and we could probably tell it to find and replace using the guide I already gave above. Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...actually, on second thought I just learned the so called "combined" parts are split up on BHL. That actually complicates matters a bit, hm. Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't got the time today, but starting tomorrow I can begin replacing the {{BrounMan|n}} templates with the preferred {{Broun, year}} ones, making new ones as required. It's used on 120 pages, excluding the Village Pump. It may take some time since even though not directly related to this template, most (all?) of the involved taxon pages also needs other, manual BHL link fixes made. I'll go ahead and delete the {{BrounMan}} template after all of that is done, if that's okay with you guys? In the meantime I've updated it to at least be on par with todays Wikispecies' praxis in regards to author- and BHL templates. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 07:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Sounds good to me. Meanwhile, I just realised we can probably include multiple BHL links in the separate templates, fixing the problem I spotted yesterday. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist: It's been a few days now, you still up for dealing with the pages using BrounMan? Or do you not have the time currently? Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

───────────────────────── @Monster Iestyn: Unfortunately there's recently been a lot of "IRL mishaps" related to my family that needed my urgent attention, so I haven't really had the possibility to start with the BrounMan templates. I will start later today though, and expect to be done with it all by this time tomorrow (or earlier). I've created the user subpage User:Tommy Kronkvist/Template maintenance in order to make things more efficient when I start the actual converting. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Okay then, that's good to know. Hope all is well with family then. Monster Iestyn (talk) 13:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is going to take longer than I anticipated since many of the pages are in way worse shape than I first thought: they lack "Name" sections, include odd listings of synonymy, etc., etc. Steady progress though. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]
For now, I've made {{BrounMan}} transclude the dated templates listed above; at least that way the "Find all Wikispecies pages which cite this reference" links will be more usfeul. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ISSN mixup for some russian journals

According to Wikispecies:

  • ISSN 1605-7696Trudy Russkogo entomologiceskogo obsestva [Труды Русского энтомологического общества] (2000)
  • ISSN 1605-7678Horae Societatis Entomologicae Rossicae

According to ISSN Portal:

  • ISSN 1605-7696 → does not exist!!!
  • ISSN 1605-7678Trudy Russkogo entomologiceskogo obsestva [Труды Русского энтомологического общества] (2000)
  • ISSN 1607-6796Trudy Russkogo entomologiceskogo obsestva [Труды Русского энтомологического общества] (1861) [missing from Wikispecies, as you can see from the red link]
  • Horae Societatis Entomologicae Rossicae does not actually have an ISSN as far as I can tell, though its history apparently is linked with the 1861 Trudy so I don't really know for sure

(also the linked Wikidata items may be a little mixed up too)

Monster Iestyn (talk) 03:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Horae is an alternate title for the same journal (as in, it was used on an actual title page), so all good there. It's very common for Russian/USSR periodicals to be better known via these alternate titles in the west as Russian is, understandably, inconvenient to use in any consistent fashion between databases (due to multiple contradictory systems of transliteration and a complete lack of fuzzy search in most systems).
The other is a case of transposed digits. Sadly, that happens sometimes. Thankfully it doesn't seem to have many links, so should be an easy fix. Circeus (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OH WAIT shit. The title are actually swapped around. Well, at least I suspect the majority of Horae links are from templates. the swapped digits are a blessing in disguise, since the ISSNs can be moved without interfering with each others now. Circeus (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Horae gets kind of more complicated than just an an alternative title for Trudy to my knowledge. For a few years in the 19th century, it and Trudy actually became separate publications, but then apparently merged again after 1882? This is explained in the BHL pages for the two if you check the "Details" tab (here and here) as well as the current website for the 2000 version (which is in Russian though). Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


{{BibForm}} is marked as "long-since deprecated". There are just 112 transclusions in the "Template" namespace, if we can replace these, we could go a long way to removing it from Wikispecies completely. Please join me in doing so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good initiative: it would be great to rid Wikispecies of this template, once and for all. I'll join in as soon as the {{BrounMan}} template issue is fully resolved. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Sure, I could help here. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like there are less than 50 tranclusions by templates now, we're almost there! Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And now there are none! Though for whatever reason, Wikispecies hasn't quite caught up and still thinks it's applied to a number of non-template pages, even though most were probably transcluding the templates we just edited. Monster Iestyn (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a caching issue; making a null edit to the pages involved removes them from the list - or just wait a few hours. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cache now cleared; template deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
{{BibForm1}} at least isn't used by anything anymore except by the Village Pump archives. Monster Iestyn (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've created {{BHL item}}, so that we can, where appropriate, replace markup like:



{{BHL item|34046}}

and distinguish links to BHL author pages from BHL work (item) pages). {{BHL page}} remains available. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just the far simpler and easier [ 1698] style? Much less intimidating to new users (no incomprehensible markup code "w.t.f. do those curly brackets do?"), and doesn't complicate matters with the uncouth and unpronounceable word "bhl" (not exactly in accord with our language neutrality ideals!) - MPF (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Synetini or Synetinae?

I've just started a discussion on Synetini/Synetinae (a leaf beetle tribe or subfamily, depending on who you ask) over on Wikipedia: en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beetles#Synetini or Synetinae? I wanted to involve Wikispecies here since we have two articles for the same taxon, Synetini and Synetinae, but I'm not sure which one of them to keep. I'm mostly confused because Wikipedia (or at least, the English one) calls it "Synetini", but a number of articles I've seen prefer "Synetinae". I'm leaning towards "Synetinae", but because of the Wikipedia side of things I'm hesitant to do anything until I hear what other people think.

Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: This issue has now been resolved, Synetinae is now the page used for the taxon and Synetini is now a redirect to it. Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

step by step

hello there, I'm a new member here, could you tell me step by step guide for a beginner like me?

--PutriAmalia1991 (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You asked this same question one month ago on Wikisource, but never edited there again until today when you nominated yourself as an Admin. Are you wanting to contribute to Wikispecies, or are you asking about how to make use of our information? What is it you want to do? --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Special:CentralAuth/PutriAmalia1991. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bug to fix common expansion depth exceeded error

phab:T244474, re: these 4,361 pages. —Justin (koavf)TCM 11:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Authority control and Tropicos

Hello botanists! Do you think it would be wise to add a call for the Wikidata Tropicos publication ID property to the Wikispecies' Authority control module? That way the {{Authority control}} template would automatically add an external Tropicos link (if available) when used on publication pages such as for example Annales de la Société Linnéenne de Lyon. At the moment several other such links are automatically fetched and added from Wikidata, for example to IPNI, ZooBank and OCLC, but Tropicos is not. What do you think? Is Tropicos updated frequently enough for it to be relevant? Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

 Support A few years ago, I would have said no, but Tropicos has come a long way and is now a valuable resource. I say yes, a call to Wikidata for that information would be useful. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: It looks as though Tropicos is in the process of moving to a new server. The link syntax should remain the same, but at the moment taxa links are being redirected to the "legacy" server, so it's hard to tell for certain. Linking still works, but the user is redirected when following any taxon link. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cnidarians images

