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 {{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:

• Chinese - 中文
• Czech - česky
• Finnish - Suomi
• French - Français
• Hungarian - Magyar
• Hindi - हिन्दी
• Italian - Italiano
• Korean - 한국어
• Nepali - नेपाली
• Russian - Русский
• Tamil - தமிழ்
• Ukrainian - Українська
• Vietnamese - Tiếng Việt

Archives
1	(2004-09-21/2005-01-05)	2	(2005-01-05/2005-08-23)
3	(2005-08-24/2005-12-31)	4	(2006-01-01/2005-05-31)
5	(2006-06-01/2006-12-16)	6	(2006-12-17/2006-12-31)
7	(2007-01-01/2007-02-28)	8	(2007-03-01/2007-04-30)
9	(2007-05-01/2007-08-31)	10	(2007-09-01/2007-10-31)
11	(2007-11-01/2007-12-31)	12	(2008-01-01/2008-02-28)
13	(2008-03-01/2008-04-28)	14	(2008-04-29/2008-06-30)
15	(2008-07-01/2008-09-30)	16	(2008-10-01/2008-12-25)
17	(2008-12-26/2009-02-28)	18	(2009-03-01/2009-06-30)
19	(2009-07-01/2009-12-31)	20	(2010-01-01/2010-06-30)
21	(2010-07-01/2010-12-31)	22	(2011-01-01/2011-06-30)
23	(2011-07-01/2011-12-31)	24	(2012-01-01/2012-12-31)
25	(2013-01-01/2013-12-31)	26	(2014-01-01/2014-12-31)
27	(2015-01-01/2015-01-31)	28	(2015-02-01/2015-02-28)
29	(2015-02-28/2015-04-29)	30	(2015-04-29/2015-07-19)
31	(2015-07-19/2015-09-23)	32	(2015-09-23/2015-11-21)
33	(2015-11-21/2015-12-31)	34	(2016-01-01/2016-04-17)
35	(2016-03-22/2016-05-01)	36	(2016-05-01/2016-07-12)
37	(2016-07-13/2016-09-30)	38	(2016-10-01/2016-12-04)
39	(2016-12-04/2017-01-17)	40	(2017-01-18/2017-01-28)
41	(2017-01-29/2017-02-13)	42	(2017-02-14/2017-03-21)
43	(2017-03-20/2017-08-11)	44	(2017-08-10/2017-12-07)
45	(2017-12-08/2018-01-08)	46	(2018-01-19/2018-03-11)
47	(2018-03-11/2018-09-11)	48	(2018-09-01/2019-02-17)
49	(2019-02-22/2019-06-18)	50	(2019-06-19/2019-10-06)
51	(2019-10-07/2019-12-23)	52	(2019-12-24/2020-04-03)
53	(2020-04-03/2020-07-16)	54	(2020-07-17/2020-09-05)
55	(2020-09-08/2020-11-27)	56	(2020-11-27/2021-06-21)
57	(2021-06-05/2021-09-24)	58	(2021-09-25/2022-01-24)
59	(2022-01-26/2022-02-27)	60	(2022-02-27/2022-04-13)
61	(2022-04-14/2022-05-10)	62	(2022-07-01/2023-12-17)
63	(2022-12-24/2023-04-20)	64	(2023-04-20/2023-08-29)
65	(2023-09-01/2023-12-27)	66	(2024-01-xx/2024-xx-xx)

Repositories with the same combination of letters

Hello, a quick question: is there a preferred way of disambiguating repository links? The holotype of Mesodermochelys undulatus is in the Hobetsu Museum ("Institutional Abbreviation: HMG"), but HMG is already occuped by the Hunterian Museum, Glasgow. Would HMG (Japan) or Hobetsu Museum or something else again be better? Thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 13:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello Maculosae tegmine lyncis. No, unfortunately we don't have a set system for disambiguating repository links/pages. It's been discussed several times before, but the talks have sort of dried out without the community coming to any conclusion. I'll copy this discussion to the Village Pump, in order to again raise this question to the community as a whole. Please continue the discussion there. Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC).

┌─────────────────────────┘ The above discussion was copied from User talk:Tommy Kronkvist#Repositories with the same combination of letters. Please continue the discussion below.

Though we tend to be a bit loath to them. This is one issue where either a category or a list may be helpful. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 01:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

…Or both, actually. A list of all repositories listing where they're situated etc. (like the author disambiguation pages) would be helpful when users need to do a quick search for a specific repository page, while the category is useful in a broader spectrum, for example when doing Wikidata-, tech- or bot related tasks. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC).

This is surely a wider problem than just for wikispecies? I'd assume priority applies; whichever of the institutions was HMG first should keep it (Her Majesty's Government? ツ), and the other(s) should select, or be allocated, a different acronym? - MPF (talk) 10:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree Tommy, at the least this could be initialised as a list of all repositories, a Cat can then be done that would be most beneficial to various tasks as you say. MPF, In regards to priority of acronyms, for major institutions I believe these are registered by the Institution and in general are their preferred acronym. I believe they are checked against an international database when created. I could be wrong on that just I do recall several museums being made to change their over the years, some were voluntary. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 10:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, Evenhuis has HMUG for the Hunterian museum, but does not include Hobetsu. The official ASIH list uses HMG for Hobetsu and GLAHM for the Hunterian Museum. Circeus (talk) 11:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

In regards to priority of acronyms we should also remember that many repositories use several acronyms depending on faculty etc. For example the Swedish Museum of Natural History use NHRM, NHRS, NRM & SNHM; here at Wikispecies they're all redirected to the main one, SMNH. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC).

