Open main menu

Wikispecies:Village Pump

(Redirected from Wikispecies:Village pump)

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 {{Ping}} 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:

Post a comment
if you use the title box, you don't need to put a title in the body
Archive
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/…)

Contents


A standard for private collectionsEdit

Many species types, especially holotypes are being held in private collections rather then in public museums. Eventually these collections will be transferred to museums (when the collector dies), but we must keep track of these collections in a standard way, the same as we manage the museums. Therefore I recommend to:

  1. Group the private collections in the same way we do with Repositories page for the museums, possibly in Private collections.
  2. Devise standard naming and create a page for each private collection.
  3. Create a category for each private collection.

Obviously, the collector's name will be part of the page's name.

For example: the collection Private collection of Michael Schülke, Berlin can be named Coll. Michael Schülke with page & category carrying the same name. Any ideas? Mariusm (talk) 10:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, I would suggest adding the city to the name of the collection and a notation indicating it is private, using your example P.Coll. Michael Schülke: Berlin cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  AgreeTommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC).
I prefer for clarity to construct the names as follows: <Last + Middle name>, <First name> collection. Most of the private collections are of insects and arachnids, which very few users contribute to, hence the little interest in this subject. I created Private collections; Assing, Volker collection and Category: Assing, Volker collection Mariusm (talk) 08:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. I would suggest the format, "Name" Private Collection for simplicity and consistency, as example Category:Volker Assing Private Collection. Burmeister (talk) 13:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
@Burmeister: As for "Volker Assing" instead of "Assing, Volker", it is always better to use the Last-Name first to keep the alphabetical order more accessible, and since many collection-names are first-name-acronimized in the papers. As for "Private Collection" instead of "Collection", many if not all of these private collections will be deposited eventually in a museum, as a bequest, where they will be called merely "collections", therefore it's better to omit the "private" in the actual names. Mariusm (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
In herpetological collections they use Name-Last pattern, as example G. Brunner Collection, Adolpho Lutz Collection and others, and in wikispecies we already use Name-Last for taxa categories (Category:Volker Assing taxa), so for simplicity and consistency I think Name-Last Collection more appropriate than Last-Name Collection; the alphabetical issue may be reach through defaultsort; in the "private" issue i'm agree with you, is unnecessary. Burmeister (talk) 14:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@Burmeister, Tommy Kronkvist, Faendalimas: On further reflection, and to be consistent with the author handling, I ultimately see the point in what Burmeister is saying. Accordingly, the names will be constructed as follows: <First name> <Last name> private collection. For example: Volker Assing private collection and Category: Volker Assing private collection. I hope this settles the issue. Mariusm (talk) 08:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Yep, sounds good to me. Also, ultimately the sorting will be handled by DEFAULTSORT anyway, so we might just as well stick to the naming scheme we already use for all the author pages, e.g. <First name> <Last name> etc… just as Mariusm and Burmeister agreed upon above. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk),22:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC).
I've added a Category:Private collections link to the "See also" sections of the Category:Repositories, Repositories (A–M), and Repositories (N–Z) pages. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC).

Same journal?Edit

Are the pages Videnskabelige Meddelelser fra Dansk Naturhistorisk Forening i Kjøbenhavn and ISSN 0373-3874 (i.e. Videnskabelige Meddelelser fra den Naturhistoriske Forening i Kjøbenhavn) refering to the same Danish journal? If they do, they should be merged. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC).

Yes most definitely IMO. IPNI standard form is Vidensk. Meddel. Naturhist. Foren. Kjøbenhavn and ID 1089-2 Andyboorman (talk) 10:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC).

Species Plantarum TemplatesEdit

This discussion has been transcribed from @RLJ: and @EncycloPetey: concerning the best template to use when linking to Species Plantarum. I agree a wider discussion is appropriate. In addition, it appears that no one template is perfect!.

There is no need to circumvent the template. It already displays the author's name as part of the template function. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

* I forgot the prefix {{a| . I think a direct link to the author article in such a much-used template is appropriate. Other users see this the same way.
* The "Tomus" contradicts Help:Reference section as well as the formats used in IPNI and WCSP. Volume numbers are normally not prefixed by "volume", "Tomus" or whatever. There are users who don't use this template and who correct LSP1 to LSP because of this. The first edition is clear because of the publication year 1753, the second one is additionally indicated in the title..
* I think it is absolute nonsense to have four templates for the same work: Template:LSP, Template:LSP1, Template:Linnaeus, 1753 and Template:Linnaeus, 1753a, of which three currently have an idiosyncratic format.
* Other opinions would be of interest. --RLJ (talk) 11:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
{{LSP}} does not allow for a page range. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
* {{LSP|1|1–2}} -> Linnaeus, C. 1753. Species Plantarum 1: 1–2.
But let's have a community-wide conversation about what format(s) we want and where to use them. It certainly seems we could reduce the number of templates in use. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:51, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Over to the community. Andyboorman (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Bit out of my depthEdit

