Wikispecies:Village Pump

; Archives
	;

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:

Template:Documentation is brokenEdit

{{documentation}} is giving Lua error in Module:Documentation at line 140: message: type error in message cfg.container (string expected, got nil). on pages that transclude it. The last edit appears to be mine of 1 December, but MediaWiki is telling me that that has already ben reverted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per Module talk:Documentation, the problem is that Module:Documentation is imported from en.wiki and Module:Documentation/config was imported from Meta-Wiki. It turns out that en.wiki and Meta-Wiki's implementations of the Documentation Lua modules aren't the same, so the two module pages need to be imported from the same wiki to work properly. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andy Mabbett and Monster Iestyn: So its should be fairly easy to fix then. The question is whether we prefer the enWP or Meta versions of the Documentation Module and its config file? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Presumably, the Meta: versions have better multi-lingual support? The sooner we have Global templates and modules, usable across wikis, the better. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)aReply[reply]

I agree. The most straightforward procedure would be to delete Module:Documentation and Module:Documentation/config and then reimport them from meta:Module:Documentation and meta:Module:Documentation/config. Both imports should be done more or less simultaneously, so that the two imported versions are in synch. Note: at the moment the two files are each linked to by 1,903 different Wikispecies templates, so all in all the reimport may make an impact on several tens of thousands of pages. Any thoughts or objections? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

┌──────────┘ I extend a heads-up to all administrators so that they can contribute with thoughts and ideas: 1234qwer1234qwer4—Accassidy—AlvaroMolina—Andyboorman—Burmeister—Circeus—Dan Koehl—DannyS712—EncycloPetey—Faendalimas– Floscuculi—Geni—Hector Bottai—Kaganer—Keith Edkins—Koavf—MKOliver—MPF—Mariusm—Neferkheperre– OhanaUnited—PeterR—Pigsonthewing—RLJ—Thiotrix.
Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Keeping sync with Meta makes sense to me until/unless we have global templates. :/ —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's only one way to find out if this is the right thing to do...

As I've cautioned elsewhere, we need to watch for the template being overwritten, if it's a child of something else that is imported from en.Wikipedia Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EN is likely to be more actively maintained but that means more changes so meta may be easier.Geni (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I haven't had time to check the actual code yet, but there are also what looks to be well maintained versions at MediaWiki: mw:Module:Documentation and mw:Module:Documentation/config. If the MediaWiki versions and their links are good, then maybe this is the way to go? My reason for this is that MediaWiki is (or at least should be) the main "repository" for much of our wiki source code, much in the same way Commons is our library for pictures and other media. This is also reflected by the fact that the MediaWiki page on Global templates and modules is the main hub for proposals to make templates shared across all wikis: for example, Meta's page on the same issue is only a soft redirect to the MediaWiki page. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist Any update on this? It has been nearly a month now, and nothing has changed as far as I can tell. (If you don't have time still, then that's understandable) Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pigsonthewing Ditto, except almost another month has passed. Are you or another admin going to fix the Documentation template? Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not a Lua coder; it's beyond my skills to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...I thought all you had to do was import the corresponding Module pages from one of the other wikis, e.g. MediaWiki as Tommy Kronkvist suggested? That surely doesn't require Lua skills as far as I know. Monster Iestyn (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Circumscription of PinusEdit

I have been looking through the infrageneric circumscription of Pinus. The usage and naming of the two subgenera are now fairly well established with only a few exceptions. However, below this I have problems establishing where our circumscription comes from, for example, Sections and Subsections under Pinus subg. Strobus seems to be a mish-mash of the two references cited, which only agree in part. The protologue does not deal with sections. I hope to be enlightened in due course, before making any major changes. Please see Gymnosperm Database, as an alternative. Andyboorman (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In addition, there is some differences in species acceptance across differing resources, for example Pinus uyematsui possible synonymn of Pinus morrisonicola. Andyboorman (talk) 08:45, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MPF: & @RLJ: As main editors on these pages, do you have objections to me bringing Pinus in line with our references, Conifer Database, Gymnosperm Database and more current publications? Some species may disappear in synonymy, by the way, as well as some adjustments in tribal and subtribal circumscriptions. Andyboorman (talk) 09:17, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Andyboorman and RLJ: - I stopped contributing on wikis a couple of months ago due to the way I was treated - bullied off - by a very senior wikimedian on Commons; the way I was made to feel very unwelcome and unappreciated. But in case my opinion is still of interest or value, I would advise strongly against Farjon's Kew Conifer Database in particular, and to a lesser extent the Gymnosperm Database too, which has gone downhill in recent years due to increasing convergence with a lot of the very poor taxonomic decisions by Farjon in the Conifer Database. A far better option would be Businský's work; he has (unlike Farjon) studied all the taxa in person in the wild, and his observation and taxonomic judgement is considerably better. Case in point above; Businský's illustrations clearly show that Pinus uyematsui is strikingly distinct (slender cones with thin scales; seeds small, with a long wing 2-3x seed length: similar to Pinus peuce or Pinus wallichiana) from Pinus morrisonicola (stout cones with thick, woody scales; seeds large, with a short wing approx equal to the seed length: more similar to Pinus parviflora or Pinus flexilis). They should not be treated as synonymous; Hayata (who described both) was quite correct in considering them distinct. Similarly, Businský has been to Hainan and studied Pinus fenzeliana in the wild (Businský specimen from Hainan); he is correct in saying that it is absolutely not the same as Pinus wangii subsp. kwangtungensis (as Farjon claims, without evidence), but is the same as Averyanov's much later Pinus cernua.

