Help:Name section/ne

This page is a translated version of the page Help:Name section and the translation is 6% complete.

Contents · General Wikispecies · Taxonavigation section · Name section · Reference section · Vernacular names section
Image Guidelines · Author Names & Author Pages · Project Templates · Project sources · Translation

नाम

The name section is used only for names regulated by the relevant nomenclatural code (for zoology, this means species-group, genus-group and family-group names only). The name section does not use Vernacular Names and so only the Latin name of the taxon is acceptable. For taxa equal to genus level or lower, these names must be italicized. This is a scientific convention. The name of the taxon should at an absolute minimum be followed by the sanctioning author. For botany this must also be followed by the year of publication. However, the year of approval is also recommended for zoological taxa. For older zoology and all botany publications, year of approval is the same as the year of publication. In botany the year is always in parenthesis. Please note that in accordance with a Village Pump poll result in 2017, using the {{BASEPAGENAME}} "magic word" on taxon pages is not recommended.

Zoology: Vulpes vulpes Linnaeus, 1758
Botany: Clematis viticella L. (1753)

Note that the author is linked to author pages, for which Wikispecies has a whole section of articles. Consult Help:Author Names on how to deal with author names.

Sometimes there will be more than one author name given to a certain taxon. In that case use a comma separated list and an & for the last author. Wrap individual names into link brackets and not the whole list of authors. If there are more than 4 authors it is acceptable here to use the abbreviation "et al." (et alii), which is Latin for "and others." The phrase et al. should be italicized and, since it is an abbreviation, always include the trailing period. (Please note that in the reference section which follows directly after the name section, you should not use "et al." There the full list of authors should be included when you provide the original source or protologue.)

 Bacillus novalis Heyrman et al., 2004

In zoology parentheses around both an author name and year and in botany around an author are used only to indicate that the name is a subsequent combination, rather than the original combination used by the describing authority. In these cases, both original and subsequent combinations carry the name of the describing authority, but the original combination is always written without parentheses. Botanical names must include the name of the revising author (with no parentheses) after a new combination with the original author in parenthesis, but this practice is not generally used in zoology.

 Zoology: Macracantha arcuata (Fabricius, 1793)
 Botany: Clematis alpina (L.) Mill. (1768)

In this first case, Macracantha arcuata is the valid name, while the original name given by Fabricius is listed in the synonymy. The second case Clematis alpina was originally published under another name by Linnaeus and later recombined by Miller and the original combination may be found the synonymy, if it is accepted to be an earlier valid synonym.

In botany, the publication has assumed an important role in approval of a taxon name, as valid publication under the code grants approval on its own. Therefore, taxonomic treatments in contemporary scientific literature always use the author, date and publication in an abbreviated format. As Wikispecies is a scientific instrument we should use this convention both in the Name and Synonymy sections. In this Wikispecies follows the convention found in the International Plant Name Index and similar sites, such as World Checklist of Selected Plant families.

 Botany: Sciadopitys verticillata (Thunb.) Siebold & Zucc., Fl. Jap. 2(1): 3 (1842).

As Wikispecies has evolved it is now desirable to include a small amount of important additional information in the Name Section. In zoology type locality and location of the holotype are examples. In botany the type of the taxon is another, where the type species of a genus can be seen as essential taxonomic information.

 Zoology: Wagimo signatus Butler, [1882].

          Type Locality: Japan, Hokkaido, "Kuramatsunai, August".

          Holotype: BMNH (Fenton).

Botany: Vella L., Sp. Pl. 2: 641 (1753).

          Type species: Vella pseudocytisus L., Sp. Pl. 2: 641 (1753).

Type locality

Some sources provide information about holotypes. Holotypes are specimens of species on which the sanctioning author based his descriptions. Most of the time this is the first time such an organism was found. The type locality describes the place and environment where the holotype was found. Give as much detail as your sources provide.

 Type locality: Ecuador, Esmeraldas Province, Cordillera de Toisán, Río Piedras, Los Pambiles, 00°32'N, 78°38'W, 1200 m elevation.

The term type locality can only be found on species level or lower.