I noticed that Abisara aita aita & co was on the orphaned pages list. On Abisara aita (the redirect Archigenes aita) there were red links to Archigenes aita aita, so I figured the pages of the subspecies should be moved to reflect a new genus name. But I realized that I'm a bit out of my depth, both in my knowledge of taxonomy (high-school level) and Wikispecies-specific formatting (the templates). So I figured I'd better ask before I blindly start changing templates and creating new ones. --Azertus (talk) 22:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Comb. ined.Edit

Does the community think that taxa described as comb. ined. (combinatio inedita), a provisionally accepted name without published description, deserve their own taxon page or not? Personally I think a discrete taxon page is outside the scope of the project without consensus, but that is just my opinion. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 11:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I would not create such a taxon page. If it is about a new combination, it means, that a wellknown taxon presently is still classified in another genus or at a different rank, and a reclassification or change of rank is pending. I propose the following solution: create a taxon page under the presently existing validly published name, even if this name is based on an outdated classificaiton, and add a note, possibly at the talk page, which cites sources that suggest, that a change of name (new combination) is pending. Anyway, a new combination does not need a description. So, it seems possible, that WS taxon pages may fulfill all requirements needed to validate a new combination. OK, WS does not have an ISSN or ISBN as required by ICN, Art. 29, but sometimes it might happen, that something like this will be created. As far as I see, the requirements of ICN, Art. 41 seem to be fulfilled by many of our taxon pages. In my opinion, we should not do anything, which might by chance result in an unintentionial validation of a new combination by WS. Validating new combinations certainly is out of our scope. --Franz Xaver (talk) 12:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
WS, by its open editing policy, would not be sufficiently secure to make valid combination changes. We really can only record published changes. New generic combinations should be treated as page moves, leaving redirects. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Aside from the fact I would refrain from coining names unless they are already used as nom. prov. elsewhere, names that are specifically noted as not published, hence technically not accepted, are automatically excluded from being published (Art. 36.1). Circeus (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Same author?Edit

Does anyone know whether the similarly named pages K. Rajmohana and Rajmohana Keloth perhaps refer to the same author? Both are listed as Indian entomologists, and both are mentioned on the Rajmohana disambiguation page. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC).

Not an entomologist, but see here. Andyboorman (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Merged into the Rajmohana Keloth page. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC).
It's probably a patronymic, FWIW. Those are commons in part of India (hence the abbreviation). Circeus (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. Btw, she occasionally also goes by "Mohana S. Kumar" (perhaps she married?) but as far as I can tell that designation is exclusively used for non-scientific matters. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC).

Mucilago crustacea and use of "ex" in (botanical) cited authorshipsEdit

Please can someone check my work on Mucilago and Mucilago crustacea, a slime mould? I've not come across an "ex" authorship ("P. Micheli ex F.H. Wigg") before. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

means that the work was written by Wiggers but the particular section describing the taxa was written by Micheli. That is Micheli in Wiggers. Should be written as it is in the Mycological indexes. The way you have it is fine. Should list the original work as a reference though as this is where the description is found. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. What about the categories? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Are we SURE that should be replaced by in? 'cause ex is a common abbreviation too, and has a completely different meaning, namely that Wiggers published description and name, but acknowledge that Micheli spotted the species first and came up with the name (e.g. in a letter, in personal notes, on herbarium sheets...), without actually publishing a description. (For you zoologists, yes, the order is reversed between botany and zoology.) Circeus (talk) 02:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Got it. Micheli is prelinnean, the name Mucilago (and presumably M. crustacea) are not originaly binomials, and are seemingly from Nova plantarum genera (1729), which i assume is what the "Hall." abbreviations in Primitiae florae holsaticae (Somehow...) refers back to. Aither way, the proper publication place for the genus, is apparently Adanson's Familles des Plantes (1763, 2:7) according to Mycobank.
Worth noting that several names are linked to Pier'Antonio Micheli (IPNI P.Micheli, d. 1737) that rightfully ought to be linked to Marc Micheli (IPNI Micheli, 1844-1902), e.g. Oenothera glazioviana. Circeus (talk) 08:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Just confirming that User:Circeus 's explanation is correct. In botanical usage (but NOT zoological), a cited authorship such as "P. Micheli ex F.H. Wigg." means that P. Micheli made the initial description, but in a form that was not validly published; valid publication dates from the work of Wiggers, who (we presume) cited Micheli's invalid work. (If the citation were zoological, it would be Micheli who made the valid publication (available name in zoology), drawing on an unavailable description by Wiggers... there you go). Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 06:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Actually, this case is a bit more complicated: Wiggers was the first one to coin a binomial, referring to Haller (Historia stirpium indigenarum Helvetiae inchoata, Vol. 3, p. 110), who used a trinomial and once more was referring to Micheli (Nova plantarum genera, p. 216 and t. 96, fig. 2). So, in this case both description and name are by Micheli, but this had to be validated, because Micheli was prelinnean. In later times it often happened, that an earlier name on a herbarium label was used together with a later description and the name of the plant was ascribed to the earlier author by the author who actually described it, e.g. Geranium holosericeum Willd. ex Spreng. In the later case, obviousely Willd. had found out this would be a new species, but had died, before he could publish it. Sprengel honoured this fact by ascribing the name of the taxon to Willdenow. --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Other than following the bibliographic trail through Haller (kudos on that, btw), I'm not sure how this is supposed to be "a bit more complicated" than my statement that Micheli was Prelinnean. Here's the link to the 1763 publication of Mucilago by Adandon, btw. Circeus (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Anyway, Haller is important here, as he gave a rather long description of "Mucilago alba, crustacea & filamentosa" and synonymized some earlier (prelinnean) names by Micheli and others. Wiggers did nothing more, than citing this description and coining a binomial. --Franz Xaver (talk) 04:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
quote: "Wiggers did nothing more, than citing this description and coining a binomial." - yes, but this was sufficient to constitute the valid publication of the name (by coining the binomial, in a validly published work), which is why the authorship is cited as "... ex F.H. Wigg.". No disrespect intended, just reiterating the answer to the original question. Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 23:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
For reference, the relevant portions of the ICNafp are as follows (with a subset of stated examples only):

