Wikispecies:Village Pump

(Redirected from Wikispecies:Village pump)

WikiSpecies notext-invert.svg Welcome to the village pump of Wikispecies.

This page is a place to ask questions or discuss the project. If you need an admin, please see the Administrators' Noticeboard. If you need to solicit feedback, see Request for Comment. Please sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~ or clicking the signature icon in the edit toolbar). Use the Wikispecies IRC channel for real-time chat.

If you're going to critique the work of fellow editors (blatant vandals excepted) in your post on this page, you should notify them, either by mentioning them with a {{Reply to}} template, or with a post on their talk page.

If you insert links to Wikipedia pages in your comments, don't forget the leading colon (:) before the wiki language code (including when you reference a remote user page instead of using a local signature), otherwise it will generate spurious interwiki links collected in the sidebar instead of in the expected location within the discussion. Thanks.

Village pump in other languages:

1 (2004-09-21/2005-01-05) 2 (2005-01-05/2005-08-23)
3 (2005-08-24/2005-12-31) 4 (2006-01-01/2005-05-31)
5 (2006-06-01/2006-12-16) 6 (2006-12-17/2006-12-31)
7 (2007-01-01/2007-02-28) 8 (2007-03-01/2007-04-30)
9 (2007-05-01/2007-08-31) 10 (2007-09-01/2007-10-31)
11 (2007-11-01/2007-12-31) 12 (2008-01-01/2008-02-28)
13 (2008-03-01/2008-04-28) 14 (2008-04-29/2008-06-30)
15 (2008-07-01/2008-09-30) 16 (2008-10-01/2008-12-25)
17 (2008-12-26/2009-02-28) 18 (2009-03-01/2009-06-30)
19 (2009-07-01/2009-12-31) 20 (2010-01-01/2010-06-30)
21 (2010-07-01/2010-12-31) 22 (2011-01-01/2011-06-30)
23 (2011-07-01/2011-12-31) 24 (2012-01-01/2012-12-31)
25 (2013-01-01/2013-12-31) 26 (2014-01-01/2014-12-31)
27 (2015-01-01/2015-01-31) 28 (2015-02-01/2015-02-28)
29 (2015-02-28/2015-04-29) 30 (2015-04-29/2015-07-19)
31 (2015-07-19/2015-09-23) 32 (2015-09-23/2015-11-21)
33 (2015-11-21/2015-12-31) 34 (2016-01-01/2016-04-17)
35 (2016-03-22/2016-05-01) 36 (2016-05-01/2016-07-12)
37 (2016-07-13/2016-09-30) 38 (2016-10-01/2016-12-04)
39 (2016-12-04/2017-01-17) 40 (2017-01-18/2017-01-28)
41 (2017-01-29/2017-02-13) 42 (2017-02-14/2017-03-21)
43 (2017-03-20/2017-08-11) 44 (2017-08-10/2017-12-07)
45 (2017-12-08/2018-01-08) 46 (2018-01-19/2018-03-11)
47 (2018-03-11/2018-09-11) 48 (2018-09-01/2019-02-17)
49 (2019-02-22/2019-06-18) 50 (2019-06-19/2019-10-06)
51 (2019-10-07/2019-12-23) 52 (2019-12-24/2020-04-03)
53 (2020-04-03/2020-07-16) 54 (2020-07-17/2020-09-05)
55 (2020-09-08/2020-11-27) 56 (2020-11-27/2021-06-21)
57 (2021-06-05/2021-xx-xx)

Repositories with the same combination of lettersEdit

Hello, a quick question: is there a preferred way of disambiguating repository links? The holotype of Mesodermochelys undulatus is in the Hobetsu Museum ("Institutional Abbreviation: HMG"), but HMG is already occuped by the Hunterian Museum, Glasgow. Would HMG (Japan) or Hobetsu Museum or something else again be better? Thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 13:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Hello Maculosae tegmine lyncis. No, unfortunately we don't have a set system for disambiguating repository links/pages. It's been discussed several times before, but the talks have sort of dried out without the community coming to any conclusion. I'll copy this discussion to the Village Pump, in order to again raise this question to the community as a whole. Please continue the discussion there. Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC).[]

───────────────────────── The above discussion was copied from User talk:Tommy Kronkvist#Repositories with the same combination of letters. Please continue the discussion below.