Yes. Acronyms have also varied over time for many institutions (Indeed, Hobetsu Museum's official name isn't even that anymore: it changed in 2006!), and the literature is full of adhoc usages because unless a journal editor mandates use of a standard, everyone remains free to abbreviate however they want. While Index Herbariorum, Evenhuis and the ASIH standards are convenient, they are only partial and ad hoc to their specialties. The early 2010s efforts at standardizing never really took off because very few projects actually need to handle collection acronyms across many specialties. Unfortunately, we're one of those! Circeus (talk) 14:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────┘ "This is one issue where either a category or a list may be helpful". Don't we have Repositories already? Though it doesn't look like either of the two subpages have been updated very often in the last two years. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I had forgotten about the Repositories pages. However as you say they haven't been updated for a long time: you'll have to be familiar with Akkadian cuneiform to decipher some of it... Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC).

We basically stopped supporting that page when we stopped using it as the linking atrget for all repository acronyms. Circeus (talk) 02:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

You're right. It would be easier to update/support it (and of more value to the community) if there where categories to back it up. Right now it's only a somewhat misplaced page in main namespace that feels a bit too "autonomous" from a wiki structural point of view. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC).

┌─────────────────────────┘ @Monster Iestyn and Tommy Kronkvist: I can't believe I forgot that there IS in fact a page that (roughly) is appropriate for this: Wikispecies:Institution acronyms needing fixes. But then I was the only one actually bothered by issues like that at the time. Circeus (talk) 03:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Circeus, back in 2015 you were often the only one bothered by many of these technicalities... :-) Thanks for the link, I'll have a new look at all of this during the weekend. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC).

At the time I was mostly bothered with issues of multiple acronyms for the same institution and acronyms with (IMO) entirely improper names (e.g. any starting with DB- for "Department of Biology"), so the structure of the page reflects that. We hadn't yet run into much homonymy issues with regard to these. Circeus (talk) 13:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I did actually see that page some time back myself, but it too appeared abandoned and forgotten so I didn't want to touch it myself so I recall. I think a few on the todo list have since been dealt with, for instance RMCA/MRAC. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Back to Hobetsu, Kamuysaurus japonicus is there too; I propose disambiguating HMG to HMG (Glasgow) and HMG (Hobetsu); does anyone disagree/object/have a better suggestion? Thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 12:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I have similar troubles as follows:

• FU
  1. Department of Biology, Fudan University, Shanghai, Guangdong, China
  2. Herbarium, Department of Forest and Forest Products Sciences, Laboratory of Wood Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Fukuoka 812-8581, Japan^{Index Herbariorum}
• RM
  1. Raffles Museum, Singapore [now ZRC and redirected to LKCNHM]
  2. Rocky Mountain Herbarium, Department of Botany, 3165, University of Wyoming, 1000 East University Avenue, Laramie, Wyoming 82071-3165, U.S.A.^{Index Herbariorum}

As for the latter, its category page is currently redirected to Category:ZRC, but all of its members (except for Acontia (Acontia) tinctilis, whose 'RM' seems to be one of the variants of SNHM, however) are plant species related to U.S.A. and I would like to remove the redirection and place disambiguation in each page if no one opposes within two weeks. --Eryk Kij (talk) 06:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

As in the disambiguation page HMG, it is possible to use the template {​{refer|repository}​} [a zero-width space between the brackets prevents this from functioning as a template] to disambiguate between eg FU (Shanghai) and FU (Fukuoka); I then put in a deletion request for the original (emptied) category Category:HMG so that use of an undisambiguated {​{Repository link|HMG}​} would result in a red-linked category, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 07:59, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Maculosae tegmine lyncis: Thank you very much for your advice. I will try it later. --Eryk Kij (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Fuddan is also known as FDU, for what it's worth. Circeus (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I have applied the change to Category:RM since no one opposed.

@Circeus: Your idea seems attractive, but I think it is also important what are the sources of the current zoological repository abbreviations, not limited to this case. Is there any zoological counterpart of Index Harbariorum? --Eryk Kij (talk) 10:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

As I pointed out earlier, the issue is there is no cross-specialty source of acronyms because we might well be one of relatively few users that actually needs acronyms across all of biology. Botany has a well curated list, as does ichthyology/herpetology. Entomology to a lesser degree with evenhuis's compilation. But otherwise, it's the wild west, and even in these specialties, you occasionally run into all sorets of irregularities because authors may still use whatever acronym they fancy, and old article may be poorly standardized... All of which ends up seeping back into Wikispecies.