46.5. A name of a new taxon is attributed to the author(s) of the publication in which it appears when the name was ascribed to a different author or different authors but the validating description or diagnosis was neither ascribed to nor unequivocally associated with that author or those authors. A new combination, name at new rank, or replacement name is attributed to the author(s) of the publication in which it appears, although it was ascribed to a different author or different authors, when no separate statement was made that one or more of those authors contributed in some way to that publication. However, in both cases authorship as ascribed, followed by “ex”, may be inserted before the name(s) of the publishing author(s).

...Ex. 30. Lilium tianschanicum was described by Grubov (in Grubov & Egorova, Rast. Tsent. Azii, Mater. Bot. Inst. Komarova 7: 70. 1977) as a new species, with its name ascribed to Ivanova; because there is no indication that Ivanova provided the validating description, the name is cited as either L. tianschanicum N. A. Ivanova ex Grubov or L. tianschanicum Grubov.

46.7. When a name has been ascribed by its author to a pre-starting-point author, the latter may be included in the author citation, followed by “ex”. For groups with a starting-point later than 1753, when a taxon of a pre-starting-point author was changed in rank or taxonomic position upon valid publication of its name, that pre-starting-point author may be cited in parentheses, followed by “ex”.

...Ex. 40. Linnaeus (Gen. Pl., ed 5: 322. 1754) ascribed the name Lupinus to the pre-starting-point author Tournefort; the name is cited as either Lupinus Tourn. ex L. (Sp. Pl.: 751. 1753) or Lupinus L. (see Art. 13.4).

46.10. Authors publishing nomenclatural novelties and wishing other persons’ names followed by “ex” to precede theirs in author citation may adopt the “ex” citation in the protologue.

...Ex. 48. In validly publishing the name Nothotsuga, Page (in Notes Roy. Bot. Gard. Edinburgh 45: 390. 1989) ascribed it to “H.-H. Hu ex C. N. Page”, noting that in 1951 Hu had published it as a nomen nudum; the name is attributed to either Hu ex C. N. Page or C. N. Page.
Refer the relevant portion of the Code at https://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/pages/main/art_46.html for full discussion and additional examples. Tony 1212 (talk) 03:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Brazilian National MuseumEdit

 
Maxakalisaurus topai on display at MNRJ, i.e. the National Museum of Brazil.
Photo from 2006.

Brazilian version of Smithsonian Institution, MNRJ, burned down Sept. 2. Apparently all historical, cultural, zoological, botanical and anthropological collections were totally destroyed. The building was 200 years old, and had no fire protection system at all. Neferkheperre (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