Though we tend to be a bit loath to them. This is one issue where either a category or a list may be helpful. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 01:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
…Or both, actually. A list of all repositories listing where they're situated etc. (like the author disambiguation pages) would be helpful when users need to do a quick search for a specific repository page, while the category is useful in a broader spectrum, for example when doing Wikidata-, tech- or bot related tasks. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC).[]
This is surely a wider problem than just for wikispecies? I'd assume priority applies; whichever of the institutions was HMG first should keep it (Her Majesty's Government? ツ), and the other(s) should select, or be allocated, a different acronym? - MPF (talk) 10:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I agree Tommy, at the least this could be initialised as a list of all repositories, a Cat can then be done that would be most beneficial to various tasks as you say. MPF, In regards to priority of acronyms, for major institutions I believe these are registered by the Institution and in general are their preferred acronym. I believe they are checked against an international database when created. I could be wrong on that just I do recall several museums being made to change their over the years, some were voluntary. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 10:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
FWIW, Evenhuis has HMUG for the Hunterian museum, but does not include Hobetsu. The official ASIH list uses HMG for Hobetsu and GLAHM for the Hunterian Museum. Circeus (talk) 11:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
In regards to priority of acronyms we should also remember that many repositories use several acronyms depending on faculty etc. For example the Swedish Museum of Natural History use NHRM, NHRS, NRM & SNHM; here at Wikispecies they're all redirected to the main one, SMNH. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC).[]
Yes. Acronyms have also varied over time for many institutions (Indeed, Hobetsu Museum's official name isn't even that anymore: it changed in 2006!), and the literature is full of adhoc usages because unless a journal editor mandates use of a standard, everyone remains free to abbreviate however they want. While Index Herbariorum, Evenhuis and the ASIH standards are convenient, they are only partial and ad hoc to their specialties. The early 2010s efforts at standardizing never really took off because very few projects actually need to handle collection acronyms across many specialties. Unfortunately, we're one of those! Circeus (talk) 14:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]

───────────────────────── "This is one issue where either a category or a list may be helpful". Don't we have Repositories already? Though it doesn't look like either of the two subpages have been updated very often in the last two years. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Yes, I had forgotten about the Repositories pages. However as you say they haven't been updated for a long time: you'll have to be familiar with Akkadian cuneiform to decipher some of it... Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC).[]
We basically stopped supporting that page when we stopped using it as the linking atrget for all repository acronyms. Circeus (talk) 02:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
You're right. It would be easier to update/support it (and of more value to the community) if there where categories to back it up. Right now it's only a somewhat misplaced page in main namespace that feels a bit too "autonomous" from a wiki structural point of view. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC).[]

───────────────────────── @Monster Iestyn and Tommy Kronkvist: I can't believe I forgot that there IS in fact a page that (roughly) is appropriate for this: Wikispecies:Institution acronyms needing fixes. But then I was the only one actually bothered by issues like that at the time. Circeus (talk) 03:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Circeus, back in 2015 you were often the only one bothered by many of these technicalities... :-) Thanks for the link, I'll have a new look at all of this during the weekend. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC).[]
At the time I was mostly bothered with issues of multiple acronyms for the same institution and acronyms with (IMO) entirely improper names (e.g. any starting with DB- for "Department of Biology"), so the structure of the page reflects that. We hadn't yet run into much homonymy issues with regard to these. Circeus (talk) 13:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I did actually see that page some time back myself, but it too appeared abandoned and forgotten so I didn't want to touch it myself so I recall. I think a few on the todo list have since been dealt with, for instance RMCA/MRAC. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Back to Hobetsu, Kamuysaurus japonicus is there too; I propose disambiguating HMG to HMG (Glasgow) and HMG (Hobetsu); does anyone disagree/object/have a better suggestion? Thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 12:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

New replacement namesEdit


For a new replacement name (Nomen novum) is it possible to modify the the old name page (if pre-existing) or is necessary to create a new independent page for each name?

If you need to modify an existing page, are there any examples?

Many thanks

Best wishes – Eve Hutch (talk), 11:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC). — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eve Hutch (talkcontribs) 09:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)‎.[]

Hello Eve Hutch, as Wikispecies has pages for taxa (not for names, unlike Wikidata), an existing page should be moved to the new replacement name. The move can be done by all experienced editors. For an example of a page with a nom. nov., see Neothomasella. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks a lot. What do you mean by "moving" an existing page? If you explain this to me, I can then modify an existing page for testing. Thanks again. Kind regards, Eve Hutch (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
He is referring to what is basically renaming a page. In the case you are mentioning the page would be renamed from its old taxon name to the new replacement name. First thing you should do is run the Special:WhatLinksHere tool to be sure of what pages would be affected by the move. If its a species page then the genus page will link there and needs to also be modified to direct to the new name. However, there may also be redirects from other unused names to the name you are replacing, to avoid double redirects these also need to be updated to point to the new name. So have a list of these before you move the page, the tool will help.
Once all this is sorted in the top right next to the search box is a dropdown box that says More, under this is a link for Move. Click on that from the page you intend to move and you can place a new name in for the page, you must give a reason, I suggest you do leave a redirect which it will ask you. Then you can move the page once you action this page. The page will now have a new Mainspace Name, so any pages that direct to it have to be updated to reflect this.
This is all logged in the recent changes that admins watch so if their is a problem we will see it immediately, so do not worry too much there will be people who see and can fix mistakes. Take care with spelling, as if you move the page and have made a spelling mistake you may need an admin to untangle that. So double check everything before you accept the changes. I would suggest you include in the references on the page the citation that makes the move in the literature, in your comments be explicit as to why your moving the page.
If you need more help feel free to ask, Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks for the walk-through, Scott! @Eve Hutch: The dropdown menu with the "Move" link is called "Page" rather than "More". Other than that Scott's explanation is excellent. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC).[]
Thank you very much for the explanation! Eve Hutch (talk) 14:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Tedicpus puiramisEdit