Just for the info, for those who are interested, I just done an upload of more than 2400 free licensed images of Cnidarians from the MNHN. The images are available at c:Category:Cnidaria in the MNHN, I will work on the categories little by little, and prepare the next upload likely for the images of crustaceans. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clearing out Zootaxa template redirects

So, if you weren't aware already, these last few days I've been going through all the "Zt" templates to find out which are now redirects, and marking them for speedy deletion. I've also been fixing any pages transcluding these template redirects and replacing them with the current names directly, to make sure the redirects aren't used anymore. As of writing, I seem to have single-handedly filled up Category:Candidates for speedy deletion to 100 pages by doing this (even after some admins have already deleted some of the ones I did earlier), so I thought it fair to let the rest of you know why this is going on exactly! Monster Iestyn (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this this morning, and started deleting some, checking each for links. I found none, but thanks for confirming that for all of them. Unfortunately, my ISP has decided to aggravate me today by being appalingly slow. I shall get to them as fast as possible. Neferkheperre (talk) 23:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Meanwhile I'm not adding any more for tonight since it gets rather mind-numbingly repetitive, and I need a break sometimes. I'll probably tackle some more tomorrow. Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through and tagged another 100 that are unused for deletion --DannyS712 (talk) 06:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked a few of these to ensure that they're orphaned but I assume that you've done your due diligence and will delete these en masse. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, none have any transclusions, and I updated any links (except for 2 on a user sub page, don't remember whose) - will tag the next batch momentarily --DannyS712 (talk) 07:02, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged 20 more --DannyS712 (talk) 07:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added another 20 myself just now. Kind of surprised how this seems to have blown up overnight, am I some kind of catalyst for action? Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, just came across Template:Zt3777.1.1, which has over 100 transclusions! These may take a while to convert to "Yang, Wang & Li, 2014" directly unless I had some assistance? Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done all transclusions --DannyS712 (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That was quick, wow, thanks! Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another template with over 100 transclusions is Template:Zt3809.1.1, a redirect for "Lord & Leschen, 2014", though there are also some direct wikilinks to the template (ugh). Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done all transclusions and all but 3 of the links (not including your link above) - need to get off for a bit --DannyS712 (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done 3 remaining links, should be ready for deletion --DannyS712 (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah good, thanks! Monster Iestyn (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Monster Iestyn and Neferkheperre: I hope you don't mark "zt" templates for deletion just because they aren't used anywhere! These are valuable templates which need to be eventually converted to standard author-template-format and used in author pages and in taxa pages. Mariusm (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I've only been explicitly clearing out those that are now redirects to templates with names conforming to the standard. I haven't touched the rest at all. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possible project

See Wikispecies:Projects#Suggestions_for_new_projects. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: is there a local policy on global rollbackers suppressing redirects when moves are unrelated to vandalism (eg these renames)? --DannyS712 (talk) 07:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyS712: We hardly discuss rollback. This isn't a content-heavy project, so there's not a lot of petty sniping and rewording and personal style preference arguing, so I wouldn't mind someone using rollback for the kind of thing you mention here. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My question was about suppressing redirects... --DannyS712 (talk) 07:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently mostly on a wikivacation (I've been working on IRMNG instead, and just started a new job), but I have a list of long term cleanups I was hoping to get to sometimes on my userpage. Circeus (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also clearing out ZooBank template redirects

Might also be a good idea to get rid of the remaining "" redirects while we're at it, especially since there aren't many of them left. For instance I just fixed every page linking to {{}} just now so they lead to the current template ({{Bouchard et al., 2011}}), and marked the redirect name for deletion. Monster Iestyn (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hi. I just came across these pages associated with CommonsTicker. I don't think they should be in the main namespace. Is there a better place for them? The entire thing is historical. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 06:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyS712: They are definitely Wikispecies meta. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naming convention for subgenus page

Hi All, I'm wondering what is the consensus for naming subgenus page, is it like a. Ventocoris (Astirocoris) or like b. Astirocoris? I guess the first option is preferable to avoid confusion with the nominal subgenus. Then I also guess the option b. should be a redirect to a.? Can anyone confirm my guesses? cheers. --Hiouf (talk) 09:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We had a similar discussion recently, though it seemed to show we don't exactly have a consensus at all right now. Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing me to that discussion. I see there is no simple solution. I'll keep doing as I now think it's best: Genus (subgenus). But I'd be happy to change my mind and my edits if a consensus is reached someday. --Hiouf (talk) 07:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Special:WantedPages report not running

Does anyone know why this hasn't run since 2019-11-25, rather than its claimed every fortnight? Is there any way to nudge it to restart? —Justin (koavf)TCM 10:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a global issue, affecting more than Wikispecies (see en:Special:WantedPages, d:Special:WantedPages for example). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Andy--great find. See phab:T243599#5883436. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Styling names

Per a discussion with @Nytexcome:, Help:Author Names does not explicitly state how to style initialized names (e.g. "A. B. Campbell" or "D.E. Fremont"). I'm in favor of spaces: that way, we have "Gordon H. Indigo" and "J. K. Lassiter" but not the inconsistent "M. Norman Osbourne" and "P.Q. Rathskeler". I think we should have consistency across initialized names with a space between the periods. Thoughts? —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Reference section says not to use spaces between author initials ...though of course that's for references, so I don't know how relevant it is. Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Following the established format, no space between initials, we have hundreds of P.L. Sclater or J.T. Zimmer, what Is the relevance of changing that??--Hector Bottai (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever we do, we should be consistent:
  • P.L.Sclater — OK (and mandated by ICBN for plant author abbreviations)
  • P. L. Sclater — OK (and normal in zoological citations)
  • P.L. Sclater — not OK, as inconsistent spacing
  • P. L.Sclater — not OK, as inconsistent spacing
MPF (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have always found the style of "no space between author initial/period/surname" e.g. "P.L.Sclater" for botanical names a bit odd. I looked at the relevant page of the latest Code online i.e. and find the examples there always have a space before the surname in cases like this (also, spaces between the initials), for example "P[inus] longaeva D. K. Bailey" (their Ex. 2). Further down, in Article 46A.4, they say: "Note 1. Brummitt & Powell’s Authors of plant names (1992) provides unambiguous standard forms for a large number of authors of names of organisms in conformity with this Recommendation. These standard forms, updated as necessary from the International Plant Names Index ( and Index Fungorum (, have been used for author citations throughout this Code, albeit with additional spacing." Interesting....? Cheers Tony Rees Tony 1212 (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, "A. B. Cromwell" would be consistent with standard English usage (so would "D.E. Franklin" but not "G.H.Imburgene"). Since we have a directory of not only botanists but zoologists and microbiologists, we should be consistent across them all. An inconsistent manual of style is not a manual of style at all. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In important botanical databases (IPNI, WCSP, POWO), and in a vast majority of plant articles on WS the standard forms of author names do not have spaces. It is an advantage that these can be easier handled in regex expressions. Introducing spaces would cause a lot of additional "voluntary" work. I don't see any advantage in doing so. --RLJ (talk) 12:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do take your point, but... (and putting aside convenience for regex expressions - WS should be optimised for human display, regex expressions can/should be adjusted to cope...) - I run a database (IRMNG) that covers both zoological and botanical names/authors (also prokaryotes and viruses), so have decided to standardise on one style across the whole set - animals win (80% of all names), spaces before surnames lose... but I do not put spaces between initials, although I know that some do :) Tony 1212 (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I hadn't noticed "albeit with additional spacing" before. That is newly added in the Shenzen code (compare Art 46 of Melbourne code). IPNI/WCSP/POWO are all hosted by Kew. ARS-GRIN has authorities fully spaced (A. B. Smith). Tropicos isn't totally consistent, but generally has the initials together with a space before the surname (A.B. Smith); some of the inconsistency at Tropicos is due to importing records from Kew when The Plant List was being built. I've assumed that the lack of spaces in Brummit & Powell/IPNI is due to either to technical limitations in a 1980's database, or a desire to save bytes from an era when data storage was more expensive. Index Fungorum does put a space between surname and initials.
English Wikipedia more or less consistently follows the IPNI style of omitting a space between initial and surnames. One advantage of that is that there can be redirects for plant authors that are unambiguous (S. Watson might be a person in any number of fields, S.Watson is a botanist). Of course, it only works out that way because the IPNI spacing is idiosyncratic and not a style that is standard in English. And Wikispecies doesn't need to worry about ambiguity with non-taxonomists.
It can't be said that the ICBN mandates one style of spacing other the other. Wikispecies should adopt a consistent style, but I have no strong opinion on what that should be. Plantdrew (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RE "albeit with additional spacing" and change between the Melbourne and Shenzen Codes - that means that there must have been some discussion among botanists prior to the change. I wonder what it was...?? Tony 1212 (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of "Author taxa" categories revisited

I noticed recently PeterR edited some species pages I'd created, where among other things he'd taken out the author taxa categories, except on those pages for names that are original combinations. I've also noticed we had a discussion on this subject back in 2016, but it seems it got a bit distracted from the original question I think? I just want to confirm if we're supposed to be applying the categories only for original combinations, or if later combinations are okay to have the categories too (at least in the context of zoology, I have not edited pages for plants or otherwise so far). The latter is what I've assumed for a while now, but I can adjust if I'm wrong there. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No! No! No! PeterR's way of doing this is altogether wrong. Any (Autor, Year) [in zoology] must also be included in the author taxa categories. This is the way WS has always done this. Mariusm (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay, I have an awful feeling there might be others who disagree though ...that said, does that include redirects for original names/synonyms? I've been including those too in the categories up to this point. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For synonyms yes, but not for new combinations. A new combination can't be considered as an authored species! Mariusm (talk) 17:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...I'm getting confused here. Let's get an example then... should both Microsyagrus annulipes and Afroeurydemus annulipes get the Maurice Pic taxa category? Microsyagrus annulipes was the original name and Afroeurydemus annulipes was a new combination for it in 2019 (and is the current name). Microsyagrus annulipes is here a redirect to Afroeurydemus annulipes. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Notifying User:PeterR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding and how I proceed with one example (zoology only):

--Hector Bottai (talk) 01:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hector Bottai and Monster Iestyn: the above example of Hector Bottai is correct. I hope @PeterR: will follow it too. Mariusm (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then, thank you. Though, I have to wonder what happens if a synonym gets a new combination before being synonymized, but I'm probably getting too caught up on details by now. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised by this. I confess I have been putting author categories on protonym redirections rather than on current combinations, because it sounds more accurate to fill the author category with the exact names that they authored. Same for a synonym that has had more than one combination: I have been putting its author category on its original combination. Doesn't that go in the direction of consistency? I am trying to understand the old discussion but it is hard to follow. --LamBoet (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, there is a new taxonomic journal: [7]. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, this journal is largely interested in theoretical content related to large-scale work, so except maybe for higher-level taxonomy, I doubt much will be found in it for Wikispecies. Circeus (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to the first article's abstract: "I am delighted to announce the inaugural issue of Megataxa, a new journal designed for large monographic reviews and highly significant original papers reporting major advances in taxonomy". The "large monographic reviews" part in particular makes me think this could be more than just theoretical content, but it's hard to tell this early on. Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, they've been publishing "large monographs" in Zootaxa for years, and I doubt people will so easily be swayed to a new journal with no impact factor unless the Magnolia Press people literally force them (see also: how hard it is for them to get material for Bionomina). Circeus (talk) 01:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Megataxa" comes from the same stable as Zootaxa and Phytotaxa. From what I understand, it is intended to host mega-treatments of 100+ genera per paper from particular groups. The other 2 journals cited have published overviews of this sort in the past (mainly at family level e.g. Zhang et al., 2011, 2013) but I think are more geared to new taxa descriptions. So I imagine it will take its place in the rack of journals relevant to taxonomy, although more at the overview/review level than for new taxa per se. My take is that relevant papers that previously would have been published in either Zootaxa or Phytotaxa will now be published in the new journal. Tony 1212 (talk) 08:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I was contacted by them late last year to see if I was interested in contributing a paper on the topic of "all genera of the world". It is on its way... :) Tony 1212 (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have several readlinks on Challenger voyage (1873–1876) and the categories Category:Siboga Expedition taxa (subcat Category:Siboga Cirripedia) and Category:Talisman taxa (subcat Category:Talisman Cirripedia) Are these in scope? Do we want to have expedition-related info here? —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of on the fence about these categories, mostly because they remain significantly underpopulated. Circeus (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, we deleted ontologies like Category:Cirripedia years ago, so now breaking up a subcategory like this seems like a step backwards. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this in scope?

I reckon no but I wanted to offer it up for opinion: Prostanthera:Protologue in English. —Justin (koavf)TCM 11:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not in my opinion, for what it is worth. Andyboorman (talk) 12:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not. Might be a fit for Wikisource though. Circeus (talk) 13:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Notifying User:MargaretRDonald, who created the page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The protologue in Latin might well be appropriate in Wikisource. However, what is the problem with an English translation of a protologue in an article, surely the english translation is in scope?. MargaretRDonald (talk) 02:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MargaretRDonald: We are multi-lingual and we don't host source files here. Do you have other examples of running text in English in the taxonomic database or other translations of primary source material? —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was previously discussed at Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 46#Locally saved protologues. I note with some dismay that I had to remind people then, too, that Margaret should have been notified of the discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Andy. It seems like the general agreement is that this is a Wikisource thing in principle, even if there isn't a lot of existing content like that at Wikisource. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. There remain some problems: 1) with wikisource, which insists on using "v" for "u" in Latin, which requires multiple changes if one wants to try to use Google translate (why I no longer contribute there); 2) Where should one put local translations of protologues? (and how does one demonstrate the faithfulness or otherwise of a translation without the two sitting side by side.) ... (I will now go and look at the section Andy has directed me to..) MargaretRDonald (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on citation templates

I regularly and increasingly find it frustrating that I cannot use a template to generate a citation; and that when a citation exists, I cannot easily extract its data in a structured form, for example to create an equivalent Wikidata item, or to export into my browser or word processors citation management plugins.