It is not only about a missing fire protection system in the building, but it was reported in the news, that the firebrigade had some delay, because two fire hydrants close to the building turned out to be disfunctional. Anyway, fighting a fire with water would not be beneficial for entomological collections. --Franz Xaver (talk) 22:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
If I understand this page correctly, part of the vertebrate and botany collections possibly have survived - and of course minerals. Let's have some hope. It's a tragedy for the collections - and for the research of the scientists working in this institution. --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Reportedly the entire herbarium is perfectly okay (see below), but most other stuff is gone. The museum turned 200 years old in June 6, 2018 and housed well over 20 million items. Not all of them related to biology or taxonomy of course – for instance they had a huge Egyptian collection with mummies and such – but their repositories of biological specimens were extensive. Among them more than 40,000 specimens of molluscs, though some of them are said to have been saved. Sadly most of the museum's other invertebrate specimens – mainly insects and corals –  are gone. They did also keep the holotype of Maxakalisaurus topai, a 13 meter tall long-necked dinosaur and the biggest dinosaur fossil ever found in Brazil. Furthermore the museum was home to the "Luzia Woman", i.e. the 11,500-year-old skeletal remains of a prehistoric woman found in a cave in 1976. Older than the oldest human remains ever found in North America, and considered one of South America's oldest human fossils.(Smithsonian) I'm not 100% certain those particular two specimen were destroyed, but it looks like it. There is a Wikimedia Commons category dedicated to this tragic event, which can be found here.
Lastly and as hinted above, there are at least some good news! It seems that only the museum's main building was damaged by the fire. The museum's fish and reptile specimens, herbarium, and library were housed separately and are thought to have survived.
Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC).
According to what I read, Luzia was destroyed. No idea on the dinosaur. I think crustacean types were housed near insects. Neferkheperre (talk) 22:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Not the first collection in Brazil lost in recent history. Most of Instituto Butantan (IBSP) was lost in 2010. Circeus (talk) 23:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I've tweeted about this on our official @Wikispecies Twitter channel. If anyone have media from MNRJ from before the fire, please use the links in the embedded Wikipedia tweet to add them to Wikimedia Commons. Thank you. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC).

The problems with naming new speciesEdit

Where one species ends and another species begins? Some biologists are naming new species for the glory of their own reputation, not because the newly named species is really distinct from other close relatives. Listen to this podcast which discusses the issue. Mariusm (talk) 09:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, of course, this is an existing issue. However, I am quite sure, that this is neither a new nor an increasing phenomenon − at least concerning botany. At all times, there were some guys, who created lots of "new species", which later ended up in the synonymy. For example, in Ochnaceae Phillippe Édouard Léon van Tieghem (1839−1914) or in Menispermaceae John Miers (1789–1879) are notorious for having "described" the same species several times under different names − and this in hundreds of cases. My impression is, that in the 19th century this was a habit among scientists much more common than it is today. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 13:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Author categories by nationalityEdit

If I remember correctly consensus is we don't recommend nor should use "narrow" Wikipedia-style categories like the newly created Category:Bulgarian botanists, attached to a nationality. Instead, we only use more generic categories such as Category:Botanists and Category:Palaeontologists – or am I wrong? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC).

Please, don't start this kind of categories by nationality. Especially in Central Europe, with its many border changes in course of history, there are too many cases, where nationality at least is ambiguous. For example, Giovanni Antonio Scopoli can be claimed by Austria and Italy, and spent also important periods of his life in territories, which now belong to Slovenia (his main works!) and Slovakia (then Hungary). Better to avoid this battleground of patriots/chauvinists. --Franz Xaver (talk) 07:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I fully agree, and it wasn't me who created the category. They might be useful at Wikipedia but here at Wikispecies we don't need the categories to be that specific, since true taxonomy knows no national borders. But I need "current consensus" or a link to an already agreed upon decision before I start reverting edits that was clearly made in good faith. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC).
...I agree with Franz Xaver. There are Australian Botanists, Austrian botanists, Bulgarian botanists, Pakistani botanists, Russian botanists, Russian botanists and Turkish botanists. Orchi (talk) 13:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Fully agree, no to unnecessary categories. The nationality at author's page is more than enough.--Hector Bottai (talk) 13:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I fully agree, we do not need categories for author nationalities. --Thiotrix (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree, too. --RLJ (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I've now deleted the category. Prior to that all authors listed in it was moved to Category:Botanists. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC).

Two pages for one speciesEdit

I read at Wikidata, that we have two pages for the same beetle species: Biralus satellitius and Aphodius satellitius. Does someone know, which one is the accepted name, and please merge the pages? Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps @PeterR: and/or @Mariusm: have access to the proper sources? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:36, 8 September 2018 (UTC).
See below in section "Merge or not?" Mariusm (talk) 13:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Merge or not?Edit

I noticed that theres two articles named Ting-Kui Qin and Ting Qin. I think it is possible that those two names actually represent the same individual person (At Wikidata theres just one: Wikidata:Q21394816. Does anyone have more information, and can confirm? Dan Koehl (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