does anyone want to make a stab at redoing the prose article at Tedicpus puiramis before I delete it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Looks like the text has been cribbed from, with names changed to a genus and species that do not exist, for a reason that is not explained - perhaps someone is trying to legitimise in advance a planned change of name, but they are not doing it well at all. Delete as junk, maybe with an explanation as to why? Cheers Tony Rees Tony 1212 (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Also found this, at "The discus fish has attracted a cult following of collectors and has created a multimillion dollar international industry complete with shows, competitions, and reputed online breeders." So maybe there is some additional shady backstory here, just guessing... Tony 1212 (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Thanks all; deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Thank you. As a final side note the taxonomy of the Symphysodon i.e. Discus genus has always been a mess, but it's never encompassed a species named "Symphysodon puiramis". Furthermore I don't think there has ever been a genus named "Tedicpus" (fish or not) nor a specific name "puiramis" for any fish; the only fairly similar I can find is the saltwater blenny Enneapterygius pyramis Fricke, 1994, which is unrelated. Also and for what it's worth a Google search for "Tedicpus puiramis" renders zero hits. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC).[]

Circumscriptional namesEdit

Please have a look at Rhabdura (06:22, 19 September 2021 version). Ideas and thought about how we should best handle and format these kind of issues/taxa are welcome. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC).[]

By definition, circumscriptional name are unregulated under either botanical or zoological codes (though they are under the bacteriological code). Aside from the their form (which must be in -ales for plants), it's 100% dependent on whatever source has been selected as a valid classification by Wikispecies. There's literally nothing more we can use to guide us that wouldn't be original research. Circeus (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
In addition, WS pages are for taxa not names. By regulation names for taxa must conform to botanical or zoological codes, therefore WS pages for circumscriptional plant or zoological names are not allowed. Am I right or wrong? Andyboorman (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
A similar note is on the page for Dicellurata, the only other suborder in Diplura listed on Wikispecies. These notes were added by Nikita J. Kluge, who edited both of the pages back in 2013. Not sure if this helps at all or not. Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
EDIT: Ah hang on, he also added similar notes to other pages such as Insecta in 2013 (see here), only to be reverted by Stho002 later on (see here). It looks like there are only 6 pages altogether that Kluge edited that Stho002 didn't later revert: Dicellurata, Entomobryomorpha, Holodonata, Metapterygota, Odonatoptera and Rhabdura. I'm not sure what to make of this. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Andyboorman: ICZN doesn't regulate names higher than family-group (superfamily, family, subfamily, tribe, subtribe), so all names for higher ranks like order and suborder are therefore circumscriptional names, so far as I understand. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Monster Iestyn: ICN Chapter 1 Art 1-5 deals with taxa and ranks, including higher than family, for algae, fungi, and plants so circumscriptional names do not apply for these organisms. I am not sure of the value of adding them or creating a taxon page for them. Andyboorman (talk) 07:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Andyboorman: Hm, I don't these names are invalid by being circumscriptional names, otherwise that would mean we couldn't use "Insecta" or "Animalia" surely? In any case it's obvious to me that the term "circumscriptional name" itself is misleading us to think they're invalid names. It confused me too initially until I looked further into what Kluge was doing across Wikispecies. I think this was just Kluge attempting to put his own extended nomenclatural system on the wiki, as well as adding links to his own "Nomina Cicrumscribentia Insectorum" website with his own interpretations of the taxa. (If you saw Kluge's notes for Insecta for instance, he claimed it's not valid and it should be called Amyocerata instead?!?) Therefore I think we should keep these pages, but we should remove Kluge's interpretations of the taxa, because only Kluge seems to use them so far as I know (unless I am mistaken). Stho002 already reverted most of Kluge's edits to these pages years ago, but not these last six for some reason. Maybe he missed them? Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Monster Iestyn: Agreed remove. WS is not a personal domain. I did not say invalid, perhaps just advising that we be more circumspect in their use. We do occasionally use clade names as well, after all. Andyboorman (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Andyboorman: Ah, my mistake. In that case, I will remove Kluge's changes then. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  Done Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]


The past month there's been quite a lot of activity on the Leucadendron page, where a total of 38 species were added by the same unregistered IP editor. Please have a look at this diff for an overview of the latest 18 edits from August 27 up until the day before yesterday. (Two edits by me, and 16 by the IP.) I'm not saying that the page now includes any errors, but perhaps a botanist with a registered user account should have a quick look just to verify? Thanks beforehand, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC).[]

Not in my area of particular expertise, but Wikipedia says there are "about 80 species" and there are over 100 names (including synonyms) in Tropicos, from which one could potentially obtain a list of current names. The genus is also treated in Plants of the World Online. (source for the data in CoL) has a long list, some valid, some synonyms... BTW there are three different genera named "Leucadendron" according to ING and Tropicos, all listed in fam. Proteaceae, the earliest (Linnaeus, Sp. Pl. 1: 91) is a nom. rej. for some reason... Tony 1212 (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
OK, the type species of Linnaeus' (1753) genus, now rejected, Leucadendron lepidocarpodendron Linnaeus, is now treated as a species of Protea, see . Tony 1212 (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I have adjusted the species list using Plants of the World Online. This will need cross checking with South African Flora, but on the face of it looks much better. (sorry now signed) Andyboorman (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
For completeness, Kuntze's 1891 genus of the same name (attributed therein to "Linnaeus, 1840"), is now Leucospermum, refer ING. Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 20:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Ilove Wikipedia simpleEdit

Ilove Wikipedia simple so much that I can't have enough — The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2021‎

Please note however that this is Wikispecies, not Wikipedia Simple. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC).[]

Movement Charter Drafting Committee - Community Elections to take place October 11 - 24Edit

This is a short message with an update from the Movement Charter process. The call for candidates for the Drafting Committee closed September 14, and we got a diverse range of candidates. The committee will consist of 15 members, and those will be (s)elected via three different ways.