Type material

Holotypes (and other type material) are sometimes stored in museums, and thus the public is able to see what the specimen actually looks like. When such a specimen is stored, the specimen is given a 'tag', which contains a museum number, and an abbreviation of the museum itself. This allows specialists to do further research on already described species, and to check the description of the sanctioning author. All Holotypes are listed on the main Holotype page. The link should be directed to Holotype but masked by the caption of Museum abbreviations. (Click edit on this section to see how the example is done.)

 Holotype: EPN 851241.

The Holotype can only be found on species rank or lower (for higher group, give type species or type genus instead). Use the appropriate word if the type is not a holotype (e.g. "Lectotype:", "Neotype:" etc.)

Synonyms or Synonymy

Taxonomy is a changeable branch of science. The status of various published names can change in the light of new knowledge. If it transpires that two taxa, previously described and given different names, are actually identical then the older name takes precedence and the newer name becomes a "synonym" of the older name. Quite often, authors will gain new information that suggests that a certain species should belong in a different Genus from that in which it was originally described. When the species is combined with a different generic name, a "New Combination" is formed. New combinations are not, strictly speaking, "Synonyms", but they are often listed along with synonyms when showing the taxonomic history of a taxon. If this section contains both synonyms and different combinations the heading may be titled "Synonymy" as this is a term that covers the complete history of all the names and combinations applied to an organism. Because visitors might look for the synonyms and different combinations, it is vital that the synonymy is presented. It is very helpful to place a list of synonyms in date rather than alphabetical order. It is common in botany to divide the synonymy into subgroups; its basionym (if this is relevant), homotypic and heterotypic (each with its own homotypic synonyms), which again is helpful for the visitor.

Add the synonyms/synonymy section as a level 3 subsection of the name section, and provide the information as a bulleted list.

Example Zoology:


=={{int:Name}}==

''Anthene liodes'' ({{a|William Chapman Hewitson|Hewitson}}, 1874).

==={{int:Synonymy}}===

*''Lycaenesthes liodes'' Hewitson, 1874: 349.
*''Lycaena adherbal'' Mabille, 1877: 217. Synonymy in Stempffer, 1967: 192.
*''Anthene liodes'' (Hewitson); Stempffer, 1967: 192. New combination.

Create also the Lycaenesthes liodes and Lycaena adherbal pages, and make it a redirect to the Anthene liodes page:

#REDIRECT [[Anthene liodes]]

Example Botany:

=={{int:Name}}==

''Pinus clausa'' ({{aut|Chapman}} ex {{aut|Engelm.}}) {{aut|Vasey}} & {{aut|Sarg.}}, Rep. for. N. America 199. (1884)

==={{int:Synonyms}}=== 

{{BA}}
**''Pinus inops'' var. ''clausa'' {{aut|Chapm.}} ex {{aut|Engelm.}}, Bot. Gaz. 2: 125. (1877)
{{HOT}}
**''Pinus inops'' subsp. ''clausa'' ({{aut|Chapm.}} ex {{aut|Engelm.}}) {{aut|Engelm.}}, Trans. Acad. Sci. St. Louis 4: 177. (1880)
**''Pinus virginiana'' subsp. ''clausa'' ({{aut|Chapm.}} ex {{aut|Engelm.}}) {{aut|Eckenw.}}, Conifers World: 647. (2009)
{{HET}}
**''Pinus clausa'' var. ''immuginata'' {{aut|D.B.Ward}}, Castanea 28: 4. (1963)
**''Pinus clausa'' subsp. ''immuginata'' ({{aut|D.B.Ward}}) {{aut|A.E.Murray}}, Kalmia 13: 22. (1983)

Full example

A full name section would then be formatted as:

=={{int:Name}}==
''Glomus przelewicense'' {{a|Janusz Błaszkowski|Błaszk.}}, 1988.
 