And the two Aphodius satellitius (added 2006 by @Arachn0:) and Biralus satellitius (added 2017 by @Mariusm:) seem to be the same species? Please see discussion on Wikidata at Biralus satellitius (Q14897972) and Aphodius satellitius (Q1868625) Dan Koehl (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Ting Qin is entomologist, while Ting-Kui Qin is acarologist. Probable overlap is limited. Also, it is quite unusual for Chinese names to vary much, unlike South American names. I would say they were two different people. Of course it would be very nice if people added useful information when creating author pages. Neferkheperre (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Ideally, we would have Hanzi when adding character names, but finding that information is very difficult. Ting Qin is apparently associated with South China Agricultural University (SCAU) While Ting-Kui has been primarily associated with isntitutions in Australian and new Zealand. Circeus (talk) 02:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, I added Ting Qin on Wikidata. Dan Koehl (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Following Dellacasa et al. (2001) and Dellacasa et al. (2016) the subgenus Aphodius (Biralus) is promoted to genus, therefore I redirected Aphodius satellitius to Biralus satellitius.
[See: Dellacasa, G., Bordat, P., Dellacasa, M. 2001. A revisional essay of world genus-group taxa of Aphodiinae (Coleoptera: Aphodiidae). Memorie della Società Entomologica Italiana 79: 1-482.; Dellacasa, G., Dellacasa, M., Král, D., Bezděk, A. 2016. Tribe Aphodiini Leach, 1815. In: Löbl I. and Löbl D. (Eds.); Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera, Scarabaeoidea, Scirtoidea, Dascilloidea, Buprestoidea, Byrrhoidea. Revised and Updated Edition. Brill, Leiden/Boston, 3: 98-155] Mariusm (talk) 13:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, @Mariusm:.

Another possible merge is Colombian entomologist Alexander García García ), created 2018 by @PeterR: (and has Wikidata Wikidata:Q22106821) and Alexander García, (no Wikidata) created 2015 by @Neferkheperre:? Dan Koehl (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

In this case the taxon names of the four new names reportedly published in {{Ardila-Camacho & García, 2015}} would be helpful, but unfortunately I haven't got access to the full paper. Anyone? As a last resort I guess a complete list of all new species described in 2015 within the Mantispidae family would do, but such a list might be even harder to come by... Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC).
Seems a pretty obvious identical case to me, but... Trichoscelia andina, Trichoscelia gorgonensis, Trichoscelia karijona and Leptomantispa hoffmani are it (all credited to Ardila-Camacho). Circeus (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Indeed it looks like they are the same person. I guess the author's name is Alexander García and that "Alexander García García" is simply a typo. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC).
I just looked at both Garcias. Both have exact same institutional affiliation, which would lean towards them being one person. When I looked into @PeterR:'s entry and mine, there were no errors in transcription by either of us. So any error is by one of the journals. We may have to research into independent avenues. Neferkheperre (talk) 23:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Udistrital and ResearchGate, both cite Alexander García García. Burmeister (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Checked both Full Articles PDF, one is García and the other García García, same institution. At researchgate García García. Obvious same person. Please Merge. García García should prevail.--Hector Bottai (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Thanks to you all. Please go ahead with the merge if you feel up to it. Personally I'm busy creating a new author page – for Alexander García Antón... :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC).

Agree, thanks everybody, now merged and deleted the error file. Dan Koehl (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

We may have our work cut out for usEdit

https://aeon.co/ideas/there-are-more-microbial-species-on-earth-than-stars-in-the-skyJustin (koavf)TCM 18:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I guess that means that in a few years from now Wikispecies will consist of way more words than there are both microbial species on Earth and stars in the sky. Fascinating! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC).

PseudoelaeotaEdit

Created by an IP. A fake? --Succu (talk) 06:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I believe you are right @Succu:, I can't find a trace on Itis, or with Google, while "Pseudoelaters" gets hits like To aid in spore dispersal, liverworts utilize elaters, whereas hornworts utilize pseudoelaters. Dan Koehl (talk) 12:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
This page is sheer rubbish. I deleted it. Mariusm (talk) 12:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Tableau Encyclopédique et MethodiqueEdit

I've made some edits to make it explicit this is not solely a botanical work. It's complicated because the various sciences have separate volumations within it and are traditionally treated as completely separate works. Anyone with interest in bibliography can add details for other ares of biology? Circeus (talk) 15:23, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Invalid nameEdit

How do you people treat nomenclaturally invalid (unavailable, in ICZN parlance) names?