The 15 member committee will be selected with a 3-step process:

  • Election process for project communities to elect 7 members of the committee.
  • Selection process for affiliates to select 6 members of the committee.
  • Wikimedia Foundation process to appoint 2 members of the committee.

The community elections will take place between October 11 and October 24. The other process will take place in parallel, so that all processes will be concluded by November 1.

For the full context of the Movement Charter, its role, as well the process for its creation, please have a look at Meta. You can also contact us at any time on Telegram or via email ( (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Henry James ClarkEdit

Hi all, the author name Henry James Clark presently in Wikispecies (presumed surname=Clark) is also spelled H. James-Clark in some (all?) relevant pages, for example on the same page (publication list), and taxon names such as Bicosoeca - with authorship given as "James-Clark, 1866". I checked a sample original work, , and the running header is "H. J. Clark on Anthophysa Mulleri", while the actual article is prefixed "On the structure and habits of [...]; by H. James-Clark, A.B., B.S." Nevertheless various sources of his protist/sometime algal names use "H.J.Clark" as a botanical abbreviation (AlgaeBase, WoRMS), as does VIAF , incorrectly in my view?? Even Index Nominum Genericorum uses "H. J. Clark". IPNI/Plant Name Authors index has no entry for him.

I am thinking all instances of his name should be standardized on Wikispecies to "James-Clark", but would welcome other input. If this is agreed, then most likely the present page Henry James Clark should be maybe renamed (moved), or possibly kept as a redirect?? Cheers Tony Rees Tony 1212 (talk) 05:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]

FYI A posthumous publication of some of his work, along with a biographical sketch, calls him "Mr Clark"... - more confusingness :) Tony 1212 (talk) 05:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
On Wikipedia he is "Henry James Clark" as well ( with DEFAULTSORT:Clark, Henry James, however the facsimile signature included is hyphenated:  
I will copy the gist of the question also to the Taxacom mailing list, in case resident wisdom resides there as well :) Tony 1212 (talk) 06:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
In his publication Mind in nature, or, The origin of life, and the mode of development of animals (BHL), he is called Henry James Clark. And in his biographical memoir by A.S. Packard, too (PDF). --Thiotrix (talk) 06:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Dear all, (text below is copied from a post just now to the Taxacom mailing list)
OK, I have been doing some more digging. As Valéry Malecot states in an earlier post, Henry James Clark/Henry James-Clark was born to the Clark family, thus it is presumed that originally his surname was Clark, however he seems to have adopted "James-Clark" for his professional surname most (but perhaps not all) of the time; nevertheless in the posthumous biographical memoir by A.S. Packard, he is referred to as "Clark".
However, the clear majority of his authored taxa are in papers under the stated authorship of "[Professor] H. James-Clark", as also per his signature reproduced on the cited Wikipedia page. These cover the following taxa (possibly a few missed) :
"Lucernariae H. James-Clark", 1863 [1]
  • "Cleistocarpidae H. James-Clark", 1863 [1] - elsewhere given in text as "Cleistocarpidæ H. J. C."
  • "Eleutherocarpidae H. James-Clark", 1863 [1] - elsewhere given in text as "Eleutherocarpidæ H. J. C."
  • Bicosoecoidae [H. James-Clark, 1868] [5]
  • Codosigoidae [H. James-Clark, 1868] [5]
Genera: as per Nomenclator Zoologicus entries:
  • Calvadosia James-Clark 1863 Boston J. nat. Hist., 7, no. 4, 556. Coel [1]
  • Craterolophus James-Clark 1863 Boston J. nat. Hist., 7, no. 4, 539. Coel [1]
  • Haliclystus James-Clark 1863 Boston J. nat. Hist., 7, no. 4, 559. Coel [1]
  • Halimocyathus James-Clark 1863 Boston J. nat. Hist., 7, no. 4, 536. Coel [1]
  • Manania James-Clark 1863 Boston J. nat. Hist., 7, no. 4, 541. Coel [1]
  • Bicosoeca James-Clark 1866 Proc. Boston Soc. nat. Hist., 11, 16. Prot [2]
  • Codonoeca James-Clark 1866 Proc. Boston Soc. nat. Hist., 11, 16. Prot [2]
  • Codosiga James-Clark 1866 Proc. Boston Soc. nat. Hist., 11, 16. Prot [2] (**Amer. J. Sci. 92 in ING [4])
  • Salpingoeca James-Clark 1866 Proc. Boston Soc. nat. Hist., 11, 17. Prot (Flag.). [2] (**Amer. J. Sci. 92 in ING [4])
  • Heteromastix Clark 1865 Mind Nat., 146. Prot [3]