There were a few past attempts at cross-specialty compilation (which eventually merged into grscicoll, IIRC), but maintenance was poor because very people are actually invested in such efforts, and we're left with a mostly uncurated, and entirely unmaintained dataset that was not even available at all for a while before GBIF put it back online! 18:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library

Just want to draw your attention (in case you're not aware) that you can apply for access to The Wikipedia Library. This grants you free access to a number of journals and major resources like JSTOR, Taylor & Francis and Springer-Nature (the only noticeable missing major publisher is Wiley). This should help you access some journals that your university or institution might not have subscription to. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 07:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I was not aware of this initiative, this is absolutely fantastic. A huge thank you to all the people who made this possible!--Hiouf (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Many thanks --Andyboorman (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Does it include Brill and/or Magnolia Press? I'd consider it if it had the Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera or Zoo/Phytotaxa (since scihub is not updated since late 2019), but the site makes it very hard to check up on what is or not included. Circeus (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I actually signed up to this a while back. I tried it out with JSTOR for instance. It didn't give me access to any journals I particularly wanted though (last I checked), but the idea of the Wikipedia Library itself is a good one nevertheless. Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Circeus: Brill and Magnolia Press are currently not included. However, both are on the suggestion list and you can upvote the ones that you want to see. Of course it depends on the publisher's willingness (see Wiley). @Monster Iestyn: JSTOR's access description says "The content set currently available to the Wikipedia editors includes all of JSTOR's archival journal collections and the 19th Century British Pamphlets collection." It's possible that they have expanded the collection since you last tried. But if you can't access some journals within JSTOR, you can raise it at this Meta page. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Monster Iestyn: I managed to get a 2021 paper from JSTOR. And indeed, it would be fantastic to have Zootaxa. But I'm already very grateful for what's provided. It's a small but important step toward open-source science. --Hiouf (talk) 07:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

How does this work, please? I'd be interested in getting hold of this one, please: 10.2989/00306525.2020.1837979 Thanks! MPF (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@MPF: You only need to click on The Wikipedia Library link to login. It only works if the publisher is collaborating with Wikipedia. The paper you linked to is published by Taylor & Francis. Unfortunately they haven't joined the program. You may have to ask around to see if others have access to it. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Yan-Hong Lu 2

Back in 2016, Kempf EK created the page Yan-Hong Lu 2 for a Chinese ostracodologist. I trust this author probably does or has existed, but Kempf didn't put any further information on the page. So far I've been unable to find any publications by this author, nor whether they might actually be the same as Yan-Hong Lu 1. Unfortunately of course I can't ask Kempf himself for information now, since he has since passed away. So, can anyone else dig up anything maybe? Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

If we can't find names or articles that are relevant to the name, we shouldn't have a page for it. We can always recreate it later if we can figure out who this person actually is. Circeus (talk) 13:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Revisiting this again, I just found out about an article that possibly was co-authored by Yan-Hong Lu the ostracodologist, a Chinese-language one that translates to "Late Cenozoic Ostracoda in East Yunnan" in the Chinese journal Acta Micropalaeontologica Sinica. There doesn't seem to be much on this journal online, let alone the article, so it's no wonder I found it difficult to find anything at all for this author. Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I have now renamed both "Yan-Hong Lu"s and added the mentioned article to Yan-Hong Lu (ostracodologist), so this issue can now be considered solved. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Native distribution areas:

The use of distribution data containing areas in which a species has been "introduced into" means that the title - Native distribution areas is incorrect. Therefore, something has to change surely? My strong preference would be to keep the title, as this has some, all be it minor, relevance to taxonomy, whereas "introduced into" is irrelevant and probably out of project scope. The implication is then to delete the "introduced into" data on edit and not add it in the future. Please can we discuss? Andyboorman (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I think invasive species are taxonomically relevant, by hybridization and by outcompeting native flora. Species can have their type outside their native area. -RLJ (talk) 21:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed but a blanket "introduced into" does not cover your valid first point, as it is too vague and all encompassing. We would need "invasive and of concern" for example. Andyboorman (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The topic has been discussed before, for example Archive 48 PS @AndyMabbett: I did not close the discussion only posted the penultimate contribution! Regards Andyboorman (talk) 10:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I think you mean me. I do not use the "User:AndyMabbett" account. Anyone looking at the linked discussion can see that I did not say you had closed it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

This sort of slippery slope broadening of the material to be included is exactly why I've always objected to having distributions to begin with. Leave it to Wikipedia, that's their job. Circeus (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Broadening the scope without going to the Pump is a no no, as well. Andyboorman (talk) 18:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

For information @RLJ: is experimenting with the format found here. Andyboorman (talk) 10:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I am "experimenting" with this format along with other users since a couple of years, without significant changes. The grey script for introduced occurrences is authored by User:MPF. --RLJ (talk) 12:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

No accusation of improper conduct just bringing it to the attention of other users who wish to use this function. Its use will at least allow a more consensual format to emerge. Andyboorman (talk) 20:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I still think by far the best, is to use maps where we have them (see e.g. Acer platanoides); visualisation is much easier, and it is far easier to depict distributions that do not match political / national boundaries. Maps if available can replace 'nadi' lists, rather than have both. Where no map is available, then the nadi lists are useful. While I'd prefer them to show just native locations, I can live with invasive locations when shown distinctly (like pale grey text), but we really shouldn't list anywhere that species are cultivated / kept in captivity but not being invasive. - MPF (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Expansion depth - Lua as solution? Demo

The expansion depth-related request above to the technical team appears to have stalled - and eg Avialae and the templates it links to are missing from eg Anas templates, but if you add it/them in, then there is indeed a functionality issue – so, on a test basis, I have copied across the bare minimum for basic functionality of Module:Autotaxobox. If you look at Wikispecies:Sandbox, taxonavigation is being served in two ways - the standard template method up to Ordo level (this method is capped at c.40 levels); and, in the dropdown, a few (at the moment, duplicated) ranks using the "Lua module" method. This requires completion of eg {{Taxonomy/Feliformia}}, and its parents, to work, and is currently capped at (if used in conjunction, an additional) 100 levels - a cap which, were the need to arise, appears to be amendable this end.