I've run into a couple isonyms (multiple publication of a nomenclaturally identical name, usually based on a common basionym) recently, and personally I prefer removing them as they seem to me to only generate confusion (the ICBN literally says to treat them as the same name, pretty much like a correctable error). Circeus (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Speaking only for zoological entities, ie ICZN code and hence unavailable names, these should be ignored as under the ICZN code they do not exist and are not actually names for the purpose of nomenclature. They should never be used. In rare cases where they have been used as valid names for considerable time I can see reasons to list them on the relevant species page in the synonymy, with explanation and refs. But usually not and they should not ever have a mainspace page. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 04:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Speaking mainly for botany, I have to agree with Scott - they should never have their own taxon page, as this will give them unwarranted legitimacy and is confusing. Personally when I encounter the equivalent in plants I redirect and remove from appropriate associated lists, if required. OK they may appear on the accepted taxon page as [[nom. illeg.]] or similar tag. Likewise for comb. ined. and nom. ined. IMHO, although there could be a case for these appearing in a list on a taxon page, but retained as red links with a note of explanation, as this may be temporary. References are essential, of course. I appreciate that for zoology an invalid name is unavailable and so the rules are stricter. Best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 07:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Really I meant more with regards to synonym lists. Circeus (talk) 01:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Not always entirely related to the above, but occasionally some of the templates in Category:Name status templates can be useful. An overview showing how some of them are rendered can be seen in Category:Pictograms. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 01:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC).
Yes, Tommy, for zoology I use {{invalid}} for invalid species, {{Invalid genus}} for invalid genus and {{Invalid taxon}} for other ranks. But botany's "invalid" differs from zoology's "invalid". In botany it's a name that doesn't meet the requirements in the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants for valid publication, while in zoology it's an incorrect zoological name of a taxon i.e. a synonym, nomen nudum etc. Likewise a new template may be created, for example {{Invalid botanical name}} to serve Circeus' purposes. Mariusm (talk) 09:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  Support template suggested by @Mariusm: Dan Koehl (talk) 10:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I am not happy with this. In my opinion, there should not be created separate taxon pages for names, which better have to be included in the synonymy of an accepted taxon under its correct name. So, as far as I see, there is no real need for templates, which are only used to mark taxon pages, which actually should not even exist. If zoologists in WS are happy with creating taxon pages for invalid nominal taxa, so I will have to accept this, but I hope, this will never be common usage in botany. --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Is anybody happy with pages like Anthus longicaudatus? OK, A. longicaudatus seems to be a synonym now, but the WS taxon page does not give any information on this. A simple redirect to Anthus vaalensis certainly would better serve the needs of our users. --Franz Xaver (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I am not in agreement with the creation of pages for invalid (zoology) names. They can go in synonymy. I have no issue with them being made for the purposes of a redirect if they had been extensively used. But certainly not all of them. As to the example just above, yes make it a redirect if its now a synonym. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 21:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I too agree with Franz Xaver and Scott Thomson here. In my opinion a simple redirect is better than creating thousands upon thousands of complete taxon pages for taxon names in synonymy. In the mean time (i.e. until we've reached a formal decision) I've changed the name status template on the Anthus longicaudatus page.Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC).

I categorically disagree with the trend to dismiss invalid-name-pages and to be satisfied merely with redirects. This isn't what most of the directories and the catalogs out there are doing. (Botanists: see for example this page at the GRIN site - this is a dedicated separate page for a synonym). We're loosing too much valuable information this way. See for example the invalid-name-page Zyras alboterminalis. This information is too voluminous and too complicated to be incorporated in the valid-name page, and more so if there are not one but 10 such synonyms. I can't see a better way to display this relevant information other than in creating a dedicated page. I'm not proposing to make this sort of invalid-page-creating a mandatory practice, yet I strongly recommend to use this in cases where the information is asking for a better display paradigm. By the way, we have by now nearly 3.500 pages of invalid-names. This is a very important asset which makes WS more valuable and more useful. Mariusm (talk) 09:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I fully agree with Tommy Kronkvist, Franz Xaver, Scott Thomson and any others who do not see the need to create separate taxon pages for names accepted as part of a synonymy. The GRIN example above is a sideshow as most of the cited page appears on this page, where it belongs. It editors want to create these pages OK, but they might find a redirect created unless there is a very good reason for not doing so. The three combinations in Zyras could be accommodated on a single page, but I am no expert. The uniqueness is in holotype and type locality is this a justification for rewriting the basic premise of WS? In botany I have yet to find a good reason for not creating a redirect unless there is a dispute. Andyboorman (talk) 13:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Just to clarify things up: What I'm speaking about above are heterotypic synonyms and not homotypic synonyms which don't need separate pages but only redirects. Mariusm (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
It is no big problem to include all the relevant information also for several heterotypic synonyms in one taxon page – see e.g. Chaetolepis anisandra or Cespedesia spathulata. --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, Franz, if you consider the user's ease of use and the sources accessibility, particularly when you have at your disposal even more information to display such as mentions-references and synonym-authority-references, you can't beat the clarity and the convenience of a dedicated synonym page, expressly when the work involved in creating such a page does't exceed the one done on your combined taxon page. You can't also deny the fact that Cespedesia spathulata looks ratherish overcrammed. Mariusm (talk) 09:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I dunno, I think it's no less "overcrammed" than any random scientific material that would present the same information (although duplicating the publication places seems overdoing it, I prefer the zoological tradition, since I always track down the full reference anyway). Besides, Wikispecies can afford to use a more aired out format, since space isn't an issue, see e.g. Solanum americanum for an example with a lot more synonyms than C. spathulata. Circeus (talk) 11:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Circeus, thanks for your example of Solanum americanum. It illustrates just fine why my proposal is better than the current practice; I'll explain why: suppose a user searches for Solanum indecorum which is one of the heterotypic synonyms of your Solanum americanum and suppose he's redirected to this page (although you didn't redirect Solanum indecorum). Now this user faces the following drudgery to perform: (a) realize he was redirected to another species-name; (b) realize Solanum indecorum is a synonym; (c) search among the mass of information the relevant section he needs; (d) search among the mass of information for the relevant references; (e) try to form a coherent picture in his mind of what Solanum indecorum really is. On the other hand, if this user is directed to a dedicates page, where all the relevant information is grouped together, where he clearly can see it is a synonym of what; then I think he would get a far better, clear, scientific service out of WS. Mariusm (talk) 09:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Still have to disagree with Mariusm. Firstly, subsequent to a search finding the accepted page using a single click is what I would require. Secondly, finding the information supporting the synonymy on the same click is very convenient. Having to trawl through several pages to get this information is not just inconvenient, it is drudgery, very annoying and could be confusing. The information belongs to the taxon page associated with the accepted name, I just do not see a problem with this. Taxonomy can be complex, but to get it on a single printout at the end of one click is what I requires as a botanist and scientist. It is the KISS principle in operation. Andyboorman (talk) 12:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
In my experience, a typical database with separate synonyms is no less confusing that one that is strictly limited to accepted name. If anything, the severe lack of consistency across wikispecies is more of a problem than anything having to do with the amount of data (of which anyone who has ever dealt with taxonomical data should be used to, really.) on any given page. Wikispecies is not specifically aimed for the general public. If it were, it would not have been spun into its own separate project to begin with. Circeus (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes the inconsistency is a problem. However, it was always my assumption that pages on WS were for accepted taxa, if there are nearly 3,500 pages of separate invalid taxon pages, then that is a problem caused by contributors operating outside of consensus. OK, consensus can be changed but that will affect many more taxon pages and create much additional work. Hence this discussion and clearly there are differences of strongly held opinion. Bear in mind, Marsdenia macrophylla has 6 heterotypic synonyms yet to be created. There are over 130 species of this genus, so that is potentially several hundred invalid pages instead of the 130 or so, once somebody gets to reviewing the genus in order to produce to sort of exemplar pages created in Solanum above. Wait until you get to Astragalus! Andyboorman (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
And this sort of practicality is why I agree with you. I'm well aware how big some genera get (Solanum is amongst the largest too). When you get past a certain number of species, though (I believe Solanum is estimated around 1,500), the change in scale is really not that much, because it's still just a plain ginormous amount of data so doubling it... just makes it still ginormous. Circeus (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I deal with names all the time and for different reasons. I do so as a taxonomist and paleontologist, but I am also very heavily involved in conservation. That is an end user of names. So we really have two groups, producers of names and end users. The producers of names have an intricate need for all this data on each and every name, others with historical or just plain interest in it may too. The other group is the end user and I would include the general public in this. In may paper on this topic we mention the distinction between the producers, taxonomists, and the end users, everyone else. The end users want to know what to call something, that is all. By presenting all this information on one page as a synonymy we meet the needs of both, keeping it easy for those that want a name, and presenting the information for those that wish to take it further.