Species: (possibly not all located)
  • "Calvadosia campanulata H. James-Clark" [1]
  • "Craterolophus tethys H. James-Clark" [1]
  • "Haliclystus auricula H. James-Clark" [1]
  • "Haliclystus salpinx H. James-Clark" [1]
  • "Haliclystus octoradiatus H. James-Clark" [1]
  • "Halimocyathus platypus H. James-Clark" [1]
  • Heteromastix proteiformis Clark, 1865 [3]
  • Bicosoeca gracilipes H. James-Clark, 1868 [5]
  • Bicosoeca laustris H. James-Clark, 1868 [5]
  • Codosiga pulcherrimus H. James-Clark, 1868 [5]
  • Monas neglecta H. James-Clark, 1868 [5]
  • Salpingoeca gracilis H. James-Clark, 1868 [5]
From the above I would infer that the "correct" authorship for the majority of the above taxa would be "James-Clark", not "Clark" (or H.J. Clark); the exceptions being Heteromastix (genus) and Heteromastix proteiformis (species), both published under the authorship "Clark" (or H.J. Clark).
What do folk think of the above conclusion?
Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 04:08, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Here are the relevant references, with authorship as printed i.e. [sic]:
[1] "Art. XII - Prodromus of the History, Structure, and Physiology of the Order Lucernariæ". By Prof. Henry James-Clark, of Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.

Boston J. nat. Hist., 7, no. 4: 531-567 BHL: Includes: "Lucernariæ H. James-Clark" (new order) - elsewhere given in text as "Lucernariæ H. J. C." "Cleistocarpidæ H. James-Clark" (new family) - elsewhere given in text as "Cleistocarpidæ H. J. C." "Eleutherocarpidæ H. James-Clark" (new family) - elsewhere given in text as "Eleutherocarpidæ H. J. C." "Halimocyathus H. James-Clark" (new genus) - includes H. platypus H. James-Clark (new species) "Craterolophus H. James-Clark" (new genus) - includes C. tethys H. James-Clark (new species), "?C. convolvulus H. James-Clark" (new combination)* "Manania H. James-Clark" (new genus) - includes "M. auricula H. James-Clark" (new combination)* "Calvadosia H. James-Clark" (new genus) - includes C. campanulata H. James-Clark (new species) "Haliclystus H. James-Clark" (new genus) - includes H. auricula H. James-Clark (new species), H. salpinx H. James-Clark (new species), H. octoradiatus H. James-Clark (new species)

[2] Proc. Boston Soc. nat. Hist., 11: p. 16 et seq:

In "[Society Proceedings] June 20, 1866" (Pp. 15-25) BHL: Text reads: "Professor James-Clark stated that he had lately been engaged upon an investigation of the nature of Sponges..." Bicosœca, Codonœca, Codosiga and Salpingœca are described as nov. gen., with "species to be described in a forthcoming memoir"

[3] Henry James Clark: "Mind in nature, or, The origin of life, and the mode of development of animals". Appleton & Company, New York, 1865.

BHL: includes: "Heteromastix proteiformis, nov. gen. et sp."

[4] James-Clark, H. 1866 "Conclusive proofs on the animality of the ciliate sponges, and their affinities with the Infusoria Flagellata". American Journal of Science November 1866, s2-42 (126) 320-324; DOI:

"by H. James-Clark, A.B., B.S." On AJS website: Mentions in passing: "new genera" Bicosœca, Codosiga and Salpingœca (no species given)

Reprinted: Annals and Magazine of Natural History Ser. 3, vol. 19:

[5] H. James-Clark A.B. B.S. (1868) "XXII.—On the Spongiæ ciliatæ as Infusoria flagellata; or observations on the structure, animality, and relationship of Leucosolenia botryoides Bowerbank". Mem. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. 1: 305-340. BHL: Title says: "By H. James-Clark, A.B., B.S., Professor of Natural History in the Agicutural College of Pennsylvania"; running title: "Prof. H. James-Clark on the Spongiæ Ciliatæ"

Reprinted: Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 1:2, 133-142, ... includes: "Monas neglecta, nov. sp." "Bicosœca, nov. gen." - includes "B. gracilipes, nov. sp." Salpingoeca gracilis Bicosœcoidæ and Codosigoidæ are mentioned in text (?= established as new families) "Codosiga, nov. gen. (C. pulcherrimus, nov. sp.)" "Bicosœca lacustris, nov. spec."