On my talk page some time ago, you commented "... I would much rather trust those operating out of professional academic institutes, such as RBG Kew". Yes, I am in general strongly in favour of following an authority; however, that authority has to be earned to be trusted; it has to show itself in accord with evidence. IOC for birds has that trust for me; there are hardy any of its decisions at odds with evidence, and those there have been, usually end up being sorted sooner or later (e.g. the recent split of Larus brachyrhynchus from Larus canus; long overdue, but done, eventually). But Kew, while Farjon remains a commanding 'back seat driver' in conifers, does not. It is full of arbitary decisions that do not reflect either specimen morphology evidence, published data, or internal consistency. Sadly, I have to conclude, Farjon is not a competent authority. He had far too many cases of poor taxonomic judgement (across multiple families and genera), often clouded with misidentifications (sometimes glaring) on herbarium specimens (I know someone who is compiling a lengthy list of them, in just one conifer genus alone). I would actually contend that Farjon has been the biggest obstacle to progress in conifer taxonomy and nomenclature in recent decades, and I know of several other conifer experts who would agree with that. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much, MPF, for your valuable comment! Businsky's work is available as PDF file:

Indeed @MPF: thanks for your input. I agree that WS has to be conservative when it comes to species and so Businsky will be better than PWO/Farjon. However, not sure about his infrageneric circumscription, as it seems very fine grained and the recent phylogenetic work does not fully support his position. I will get to add the citations in due course. Andyboorman (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Businský, R. 2008. The genus Pinus L., pines: contribution to knowledge. A monograph with cone drawings of all species of the world by Ludmila Businská. Acta Pruhoniciana 88: 1–126. PDF (Text) Photos 1–32 Photos 33–42 Figures 1–73 Reference page.

--RLJ (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! The paper copy is better, it includes all the illustrations (and a set of photos of the 17 rarest pine taxa) that are not in the pdf; well worth getting! - MPF (talk) 00:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is not easy! Have a look at my page for Pinus subsect. Cembroides, as an example of trying to do a WS page where consensus is problematic. Comments please particularly from @MPF: and @RLJ:. Apologies. Andyboorman (talk) 09:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Andyboorman and RLJ: - definitely not easy! There's three different factors of consensus; (1) whether the species has been accepted by everyone or not (only Pinus cembroides has been universally accepted among the true pinyons; one person or another has included all the others as infraspecific taxa in it), (2) the circumscription of each species (while Pinus cembroides is universally accepted, what infrataxa if any should be included within it, is much disputed), and (3) what taxa should be included in Pinus subsect. Cembroides, and which belong in other subsections, is also disputed. I saw you moved Pinus maximartinezii and Pinus pinceana to the subsection, but not Pinus rzedowskii; yet these three are a clear monophyletic group (Clade I in Syring et al. 2007, and Montes et al. 2019 & Montes et al. 2022), which deserves taxonomic recognition. Although Montes et al. put all 3 in subsect. Cembroides, their own data show that the three are phylogenetically distinct from the rest of the subsection. So while Businský treated his Pinus subsect. Rzedowskianae as monotypic, its recognition as including all three makes very good sense, and I think we should continue to follow this here as I had done before. - MPF (talk) 15:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes not easy! Except for Pinus johannis all taxa are accepted by both parties, only the ranks are disputed. Personally I would prefer the newer concept, but anyway, it should be made clear which concept is followed, and the synonyms which the other party accepts could be noted with "Accepted by POWO [or the other party]". --RLJ (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MPF: & @RLJ: Thanks for your well considered comments and I have adjusted the subsection using them. I will place comments on the Discussion Page and individual taxon pages in due course. Andyboorman (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andyboorman and RLJ: - thanks! I guess we should perhaps mention that Montes et al. include subsect. Rzedowskianae within their broad circumscription of subsect. Cembroides. Worth adding too though, the 3 species circumscription of subsect. Rzedowskianae was obvious from morphology long before the genetic data supported it; the Arboretum de Villardebelle website already had that circumscription in its earliest available archive from January 2004. - MPF (talk) 21:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MPF: & @RLJ: And for my next trick! I propose that Pinus subg. Pinus be re-edited mainly using Jin et al. (2021) as the latest treatment. Any thoughts, as it is much broader than Businsky, although there are many similarities in species composition? Andyboorman (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andyboorman and RLJ: thanks for the heads-up! The great majority I'd agree with, but the following points:

Businský (and others) is right in splitting Pinus hondurensis from the very dissimilar Pinus caribaea (which is much more similar to P. occidentalis than it is to P. hondurensis).
The infraspecific taxa of Pinus contorta are best treated at subspecific rank (as we already do here), not varietal.
They've missed that Pinus douglasiana (1943) is long predated by Pinus gordoniana (1847; a widely overlooked name, despite it being well illustrated in its protologue [not helped by another Silba & Farjon balls-up confusing it with the very different P. montezumae from a completely different part of Mexico!]).
Pinus apulcensis is better treated as a separate species from Pinus pseudostrobus.
Pinus washoensis is rightly a synonym of Pinus ponderosa subsp. ponderosa from their own data in Appendix 1 Fig. S1, as well as several other authors.
Pinus uncinata being split from Pinus mugo (rather than being a subspecies of it) is also not supported by their own Appendix 1 Fig. S1, nor other genetic work (e.g. Heuertz et al. 2010, Journal of Biogeography 37: 541–556; Celiński et al. 2017, Comptes Rendus Biologies 340: 339-348); I don't see any reasons to change from Christensen's very thorough 1987 monograph.
It omits a handful of recently described species from E Asia and Mexico and a few species they couldn't access (Pp. amamiana, cubensis, johannis, occidentalis, tropicalis; see Appendix 1); these should be retained, as there isn't any evidence from this paper to synonymise them.
Of their sectional and subsectional arrangement, I'd agree with all except Pinus heldreichii (I reckon Businský has this right, as a subsection of Sect. Pinus) and the Pinus latteri - Pinus merkusii pair, which are both morphologically and ecologically closer to subsect. Pinaster than to subsect. Pinus; I suspect further work may refine their allocation from what Jin et al. give.

I'll take another look in the next day or two to see if there's anything else I've missed! - MPF (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the above points! Andyboorman (talk) 09:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Project sourcesEdit

There are several unanswered questions & suggestions, on Help talk:Project sources. Please take a look; and maybe add it to your watchlist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Species by IUCN Red List categoryEdit

Maintaining the use of subcategories of Category:Species by IUCN Red List category on pages about individual species is a Sisyphean task; and one that we are certain to fail to undertake in a timely manner.

It would be better to replace the individual category code to such pages, where they exist, with {{IUCN}}, and make that pull in the relevant category from Wikidata, on-the-fly, so that when the relevant Wikidata is updated, a happens relatively promptly, the page is automatically recategorised. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Koehler (1912)Edit

Hello, in early 1912 Koehler wrote preliminary notes for the Echinodermata collected during the Charcot Expedition, this is {{Koehler, 1912a}} including brief descriptions of new taxa. Later the same year a full and big report was published {{Koehler, 1912}} including much more elaborate descriptions.

My problem is that external sources such as WoRMS sometimes takes as reference for the original descriptions the preliminary notes, and sometimes the full report. I am uncomfortable sometimes choosing one and sometimes the other. Exemples:

Amphipneustes mortenseni Koehler, 1912 [1] is stated in WoRMS as to be from the preliminary notes {{Koehler, 1912a}} BHL while the complete description is available in the full report [2]

at the opposite

Parapneustes reductus Koehler, 1912 [3] is stated in WoRMS as to be from the full report {{Koehler, 1912}} [4] while it have been firstly, though briefly, described in the preliminary notes [5].

As the preliminary notes were published a bit earlier than the full report I'm inclined to consider them as the "original description" for all the new treated taxa inside those preliminary notes (with why not an explanatory note in {{Koehler, 1912a}} and in the taxa pages). Anyway in my opinion it must be either one or the other, but not a mixture of both as it is currentluy in WoRMS. Your views? if you have some. Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Authority for order amphibian Anura (frogs etc.)Edit

There appears to be some dispute regarding the authorship for the ampibian order Anura, currently given on Wikispecies as Fischer von Waldheim, 1813, but on Wikipedia as "Duméril, 1806 (as Anoures)". I looked into this further, and it seems that the Duméril attribution (now re-dated to 1805 based on the publication history of the work in question) is championed by Alain Dubois of the Paris Natural History Museum, while the Fischer von Waldheim attribution is championed by the American Museum of Natural History, as expressed in their "Amphibians of the World" Database, and the 2 parties cannot agree...