Host-Substratum/Locality: From soil under ''[[Thuja occidentalis]]'': Poland
 
Holotype: {{Repository link|DPP}} 578
 
==={{int:Synonyms}}=== 
* ''Glomus przelewicensis'' {{aut|Błaszk.}}, 1988
* ''Diversispora przelewicensis'' {{a|Fritz Oehl|Oehl}}, 2011

And when saved or previewed, this would appear as:

नाम

Glomus przelewicense Błaszk., 1988.
Host-Substratum/Locality: From soil under Thuja occidentalis: Poland
Holotype: DPP 578

Synonyms

Glomus przelewicensis Błaszk., 1988

Diversispora przelewicensis Oehl, 2011

Author templates

It is also a good idea to use the {{a}} and {{aut}} templates (in that order) for the author names, instead of common link brackets. They automatically format the author names using small caps. The {{a}} template also adds a wiki link for the author name, while the {{aut}} template does not:

=={{int:Name}}==
''Glomus przelewicense'' {{a|Janusz Błaszkowski|Błaszk.}}, 1988
 
Host-Substratum/Locality: From soil under ''[[Thuja occidentalis]]'': Poland
 
Holotype: {{Repository link|DPP}} 578
 
==={{int:Synonyms}}===

* ''Glomus przelewicensis'' {{aut|Błaszk.}}, 1988

And when saved or previewed, this would appear as:

नाम

Glomus przelewicense Błaszk., 1988
Host-Substratum/Locality: From soil under Thuja occidentalis: Poland
Holotype: DPP 578

Synonyms

Glomus przelewicensis Błaszk., 1988

Special: Reptile and Amphibian Nomenclature

Names coined by Hoser: The nomenclatural chaos and taxonomic destabilization perpetrated by Hoser (2013, 2014a,b, 2018a,b, and multiple other works as documented in Wüster et al. 2021) has led to unprecedented scientific community reaction and rejection of the works in question. Hoser has repeatedly and continuously circumvented conventional and acceptable standards of scientific analysis and peer-review in his broadly sweeping and extensive self-produced taxonomies and nomenclatures. Though only coining 15 new turtle nomina to date, Hoser has attempted to promulgate a total of 1795 new taxon names (1453 reptiles, 290 frogs, 46 mammals, 4 spiders, and 2 fish) from 2000 through January 2021 (Wüster et al. 2021). We regard his actions as disruptive and unwarranted acts of nomenclatural destabilization in defiance of the guiding principles of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature to promote nomenclatural stability (ICZN 1999), and also in contravention of its own recommended Code of Ethics. Further, we do not regard the self-produced documents circulated under the name Australasian Journal of Herpetology as objective scientific publications (Kaiser et al. 2013; Kaiser 2014; Rhodin et al. 2015; Wüster et al. 2021).
In collaboration with a wide leadership group representing the global herpetological and zoological communities, we petitioned the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) to use its plenary power to declare and treat Hoser’s works as nomenclaturally unavailable (Rhodin et al. 2015). In response, the ICZN (2021) has now issued an opinion on this and related petitions, in which the Commissioners declined to either formally confirm or reject the availability of Hoser’s names and self-produced works, and also indicated that they had no authority to uphold their own Code of Ethics.
As a result of this opinion by ICZN, and in view of Hoser’s numerous nomenclaturally destabilizing novelties and confrontational unethical practices, we therefore now agree with and follow the recommendation by Wüster et al. (2021), including their 464 supportive zoologist signatories, to follow the scientific community’s outright rejection of Hoser’s work as being unscientific and disruptive, and the community’s strong support and acceptance of new replacement names (aspidonyms) as valid. We also agree with the analysis and recommendations by Krell (2021), who suggested that prevailing usage within the scientific community could serve as a potential solution to the problems created by Hoser’s approach. We therefore now regard all of Hoser’s turtle names as nomina rejecta and accept such replacement aspidonyms as are validly published, available, and scientifically justified based on best available objective analysis and peer-review.

Turtle Taxonomy Working Group. In press (2021). Turtles of the World: Annotated Checklist and Atlas (9th Ed.). Chelonian Research Monographs No. 8.

Reptile Database

The Reptile Database, the largest reptile checklist used here significantly has also released a statement saying they will not use names coined through taxonomic vandalism.

Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 20:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]