The utter inability for English-language journals and databases of handling foreign names that do not confirm strictly to the structure [singular given name] [optional middle name or names] [singular family name] with any sort of consistency and without mangling them becomes extra amusing/frustrating when it affects the name of an English-speaking person. Circeus (talk) 11:57, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Well, I did wonder whether in the publication [3] under the name "Henry James Clark", "James Clark" might still be intended as a 2-part surname... when I worked for CSIRO, for a while our Divisional Chief was F. R. ("Roy") Harden Jones; Harden Jones being the surname. You can imagine that name giving indexers a bit of grief, and indeed it did, e.g. see ... Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 18:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Update on the taxon list above: I have just found via IRMNG/Nomenclator Zoologicus indexing, that there is another genus and species to add to the list: Clark/James Clark/James-Clark also described another new genus and species in reference [3], a freshwater sponge christened "Siphydora echinodes, nov. gen. et sp."" (no self-indicated authority, unfortunately), page available at . It is in Nomenclator Zoologicus as "Siphydora Clark 1865". It is included in at least one subsequent work ( as "Siphydora James Clark". Tony 1212 (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
An "Aha!" moment perhaps... Heteromastix (genus) and Heteromastix proteiformis (species), both published in the sole work listed above that is under the authorship "Henry James Clark" (thus previously suggested by me to be treated as "Clark") are listed as "Heteromastix, Jas.-Clk." and "Heteromastix proteiformis, Jas.-Clk." by the author himself, in publication [5]. Thus, I feel that this justifies citing the authorship of all taxa by the author in question as James-Clark. Thoughts? Regards - Tony Rees Tony 1212 (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]


When will the get a new theme/look? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by June627 (talkcontribs) 10:50, 25 September 2021.

This is Wikispecies. Questions regarding Wikipedia should be asked at the Wikipedia Village pump. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC).[]

Species group pagesEdit

I just came across the page Albomarginatus by chance. It seems to be meant for a species group containing the grasshopper species Chorthippus albomarginatus, but with an obviously poorly-chosen page name. It does make me wonder more generally though, should Wikispecies have pages for species groups at all? If so, what should the correct name for this page be? Monster Iestyn (talk) 02:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]

In my opinion, absolutely not. There might be an argument for using them to organize the genus page, but they are not true taxonomic entities and are even less informally regulated than suprafamilial ranks. (Sadly, the cross-rank homonymy system used in the ICZN means infrasubgeneric ranks are unlikely to ever be introduced in zoological nomenclature, which is too bad because species groups and the overabundance of subgenera make it clear IMO that zoologists could use one or two extra ranks between species and subgenus!) Circeus (talk) 04:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
technically there is, as the rank Superspecies is a valid rank, however I do not recall really seeing it ever used, at least not as a rank more as a convenience, species complex is also used but not as a rank. One of the arguments for PhyloCode was the capacity to add many more ranks. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 06:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]


This template has been modified and now there are seven Template:Tropicos, however now, with the same Tropicos template that has been used so far, an error of ((3)) appears, I would like someone to know Inform me of the matter which of the seven I should use so that the reference appears with the correct data. Gracias.--MILEPRI (talk) 10:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I do not use {{Tropicos}} in any of its forms preferring {{MBG}} and its family. However, there are some dedicted variants that link to local flora, for example {{MBG-VPA}} that can be useful, but they do require the Tropicos taxon ID. Andyboorman (talk) 11:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]

G. AbbeyEdit

Anyone want to give a second opinion on my notes at Talk:G. Abbey? Basically I think this botanist's full name is George Abbey, who lived from 1835 to 1917, according to some references I've given there. Monster Iestyn (talk) 00:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Looks fine to me. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 07:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Okay then, thanks, I'll update the page with his full name and other details. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
You should consider forwarding this information to IPNI. They are usually quite happy to get this sort of information of obscure abbreviated authors. Circeus (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I had wondered about that actually, if someone else doesn't do it first I'll send an email to them at some point when I have the chance. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  Done Just sent them an email. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Just got a reply stating they've updated the author record, so the changes should be visible tonight or tomorrow (depending on your timezone). Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Let's talk about the Desktop ImprovementsEdit


Have you noticed that some wikis have a different desktop interface? Are you curious about the next steps? Maybe you have questions or ideas regarding the design or technical matters?

Join an online meeting with the team working on the Desktop Improvements! It will take place on October 12th, 16:00 UTC on Zoom. It will last an hour. Click here to join.


  • Update on the recent developments
  • Sticky header - presentation of the demo version
  • Questions and answers, discussion


The meeting will not be recorded or streamed. Notes will be taken in a Google Docs file. The presentation part (first two points in the agenda) will be given in English.

We can answer questions asked in English, French, Polish, and Spanish. If you would like to ask questions in advance, add them on the talk page or send them to

Olga Vasileva (the team manager) will be hosting this meeting.

Invitation link

We hope to see you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) 15:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Hello! I'd like to remind that the meeting will happen today. You are welcome to join! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 15:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Remove main namespace from wgExtraSignatureNamespacesEdit

I am planning to remove the main namespace from the wgExtraSignatureNamespaces configuration setting on this wiki. I think this will have very little impact, but letting you know just in case. For more context, see task T291630 (although I'm happy to reply here if you have any questions).

Currently, that configuration setting affects:

It was configured that way in 2014 for all "special" wikis (basically, anything other than the Wikimedia projects with multiple language versions), on the assumption that they often have discussions, including their "village pump" equivalent, in [main namespace]. This doesn't seem correct for this wiki. We're planning to use that config setting for future discussion-related features, and it would probably be unexpected if they showed up in the main namespace here.

