Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 7

How to verify what to add

I am a total newbie to taxonomy. I just use the information from Wikispecies for my own website. But once in a while I run into things not being there and I would like to contribute, but do not know how, because I do not know what is right. Let me give an example:

In the familia Spatangidae there are currently the following genera: Maretia - Nacospatangus - Paramaretia - Spatangus

However on our Dutch coast we often find skelletons of the Echinocardium cordatum (Pennant). This name however is from a single Dutch book called "Tirion Gids van Kust en Strand" which translates as "Tirion Guide of Coast and Beach".

So I could add it... but should I, since I am absolutly no expert.

I came across more of those, so what source should be used to verify what should be added?

From IRC I was send to the Project Help source, but the Echinodermata do not have a source mentioned.

Hello, and welcome. If you find a page with no reference mentioned on it, there's no way to check the validity. Therefore the information is not for valuable. If you have information, feel free to add it, and when you also mention your sources, other people can verify it. Any addition to a page that has no reference is at least a step forward when you provide references.

Books and other references are not necessarily right. And there can be alot of confusion about taxonomy. To find good references, you need books/websites that mention their own sources. Every good book will have a bibliography in the back. If there are conflicting taxonomies on websites or in books you need to investigate more. Sometimes the book that was published last is more correct. When you're following taxonomy from a book of 10 years old (or more), the data is likely to be outdated.

These are a few things to look out for. A clear guide to what is right or what is wrong can not be given, but if you mention your sources other people can always check your data.

Sometimes it's possible to find a recently published scientific publication. A quick glance on the net, finds a paper at http://www.springerlink.com/content/8264325l0241701w/ which mentions Echinocardium in Spatangidae. We can safely assume your proposal is correct. --Kempm 18:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goeiemorgen. Voor zover ik weet behoort de zeeklit tegenwoordig tot de Loveniidae (o.a. ITIS Taxonomicon en MarBEF). -- Lycaon 09:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Algae in Wikispecies

Much of what is proposed here has already been accomplished for algae at the website called Algaebase: http://www.algaebase.org/ This site has detailed descriptions of most algal genera placed in a modern systematic framework that is updated by specialists. There are already 121,429 species and infraspecific taxa in Algaebase. This is searchable by generic name as well as working ones way through the taxonomic hierarchy. All of this is supported by a references to modern literature. It is an amazing resource.

The data base has completely open access and has a marvelous set of images that go alohng with many of the taxa.

Thus, rather than reinvent the wheel, why not link with Algaebase.

I would be happy if we can cooperate with the people from Algaebase. Our scope is wider though (All described species, from all kingdoms), and our first goal would be to provide a taxonomical framework that the wikipedia's can use.

If you are affiliated with Algaebase, why don't you make a plan for what a cooperation should look like? --Kempm 08:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to other templates

It seems that I am missing something, because it goes wrong all the time. Have read the Help:Project_Templates and Help:Taxonavigation_section sections, but it does not help.

For example there is a page http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Flustroidea To which I want to add data for the familia. So I click the red link and get a edit block. There I add as per example:

Taxonavigation

Superregnum: Eukaryota
Regnum: Animalia
Phylum: Bryozoa
Classis: Gymnolaemata
Ordo: Cheilostomata
Subordo: Flustrina
Superfamilia: Flustroidea
Genera: Flustra

I even copied all spaces

But when I safe the page it keeps coming back with: Template:Flustroidea in red.

What am I missing/overlooking ?

Templates only evaluate when they exist. A red one has to be made, typically by constructing something like:

{{existing taxon (eg ordo)}}

taxon: [[next taxon (eg familia]]<br />

in your case it might be (the template is then called {{Flustroidea}}):

{{Flustroidea}}

Familia: [[Flustridae]]<br />

A few other caveats, try to look up all the genera for a family and all the species for a genus. Also add Name and Reference sections. Please follow formatting syntax (genera and species in italics) as well. Hope this helps. Lycaon 16:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I am missing a step in the template creation process. I am doing that same as what was expalianed above by the first poster and , apperently as explained by Lycaon, but I am still getting the red template:Nex Taxon when i select the preview of the page I seems thatthere is something more then just:

{{existing taxon (eg Neuroptera)}}

taxon: [[Superfamily (eg Coniopterygoidea]]<br />

to get a new template

Can someone explain wht i may be doing wrong? Kevmin 23:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Help Page

After Adding references to Palaeopsychops I have come up with a series of questions regarding procedure for adding that are not well addressed, or addressed at all, on the Help:Reference section Page:

How much detail should be added to the Reference
- what is the minimum?
- is there a maximum?
  - (e.g. should the name of the article in a magazine or journal be included in the reference?)
- Date of Publication? If it is included in the reference-where?
- Formatting of Multiple authors in a Reference
  - e.g. order listed in the article/book/journal?, alphabetical?
  - when to change to "ET all" format
How are journals classed? are they magazines or different?
What is a " Latin Description"? this statement is very vague

I ask these questions because there are multiple accepted ways of listing references and we should be standard in some form or another and because as my Teachers have constantly pointed out "Ask questions because if you have that question most likely the rest of the class does too" Kevmin 06:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kevmin, that's a lot of questions. There's two types of references we really like. First is the magazine/book where the species name was published, and second the reference section should give evidence to the information in the article. Just like how it works on wikipedia. So the minimum, if done right, is 2 and there is not a maximum. Giving a very long list of books/magazines in which a certain taxon is mentioned, does not make an article better though. So I suggest to just stay with the references that give evidence for the information you provided.

I think good formatting for a magazine would be: * J.A. Allen: On the coatis (genus Nasua, Storr). Bulletin of the United States Geological and Geographical Survey 5: 153-174 (1879).

This includes the author, the article name, the name of the magazine in which it was published in italics, the volume number in bold, page numbers, and year published.

Since we have 2 types of references I always list the magazine in which the species name was used for the first time first. And then I list 1-3 references, most of the time 1 reference is sufficient. I don't alphabetize my references, since my lists are always short. But, provided you give the original publication first, you could maybe sort 2 or 3 other references on year of publication?

I would suggest to switch to et all. once there are more than 3 authors. But mentioning the full list of authors is not wrong. But especially in microbiology, this list of authors can become very long.

Latin description. According to International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (which are rules on nomenclature), in order for a new species to be validly published and get accepted, the name has to be accompanied with a physical description in latin. Those descriptions look like: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Nomenclatural_citations/Apiothyrium/arcticum . For animals this restriction has been removed, and new species can also be described in english. But it is still common practice that a little latin description is given.

Hope this answers your questions. --Kempm 07:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kempm, yes that did answer most of my questions. I should have specified that i meant Min and Max for each entry in the reference section, so that question was answered. The article name question was answered. The rest were answered except for one

I should have clarified that by alphabetizing i meant the names of the multiple authors for one reference, e.g. B. Green, A. Jones, & F. Altos Vr. F. Altos, B. Green, & A. Jones

My question about Journals came from the fact that the help section only Refers to Magazines in it explanations so i may be confusing to those with bulletins, journals, Annals etc... It may need to be rewritten slightly to be less confusing to users who are not familiar with the process

It would be a a good idea to clarify that the "Latin Description" only applies in modern references to Botanical publications as again this is a vague wording in the help section

A new question: Wikispecies has a subsection in the names section for Holotype information. Would Type Material be a better label for this section? I ask because along with Holotypes there may be Paratypes (as with fossils), Neotypes (with material where the original holotype has been lost or destroyed) etc... Kevmin 09:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed a few of your concerns (journal vs magazine, Type material vs. Holotype). Moreover, if you think you can improve on the text in the help files, this is a wiki, so you can correct or adjust it yourself. Please do. Lycaon 12:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok. Leave the list of authors as you find them in the publication. If the publication gives the authors in alphabetical order, then so be it, but usually there's some senior researcher that gets mentioned first.

There's a practical purpose for using holotype. Wikispecies doesn't give a lot of information, except for names. Names by themselves don't mean much, and in my view these names should be tied to something tangible. Panthera leo (Lion), by itself doesn't mean much, but when I can lookup Linnaeus' description of it, I have a way to verify that the lion I have in my head, is the same as the one Linnaeus was describing. If there's a holotype stored somewhere, I am even able to verify the data. I think this name-description-holotype is very valuable. It becomes difficult when holotypes were destroyed, or described species were never stored at all. Then later a stuffed animal is assigned to become the holotype (though I believe that's called karotype? or neotype as you say?). Also for example for Lepidoptera (butterflies), it was common practice to describe both male and female, thus becoming holotype and allotype. These different 'types' are important to keep the name-description-holotype connected. (Hope this makes more sense to you then to me actually) :) What it means, if you have information like that, please give it, but we don't need a list of museum numbers for every species. Just something that connects the name and description. --Kempm 23:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Clarification on the Authors question.