@Circeus: seemed opposed, but it's not clear which ranks should otherwise be used in the taxonavigation templates, and which not; clearly we currently have a software-imposed constraint, which this solution might sidestep; by running both systems alongside each other, there is no labour requirement to convert one set of templates into another format, simply an option for those who would like to add back in those ranks omitted due to this constraint. Were say ranks above Order to be converted to Lua and the species etc pages served in this hybrid manner, the {{Taxonav}} tool would not result in two taxonavigation boxes, which might otherwise result were for instance the template method to be used up to Avialae, with taxonav applied in the Order-level template, then the Lua method for higher ranks. (The current test code has vast amounts of bloat, and the final output may want minor tweaking format-wise, but it might be best to canvass other opinions first.) Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Maculosae tegmine lyncis: I'm not happy with the direction wikispecies has taken in this regard, but at the same time I'm the first to admit I'm not active enough around here to justify actively fighting off such initiatives if no one else opposes. I'm a grumpy stodgey, but I'm fine with having not much sway lol. Circeus (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Abydosaurus is an example of the (current) issue: if you expand the taxonavigation box, functionality is affected, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Personally I do not mind the idea of a hybrid and splitting this at Order seems reasonable. I think there are far fewer nomenclatural changes above the level of order and hence its almost set and forget. I need to ask though how this could impact translation of the wiki?

I do wish this wiki would continue with what its best future potential is and that is a repository of names rather than trying to do taxonomy. We are not functionally set up to do the taxonomy of life. Please if you think we are a repository of names I ask where are the pages for synonyms? They are redirects. Which means we have made a taxonomic decision that this redirect although available (zoology) or valid (botany) isa not the current name. We should have pages for all names and synonyms link to the correct name not redirect to it. The synonyms should have all their data. Doing this is the future for wikispecies. COL+ will be doing the taxonomy and we cannot compete. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 01:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Pages for synonyms (which I would like to see too..), rather than redirects, would have the ancillary benefit of assisting wikidata/wikipedia linkage. Currently, if there is a name change, typically the various wiki projects amend or move the page but still link to the same wikidata item; so, if wikispecies links to the new wikidata item bearing the new name, that page is in effect isolated, unconnected to the related wikipedia pages, incentivizing linkage of a new wikispecies name to the old wikidata item/the "wrong" name; or if some wikipedia pages move to the new item, some don't, then wikispecies is only linked to some not all the related wikipedia pages.

Another area where wikispecies can "compete" is in having multiple ...secundum x authority... secundum y authority... subsections in the taxonavigation section, whereas databases set up to have only one parent might struggle; this alo has the advantage of showing the history and typically a wider range of (once related) taxon names, so you can see how the old name one searches for was once treated, and how it is now. For instance, were MSW4 (Mammal Species of the World 4) ever to see light of day, it would be a shame to see a flurry of pages moves to the new names, rather than a this is what MSW3 said, this is what MSW4 says, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 09:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

New Thraupidae genus & species

In case anyone is interested (@Hector Bottai: in particular): abstract - MPF (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Wow @MPF: this is fresh! Will take a look. Thanks!--Hector Bottai (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to @MPF: for the advise and to @Maculosae tegmine lyncis: for creating the Template:Lane et al., 2021, new genus and sp pages created Heliothraupis and Heliothraupis oneilli. Is there anyone with access to the article in order to get additional information like type locality, holotype, and confirm it is an eponym of John Patton O'Neill? --Hector Bottai (talk) 00:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I tried sci-hub but they don't have it yet; otherwise, try the #The Wikipedia Library above? I was wondering about the derivation, and was getting stuck with "one-illi", couldn't work it out at all :-) MPF (talk) 00:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hector Bottai: drop me an email if you'd like a copy of the pdf, I've got one from one of the authors. Yes, it is after John O'Neill. - MPF (talk) 21:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @MPF: pages completed and authorship corrected with the help of the full article you sent.--Hector Bottai (talk) 11:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Excellent! - MPF (talk) 11:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

As an aside, there's lots of photos of it on Daniel Lane's Flickr account, but all sadly © All Rights Reserved. Is there anyone with a Flickr account who'd like to have a go at sweet talking him into releasing one or more under a creative commons license? - MPF (talk) 15:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Cactaceae new resources

Hello fellow botanists and others with an interest in cacti. I draw your attention to Korotkova et al. (2021) on the Cactaceae taxon page. I am still digesting this paper and I am not an expert on cacti, but as it was produced by an impressive list of specialists it has authority in my opinion. In addition, you may wish to look through this online resources, at first view it looks very good and means that there may have to be edits on our cacti taxon pages, if this resource is accepted. Unusually for online taxonomy this site has a very good list of papers supporting their classifications. Hence my alert here. Andyboorman (talk) 07:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Help please with a new template. I am trying to produce a functioning template in order to search Cactaceae at Caryophyllales.org from a taxon page. I have hit a brick wall with this template {{CACO}} which is partially functioning on Airampoa. However, it does search correctly. Any ideas? Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Andyboorman: Just tried adding &search%5BdoSynonyms&search%5BdoTaxa%5D=1 to the end of (that didn't work, tried the middle instead) the search URL in the template, after testing out what happens when I crop each search parameter from a working search URL. Hopefully that should fix it, I think that tells it to search for accepted taxa and/or synonyms. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah, it's supposed to be &search[doSynonyms]=1&search[doTaxa]=1, my mistake. Seems to be working now at least. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Monster Iestyn: thanks works really well. Great work well above my pay grade and skills set! Many thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 20:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Andyboorman: It's a paper (doi:10.3372/wi.51.51208) with a taxonomic supplement. --Succu (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah cheers @Succu: masses of data to digest and all free access. Caryophyllales.org is fairly easy to use and our new reference template {{CACO}} works well, thanks to Monster Iestyn Andyboorman (talk) 06:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Succu: I have already created a reference template for the paper on the Cactaceae taxon page as

• Korotkova, N., Aquino, D., Arias, S., Eggli, U., Franck, A. , Gómez-Hinostrosa, C., Guerrero, P.C., Hernández, H.M., Kohlbecker, A., Köhler, M., Luther, K., Majure, L.C., Müller, A., Metzing, D., Nyffeler, R., Sánchez, D., Schlumpberger, B. & Berendsohn, W.G. 2021. Cactaceae at Caryophyllales. org–a dynamic online species-level taxonomic backbone for the family. Willdenowia 51(2): 251–270. DOI: 10.3372/wi.51.51208 Reference page.  Andyboorman (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

From today it appears (We are sorry, the Caryophyllales_spp portal is not yet released for public access. Please sign-in in order to get access to the content.), Preventing knowing the content of the information.--MILEPRI (talk) 10:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Works OK for me see Disocactus just added a few minutes ago. Andyboorman (talk) 11:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Horticulture and cacti

Browsing through our cacti pages I keep coming across so called taxa that are generated through horticultural activities. Many are of uncertain origin and are not published in IPNI. From my own experience I can state that there could be thousands of specimens generated by enthusiasts and growers. Though possibly attractive and of interest to enthusiasts and the trade, I do not think these plants belong here, as WS is primarily concerned with natural species. I propose culling these pages and images, particularly starting with those not lodged with IPNI and traceable through scientific literature and secondary sources. Thoughts please. Andyboorman (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree; they can be considered as cultivars - MPF (talk) 23:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Cultivars are not the subject of IPNI... --Succu (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Of course, but @Succu:artificial hybrid genera and species often do appear in IPNI. Andyboorman (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Please ensure that the data in any such pages exists in Wikidata before it is deleted from here, so that it is not lost to the wider Wikimedia community Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok Andyboorman (talk) 15:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Coleoptera genus Sirdenus or Syrdenus?

During my work on the bulk of orphaned pages for species of Coleoptera, today I made a genus page for 5 species of Sirdenus Dejean, 1828. But Dejean mentions the name in synonymy. In case of a botanical name, this would not be valid. Some databases assign the genus to Chaudoir, 1871 instead, but unfortunately, Chaudoir spelled it Syrdenus. As I am not much experienced with all rules of the zoological code, I would like to ask our zoology editors for comments and help. --Thiotrix (talk) 12:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

ICZN Article 11.6 might be relevant, if Sirdenus was first used as valid before 1961. Syrdenus Chaudoir, 1871 might be just an unjustified emendation. Beyond that, I'm not sure myself to be honest. Though, I've noticed Sirdenus Dejean, 1828 is used as valid in a few recent works such as {{Bousquet, 2012}} and the Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera Volume 1 (Revised and Updated Edition). Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Interesting case, IRMNG presently has Sirdenus Dejean, 1828 from Neave, as "unassessed", and Syrdenus Chaudoir, 1871 from Neave and Hallan, the latter source giving it as an accepted (current) name, up till now followed by IRMNG for that reason. A quick Google Scholar search for e.g. publications since 2000 gives 6 for "Sirdenus Dejean" vs. 2 for "Syrdenus Chaudoir", so maybe the Dejean name is preferred, which would make the Chaudoir version an unjustified emendation. Does not seem to be discussed elsewhere, although may be in a place I have not yet seen - other opinions welcome. Tony Rees Tony 1212 (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm with Iestyn. Chaudoir is indubitably referring to the name first mentioned by Dejean: "This genus has been proposed by Ziegler and mentioned by Dejean, but nobody has exposed its characters." Under article 11.6, that makes name available with Dejean, 1828 as the author, and Chaudoir's name becomes an available, but invalid emendation. Circeus (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, I have updated IRMNG to set Sirdenus Dejean, 1828 as the accepted genus name with "Syrdenus Chaudoir" as an unjustified emendation (and therefore a synonym), reversing the previous situation which was per Hallan's Biology Catalog (2012 version) - the latter unfortunately no longer available in web land it seems. Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 04:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Some/all of the Hallan Biology Catalog is available via the Internet Archive from when it was last on line, I can supply more information if anyone wants :) Tony 1212 (talk) 06:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for these informations. I will follow IRMNG for the Sirdenus page at Wikispecies. --Thiotrix (talk) 08:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

S. Abe and Tamura

Not a question this time, just more of a thing that happened today that acts as a reminder why it's important to find out full names of taxon authors if possible.

So, today I went to find out the full name of the supposed botanist and mycologist "S. Abe", who is the first of two authors of Lilium speciosum var. clivorum and both its synonyms. Eventually, I found the original publication for that name, and found out the first author's full name was Sadao Abe.

So far so good. Then, I double checked one of the pages linking to "S. Abe", Penicillium bilaiae, which cited "S.Abe" as the author of the synonym Penicillium lilacinoechinulatum. However, after I found the original publication for this name, it turned out the full name of this author was actually Shigeo Abe. This already raises some questions as to whether IPNI has also conflated Sadao Abe and Shigeo Abe as the same author under "S. Abe". Because of this, I have removed references to Sadao Abe being a mycologist on Wikispecies for now (unless someone later finds proof that he did author some fungi names).

On top of this though, on finding the original publication for Lilium speciosum var. clivorum for the first author's full name, I also discovered that the second author, "Tamura", was not Michio Tamura but in fact was Teruo Tamura.

In short, in trying to find out the full name of one author, I ended up essentially splitting two taxon authors into four today. One of these (Sadao Abe) needs the full name to be added to IPNI, and another (Teruo Tamura) is missing from it altogether. Shigeo Abe has only described fungi so far as I'm aware, so I don't know if he should be added to IPNI or not.

Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Generally IPNI is not nearly as good with infraspecific rankings and their authors, so yeah I'm not altogether surprised. Circeus (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

IPNI is always happy to be corrected though. Andyboorman (talk) 07:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

No complaints with IPNI, they responded to my email before to give full details for an author. I'll probably need to send another email to them sooner or later though, there's quite a few that I know need to be corrected. What I was just saying above though is more for us to watch out for botanists, mycologists etc. that apparently go about with similar abbreviations in the literature (or on IPNI and other websites).

As it happens, just a day after I said all that, I found some orchid species on Wikispecies were incorrectly credited to the mycologist George Smith instead of the botanist Gordon Smith, probably because the original publication only gave the latter as "G. Smith". This time at least IPNI actually helped me find the right author for the plants. I imagine there's cases like this all over Wikispecies still. Monster Iestyn (talk) 13:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

2-part Spanish surnames

Hi all, not a Wikispecies-specific question but I thought I would put it up here in case this editing community has relevant wisdom... My question pertains to (normally Spanish language?) authors with 2-part surnames. I believe (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_naming_customs) that in such cases, the first surname is the first surname of the father, and the second surname is the first surname of the mother. Such double surnames can then find their way into the authorship of taxonomic papers containing new taxa, among others.

In my experience when citing such persons as taxon authors, the second surname is conventionally dropped (but not always); I have also seen it abbreviated to a single capital letter - don't have a particular example to hand but think "Pedro Gonzalez B." or similar. An example of the unabbreviated, 2 part surname is a taxon such as "Abacum M. A. Fombella Blanco, Palinologia (1 Coloquio Internac. Palinol. León 1977) 249. Dec 1978. T.: A. normale M. A. Fombella Blanco" as listed in Index Nominum Genericorum (ING), but elsewhere found as "Abacum M.A. Fombella" or simply "Abacum Fombella". (this is a Cambrian acritarch genus). Currently there is no Wikispecies entry for Abacum, but it does appear in the list at Eukaryota incertae sedis.

Just wondering whether others have experience with citing such names, and/or words of wisdom to add here. In the Abacum case, I have currently decided to drop the second surname in my own database, as per most recent literature citations, but I am sure I may have a small number of "abbreviated second surnames" in my holdings somewhere, potentially to be addressed further as needed. (Of course, if this has come up before, a pointer to any previous discussion would be appreciated). Regards - Tony Rees Tony 1212 (talk) 19:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Here's an example with abbreviated second surnames - for both authors - in Fungi (as presently in IRMNG at least): "Cacahualia A. Mercado S. & R.F. Castañeda R., 1984". Just checked Index Fungorum, and the citation there is "Cacahualia Mercado & R.F. Castañeda 1984". (My citation came from ING once again). The actual authorship of the publication reads "Ángel Mercado Sierra and Rafael F. Castañeda Ruiz", as per https://www.jstor.org/stable/42596735 . In the text of the paper, the relevant citation is "Cacahualia Mercado & Castañeda gen. nov." Tony 1212 (talk) 19:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes this is an issue of normalization of author names, and each catalogue has to develop a policy of their own to deal with these (and various other issues0. I believe the Catalogue of Palearctic coleoptera has discussions on this topic, as does Kury et al., 2020, pp. 7-12 (pp. 12-18 are also interesting for a thorough discussion of issues related to attribution). As the latter notes: "There is no rule for standardization of author names in citations". Circeus (talk) 04:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Hmm... you are right of course. Probably the best thing in the case of the Hispanic names is to try to get a handle on "accepted usage" ... for Mr. Castañeda Ruiz the options would seem to be (1) "Castañeda Ruiz", (2) "Castañeda R." or (3) "Castañeda", whichever seems to be most prevalent as cited in other works. I have not checked, but have a suspicion that it might be (3)... so need to check the various name instances in my holdings over time. That is just me/IRMNG, Wikispecies can devise its own rules of course. 06:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, the very next name in my list of "IRMNG names to check" is Lusitania, an algae genus ex ING, where it is cited as "Lusitania González Guerrero, Portugaliae Acta Biol., Sér. B vol. Júlio Henriques: 126. 1949. T.: L. henriquesii González Guerrero." In WoRMS and AlgaeBase, it appears as "Lusitania P.González, 1949". There is a paper dealing with this author's life work (at the Botanic Gardens in Madrid): "The algae names and collection of the Spanish Phycologist Pedro González Guerrero" by J.L. Izquierdo and F. Pando, 2017, copy available at https://digital.csic.es/bitstream/10261/241107/1/458-Article%20Text-634-1-10-20170428.pdf, in which that author is consistently referred to as "González Guerrero" in the text, but all his taxa are attributed to "P. González" (note space before the surname, something I also prefer cf. the closed-up ("P.González") equivalent). So if this model is replicated more widely - and it most likely is - then dropping the second surname in these cases may well be the "standardisation" I am looking for, for my purposes at least. (Wikispecies does have an entry for this genus as of last year, copying the format from AlgaeBase it seems). Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm part way through my checking/cleaning of my own holdings such that e.g. "Castañeda Ruiz" / "Castañeda R." is being replaced by "Castañeda", as detailed above. Now a new wrinkle: some of the double surnames are hyphenated, example: Occidentarius "Betancur-R. & Acero P. in Betancur-R., Acero P., Bermingham & Cooke, 2007" (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1055790307000577: paper authorship given as Ricardo Betancur-R., Arturo Acero P., Eldredge Bermingham and Richard Cooke). I can make "Acero P." into "Acero" following the above logic, but what about "Betancur-R." - maybe leave as is, I am not sure... a similar case in Plantae is "Petrocardium Herrera, Jaramillo, Dilcher, Wing et Gómez-N. gen. nov." (https://www.jstor.org/stable/41923043) - in this case the surname "Gomez-N." appears elsewhere as "Gómez-Navarro" so maybe that is a justifiable edit in this case... more comments still welcome! Tony 1212 (talk) 06:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Tony 1212: Be careful not to over-compensate there... According to the Wikipedia page you linked, each of the two surnames can themselves be composite names, including those with hyphens. Monster Iestyn (talk) 07:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Monster Iestyn: - so, what would you be inclined to do? Normalise ""Betancur-R." and "Gómez-N." to Betancur and Gómez, respectively, keep as is, or expand if the unabbreviated second surname is available elsewhere? at present I can see a case for any of these options, just would prefer to standardize in one direction or another... Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 08:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

In those cases the abbreviated name is probably the second surname from what I've seen from most authors with Spanish names, so Betancur and Gómez might be alright in those cases I think (?). The only weird case I can think of at all in Spanish surnames is Manuel Martínez de la Escalera in zoology, where "Martínez de la Escalera" turns out to be the entire first surname alone, but many people (even he himself) shorten it to "Escalera" for taxon authorities. Not sure what you want to do for that one. Monster Iestyn (talk) 13:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I live in Brazil where this is also common, many scientists here publish under one of their surnames only but others use both. It is their choice in the end how the publish, they should be sorted by the first surname. I do not agree with dropping it however if they have chosen to use both their surnames. Its their name, their choice. We have to make it work. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 15:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Worst than that @Faendalimas:, some authors appear with complete name in some papers and with abbreviated in others, vide Navarro-Sigüenza or Navarro-S. Anyway, definitely we do not have the right to simplify their surname option. I suggest to use their option in the corresponding papers. We also may consult their preference when contact email is available.--Hector Bottai (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi all, there can also be a distinction between the form of the name that the author uses as the "publication author" in a particular work, and the form used for the "taxon name author" in the same work... for example here https://www.jstor.org/stable/2418950 the first author uses the name "Jesus Valdés R." in the author string for the publication, but ascribes the new genus Gouldochloa (as Gouldochloa curvifolia) to "Valdés, Morden & Hatch" (also, the running header in the article is "Valdés et al."). Just to confuse, IPNI lists this person as "Valdés-Reyna, Jesús (1948-)" with the standard form "Valdés-Reyna", refer https://www.ipni.org/a/34972-1 ... the latter would then appear to be a form of expansion rather than contraction. Again I am not particularly trying to steer this discussion in any one direction, just trying to see if there is a preferred method by which treatment of these names can be standardised for compendia such as ours (OK, in botany, IPNI standards already exist, although I personally prefer non-abbreviated surnames with forename initials in botany, as per the treatment in ING). Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

As an aside, Crossref (from the DOI to that article) mangles the first author completely, giving "R., J. V." .... Tony 1212 (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────┘Yes unfortunately some are not consistent. The ones I get at the beginning of their careers I say to them that I dont care how they write their name but pick something and stick to it. They will benefit in long term. Unfortunately some a a real mess of multiple versions. Tying some of them together is an issue. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 22:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Cactaceae updates

Hi. I have been going through our seemingly excellent taxon pages for Cactaceae with currently required changes in mind. Unfortunately, there are many changes that need to be made across the whole family. I have made a start, but I would be very grateful if other editors are prepared to help out. Cactaceae at Caryophyllales.org is a great help and increasingly other databases are staring to make changes. IPNI is more or less up to date and Google Scholar has relevant papers to be added. So it is mainly a question of using the move function and copy/paste. The large genus Mammillaria is a good example as it is now recognised as paraphyletic with three clades - Mammillaria s.s., Cochemiea s.l. and Coryphantha. The segregation of Cochemiea s.s and the dismantling of Mammillaria subg. Cochemiea has been recognised for years, by the way. All taxonomic changes are available and Breslin et al. (2021) as well as Cactaceae at Caryophyllales.org are accessible. Much appreciated Andyboorman (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Not a group I know much about unfortunately. But in a quick look round, a depressingly high % of pages illustrated with cultivated plants, many of them likely to be of dubious identity :-( MPF (talk) 23:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Did a quick start on Coryphantha, changed the pic to a wild example (from iNat) of the type species of the genus - MPF (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Circumscription of Cactoideae

Hello. I am seeking opinions about the tribal/subtribal circumscription of Cactoideae, particularly around the group of these tribes and any contained subtribes - Echinocereeae, Hylocereeae, Pachycereeae and Phyllocacteae note there are at the moment some redirects that may need editing out. I will not prejudice the discussion except to say there appears not to be a consensus. Therefor, it would be good to get opinions and hopefully all the needed references are on the relevant pages. Many thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I will make changes in the very near future and they will differ from WP, BTW differing language versions have differing circumscriptions of this subfamily. Andyboorman (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Nouveau livre sur le mouvement Wikimédia / New book on the Wikimedia movement

Bonjour, je reviens vers vous pour vous communiquer l'avancement de mes travaux et vous les soumettre à relecture, critique et commentaire. Il s'agit cette fois d'un livre intitulé Le mouvement Wikimédia dont je viens de terminer la mise en page sur Wikilivres dans le but d'en produire un éventuel ouvrage papier. Une belle fin de journée à tous et merci d'avance pour ceux qui cliquerons sur le lien.

Hello, I'm coming back to you to tell you the progress of my work and to submit it to you for review, criticism and comment. This time, it's about a book entitled Le mouvement Wikimédia which I just finished the layout on Wikilivres in order to produce an eventual paper book. A nice end of day to all and thanks in advance for those who will click on the link. Lionel Scheepmans (talk) 21:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Where are the WikiSpecies Accessed Records Stored?

I access wikispecies using a Firefox browser on an online Ubuntu computer. Whenever I access a file, for example, one at Agaricales, its color (which is programmable) changes from a light bluish green to a deeper violet.

Where is this color-difference stored? I have thousands of wikispecies files I have accessed, and they all show the violet "accessed" color if I ever have opened the file to read its contents.

I have copied and saved my own wikispecies files, so I can reinstall them if my Ubuntu crashes and has to be reinstalled. However, the "accessed" colors on the newly reinstalled (Firefox) wikispecies seem to be lost.

Is there any way to collect and reinstall the "accessed" colors for an online set of wikispecies file?

I will hope to see any answers logged here. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zjwill (talk • contribs) 04:31, 23 November 2021‎.

This is dealt with locally, in your browser. Not on Wikispecies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I have your system, Firefox browser and Ubuntu OS, and also have a Windows 10 with Firefox. Mine peforms same way, it seems to be the Firefox. Neferkheperre (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

OK. Thanks, but WHERE in Firefox? There is a huge collection of stuff in my copies of the following directories ("/" replaced with "_"):

_home_jwill_.mozilla
_home_jwill_.cache_mozilla_firefox
_home_jwill_.cache_MM_firefox
_usr_lib_firefox

There are a few other locations (e. g., in /etc), but I think a record of files accessed would be somewhere in the above. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zjwill (talk • contribs) 20:42, 23 November 2021‎.

You can get support for Firefox, here. This page is for Wikispecies issues. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

1885 snakes

Elapochrus aequalis & Homalocranium michoacanense - R. Mintern & J. Green - Biologia Centrali-Americana (1885)

The above plate is labelled Elapochrus aequalis & Homalocranium michoacanense; I think E. aequalisis now Pliocercus euryzonus - is that right? And H. michoacanense is now Sonora michoacanensis?

I have gathered what little we know about J. (James) Green as d:Q109692200 - can anyone add to that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Talk to the Community Tech: The future of the Community Wishlist Survey

Hello!

We, the team working on the Community Wishlist Survey, would like to invite you to an online meeting with us. It will take place on 30 November (Tuesday), 17:00 UTC on Zoom, and will last an hour. Click here to join.

Agenda

• Changes to the Community Wishlist Survey 2022. Help us decide.
• Become a Community Wishlist Survey Ambassador. Help us spread the word about the CWS in your community.
• Questions and answers

Format

The meeting will not be recorded or streamed. Notes without attribution will be taken and published on Meta-Wiki. The presentation (all points in the agenda except for the questions and answers) will be given in English.

We can answer questions asked in English, French, Polish, Spanish, German, and Italian. If you would like to ask questions in advance, add them on the Community Wishlist Survey talk page or send to sgrabarczuk@wikimedia.org.

Natalia Rodriguez (the Community Tech manager) will be hosting this meeting.

Invitation link

• Join online
• Meeting ID: 82035401393
• Dial by your location

We hope to see you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Global ban for 1Goldberg2

Per the Global bans policy, I’m informing the project of this request for comment: RfC/Global ban for 1Goldberg2. Feel free to leave a comment there. – Mrakia (talk) 15:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)