Please let me know if there's any problem with this. Thanks. Matma Rex (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Thank you for the information, Matma Rex. I think you're right in that Wikispecies is even more special than most other "special" wikis: due to the very specialized scope of the project we sometimes need to do things a bit differently than most of the more broader scoped sister projects. Nonetheless we always adapt very well to changes, and that's true both for our individual contributors as well as the Wikispecies community as a whole. We rely rather heavily on co-operation and integration with Wikidata, but the changes you refer to will most likely have no impact on that collaboration. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC).[]
The change has been applied now. Matma Rex (talk) 11:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

The Ngātiwai tribe as an authorEdit

According to this article, the authors of Cylix tupareomanaia are "Short, Trnski and Ngātiwai", the latter being "the Ngātiwai tribe". How will we model this? Both are already on Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Generally speaking, Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes (CoF) is the best and most up-to-date source of information when it comes to ichthyology-related taxonomy. They're hosted by the California Academy of Sciences and generally better updated than for example FishBase (despite the fact that FishBase use CoF as a baseline reference for their own databases and therefore should be on a par). I'm soon to be temporarily kidnapped by my friends since it's my birthday and we're heading out, but here's what my short examination came up with, for now: This is what CoF currently has to say about this taxon:
tupareomanaia, Cylix Short [G. A.], Trnski [T.] & Ngātiwai [K. of] in Short & Trnski 2021:808, Figs. 1–6 [Ichthyology & Herpetology v. 109 (no. 3); ref. 38639] Waiatapaua Bay, Whangaruru, New Zealand, 35°19'18.7"S, 174°22'08.1"E, depth 14 meters, Holotype: AIM MA122274. Paratypes: NMNZ P.046322 (1), P.056154 (1). Valid as Cylix tupareomanaia Short, Trnski & Ngātiwai 2021.
Current status: Valid as Cylix tupareomanaia Short, Trnski & Ngātiwai 2021. Syngnathidae: Syngnathinae. Distribution: New Zealand: Taitokerau Northland. Habitat: marine.
From the above "ref. 38639" reference i.e. Ichthyology & Herpetology 109(3): 806–835 I gather that the letter "K." in the above "Ngātiwai [K. of]" authorship refers to Kaumātua which means "elders of" in the native language of the Ngātiwai tribe. Hence, according to the Catalog of Fishes the authors are Graham A. Short, Thomas Trnski and "the Elders of the Ngātiwai". This seems very, very odd from an ICZN point of view, but perhaps the elder's as a group are seen as some form of authority like for example the IUCN or a board of trustees at an institution or university. Also, the Ichthyology & Herpetology article was published in September 20, so perhaps it's still a bit too early to say for sure how this will end. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC).[]
Its actually likely an effort to recognise indigenous knowledge which is an important issue in the region. How we accomodate that in our format though I am not sure. Would you like me to ask Richard Pyle for a comment? Apart from running ZooBank he is also an icthyologist. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 03:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
The paper itself is DOI: 10.1643/I2020136 and is free to read (possibly open source - I can't find the licence). It attributes the name as "Cylix tupareomanaia Short, Trnski, and Ngātiwai, new species"; the "Etymology" section says "The species epithet tupareomanaia is a neologism gifted by kaumātua (tribal elders) of Ngātiwai...", while the paper's "Acknowledgments" say: "We give sincere thanks to Hori Parata and kaumātua of Ngātiwai for the partnership with the Auckland Museum and in collaborating with the naming of Cylix tupareomanaia..." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Pigsonthewing: - "(possibly open source - I can't find the licence)" - it's CC-BY, given in the 'Data Accessibility' section just above the Acknowledgments - MPF (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Thank you, but that licences the "the published images and illustrations", not the text. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Zoobank includes the tribe for the authorship of the species, but have no [visible] author page for that tribe, likely because the tribe is not the author of the publication. You can do the same here, you gives the correct attribution, as given in the original description, and maybe with a little explicative sentence in the species page, but without create the page Ngātiwai here. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]


Please do not use the template splast in anything other than lists of species. It is causing unwanted line breaks, for example Arctium where it has been used in the typus. I appreciate that this has occurred since splast was modified to produce a line break, so also please do not go around adding unwanted <br> after this template, as we are now producing several different page formats. Or at least run your preferred format across the Pump for discussion. Andyboorman (talk) 13:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I fully agree with Andyboorman in this matter. The {{splast}} template has now been removed from the Arctium page mentioned above, however the code for the old incorrect version (with "splast" intentionally left un-edited by Andy, to leave as an example) can be seen on the left-hand side on this page. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC).[]

