Wikispecies:Village Pump

(Redirected from Wikispecies:Village pump)
Latest comment: 1 day ago by Faendalimas in topic FYI: What Is a Species, Anyway?

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 (2021-06-05/2021-09-24) 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 (2022-12-24/2023-04-20) 64 (2023-04-20/2023-08-29)
65 (2023-09-01/2023-12-27) 66 (2024-01-xx/2024-xx-xx)

Search queries for Wikispecies cleanup edit

For some time now, I've been collecting in my userpage a few useful links to search queries I've been using for doing cleaning up on Wikispecies. At this point I think I should share these here, so others can more easily find these same problems I've been fixing:

Queries for taxon pages:

Queries for taxon author pages:

Queries for reference templates:

  • Special:Search/Template: deepcat:"Reference templates" -insource:"Reference page": Reference templates missing the "Reference page" link, or those where the text "Reference page" has been misspelled. However, this will also list templates like {{WFO}} that don't need these links as far as I know. Over 990 reference templates are listed here as of writing.
  • Special:Search/Template:insource:"": Reference templates with raw ZooBank URLs, which should instead be formatted with {{ZooBank}} template. Over 220 reference templates are listed here as of writing.
    • Note: this includes some of the old "<ZooBankID>" templates created by Stho002 many years ago. They have all since been renamed, but some of them still haven't been corrected to use the usual reference template format, in particular lacking a "Reference page" link. It just happens the ones not corrected yet also have raw ZooBank URLs.

Monster Iestyn (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe there is no more reference template with raw ZooBank URLs. --Hiouf (talk) 07:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you!! Monster Iestyn (talk) 12:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also completed the authors missing sortkeys. Except for the last 2 that I do know how to deal with: one is a trust board and the other is (I think) only a family name. Any ideas about the recommendations for those? --Hiouf (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hiouf: Those both sound like exceptional cases... The second one is from Indonesia, so it may be a case of a given name with no family name? Maybe just add {{DEFAULTSORT:Ngatiwai Trust Board}} and {{DEFAULTSORT:Roekmowati-Hartono}} for those two. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the tips. It is now completed! --Hiouf (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal for JSTOR Global Plants type specimen ID property on Wikidata edit

Wikispecies has over ten thousand links to JSTOR World Plants, each containing the ID of a type specimen. For example, from Isoetes alcalophila, we link to, containing the ID lil001950

I have just published a proposal for a Wikidata property, to allow the import over 1.3 million such IDs, and to create Wikidata items for the individual specimens - linked, of course, to the item about the relevant taxon.

This will allow us, should we choose to, to include a template on a taxon page here, to display data about the type specimen (the collector, the date and location of its collection, and its current whereabouts, and perhaps an image).

The proposal is at d:Wikidata:Property proposal/JSTOR Global Plants type specimen ID. Please use that page to express your support, or make any comments or suggestions for improvement. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(commenting here in my capacity as a Wikidata administrator, not as a Wikispecies administrators) To avoid the appearance of canvasing, it should also be noted that you can reply to the discussion in opposition to the property proposal, not just in support of it. Ideally, any position you take should have a reason provided with it. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd oppose - it's paywalled data, not publicly accessible - MPF (talk) 12:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've asked you in that discussion whether you can point to a policy requiring Wikidata properties for identifiers to have open-access targets. It appears you cannot. I've also pointed out there that the data is not paywalled (the paywall is for high res images and the API). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We don't need to have the debate both here and on the property proposal --DannyS712 (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The property has been created, as P12464, "JSTOR Global Plants type specimen ID". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Name section edit

Should the additional information in the Name section be in a bulleted list? I've seen a lot of pages using bullets before "type locality", "type species", "etymology" etc., but the examples at the Help:Name section don't have them and I remember some user deleting the bullets in one of my edits. Trooper57 (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Trooper57. Personally I try to always follow the how-to guides and examples listed in all of the Help pages, and it may very well have been me who deleted "your" bullet symbols. I believe we had a discussion about the Name Section format a few years ago, and that the current "Help:Name section" guideline is a result of the outcome of that. Unfortunately I don't seem to be able to find a link to the discussion at the moment. (The closest I get is a discussion about the format for References we had back in December 2015, which was followed by a poll later the same year. That poll is the basis for the Help:Reference section guideline we still use today.)
Perhaps any of our fellow Wikispecians can find a link to the discussion I refer to? Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Technically no for bullets in this as it should be a synonymy, and these have a specific format in science. So for example the indented names should be junior synonyms and the currently used name should be the least indented etc. So I prefer no bullets in this list. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I prefer the bullets style and am constantly using it because it's more clear, makes for more concise text and differentiates between the components. A poll seems to me a good idea though. Mariusm (talk) 06:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
actually scratch my answer somewhat. I was thinking of the synonymy not the name section. though I have been using bullets to indent it all anyway. But yes my pref for the names section is one bullet for the name then double to indent for the type locality and holotype etc. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 08:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I prefer the bullets style too, in the same way of Mariusm, the data is better arranged, making it easier to read and understand the information provided. Burmeister (talk) 11:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I fully agree with @Mariusm: and @Burmeister:, and I have done this way for years and thousands of editions. Apologyze for unknowing the existing recommended format. I am in favour on a vote for changing.--Hector Bottai (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The format I use is found here Azara. Andyboorman (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could we resolve this issue with a template, so that people simply enter the data and the template handles the formatting? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A template sounds very reasonable and will help new editors a lot I feel. Andyboorman (talk) 10:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IPNI update for some plant species epithets edit

I have just heard back from IPNI about plants with the species epithet davidii, for example Acer davidii or Vitis davidii, that are eponyms for Père David. These species epithets will have to be corrected to davidi in line with Arts 60C.1. David is Latinised to Davidus and thus becomes davidi as a species epithet. It appears that there is some 150 "davidii" names to be corrected on their database and these will be progressed in due course. One exception will be Buddleja davidii Franch., Nouv. Arch. Mus. Hist. Nat. ser. 2 10: 65. (1887), for which the RHS is progressing a nom. cons. Interestingly many of the protologues use davidi and were changed over time. In addition, it seems that similar corrections will apply to other species epithets. Andyboorman (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the information, @Andyboorman! I can have a bot take care of the corrections as soon as IPNI are up to speed, but will need a list of the affected taxon names in order to do so. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Brilliant. As soon as IPNI generate the changes I will endeavour to get you the lists. Andyboorman (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the RHS are proposing a nom. cons., can they be persuaded to get the genus name conserved with its near-universal historical spelling Buddleia (pronounced "budlayer") over Buddleja ("budledger"), because of the drastic effect the recent change to -j- has on English pronunciation of the name? - MPF (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MPF: Highly unlikely as Linnaeus used Buddleja in his original description in Sp. Pl. The IAPT site is down at the moment, but I think Art 60 is clear about conserving Linnaean names, as far as possible. Pronunciation is a matter of choice. Andyboorman (talk) 09:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Andy. Also, in many languages (including Swedish, the first language of both Linnaeus and myself), "i" and "j" are often pronounced exactly the same, except in loanwords or when used as the first letter of a word. For example, both Buddleja and Buddleia are pronounced in exactly the same way in Swedish. As for taxon names in general, I'm happy as long as we stick to Latin script. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Seems to me Art. 60.6 is relevant here: "When the original publication of a name adopted a use of the letters u, v or i, j in any way incompatible with modern nomenclatural practices, those letters are to be transcribed in conformity with modern nomenclatural usage." Given that it has been Buddleia for almost all of the last century or more . . .? - MPF (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

─────────────── @Andyboorman and MPF: I didn't know that. Buddleia isn't even listed as a synonym on the Buddleja taxon page, and as far as I know it never has been? Then again I'm not a botanist. In either case I'm sure that pretty much anyone can write to the Royal Horticultural Society and contribute with constructive suggestions, and referring to Art. 60.6 (per MPF's quote) seems valid indeed. However, in line with Andyboorman my guess is that 60.6 doesn't top the "conserve Linnaean names" clause.

By the way: I guess you both know it already, but Buddleja is an eponym of Adam Buddle so there's not a lot of Greek or Latin stuff to take into account. For once.  Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 04:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Thanks! Yes, knew about Buddle; not sure myself if there are any ICN instructions for forming a name from it. At first I thought Art. 60.8 might apply, but that's for species names, not genus names. Does 60.8 (d) apply in the context of this discussion re David? Should it be davidiana (as in Keteleeria davidiana), rather than davidi? David is of course a Hebrew name, not either Greek or Latin. - MPF (talk) 11:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Repository disambiguation edit

We currently have a page SNP (Category:SNP) for Herbarium Sabah Parks in Malaysia. However it seems there is also the Herpetological collection of Sochi National Park in Saint Petersburg, Russia, which uses the same abbreviation, SNP. See for example Darevskia praticola hyrcanica. Perhaps the Sochi repository is a subsidiary of ZIN? If so, the problem is more or less already solved. But if not, which is the best way for us to disambiguate between the two SNPs? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 07:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  Agree to NAS vs. NAS (Jiangsu). Dan Koehl (talk) 11:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Botanist(s) Cal(c)edonio Tropea edit

I'm guessing that the Italian botanist we call Calcedonio Tropea (Wikidata item Q44745974) should really be called Caledonio Tropea (Wikidata item Q26714196; per IPNI: floruit 1910, Tropea) but I'm not 100% sure. There is a page Calcedonio Tropea (botaniste) on French Wikipedia that contradicts this. Perhaps they are two different botanists after all? Does anyone here have more information on this? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 06:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC).Reply[reply]

@Tommy Kronkvist: It could be just that IPNI's record is a misspelling of Calcedonio Tropea: One of the species listed under the record is Vicia saxatilis (Vent.) Tropea, Malpighia 21: 46 (1907)., which turns out to be in an article authored by Calcedonio Tropea. I am not able to access the original publication for Eragrostis pringlei Mattei & Tropea, Contr. Biol. Veg. 4: 241 (1909). however to verify if this is the same for that species. Monster Iestyn (talk) 11:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will ask IPNI to check, as @Monster Iestyn: seems correct in his research. Kew, Tropicos and others are just following IPNI. In my experience IPNI are usually over 99% correct and are appreciative of enquiries of this nature. Andyboorman (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you both. Please contact me again (or simply make any necessary changes) when the information is verified. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC).Reply[reply]

─────── @Tommy Kronkvist: & @Monster Iestyn: IPNI have confirmed that they agree with the spelling Calcedonio Tropea - and have sent me this link. They have amended their records and these will go live in due course.Andyboorman (talk) 11:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andyboorman: Thank you! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC).Reply[reply]

A Question for Fern Experts edit

There are two basic differing taxonomic opinions regarding the circumscription of Cyatheaceae. WS, World Flora and Hassler maintain a narrow description, whereas POWO includes; Dicksoniaceae, Loxsomataceae, Metaxyaceae and Plagiogyriaceae in its synonymy. See also Cyatheales for PPG (2016) c.f. Christenhusz & Chase (2014) for the basic underpinning for these opinions. Is anybody aware of which is more accepted by specialists and are there other, more up to date references that can be used to support the stance adopted by WS? Andyboorman (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the vast majority of pteridologists follows PPG, with the narrower genus and family concepts. This results in many unplaced taxa in POWO, simply because the combinations in the broad genera are missing. I can't find any title with "Dicksonia (Cyatheaceae)" in ResearchGate. --RLJ (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Something to do with Christenhusz & Chase having strong contacts with Kew? Andyboorman (talk) 10:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Announcing the results of the UCoC Coordinating Committee Charter ratification vote edit

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Dear all,

Thank you everyone for following the progress of the Universal Code of Conduct. I am writing to you today to announce the outcome of the ratification vote on the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee Charter. 1746 contributors voted in this ratification vote with 1249 voters supporting the Charter and 420 voters not. The ratification vote process allowed for voters to provide comments about the Charter.

A report of voting statistics and a summary of voter comments will be published on Meta-wiki in the coming weeks.

Please look forward to hearing about the next steps soon.

On behalf of the UCoC Project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 18:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cycadales edit

Can anybody find any details of how to find the protologues and publication details for the subfamilies Diooideae, Zamioideae and other similar poorly detailed taxa in Cycadales? Andyboorman (talk) 10:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps try contacting the editors of the World Cycad List? They don't detail any suprageneric names at all on their website or latest printed list, but might still have the details available - MPF (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks I will try that. Andyboorman (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Possibly of some relevance: from "General Traits of the Cycadales" L. A. S. JOHNSON and K. L. WILSON in Kramer, Karl Ulrich; Green, P. S. (1990). Pteridophytes and Gymnosperms (chapter doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-02604-5_63):

Stevenson (1985) has briefly outlined a proposed reclassification of the cycads, in which he recognizes two suborders, Stangeriineae (with two unigeneric families Stangeriaceae and Boweniaceae) and Cycadineae (Cycadaceae and Zamiaceae). In Zamiaceae, he recognizes two subfamilies. Diooideae (Dioon) and Zamioideae (the other genera, divided between two tribes, Zamieae and Encephalarteae). Evaluation of this proposal phylogenetically will await formal publication.

I cannot see the listing for the cited Stevenson (1985) ref in the copy I can access, it sounds a bit like it might be unpublished treatment as at 1990?? Tony 1212 (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I got this far, but unfortunately the best I can get from Johnson and Yang is Diooideae Pilg. (1926). So there is a protologue somewhere, but it is a bit of a challenge chasing it down. I have found the relevant treatments for the other subfamily and tribes and have entered them on their taxon pages; Zamioideae Dioeae, Bowenieae, Encephalarteae and Zamieae. I have also given the details to IPNI, "releases are requested" and are pending. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I now have traced the publication for Diooideae and it is Pilger J. 1926. in H.G.A. Engler & K.A.E. Prantl Natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien..., ed. 2, 13: 73. and it was published as Dioonoideae. Apparently, Pilger wrote an update of Cycadales/Cycadaceae in this publication in which he described the subfamily and it also seems that he also described Zamioideae in this treatment. Can I find a copy? Of course not, if only life was that easy! It is not in BHL, Any help gratefully received? Andyboorman (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

comb. ined. edit

comb. ined. From our Glossary; (combinatio inedita). A combination that appears not to have been validly published or whose publication is uncertain under one or more articles under ICBN. See also nom. ined.

The question up for discussion is; Should comb. ined. taxon pages be permitted on WS? The possible rationale is that as synonymies change and are updated, occasionally replacement names appear in some of our sources as comb. ined. or ambiguous synonyms and often unplaced names in POWO. If a taxon page already exists for the newly created synonym, it may be left with taxonomic problems or these may appear on the expanded taxon, depending on editors' choices. Please see Cenchrus and Pennisetum, as an example. I will throw this open to the Community. Thanks and best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI: What Is a Species, Anyway? edit (koavf)TCM 01:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ahh Carl Zimmer he is a great writer, he interviewed me years ago when my redescription of Elseya lavarackorum declared it a living fossil. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 02:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]