Help talk:Name section
Some sources will wrap the authorname and year in brackets. This should be discouraged. Brackets should be used only when a basionym was renamed. I just realized: does zoological nomenclature use a different system here? Looking for the past few days into this, and it seems brackets are used when at some point the species was renamed, but the original author is kept.
For parasitic organisms (Fungi, e.g.) I'd like to use the term: Host-Substratum/Locality. Because sometimes determination relies on the hosts fungi feed on. Some fungi rely on one or a few hosts only. For Bacteria and Archaea, I'd like to use the term Type Strain, a chemical string, unique to the species. Maybe there are other terms, for example Viruses?
Are we going to link museum abbreviation to pages? Above example comes from Lonchophylla orcesi Another option: Move the page created by Lycaon out of user space, name it Holotype, and instead of linking the museum abbreviation link the word Holotype to Lycaon's page.
For some organisms, (Lepidoptera) it might be necessary to provide details about Allotype. The same as Holotype but of different gender. This would be meaningful in situations where the male and female differ greatly.
When the type species of a genus has to be renamed for some reason, this means mostly the whole genus gets renamed. So it is important to know the type species. Same for type genus on familia level, etc...
Type species can only be found on genus level, Type genus on familia level, etc.
Some users use this as a seperate lvl 2 section. As with basionym and homotypic synonyms. Are basionyms and homotypic synonyms valuable at all?
Urgent example for a seperate lvl 2 Synonyms section: Graphis scripta
- Answering POVs above:
- 1 Authorship citation is different between plants and animals. Parentheses usage is the same between the two though (but animals don't cite the combining author after the parenthetical author)
- 2 Host-substrate/Locality: I see that is what Index Fungorum uses. Host and substrate aren't going to apply to most taxa, so I wouldn't want to use this form generally. Looking on Index Fungorum, I see a lot of times they don't have all 3 of those pieces of information. Include substrate with Locality as "Type locality"? What about splitting into up as follows (when all the info is given):
- Type locality: blah
- Substrate: bleh
- Host: blah blah
- There are a handful of fossil pages (e.g. Elseya uberima that have "Horizon:" as a separate line from "Type locality:". I suspect there may will be other cases of specialized data particular to one subfield (hosts will probably also be indicated in the taxonomic descriptions of parasitic worms).
- 3 Holotype: You may also have Neotypes and Lectotypes (among others). Maybe rename the Holotype article something like Type holding institutions and make Holotype, Neotype, Lectotype etc. into redirects? Making the word Holotype or Lectotype into the link itself means that the list of institutions gets linked to even if the acronym is not on the list, which is kind of misleading. Holotypes/Type holding institutions could ultimately include thousands of institutions so this option could get pretty unwieldy. Queensland Museum? Going to Holotypes (or "Type holding institions") via a redirecting link from the institutional name like Queensland Museum is already a hassle (it's hard to find QM in the list on Holotypes). Creating articles like EPN is an option I suppose, and it avoids the other issues. There are potential disambiguations by this route (same acronym may be used in botany and zoology for different institutions). EPN style also opens the door to a whole new class of articles to create (dilutes Wikispecies?). I'd support creating separate articles for each museum, but am leaning towards avoiding the whole mess by not any making links to type holding institutions.
- 4 Allotype: I'd certainly include it if I came across that information.
- 5 Type species: I think it's essential to include this on a well-developed genus page
- 6 Basionym:/homotypic synonym I think it's good to include basionym for plants. Basionym isn't a zoological term, but it wouldn't hurt to include the equivalent on an animal page. I've seen the lvl 2 subsection use of Basionym, but it seems most pages that cite a basionym (e.g. Araucaria araucana) put it on it's own line headed "Basionym:" under the Name.
- AndrewT 01:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I was looking for guidance regarding redirects of synonyms. I think that on most Wikipedias it is normal practice to create articles of synonyms as redirects to the valid scientific name. This automatically leads users of old references to the correct page when entering the "Go" button. Is this also recommended best practise at Wikispecies? Independent of the answer I think it would be helpful to state this explicitly in the Synonyms section to clarify this for new users coming from other Wikipedias or Commons. --- Slaunger 01:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I overlooked that this is already described. I should redirect just as I am used to.-- Slaunger 22:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Temporal range subsection
Could we have a temporal range field? For example
Temporal range: ab late Paleogene - early Neogene; ad mid-to-late 1600s
for Raphus cucullatus, the dodo,
Temporal range: circa 8000 BC - present
for Felis catus, the domestic cat,
Temporal range: Jurassic - Cretaceous
for fossils of the family Dromaeosauridae.
For some areas of study (e.g. forams), this information is essential, and it is suited to the highly-structured format of Wikispecies.
HLHJ 22:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- We are not Wikipedia, so we don't carry this sort of information, nor conservation status (see Wikispecies:Village Pump#Use of conservation status icons) OhanaUnitedTalk page 22:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)