Paper is above, Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Same author?Edit

My guess is that Lima Temjen and Limatemjen refers to the same author and should be merged as "Lima Temjen". However I'm not 100% sure since "Limatemjen" or variations thereof is actually used for some works; e.g. compare doi: 10.3897/zookeys.643.10506 and doi: 10.11646/zootaxa.3925.2.3Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC).

@Tommy Kronkvist:, Zoobank file them under one name if you see the two publications mentioned respectively under the two, both those publications are filed under the same name, please see http://zoobank.org/Authors/CA25EF95-B9D4-48D9-B78D-53EBA3ED1C8A Dan Koehl (talk) 19:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Lets hear what the editor of the two articles, @Neferkheperre: thinks? Dan Koehl (talk) 08:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
@Neferkheperre:, can you please comment? Dan Koehl (talk) 12:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I did quite some research with Zootaxa, Zookeys and Google Scholar. In this case, it is correctly Limatemjen. This one of those people with only one name. There are many such in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, with lesser numbers in Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Thailand. Apparently this causes consternation among Zootaxa's editors. Seems they either double it, or break it in two. In this case, my 2015 entry was called LimaTEMJEN LimaTEMJEN. I interpreted this as Lima Temjen. In 2017 in Zookeys, citation used Limatemjen. Searching the redlink did not pick up any connections.
In Google Scholar, this person came up consistently as Limatemjen. Other Temjens turned up. Some were single-named people with other syllables attached. Others were two-named people with Temjen as family name. I shall fix. Neferkheperre (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
It's somewhat unusual in that when people have a single name, they tend to have an accompanying patronym of some sort (I dare say the majority do). Circeus (talk) 01:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

HOT HET etc.Edit

Why have these templates suddenly acquired silly looking brackets? Is there a purpose for these accoutrements? Are they wanted by the community? Are there other examples? Am I the only one to find them pointless? Here is an example. Incidentally, there are other ways of creating the tags and this changes will not affect these, so we will end up with more inconsistency, once again. I do wish editors would not make such far reaching changes without first taking them here and explaining their reasons and seek consensus. Regards. Andyboorman (talk) 07:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@Andyboorman:, is it possible they started to appear with this edit ({{int:Homotypic}}) by @Rosičák:? Dan Koehl (talk) 08:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
That is the problem, for some reason the int has added the spurious brackets, so edit was well meaning but caused an error. I will revert. Andyboorman (talk) 08:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
These brackets appear, if int: is used for words, that are not yet included in the Wikispecies:Localization table. --Thiotrix (talk) 09:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Ok, příště budu postupovat obráceně, nejdříve vytvořím šablony./
  • Ok, next time I'll go backwards, I'll first create templates.