The Wikipedia LibraryEdit

Just want to draw your attention (in case you're not aware) that you can apply for access to The Wikipedia Library. This grants you free access to a number of journals and major resources like JSTOR, Taylor & Francis and Springer-Nature (the only noticeable missing major publisher is Wiley). This should help you access some journals that your university or institution might not have subscription to. OhanaUnitedTalk page 07:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I was not aware of this initiative, this is absolutely fantastic. A huge thank you to all the people who made this possible!--Hiouf (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Agreed. Many thanks --Andyboorman (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Does it include Brill and/or Magnolia Press? I'd consider it if it had the Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera or Zoo/Phytotaxa (since scihub is not updated since late 2019), but the site makes it very hard to check up on what is or not included. Circeus (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I actually signed up to this a while back. I tried it out with JSTOR for instance. It didn't give me access to any journals I particularly wanted though (last I checked), but the idea of the Wikipedia Library itself is a good one nevertheless. Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Circeus: Brill and Magnolia Press are currently not included. However, both are on the suggestion list and you can upvote the ones that you want to see. Of course it depends on the publisher's willingness (see Wiley). @Monster Iestyn: JSTOR's access description says "The content set currently available to the Wikipedia editors includes all of JSTOR's archival journal collections and the 19th Century British Pamphlets collection." It's possible that they have expanded the collection since you last tried. But if you can't access some journals within JSTOR, you can raise it at this Meta page. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Monster Iestyn: I managed to get a 2021 paper from JSTOR. And indeed, it would be fantastic to have Zootaxa. But I'm already very grateful for what's provided. It's a small but important step toward open-source science. --Hiouf (talk) 07:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Movement Charter Drafting Committee (MCDC) Election StartsEdit

Voting for the election for the members for the Movement Charter drafting committee is now open. In total, 70 Wikimedians from around the world are running for 7 seats in these elections.

Voting is open from October 12 to October 24, 2021.

The committee will consist of 15 members in total: The online communities vote for 7 members, 6 members will be selected by the Wikimedia affiliates through a parallel process, and 2 members will be appointed by the Wikimedia Foundation. The plan is to assemble the committee by November 1, 2021.

  • We are piloting a voting advice application for this election. Click yourself through the tool and you will see which candidate is closest to you!

--SOyeyele (WMF) (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Expansion depthEdit

Hello, is expansion depth still an issue? For instance, Anas formosa is in the category Category:Pages where expansion depth is exceeded, but this does not obviously affect functionality. I wish to create Neoaves, which may tip other birds over this limit. Were this a problem, I guess it would be possible to hard code eg Aves (say from Animalia or Amniota down to Aves), as presumably most of the changes occur lower down; thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 19:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Maculosae tegmine lyncis: I'm not 100% sure, but my best guess is yes, it's still a problem. I base that upon that for example MediaWiki:Expansion-depth-exceeded-category (and a MediaWiki module?) are involved and those same pages are also still in use on for example Meta-Wiki and Wikipedia. However I do have a vague memory of a discussion (then) saying this problem would go away together with a future MediaWiki software update, and maybe that update has gone live by now..? Perhaps someone of the other administrators have more updated information? I'll send them a ping: (AccassidyAlvaroMolinaAndyboormanBurmeisterCirceusDan KoehlDannyS712EncycloPeteyFaendalimasFloscuculi) (Franz XaverGeniHector BottaiKeith EdkinsKoavfMariusmMKOliverMPFNeferkheperreOhanaUnited) (PigsonthewingRLJThiotrix)
Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 04:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC).[]
It still exists but I don't think there is any workaround at this juncture. I recommend making the page exactly as you would have otherwise. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I'm going to sound like a broken record, but here's my take: this technical issue wouldn't have arisen if we'd ever had a proper policy in place as to which kind of and how many ranks/clades belongs in the taxonavigation to begin with.
I've always been dubious of the will coming from some corners to make these templates reflect cladistics exactly (and not just because of this technical limitation, I should add). For starters having 11 groups between infraclass Aves and the order alone seems excessive to say the least. Circeus (talk) 13:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Circeus: Propose a solution and I'd be happy to see the discussion. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Look, I'm not going to pretend this has an easy sol—...
Well, no, there are plenty of easy solutions (for example "Only Linnean and linnean-adjacent ranks belong in the TaxoNav template because it's a taxonomic, not phylogenetic navigation"). But no easy solution is going to be easily accepted by both sides of the issue.
The real point is, making a decision on this issue requires a thorough debate/discussion, and historically the Wikispecies userbase has just not been very good at landing on an agreed decision. Or indeed, even admitting that a decision ought to be made at all! Which is why we still have dubious categories such as Category:Publications by topic or category:epibionts: I never felt I had community support to deal with them. Circeus (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
If it were up to me I would scrap the entirety of Help:Contents in its current form and start over from scratch, documenting actual practice in all areas of the site (note how clades are not even mentioned in Help:Taxonavigation section) and resolving divergences and omissions as they come to the fore. As is, we do not even have a written policy that says what papers are appropriate to use in reference sections or as a template! Circeus (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Pretty sure it is and I wouldn't expect it to change. As I understand it expansion depth limits are a problem on most wikis only due to old style hacky templates that have in a large part been replaced with lua based designs. So not much drive to change the 40 limit now. While it would be technically possible to reduce the problem by dumping multiple layers into a single template that would be at the cost of losing a single set of universal templates. So not optomistic on this one.Geni (talk) 20:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Does anyone have access to the server? The default settings are controlled by $wgMaxTemplateDepth = 40 (on line 4873 here); apparently each wiki has a file LocalSettings.php on the server and you can "tweak the parameters" [1]. The guidance for line 4873 reads "Maximum recursion depth for templates within templates. The current parser adds two levels to the PHP call stack for each template, and xdebug limits the call stack to 100 by default. So this should hopefully stop the parser before it hits the xdebug limit." This suggest the limit could safely be increased to say 48 - which would be enough for Anas formosa, which I think involves 43 templates. Thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 22:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]