Basically the Dubois view (reiterated in several publications and in a Taxacom post at http://taxacom.markmail.org/thread/fgep2py66qrafntb) is that, although Duméril, 1805, introduced the name in French ("Anoures") and described it as a "famille", neither of these disqualify it from being used (in latinised form) as the earliest acceptable attribution for this taxon; he apparently considers that Duméril's "famille" designation not exactly equivalent to present day concept of family per ICZN terminology, arguing that our modern concept of family did not exist at that time. On the other hand, the AMNH view is that Duméril's name was introduced as a family (and thus cannot be re-used as an order), and further that its French form renders it unavailable at family rank anyway; in their words:

Anoures Duméril, 1805, Zool. Analyt. Meth. Nat. Class. Anim.: 91, 93. Unavailable family-group name for frogs within Duméril's order Batracii. Dubois, 2004, Alytes, 22: 1–14, regarded this as the original use of Anura, but Frost, Grant, Faivovich, Bain, Haas, Haddad, de Sá, Channing, Wilkinson, Donnellan, Raxworthy, Campbell, Blotto, Moler, Drewes, Nussbaum, Lynch, Green, and Wheeler, 2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297: 357, who beyond the fact that this is an explicit family-group name, saw no justification in recognizing non-Latin names in ranks not regulated by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Dubois and Raffaëlli, 2012, Alytes, 28: 86, and Fouquette and Dubois, 2014, Checklist N.A. Amph. Rept.: 253, continued to argue for this being the oldest available name for the taxon composed of all frogs, avoiding Dumeril's own words that this is the "Famille. Anoures". (from https://amphibiansoftheworld.amnh.org/Amphibia/Anura)

I did raise this discrepancy on Taxacom last month, but was unable to draw much comment on who is currently best to follow. Thoughts, advice anyone? Tony 1212 (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I note that Dubois et al. have clearly put a huge amount of work into "their" most recent classification of Amphibia ("New concepts and methods for phylogenetic taxonomy and nomenclature in zoology, exemplified by a new ranked cladonomy of recent amphibians (Lissamphibia)", 2021, accessible at https://www.biotaxa.org/megataxa/article/view/megataxa.5.1.1/65518), but that does not negate the fact that the Americans (it seems) continue to hold a different view... Tony 1212 (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately there has always been a lot of argument between European and North American Herpetologists on frog issues. Personally I would not be shocked if they are both wrong. I do not know that there is an answer without just picking a side on this. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 18:58, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories for taxon pagesEdit

Hi, should we be using categories such as Category:Taxa described in 1758, Category:Genera, Category:Accepted species name, etc? I ask because I've noticed User:Philippe rogez in particular has been adding a lot of these kinds of categories to taxon pages recently, and Wikispecies's Help pages currently don't mention categories for taxon pages (except for the "Author taxa" ones). I also don't know if there's any old Village Pump discussions to refer to either. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikispecies:Village_Pump/Archive_47#Category:Accepted_species_name (consensus for not use); Wikispecies:Village_Pump/Archive_41#Year-of-description_Categories_—_do_we_need_them?//Wikispecies:Village_Pump/Archive_49#Category:New_genus-group_name_2014 (not reached to a consensus ??!); Wikispecies's Help pages are outdated, several discussion/consensus in VillaPump not added on it!! Regards Burmeister (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikimania 2023 Welcoming Program SubmissionsEdit

Do you want to host an in-person or virtual session at Wikimania 2023? Maybe a hands-on workshop, a lively discussion, a fun performance, a catchy poster, or a memorable lightning talk? Submissions are open until March 28. The event will have dedicated hybrid blocks, so virtual submissions and pre-recorded content are also welcome. If you have any questions, please join us at an upcoming conversation on March 12 or 19, or reach out by email at wikimania@wikimedia.org or on Telegram. More information on-wiki.

SapindalesEdit

Heads-up: new paper (open access) on Sapindales - MPF (talk) 11:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template added to taxon page. Andyboorman (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IpomoeaEdit

Hello. If you happen to be around the Ipomoea pages, according to Wood et al. (2020), infrageneric circumscriptions are no longer supported without considerable further research. Therefore please feel free to edit out species links to subgenera, series and so on. Much obliged - Andyboorman (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested articlesEdit

Does Wikispecies:Requested articles serve any purpose? Does anyone monitor it and work on the requests? I see regular additions to it, but nothing seems to be removed, and the links remain resolutely red. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possibly not so much on this wiki it's a bit not needed really because of our scope. I will say I never use it. Does not mean I am against it being there though some may find it useful. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 04:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Add topic

Archives
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	(2021-06-05/2021-09-24)	58	(2021-09-25/2022-01-24)
59	(2022-01-26/2022-02-27)	60	(2022-02-27/2022-04-13)
61	(2022-04-14/2022-05-10)	62	(2022-07-01/2023-12-17)
63	(2022-12-24/2023-xx-xx)