--Rosičák (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Valid publication of family Trichoplacidae (Placozoa)?Edit

There is a recent publication on Placozoa by Eitel et al. (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2005359) in which family Trichoplacidae (whose status I had previously believed to be informal) is attributed to "Bütschli and Hatschek 1905" with the reference "Bütschli O, Hatschek B. Zoologisches Zentralblatt. Schuberg A, editor. Verlag von Wilhelm Engelmann, Leipzig; 1905." I did a bit of checking in BHL; the name is in fact found in that work in the "genus and family register" (in German) on p. 904, with a reference to entry no. 292 which is a discussion of Trichoplax and related forms on pp. 221-231 by E. Korschelt, however the term Trichoplacidae does not appear there; thus (unless I have missed it) it appears that the name originates from the compilers (the relevant pages are in BHL at https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/1717106 (genus and family register) and https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/1716423 (p. 221 onwards)).

Of course this is just inclusion of the name in a list, without a diagnosis, so not sure if it counts as a valid name...

So is this sufficient to add Bütschli & Hatschek as authors for this name in Wikispecies? If so maybe someone might do this as I am not sure of the required actions in adding the references etc. If not, further comments would be appreciated. Thanks in advance - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Without looking at this, from what you say if a family name is created based on a previously described genus name it is common to recognise the authors of the old name in the new combination. Ie the authors of Trichoplax getting credit for the name Trichoplacidae. Also if the authors indicated this was a definable group though not naming it, later reviewers can put the name to the group giving credit to the original proposer. Either case could mean the diagnosis is not with the name, but the requirements of this is limited to species and genus group names anyway, so not needed. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 21:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Scott/all, I did some checking in the ICZN Code and found the following: "12.1. Requirements. To be available, every new name published before 1931 must satisfy the provisions of Article 11 and must be accompanied by a description or a definition of the taxon that it denotes, or by an indication." [my italics], and that for a family, an "indication" includes "12.2.4. the formation of a family-group name from an available generic name". So I am thinking that the lack of a diagnosis is not problem in this case (since Trichoplacidae is formed from Trichoplax). Therefore unless there is an earlier usage, I conclude that Eitel et al. are correct in attributing this family name to Bütschli & Hatschek, 1905. (I don't believe Scott's statement "the authors of Trichoplax getting credit for the name Trichoplacidae" is correct, since authorship of family names is independent of authorship of their type genera, and the principle of coordination only applies within groups i.e species-level group, genus-level group, family-level group, refer the Code for more details). Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Principal of Coordinaton refers to the gender formation of the names. Yes I know the code very well. I was meaning it may be what they were doing, I did not check so do not know. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Apologies if I misunderstood what you were suggesting. In any case, authorship of the genus Trichoplax is Schultze, 1883 so this is not being used as supposed authorship of the family name.
To recap: Trichoplax Schultze, 1883 is (or was until this year) the sole recognised genus in phylum Placozoa, thus a taxonomic oddity. Some sources e.g. URMO years back (then WoRMS) placed Trichoplax in a family ("Trichoplacidae") with no explanation; some sources e.g. ITIS suspected that in fact that name had never been published and thus "appears to be a nomen nudum" (see https://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=696103). However the recent paper of Eitel et al. ascribes the family name to Bütschli and Hatschek 1905, and this appears to hold up on further scrutiny as detailed above. So (unless I am mistaken with this conclusion), I would appreciate it if a WS editor could add relevant information to the page Trichoplacidae, in preferred WS formats, which I am not particularly familiar with. Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 23:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Also just noticed that Trichoplacidae is presently ascribed in wikispecies to Grell, 1971, which is incorrect so far as I can ascertain (no citations in Google scholar). Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
ok added refs and nomenclatural changes you recommended Trichoplacidae Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 01:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks @Faendalimas:... Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 06:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

File:صن رايز رويال مكادي أكوا 213.jpgEdit

Hello.

  1. I think this picture is very useful for the project.You can use it here
  2. Please add (that need to Master English) the appropriate categories to the description page

Thanks --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 15:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: Thanks. I'm not sure what page would use this image. What do you have in mind? We generally only have one image of a species per page and those are usually proper photographs. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:53, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Justin (koavf). Additionally, the image doesn't really add much information in terms of taxonomy, which as a species directory is the main purpose of Wikispecies. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 01:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC).