User talk:Kuzia/Archive 1
Welcome to Wikispecies!
Hello, and welcome to Wikispecies! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:
- Help:Contents provides a good introduction to editing Wikispecies.
- Templates are there to help you following syntax and formatting rules.
- Have a look at Done and to do.
If you have useful images to contribute to Wikispecies, please upload them at the Wikimedia Commons.
Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username (if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or in the Village Pump. Again, welcome!
Hi, can you please give some references for the changes you are making to Jaera. I am following the Isopoda World List, but maybe that one is not completely up-to date. Thanks. Lycaon 07:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Here are the reasons: Jaera istri was synonymized with J. sarsi in 2005. Jaera massiliensis (as J. nordica) was originally stated as species, but Lemercier (1958) used trinomens and so in English literature these two species were incorrectly refered as subspecies. Jaera petiti was synonymized with Jaera massiliensis in 1960, but with doubt. Jaera syei was synonymized with J. albifrons in 1968.
- When you made the above changes, you orphaned Jaera istri, Jaera nordmanni massiliensis and Jaera syei. If they are synonyms of other names then you can edit these to redirect to the currently accepted species. Thanks.--Open2universe 14:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Fair advice. Thanks. --Andrey A. Kuzmin 17:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Great to see all the beautiful work done on Isopods!! Thanks. Lycaon 11:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not a taxonomist, nor a specialist on the Isopods, but based on this ITIS entry, should your recently created Epicaridea redirect point to Cymothoida instead of Bopyroidea or should Epicaridea even replace Cymothoida? Thanks for any advice you can give. --Georgeryp 21:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. Cymothoida and Epicaridea are not synonyms by volume: they are in maternal-filial relations. The problem is that Epicaridea is not considered as distinct suborder, but it is really monophyletic group within Cymothoida. As I haven't seen any publication with the newest status of the name "Epicaridea" (i.e. to drop it into infraordinal level), I suppose not to create a taxon-page for it. I can advise current provisional solution: Epicaridea. --Andrey A. Kuzmin 19:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying this issue. Again, since I'm not a specialist, I can't comment on your solution except to say that it's much better than just a redirect. I'm going to link to your explanation given here from Epicaridea's talk/discussion page because it will be helpful to anyone considering a change to that page. --Georgeryp 20:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey, if you could pop over to Wikispecies:Village Pump#Email sent with new talk page edits, I'd appreciate it. I'd like to get this feature activated for Wikispecies, but I need a wider sampling before presenting it to the devs. (of course, if you don't think it's a wise idea, please say so; I want the feature, but not if everyone else hates it) Thanks! EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
(sorry for contacting you completely out of the blue, but I saw that you're an active editor around here, so I wanted your feedback)
- It is not useful for me, but it is potentially useful for those who would expect an answer in Talk but don't want to visit Wikispecies frequently. --Andrey A. Kuzmin 23:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Andrey, I see you do great work in Wikipedia. As example I made a link to Chinese Science Bulletin, 2004, Vol.49, No.17:1860-1868. Now you can see the just Author names. If you have questions you can reach me via my User talk PeterR. (Recent changes PeterR (talk))
PeterR 17:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Andrey, please do evrything in english and not by references in Russian. The English name for the journal is Zoologicheskii Zhurnal 68 (3): 126-131
PeterR 17:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
About authors. If the author not yet exist you have to made a Catalog:Taxon Authoritie. Therefore I allways mentioned the full names. For example you had done Zhang. The word Zhang was blue but the reference was false. Now you have create a new one for Z.Zhang. If you need help I can help you.
PeterR 18:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
As example I have make a Taxon Authority for Zhifei Zhang by Paratubiluchus bicaudatus. You can now see that Z.Zhang is blue. If you put on Z.Zhang you get information of him. This is the official way we work in Wikipedia.