In regard to the Holotype question what I was thinking was more that the section itself would be better termed Type Material as there is a wide range of types the can be encountered in museums, I currently work with the Stonerose interpretive center and we house a number of type specimens ourselves. Thanks to Lycodon for the tweeks to the help pages Kevmin 01:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP range vandalism

Does somebody know how to block an IP range (in casu 62.171.194.xxx) from editing? At least 7 addresses [1] in that range have no been denied access to Wikispecies. Lycaon 15:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

172.16.4.0/24 Bans IP-space 172.16.4.*
172.16.0.0/16 Bans IP-space 172.16.*.*

– linnea (talk) 15:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Lycaon 18:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Casual Use

This project is awsome. I really need a biology compendum to come back to after a day of exploration. However, I think that this resource won't be very user-friendly until common names are searchable. I really like biology and would like to look up the strange things I find, but with only latin names to work off of, I'm not getting far. Some pictorially guided tree structure would be so great -- that way I could search by eye. This way, the nature of the project becomes more about exploration rather than warehousing. I would say that would be a step toward educating. Thanks,

 -- Kava

Amniota and Anamnia

Does these terms deserve an entry here - even though they are not precise taxons? (Amniota eems to mean the Reptilia, Aves, and Mammalia, all of which have am amnion during development. Anamnia seems to mean all the rest.) 82.18.21.208 17:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pilosa

This has a totally different taxonomy on Wikipedia. Which is correct? 82.18.21.208 17:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both are correct. English wikipedia is not mentioning our sub- and infraclassis, and we do not mention superorder Xenarthra. Some researchers recognize a lot more taxonomic levels under Mammalia. For one kind of implementation take a look at: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammalia (Bottom of the page). --Kempm 06:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Euspira nitida

or Polinices (Euspira) pulchellus

It seems that this shell has an enormous amount of names: http://www.vliz.be/vmdcdata/aphia/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=150554

To me it sounds the most logical to follow R.H. de Bruyne and add it to the Euspira since there we also find the Euspira catena, which is a close relative.

Euspira nitida gets in google 407 hits and Polinices pulchellus 504 hits.

Does anyone have a source that I can go by?

Request for changing username

Current name: Hashikure
Requested name: 端くれの錬金術師
Reason: Previously, I was forced to change my username on enwp because of using non-Latin characters and changed username on all projects. Recently, enwp's username policy was changed and I got my username back. So, I want to get my username back on this project.--hashikure 04:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hashikure, I don't mind changing this, but I have one problem. I don't have Japanese fonts on my computer, and I only see '?' in your name. (Question marks). I think if I am going to copy-and-paste then something will go wrong. You have any idea how we can do this? --Kempm 23:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Do you have Arial Unicode MS, Osaka or Hiragino and so on? If you don't, how about numeric character entities or utf-8 encoding?

numeric charcter entities: 端くれの錬金術師
utf-8 encoding: %E7%AB%AF%E3%81%8F%E3%82%8C%E3%81%AE%E9%8C%AC%E9%87%91%E8%A1%93%E5%B8%AB

If you can't change my username, can I make User:端くれの錬金術師 newly? Is it OK? --hashikure 02:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can read both the numeric character entities and utf-8 encoding strings, as hexadecimal-like strings. Is it ok if I copy and paste these? If we're not sure the last option would be my favourite: to make a new username yourself. Then we know for sure nothing will go wrong. --Kempm 06:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mmm... I think it is bound to fail you copy & paste numeric character entities or utf-8 encoding strings as is. Then, I'll take the last option. OK? --hashikure 16:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you take the last opion, please write your old account user page that it's your [new username] previous username and you don't use it anymore. So no one can suspect you about sockpuppeting. :) – linnea (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was renamed by Lycaon. I keep User:Hashikure as redirect to User:端くれの錬金術師. Thanks all of you. --hashikure 07:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the change goes on...

Please comment on multiple interpretations of taxonomies on Wikispecies_talk:Policy. Thanks Lycaon 13:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonavigation vol. x

Why aren't here Taxoboxes like on Wikipedia?--Wailer 10:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would look like that: [2] (few more edits and it would be ok).--Wailer 17:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taxoboxes are not used (and won't be used) on Wikispecies. See Help:Taxonavigation_section for assistance on taxonavigation. Lycaon 17:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answer. I please somebody to delete this: Template:Sandbox template.--Wailer 08:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, deleted. Lycaon 08:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]