Accordingly I have started this RfC: Wikispecies:Requests for Comment#Citation templates and would be grateful for your thoughts there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Jerzy Prószyński has of late been attracting increasing amounts of criticism over (far as I can tell) wanton splitting of genera, sometimes of flimsy criteria and significant disregard for proper nomenclatural work (e.g. not paying any attention to priority). While it is not to the degree of the other members of that category, I'm thinking the material discussed in Marusik & Blick might warrant the addition (For Proszynski's take, see here)? Another Arachnologist, Andrea Rossi, seems to be falling into similar patterns Evolving into outright personal attacks.

What are our criteria for adding an author to that category? Circeus (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bot request

There are still a lot of == Reference == (spaced, singular, and not internationalised) headers that need converting to =={{int:References}}== (unspaced, plural, internationalised). I've mentioned this several times before but it's still not been done . . . anyone, please? - MPF (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This would be trivial to do with AWB if there is community consensus and a bureaucrat would give me the flood flag (no idea why my temporary bot rights still had me showing up in RecentChanges as a human. :/) I say let's do it unless anyone objects within a week: this is not a controversial change. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have been converting to present format whenever I encounter them, as well as other titles and entries. I have noticed when updating pages that it is convenient to highlight text, then push desired format code, such as {{}}, {{aut|}}, =={{int:References}}==, etc. to make this faster, could someone install into Tools a {{int:}} tool? Neferkheperre (talk) 14:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Neferkheperre: Like this? —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. i used to know myself how to work in the Tools area, but time has eroded it. Neferkheperre (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone object to me using AWB to do this semi-automated? Seems like silence is approval. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Authority control at species level

Hi All,

Just starting to explore Wikispecies!

Should there be Authority control from Wikidata, with the use of the template {{Authority control}}, in species level pages like Bifidobacterium_asteroides

As I have seen Authority Control used in Author Pages Only.

Apologies if this has already been asked.

Wallacegromit1 (talk) 11:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me but I think many of them will be empty. Anyone else? —Justin (koavf)TCM 12:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have to start somewhere! Thanks for the swift reply. Wallacegromit1 (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You! I have tried to add the Authority by using the below, however it does not show any authority. Is the format wrong? Wikidata- QQ17509739;

{Authority control| Global Biodiversity Information Facility ID= 3223512 | Encyclopedia of Life ID= 974725 | NCBI Taxonomy ID= 1684 | BacDive ID= 1688 | ITIS TSN= 959950 | IRMNG ID= 10033678}

Wallacegromit1 (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • It currently don't work because the Module:Authority control does not call the values of the corresponding identifiers for the external taxonomic databases. Remains to be seen if 1/ Wikispecies want to imports those values from Wikidata (I don't see why not) 2/ Wikispecies wants to use the same module, at first glance this should be technically ok 3/ Wikispecies want to use the same template {{Authority control}} or a new one. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The equivalent from en.Wikipedia would not be en:Template:Authority control but en:Template:Taxonbar, which is worth examining as an example of what might be achieved. You can see it in use on en:Bifidobacterium_asteroides. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good example to follow, a specific template is appropriate. And good potential content for Wikispecies IMO. Note that they have a module en:Module:Taxonbar, specifically dedicated for the template. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to import it, if there is consneus to do so, but it will need (a) to be internationalised and (b) possibly deployed by a bot run. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seem to recollect this came up before and there was a consensus not to add them; some that had been put in before, were removed. It'll be a fair way back in the archives. If I remember rightly, points made included that some of the 'authorities' are not actually very authoritative. But I could be misremembering. Not really sure what use they'd be here, other than just duplicating what is in wikidata. - MPF (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If an authority isn't authoritative enough for Wikispecies, it can be excluded.'s taxonbar doesn't include every taxonomic database on Wikidata; various national databases from non-English speaking countries are excluded. Plantdrew (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
True, the external identifiers displayed have to be called one by one with the Lua module, therefore if you don't call one specific database, then it is not displayed. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another point that concerned some editors, was the deviation from the importance of taxonomy. There is a tolerance of distribution as it often has relevance to taxonomy, and images and vernacular names have "appeal functions", but there is a danger of clutter, as can be seen in Commons. In addition, editors are diverted away from core purpose, whilst much work is to be done. I would advise against going down this route and suggest those wishing to pursue this concentrate on other wikis for now. Andyboorman (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the 3 references that you have quoted when you created Hepatica americana a few days ago, 2 of them can be retrieved with the identifiers from Wikidata, I guess (hope) that you added them because they are a bit relevant to the project. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If we wanted to import database links from Wikidata, we would need different templates that could be specialized for different taxonomical groups. E.g., on a page about plants, we would cite the databases IPNI, POWO, Tropicos and COL, on a page about algae AlgaeBase and WORMs, on page about a cricket Orthoptera species file. --Thiotrix (talk) 11:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not specially, as I understand it, in a Lua module you call some specific identifiers, e.g. the ones that you quote above. Then you put your template on the taxa page, exactly as for {{Authority control}}, and exactly as for "Authority control" if there is no values for the chosen identifiers then nothing is displayed. More precisely, the template display only all the values that matches with your choices of identifiers (via the module) and with the values available in Wikidata → if you chose to import WORMs and AlgaeBase then 1/ if your taxon have no values within those both databases, then nothing is diplsayed (not even the template) 2/ if your taxon has only a value within WoRMS, then the template is displayed with the corresponding value for WoRMS 3/ if your taxon has values in the both, then the both values are displayed. This is how I understand it, of course it is not compulsory to import all databases identifiers... Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We explicitly would not; again, see the en.Wikipedia template and compare its use on articles about animals, plants, bacteria and viruses. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply] taxonbar may display less "relevant" databases. WoRMS does include some (non-marine) vascular plants, but isn't a great data source for plant taxonomy. When WoRMS has a record for a plant, taxonbar displays it. Taxonbar does accept parameters that suppress display of any given database, but these aren't usually set on However, there are very few databases that include taxa outside of their primary focus; it doesn't seem worthwhile to create separate templates for different taxonomic groups. Plantdrew (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw what I said above, the Lua module used in English Wikipedia don't allow to call only specific identifiers. However I'm pretty sure that a template can be built in wikitext that call only chosen and specific identifiers with the help of Module:WikidataIB and with the proper instructions. This is how works in part the infobox in Commons. But it's outside my technical competence. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We could also merge {{Commonscat}} into our verison of taxonbar. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your comments! I am just starting out here. So will keep working on articles, until it can be decided if Authority Links should be imported. I feel @Thiotrix format seems the most appropriate, while also keeping in mind @Andyboorman reservations with certain authorities. --Wallacegromit1 (talk) 13:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonbar for stub pages without references ?

What about adding a taxonbar on all taxon pages, that still miss a references section? See Category:Unverified and great part of Category:Stubs, but there are many more, which are not yet in these categories. --Thiotrix (talk) 08:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While the template would certainly mitigate the issue of articles without refences, and that's a very good arguement for using it, I don't think we should limit it to just those cases. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


{{Deceased}} is unused. Any objections to its deletion? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not like the creator is going to obhect if you don't, since that's you. Circeus (talk) 06:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smithsonian images

As you may have read, the Smithsonian have released 2.8 million images under PD licences. Many of these will be of use to us on Wikispecies. Wikimedia Commons users are planning to import them, in a coordinated manner, so there's no need for us to do so separately, especially not at scale. But we should stand ready to use them once available; both for pages that currently lack them, and where the quality is a step up. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protologue citations

There seems to be an increasing trend towards replacing standard protologue citations for a single page with whole book templates which don't fulfil the same purpose well, with lots of excess clutter which are not normal in protologue citations. This example has:

Vieillot, L.J.P. 1807. Histoire naturelle des oiseaux de l'Amérique Septentrionale: contenant un grand nombre d'espèces décrites ou figurées pour la première fois Tome 2 Part 1. 74 pp. + 70 tt. Desray, Paris. p.66 BHL Reference page. pl.122 BHL
  • Author and publication year: not needed in a protologue citation; they are already stated in the ==Name== section [ Leuconotopicus borealis (Vieillot, 1809) ].
  • Long title. In protologue citations, only the short title (here, Histoire naturelle des oiseaux de l'Amérique Septentrionale) is used.
  • 'Tome' / 'Volume', 'Part': superfluous. Just the numbers 2 (1): is clearer, and does not require {{int: translation formatting.
  • Total number of pages: not wanted in a single page protologue citation.
  • Publisher & publication place: not wanted in a single page protologue citation.
  • Page link: this should be the number of the page alone (without 'p.', which needs translation formatting), and not the representation of the sound of vomiting 'bhl' (which also needs translation formatting, people don't use the same in every language) (or, more seriously, why is bhl promoted, when other sources like or google books are not?).
  • 'Reference page' - more superfluous English words that need translating. If we want a link to a page about the book, the link should be the title of the book, not 'Reference page'.

We need to beware of making things too complex, just because they can be made complex. The rule should be to simplify for increased clarity as far as can be done without loss of necessary data: look up the acronym 'KISS'. MPF (talk) 12:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good points except for the first one, if the protologue citation is going to fall in line with the other references then we need author date I feel. I for one am not going to go through the taxon pages I have created in order to dubiously "improve" them by removing author date from protologue references being more a redlink remover than page improver. In addition, I use BHL because it is there, robust and easily accessible and the vomit is buried in the link to the page, but I agree it should not appear in the reference itself. Andyboorman (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some points of my own I'm throwing here (I'm assuming prologue here means original description since it is unfamiliar terminology to me):
  • Regards author/date, "Primary references" is not just for the prologue but for any references that has a nomenclatural act related to the taxon, right? (source: Help:Reference section#Reference Subsections) That would immediately make a case for keeping the author/date, since we want to tell it apart from other primary references that may be cited.
  • Don't we already use {{int:}} on "Reference page" in reference templates now? So essentially they already are translated, assuming all the templates have been converted thanks to a bot going around fixing them all a while back.
  • Last I recall, many of BHL's own archives actually seem to be linked to copies and vice versa, though to what extent I'm not sure. Google Books on the other hand, much of that content is locked away behind snippet previews or there is no preview at all, making it very unhelpful for checking references for yourself a lot of the time.
  • How exactly do you translate "BHL" anyway? It is just an acronym for "Biodiversity Heritage Library", which would be too long a name to use instead, and it doesn't seem like the site itself is available in languages other than English at the moment (unless I'm mistaken).
  • Don't we put the exact page number of the original description in the "Name" section rather than the reference section? (or at least, that's the impression I get from Help:Name section#Synonyms or synonymy) In this case the template looks like it was made to cite an unrelated name which seems to be poor planning on the template creator's part.
  • Actually, in the first place... what is normal in prologue citations? What sort of example do we follow here? At least in zoology context (since in this case the "problem" page is a bird), I've seen a lot of zoology articles cite fully the original book/article for original descriptions, complete with number of pages, publisher and place, maybe even a link to the BHL page more recently. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I wasn't fully clear in one or two places above about bhl - I'm not saying we shouldn't use it, but that it should be given the same treatment as other sources, in the format [bhl-link yyy], and not p.yyy [bhl-link BHL] (where yyy = the page number of the citation). Of 'bhl' in other languages, I was thinking primarily languages that use non-Latin scripts, like Russian or Chinese: if we make 'bhl' visible, how do we do so in those languages? Far simpler just to arrange it so 'bhl' as a word/acronym is not visible. - MPF (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion have to go on how the Reference templates should look. Some editors, instead of taking a few minutes in searching if there is an existent reference template for that and use it properly, prefer to repeat on and on the citation. The consequence of this is having the same citation in many different fashion. By using the template properly, it will always be the same. Taking your example, based on a template created by myself, I don't see absolutely nothing wrong in presenting to the lector a full description of the book. I accept that instead of what you showed at the beginning of this discussion should be,
Vieillot, L.J.P. 1807. Histoire naturelle des oiseaux de l'Amérique Septentrionale: contenant un grand nombre d'espèces décrites ou figurées pour la première fois. 2 (1). 74 pp. + 70 tt. Desray, Paris. p.66 BHL Reference page. pl.122 BHL
and that's how it would look using the "cite book" or "cite publication" templates on all the other wikis.--Hector Bottai (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No; on the species page it should be (from what I see in various books), at maximum:
Vieillot, L.J.P. 1809. Histoire naturelle des oiseaux de l'Amérique Septentrionale 2 (1): 66, pl.122.
The rest - the full long title, the total number of pages, the publisher, the publication place - can be on a template, but it does not help for them to be repeated on the species page.
As an aside, Vieillot's work was not published in 1807, despite the title page; the first part came out late in 1808, and most of it in 1809 (for some more details, see here). The species page needs to mention the date for which the relevant part came out (1809), not the full dates of the whole work. - MPF (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's no such thing as a "protologue citation". This is not the WS way of editing. The correct citation is the full reference template which includes all the standard details. The original combination citation is the most important one in a species page, and as such it must include all the details, not to reduce it to a "citations for a single page". I totaly disagree with MPF. Mariusm (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is different in botany: Wikispecies plant pages should have both, the usual short reference ("protologue citation" abbreviated like in IPNI) in the name section, and the complete reference template in the references section. e.g.: Sericocoma heterochiton. --Thiotrix (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to clarify earlier, but the example template/citation itself MPF gave at the start should probably be linking to the first page of the actual book/article, not 66 of all pages. Again, that seems to be a page for presumably an unrelated species name to that in the example Wikispecies page MPF linked. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I'm silly and didn't realise it was one of those special templates that allowed you to specify a page, whoops. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the "Protologue citations" thing emanates from something of a misunderstanding. It is used, as mentioned earlier mainly in botanical data where the protologue citation is listed next to <Species Author Year> information. Some ornithological & mammalian books adopted this format as a convention to minimize the citation-data and to prevent bulky inconvenient citation sections. However, this form isn't used in zoology at large - papers and catalogs. There's no sense then of enforcing this format on WS or even on the Aves part of WS. Even in a WS botanical-species-page, in addition to the "Protologue citations", the full citation should be included in the References section. Mariusm (talk) 14:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, accepted - but could we at least tidy up the way the templates display on taxon pages, please? So that instead of:
  • Vieillot, L.P. 1807. Histoire naturelle des oiseaux de l'Amérique Septentrionale: contenant un grand nombre d'espèces décrites ou figurées pour la première fois Tome 2 Part 1. 74 pp. + 70 tt. Desray, Paris. p.66 BHL Reference pagepl.122 BHL
it displays as:
Particularly to kill off the superfluous 'Tome', 'Part', 'p.', 'BHL', and 'Reference page' verbosity. And I'm still far from convinced that the full subtitles (": contenant un grand nombre d'espèces décrites ou figurées pour la première fois") and "74 pp. + 70 tt. Desray, Paris" need to be carried over from the template, into the reference on the taxon pages. Would it not possible for them to be displayed in the template, without them being carried over? - MPF (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But I see no need in separating THE "template" from THE "display on taxon pages". Why can't those two be the same thing? Firstly, any changes in the template are reflected immediately in all pages containing it (sometimes many dozens) while according to your system, you'll have to go manually and modify each and every page. Secondly "BHL" is a valuable piece of information, indicating to the user which is the source of information. Thirdly, why not writing: "''Leuconotopicus borealis'' ({{a|Louis Jean Pierre Vieillot|Vieillot}}, 1809: [ 66]) in the name section, and contend with merely {{Vieillot, 1807-T2C1}} [original description: p. 66] in the reference section? See for example Echidnoglossa russa where no page is linked, but where the PDF source is available and the [original description: p. 74, figs. 31–34, 145–151, 260] appended to the template provides all the information needed. Mariusm (talk) 09:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a lot on the template page that is not displayed on the taxon pages. Things like "Find all Wikispecies pages which cite this reference.", "Documentation This documentation is transcluded from Template:Vieillot, 1807-T2C1/doc. The template can be used to link to a particular page at BHL. In this case use as {{Vieillot, 1807-T2C1|1}} Parameter: (optional): number from URL of page at BHL, e.g. "47004744" will produce a link to", "Nomenclatural acts [edit]", etc., etc. Yes - "BHL" is a valuable piece of information - but just move it to all the other text that stays on the template page, without being duplicated into the taxon pages. - MPF (talk) 14:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly botany and zoology have different needs with botanically the Name being that deposited with IPNI, as this is the expectation of specialists. The protologue reference is just another, all be it very important, source of information - the Primary Reference if that is what the editor wishes. Andyboorman (talk) 10:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not forget that "Reference page" is the link that takes you to the template that may contain more very valuable information not displayed at the referenced article. Can be simplified? May be.--Hector Bottai (talk) 11:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know, and yes, it can be simplified - as I did in my example above. Instead of the link being "Reference page", the link to the template is the book title itself: simpler, and much clearer. - MPF (talk) 14:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This would be difficult for many templates of different authors referring to the same book title, e.g. Die Natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien. Here the link of the book title links to the whole work, not the template, e.g. {{Volkens, 1893}}. --Thiotrix (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could make the volume/part numbers the link in cases like this - MPF (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even in botanical citations, a protologue citation only works if there is just one citation to be handled. In the Marchantiophyta there is a morass of generic synonyms, even for well-known genera, and each one of these names will have a "primary reference" attached to it. There is simply no way that publication information such as author and date can be omitted from such reference lists. Even common and widespread genera such as Asterella and Riccia L. have long lists of generic synonyms. When the complete list of citations for these synonyms is included, the full citation must be present or the reader will be as confused as the state of nomenclature in the group was 100 years ago. There would be no simple means to identify which citation pairs with a particular name without the full set of data. So every citation in the References section should be a full citation. Even if there are not synonyms for a name now, there may be isonyms, nomina invalida, or junior synonyms introduced in the future either by publications of new names or by taxonomic rearrangements. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

US Government consultation

Those of you in the United States might wish to comment on this Public Access to Peer-Reviewed Scholarly Publications consultation, conducted by the Office of Science and Technology Policy, on making unclassified published research, digital scientific data, and code supported by the U.S. Government, open to the public. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold S. Menke

According to Wikispecies, Arnold S. Menke was born in 1918, but according to this page which lists him as a co-chair of an event that took place last year, he still seems to be alive (or at least was alive last year). Plus his ZooBank page lists publications of his dated as recently as 2014. So, either the year of birth is wrong, there are two "Arnold Menke"s, or we have a U.S. entomologist who is now 101 or 102 years old! Can anyone perhaps figure out what's going on here, just in case? Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This post puts Menke "a decade older" than fellow hymenopterist Edward "Eric" Grissell, and cites August 10, 1944 as Grissell's birthdate. This wold put Menke's birthdate somewhere in the mid-30s, which seems a lot more reasonable! Worth noting that taxonomists (moreso than probably any specialists other than maybe humanities people) are notorious for working basically until their dying breath. Circeus (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard as much, though I just needed to make sure in this case for maybe obvious reasons. Where on earth did "1918" come from then I wonder? Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a confusion with this guy. Circeus (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We may have to monitor the wikidata and author page because the date has spread into ISNI and VIAF, and will probably generate issues of circular referencing. Circeus (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if it was a confusion with that Arnold Menke to be honest. According to the page's history, the birth year of "1918" was added way back in 2008 by Open2universe, just 6 days after the page was first made... and Open2universe hasn't been active on Wikispecies since 2014. The Arnold Menke you link from findagrave died only in 2016, so he wouldn't have been on there back in 2008 clearly. Must have been from somewhere else I imagine. Monster Iestyn (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MD. Mizanur Rahman

As far as I know the "MD" part of Bangladeshi ichthyologist MD. Mizanur Rahman's page name is a title rather than part of his actual name. If that's the case the page should be moved to Mizanur Rahman, but I'm not 100 % sure. Does any one here have good information about this? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

It might not be a title, he uses "Md" even on his ResearchGate profile. Maybe it's supposed to be written as "Md." and is short for Muhammad, Mohammad or some variation? (though that is just a guess of course) Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, none of the journals for articles he's authored show titles for anyone else, so to include a title for Rahman would be inconsistent to my knowledge. Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Monster Iestyn is right: It is Md and it is a shortcut for Mohammad. Mariusm (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So... ought it be moved to Md. Mizanur Rahman then at least, since "Md." is not an acronym? (I bet you that it was copying one of the Zootaxa articles, even though the rest of the author's name was probably also in all-caps) Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since nobody responded or did anything since my last comment, I've gone and moved the article myself and fixed all linked pages as well as the wikidata item. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hi all, is it possible that the Erich Martin Hering and Martin Hering pages actually refer to the same person? It looks like they published Lepidoptera-related articles in the same journal around the same time. --LamBoet (talk) 06:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they are likely the same person, see [8] section Hering, M. (1937a) match with {{Hering, 1937}} which is here assigned to Hering, E.M.. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Christian Ferrer: indeed, thank you. If no one objects, I will merge the pages. --LamBoet (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which Hanitsch for Acanthoblatta?

In the list of synonyms for the Rhyparobia family taxon name there's a synonym listed as "Acanthoblatta Hanitsch, 1950". Does anyone know whether this is a posthumous publication by the German-born/British entomologist Richard Hanitsch (who passed away in 1940), or perhaps a totally different author? And if it is someone else, what's his/her name?

Also, I guess R. Hanitsch is the same author as Richard Hanitsch? Should the two pages be merged? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

According to his obituary, Hanitsch had come back to England and indeed was living in Oxford itself at the time of his death. He had made Malayan Blattidae something of a specialist, so they seem clearly to be the same author. The recorded protologue for Acanthoblatta is Revue de zoologie et de botanique africaines 43:36. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Circeus (talkcontribs) 12:42, 11 March 2020.
Thanks! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Categories for Jurassic taxa etc.

Are the categories Category:Mesozoic taxa, Category:Jurassic taxa, Category:Cretaceous taxa etc. and perhaps above all Category:Amber taxa something we really need and want? In my opinion, no. What say ye? Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

No not needed at all. Delete. Andyboorman (talk) 08:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have been using Category:Jurassic Cirripedia, etc. for my own barnacle pages. I actually find them useful, and am a cirriped taxonomist. Set up properly, it does help me guide my research. Neferkheperre (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If there were good data at Wikidata for the stratigraphy of taxa, and if we had a way to make use of that data, then I could see this being a valuable tool. But as the categories currently stand, there is almost zero use made of them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2 references in one template

Hello, this is about {{ICZN Opinion 1152}}, and in fact in this template I putted a reference to the opinion + 1 reference to the corrigenda which is very important because it leads to new synonymy for several names. Currently this template is only used in one page, but it will be potentially used on the species pages when they will be created. My question is if the formating of this template is ok? or is there a better way? Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My approach for "secondary" elements to a ref like this is to use square brackets and keep eveything on a single item, something like:
  • ICZN 1980. OPINION 1152 (Case 1772). Ophiura Lamarck, 1801 and Ophioderma Müller & Troschel, 1840 (Ophiuroidea): ruling on application of these names. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 37(2): 78–80. BHL. [Corrigenda: 38(4): 317, 1981. BHL.]
I'm not repeating the author and journal, since they are the same, much like I wouldn't repeat the title and author if the bracketed ref was to a convenient reprint cited because the original is unavailable online. Circeus (talk) 22:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you, your method is good, and I just applied it. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Handbuch der speciellen Ornithologie

This Reichenbach 1853 publication is the reference for a bunch of Aves taxa. I couldn't find an online library for it. Somebody to help pls?--Hector Bottai (talk) 11:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like it may be it. More accurately the "Handbuch" is the first part. Quoth the bibliography here:
  • Reichenbach, H. G. L. 1853. Handbuch der speciellen Ornithologie. Die Vögel, viii + 36 + XXXI pp. Exp. Vollst. Naturg., Dresden & Leipzig. [Footnote 24: Also variously cited, part title: Avium systema naturale; its three different components were usually bound together.]
Circeus (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, looks perfect.--Hector Bottai (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I preferred to divide this in more than one template, see the results: Template:Reichenbach, 1853, Template:Reichenbach, 1853-10, Template:Reichenbach, 1853-11. Thanks.--Hector Bottai (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Taxa by author

So, I've been aware for a while now that we've been using the {{Taxa by author}} template in "Category:Author taxa" type pages. I've myself converted some of these category pages to use the template whenever I come across them. However, I've noticed that PeterR has (at least recently) been doing the complete opposite: he removes this template from any author taxa category pages he comes across (examples: here, here, here and here). I'm not sure what to make of this to be honest, I don't want there to be some kind of edit war over this. Monster Iestyn (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The template is preferred; those edits should be reverted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not use it, but its unilateral removal must be reverted unless the community consensus is otherwise. One editor's preference or opinion is never a good enough reason for this type of action. Andyboorman (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, {{Taxa by author}} is the current standard. @PeterR: make an effort to follow it too please! Mariusm (talk) 14:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He hasn't even substed it properly, so those category aren't properly alphabetized. Circeus (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have the feeling he's not even substing but just re-writing them the way he prefers. I also have the feeling he's not going to respond to this, since he didn't respond to the previous discussion involving him either. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He's still doing it. Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have left a notification on his talk page; I am surprised to see that that was not done when this section was opened. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have given already an answer. I copy the new {{Taxa by author}} from an old one. So if the old ones are not updated, than the new one is also wrong. Its time that some people do their jobs properly and finish it. (I didn't know that it was changed, I work al ready ca. 10 years after the old one. I didn't get a message). — The preceding unsigned comment was added by PeterR (talkcontribs) 12:53, 25 March 2020.
This is partly a response to the discussion at your own talk page PeterR, but in any case it's not really my responsibility to update all of the author category templates to match the new standard. Or rather, at least, not my responsibility alone. I didn't actually have anything to do with deciding to use {{Taxa by author}} across Wikispecies, I am merely following this new standard just to be helpful while doing all the other things I usually do on the wiki. Additionally, as with Circeus's response to the reference templates discussion started by you just earlier, there are just too many pages for one person to update alone: currently, Category:Taxa by author lists 36,244 subcategories! Like most here (I assume) I'm doing my bit for Wikispecies (as well as Wikipedia) in my free time, though I possibly may have even more free time than most for multiple reasons. I would hope we work at tasks like this together as we go along, rather than leaving it to one person to do all the work, as they get much more quickly done when multiple people are involved.
Also apologies for not involving you earlier, I wasn't sure how best to handle this. I still feel relatively new to being part of Wikispecies, even though I've been making edits for nearly two years now (apparently). Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why to change things like {{Taxa by author}} if you create a mess, because it is to much work to update that. In the real business you have first make a cost profit analyse. If the profit is higher than the cost you can introduce the new {{Taxa by author}}. But in Species.wikimedia one cry for change something and an other one make it. So I know now why nobody want to work for Species.wikimedia. It is a chaos site. PeterR (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reference template

Who have decided that in the author reference templates with doi should place also after the doi number Open access, Paywall, Hybrid open access journal and [nonfunctional] Broken access? And who should update the old author reference templates. I see that this is not completed. It is now a mess. PeterR (talk) 12:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) Where else would you have put it? It had to be put somewhere.
2) In case you didn't notice, there are over 70K reference templates, of which I guesstimate half use {{Doi}} alone. Running through such material is a maintenance task and users in Wikispecies are neither keen to do such tasks, nor kind to those who are stuck doing them. I'm on an extended wikileave, so, yeah, not one's doing it because there's, what, 30 of us at best at any given time? Circeus (talk) 14:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why to change the reference templates if you can't handle it. But who update now the reference templates.PeterR (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We all do. That's how all wikis work. It is a collaboration by all of the users, together. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I promise to add these when and if I come across the older templates. Andyboorman (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've been doing it for references whereever I usually edit, so it's not quite true that nobody does it at all. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution (nadi) template

This still conflicts with images - if there is a tall image which stretches down to below the distribution header, the nadi template pushes down below the bottom of the image, creating an area of whitespace. Can someone who knows how to format templates edit it not to do this, please? Thanks! MPF (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raoul Michel May

Hello, I wanted to create a page for the author quoted above, he is the author of this publication in which this species have been described. I found R. M. May here, he seems to be a french scientist. I also found a page in Worldcat but are included a lot of works about a wide range of topics (nervous system, greffe, tardigrades...). Do you think this is the same author? Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Incertae sedis" pages

So, what's the way we're supposed to name an "incertae sedis" page? Looking around, there seems to be several ways of naming them being used on Wikispecies:

Which of these is better to use? Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incertae sedis pages already been banned, many already deleted, others need maintenance (move the validated content to the relevant page and be deleted). Regards, Burmeister (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, fair enough then. I did spot those older discussions on doing some digging, but wasn't sure if it still applied because of pages such as the ones I linked still existing. But thanks for clearing that up anyway. Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing this up. We talk about it from time to time, but never get around to actually fixing 100% of the pages. Currently there are approximately 570 "incertae sedis" pages in Wikispecies so it certainly wouldn't be an impossible task. Here's a list of all pages with names containing "incertae sedis" in case you would like to help out. As you can see only about 130 of them start with "Incertae sedis…" while the majority of the page names instead ends with it. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 07:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Taxonomic opinion please

Hello. I am down to the last red link genus in Rubiaceae until new names are described, if course. The monotypic genus Fergusonia is poorly analysed and so rather cryptic and here seems to be two opinions regarding the name of its species. Fortunately the protologue is freely available on BHL here under an article entitled Fergusonia thwaitesii. Now Christine Taylor in Tropicos maintains that the correct name for the species is Fergusonia tetracocca (Thwaites) Baill. (1880) rejecting both Fergusonia thwaitesii and Fergusonia zeylanica Hook. f. (1872). The later is the species named and described by Hooker in the protologue and illustrated on plate 1124 and is also accepted by WCSP. Unfortunately, Taylor does not refer to any ICN Articles in her reasoning, which, in my opinion, leaves the question of what is the correct name for the species still to be resolved. I would be grateful if colleagues with a greater understanding of ICN could look through Taylor's arguments and give us their opinions. Thanks in advance and best wishes in these difficult times. Andyboorman (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first available name is Borreria tetracocca Thwaites BHL. Fergusonia zeylanica (F. thwaitesii is a nomen nudum) is a replacement name citing Borreria tetracocca, without Hooker giving any reason for that. As the epithet "tetracocca" is available under Fergusonia and Enum. Pl. Zeyl. (1864) is no suppressed work. If this name has been validly published Fergusonia tetracocca is the valid name.. At least the reason why the basionym should be invalid is not obvious. --RLJ (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Seems a pretty clear-cut case. Unless there is a different reason that B. tetracocca is not legitimate or validly published (and I don't see any looking at its protologue), the rejection of it as the correct basionym by WCSP is without any justification. Circeus (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced, as Hooker's protologue is pretty clear, if we ignored the use of Fergusonia thwaitesii nom. nud. as the title. He acknowledged Borreria tetracocca, but preferred to use Fergusonia zeylanica as his type given he was describing a gen. nov.. Articles 7, 11 and so on must apply surely? Please cite your articles for the arguments above, so that we can work through your logic chain through IAPT. By the way I am not saying that WCSP is correct, but that I would like to be clear, if and when, I contact them. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 09:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed article 7 and 11 are exactly what draws us to the conclusion that the only correct name under the code is F. tetracocca. [Emphasis mine]
  • 7.5: "A name that is illegitimate under Art. 52 is a replacement name, typified automatically by the type of the name (the replaced synonym) that itself or the epithet of which ought to have been adopted under the rules (Art. 7.4; but see Art. 7.6)"
    • 52.2 "[Inclusion of a type rendering a name superfluous and hence illegitimate] is also effected (e) by citation of the name itself or any name homotypic at that time, unless the type is at the same time excluded either explicitly or by implication."
  • 11.4 "For any taxon below the rank of genus, the correct name is the combination of the final epithet of the earliest legitimate name of the taxon at the same rank, with the correct name of the genus or species to which it is assigned"
There is nothing in Hooker that establish a separate type for his new name. Even if this were so, if the two names are considered synonyms, then no provision of the code applies to override article 11.4 here. The correct epithet can only be tetracocca because Hooker had no business not using that epithet to begin with. Circeus (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I will contact Kew with your reasoning. They are working at home so I should be able to get a reply fairly soon. Andyboorman (talk) 09:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should point out that F. zeylanica and F. thwaitesii should in fact have the exact same protologue reference: one happens to use a page number and another a plate number, but they really refer to the same protologue. Those two names are homotypic synonyms of each others because they were accidentally published simultaneously for the same taxon (Tropicos puts F. Thwaitesii as a nom. nud., but that doesn't seem a correct interpretation of the code at all to me).
Given that, I have NO idea why WCSP and Tropicos list the names with different years unless somehow the text and plate were published at different dates, which seems unlikely. Circeus (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In zoology, in late 1800s, it was quite customary to publish written descriptions one year, and illustrations 1-2 years later. Neferkheperre (talk) 05:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Except this was published in Hooker's Icones Plantarum, a publication specifically designed for publishing plates accompanied by text (in fact, several volumes have no page numbers, only using the plates as pagination)! Circeus (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Use of term Hybrid

Some editors are changing the scientific term Nothospecies into Hybrid, or adding the later. This is not acceptable and against consensus. Please desist and go over you edits and revert them, before I or another editor does it for you. I do not know why some editors go ahead making such basic changes before going to the Pump seeking an opinion. Andyboorman (talk) 08:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello just for information, being confined at home because of the pandemic, I have a little time that allowed me to speed up a little my uploads, I made a batch upload (more than 10 000 images, not yet finished at that time) of the crustaceans collection (IU) of the Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle (MNHN - Paris), available in Wikimedia Commons with the link above. I noticed yesterday that the Smithonian have put a signifiant nimber of images in the Public Domain, and I will include those collections in my "to do list", the next batch upload will be 3500 images of echinoderms from Smithonian commections. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here we are, I just started the batch uploading of the c:Category:Echinodermata in the National Museum of Natural History, USA, it will be ended in a few hours. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikispecies tools

Could somebody add the following tools to the Wikispecies Tools: '''{{int:Type locality}}''' (in bold); ==={{int:Typus}}=== and {{commonscat}}. Thanks. --Hector Bottai (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, however formatted the tools according to Wikispecies praxis and as described in our formatting guidelines (i.e. "Type locality" without bolding and "Typus", holo- and syntypes etc. should not have their own subsections). Also, I used the full name of the {{Commons category}} template in order to avoid linking via redirects. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 01:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Great, thanks!!--Hector Bottai (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.