PeterR 19:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I have read the international code 5.1 and 5.2. These are examples for books and bulletins. Not for Wikipedia. All books and bulletins have references. In these references you find the authors Yang, D., Zhu, Y., Wang, M. & Zhang, L. Wikipedia have Catalog:Taxon Authorities. Herein we discribe the fullnames Li Zhang and the author by the species (L.Zhang) We #redirekt L.Zhang with Li Zhang. In the books and bulletins you see Zhang and in Wikipedia L.Zhang. I hope you understand me.
PeterR 10:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Andrey I herewith send you the papers from Marina V. Malyutina. Herein you find details and you can link the papers.
Are you an expert of Isopoda? Then look allso to Zootaxa. There are a lot of new species.
PeterR 11:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- I know these articles. That is part of my work. --Andrey A. Kuzmin 11:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I think you're doing here a serious and professional work. What I don't like is your use of the word "Combinations" to stand for what I should think "Synonyms" suits it better. You may be right in presuming that "Combinations" is superior and reflects better your intentions and aspirations, but the value of this project is finally reflected in the standardization, else we have here an anarchy, where everyone is bending the rules as fits his inclinations. Therefore I must ask you to overcome your disgust with the atrocious word "Synonyms" and try to make do with it...
Mariusm 06:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- The term "combination" is not mine: I use it in the way unambiguously stated in the last Code. Combination is not a synonym at all. Combination is the same name of species which (species) is just transferred to another genus. The differences are too great to treat both synonyms (other names, proposed for a certain taxon) and combinations as "synonyms". For details see the Code. If it is uncommon to mention combinations in the Project I will not mention them at all. But as I understand, one of the ways to develop Wikispecies is to extend details on each taxon.
- --Andrey A. Kuzmin 08:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Please if you answers persons do this on their own talkpages.
I understand now that you are a professional Isopoda expert and that you get all the new informations from whole the world.
PeterR 10:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. --Andrey A. Kuzmin 11:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
New combination - yes or no
Here is a site which explains all the zoological terms we need to know . New combination goes under the section "Synonymy" which should include all the names that have been used for the organism including synonyms, new combinations, misidentifications, etc. Here at Wikispecies we are using the term "Synonyms" (maybe wrongly for the pundits). So all New Combinations must also come under the section "Synonyms".
A way to make things clearer is to write like this: (under the section "Synonyms")
Mariusm 13:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm a goodwilling amateur. Maybe I explain my self not so well as you as professional. I get bulletins all over the world from Lepidoptera. Lepidoptera is my hobby and I have contact with some collectors all over the world. When a specie x move to y (comb. nov.) than for me the specie moves to an other genera. Professionaly my term is not correct but most of us are amateurs and the essence is that we understand each other. Maybe you can in the Help Name Section explain the differencies between (Comb. nov.), (Syn. nov.) and other terms so whe can fill Wikipedia on the just manner.
PeterR 19:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
More on combinations...
- There is no way to make a clear distinction between "Mentions" and "True synonyms". The difficulty increses for this community, being composed of amatures, mainly, so "Mentions" is what actuly is practiced here.
- One way to deal with such ambiguties, is to follow "Fishbase" practice. (look here for an example)
- It appears there are the following main types for synonyms and you can add the exact type in parentheses if you know it:
- original combination
- new combination
- junior synonym
- Many serious sites (look here for an example) use the word "Synonymy" to denote what you call "Mentions", so really our rulls here shouldn't be stricter than that !!
- We can ask the administrators to change the section name from "Synonyms" to "Synonymy", and to run a bot to change all the pages accordingly.
Mariusm 07:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- The vast majority of the entries in the Wikipedia "Synonyms" section (and globally too) are anyway "new combinations" - where a species is transferred to a new or different genus, synonyms proper being much more scarce.
- Considering the difficulty of distinguishing between synonym and combination, especially for the non-professional, it is unpractical to make the division into two different sections, and to ask the editors here to make this distinction.
- The term "Synonymy" is widely used and accepted as a term to denote the entire name repertoire of a species in many respectable sites as I already pointed out.
- If you have any reservations, or wish to make changes or modifications in the page format, the proper line of conduct at Wikispecies is to ask permission from the community (in the village-pump section), and start an open debate on the subject.
- as I mentioned before, you have the good-enough option to add the proper sub-section in parentheses beside the respective entry.
- the ICZN rules are concerned mainly with authors and not with publication format. The name "Synonymy" is established de-facto to have a broader meaning then the strict "Collection of synonym-names" as you see it.
- Mariusm 06:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Please look here for a discussion I started on the subject. Feel free to participate.
- Mariusm 07:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
What is your meaning about Replacement names. I have now twelve new species replacement names from Gerardo Lamas (Zootaxa 1848:47-56, 2008). Please can you look to Arhopala ariana wanggu to see if this is correct or have I create == Replacement name == and no === Synonyms ===?
PeterR 16:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Replacement name 2
Thanks for your help. I hope I have now done it well see Arhopala ariana wanggu. If I have an answer from you I go further with the other species.
PeterR 08:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Type species format
Please can you look to Notiocoelotes palinitropus. I have more comb. nov. and I want your opinion if I have done it well.
I have update it now. Please have a look.
Your wright about more background data, but I have only an abstract. Even on Google I can't find more background information. I have found the original species (Coelotes palinitropus), but this was write in Chinees. Even the wright Zhu and Wang I can't find.
PeterR 13:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I have a problem. I add genera and species from Vestnik Zoologii, but some are written in Russian and the abstract is in English. Can you translate the Holotype and Typelocation for me and will you add this information to the species? See Armenohelops armeniaca.
Thanks for your help
PeterR 08:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Do you know where I can find on internet a list with Russion authors from entomologists in English?
PeterR 11:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused about classis, Ordo etc. in the Nematoda. I have now classis Secernentea with Ordo (Aphelenchida, Oxyurida, Rhabditida, etc.) Rhabditida is now in the Classis Chromadorea. Ordo Oxyurida with Superfamilia Thelastomatidea and Familia Oxyuridae how can I add these in Wiki?
Hi, please be sure to cite references for any changes you make to Animalia classification, and try to ensure that they reflect current thinking. Thanks. Stho002 19:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- also, please keep the phyla list as it is on the Ecdysozoa page, at least as an overview if you modify that page. Thanks Stho002 20:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- sorry, but I must strongly object to changing phyla to classes within an unranked cladus! That is going to bugger up a whole lot of things, like the Animalia page! Stho002 20:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- I am trying to combine phylogenetics with more traditional Linnean taxonomy, not replace the latter with the former! The implications of doing this more widely would be enormous for Wikispecies! Stho002 20:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Leave it with me: I will try to accommodate Scalidophora somehow, without destroying the entire classification system! Stho002 21:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- I have fixed it in a way I think is best - do you agree? Stho002 21:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- you say:
>Unranked structure should be preferred, but conservatively we may use clasis-levels. (Just a recommendation.)
I disagree. I really think that we need everything to be placed into a phylum, as classes without a phylum are not suitable for Wikispecies. The rank has no real meaning anyway - there is no difference to call it classis or phylum, except that it makes Wikispecies a lot more complicated if we have classes not in phyla. Kristensen (2002) still calls them phyla. Stho002 21:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Kristensen, R.M. 2002: An introduction to Loricifera, Cycliophora, and Micrognathozoa. Integrative and comparative biology, 42: 641-651.
- Orphaned ordines (without classes) aren't as serious as orphaned classes (without phyla) because they don't, for example, make any difference to the Animalia page, i.e., the scope of the problem is more "contained". Eventually, I will use the disputed template to explain the difficulties with Scalidophora, but not today. So, please leave things as they are unless you can redesign the whole system and maintain the simplicity/practicality of the Animalia page, where presently every species of Animalia is assigned to a phylum. Stho002 22:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi :) Yes, I've seen Maresiella and refs. I'm also the person who has deleted Calafia and Template:Calafia after you marked them to delete. But today I've found some pages with Calafia as accepted taxon. So, I decided to put this decision for verification. If you are sure your opinion, I'll do as you wrote. (Sorry for my English :) Ark (talk page) 14:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Of course, I'll do. Thanks for the explanation :) Regards, Ark (talk page) 15:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)