Talk:Fasta

Fasta

@Monster Iestyn

kick this now to genus Fasta ? Sjl197 (talk) 01:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Sure, if you think we should! The reason I didn't rename it already is because I didn't want to be hasty in case the literature decided not to adopt the new rank or name for whatever reason, but the new edition of CPC v6/2 does so it's probably fine? Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Sjl197: Oh by the way, if it helps to know: the authority for Fasta should probably be given as Petitpierre & Alonso-Zarazaga in Petitpierre, 2019, from Petitpierre's Coleoptera Chrysomelidae II (which I already linked in the references).

If no one else renames the corresponding en.wiki article soon, I'll probably update it at some point when I have suitable time. Monster Iestyn (talk) 02:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I've added a few tweaks here and there, notably just a bit more wording for the taxonomy on the enwiki. I think the ICZN technicality alluded to was the lack of differential diagnosis per Article 13 (linked below), so at this stage looks to me that interpreting Warchałowski's Fastuolina as nomenclaturally unavailable can be a defensible position. That said, i haven't seen that content in Petitpierre, 2019, but thanks for check of what's now in CPC - another i didn't yet see.

See https://code.iczn.org/chapter-4-criteria-of-availability/article-13-names-published-after-1930

Then, just a general view on the genetic anaysis of Gauthier et al. 2023. That looks to be robust. It's a large amount of genetic data (often good for raising confidence on nodal support and removing stochastic effects), but also importantly rather comprehensive taxon sampling of Oreina and seemingly a decent sampling of other 'close allies'. It seems to me that taxon sampling of such studies can be really influential on interpretation of affinities between lineages - or rather preventing later re-interpretation when subsequent authors add some critical missing ones in followup studies. Point is though, with their data the position as a genus seems very defensible, and they look to have done a good job to pr-empt some later concerns that others may raise.

Point is, from quick review, i don't have reservations (yet) about shifting any of these to Fasta, but i'd prefer if you do such when you have time and motivation to do so. My interest now is only in getting the stuff on iNaturalist updated a little, inline with some requests for updates on the African Chrysolina (which i may ask to consult you on a few cases!). This one here is incidental - and the annotations already here on wikispecies and on enwiki were helpfully informative about the situation - so thankyou! Sjl197 (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

No problem, glad to help! If the expectation is that I rename the page on Wikispecies to Fasta then sure, I'll do that when I can. I say that because lately my energy is mainly directed towards IRMNG, though I cross reference my existing work on Wikispecies (and correct errors and such when I see them, or complete references there).

To my understanding the situation with Fastuolina being unavailable is more complex than simply a lack of differential diagnosis... Dlochrysa Motschulsky as originally proposed is an objective synonym of Oreina Chevrolat (as you already noticed I see) based on type species, but as far as I remember in Jan Bechyné's works it is treated as a subgenus of Chrysolina with a different type species, Coccinella fastuosa Scopoli, 1763 (now Chrysolina fastuosa). Warchałowski, 1991 proposed Fastuolina as a "replacement name" for Dlochrysa in this sense. What Petitpierre and Alonso-Zarazaga point out (in page 550) however is that Warchałowski's work does not clearly indicate this at all, but even if it did Dlochrysa sensu Bechyné is not an available name (or even a separate name at all) and Fastuolina Warchałowski, 1991 is therefore unavailable. So, they established a new subgenus Fasta with Coccinella fastuosa Scopoli, 1763 as type species.

(As it happens Fasta is also missing from IRMNG, I ought to fix this.) Monster Iestyn (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the wikispecies and starting the wikidata - i had no immediate expectations and *could* have done these but chose to pause and hear from you. I just tweeked those links on the Fastuolina Q50743376 to be redirects. About the other wikis (enwiki, etc) then do you have any persuasive reason why not to move them also? (I'm willing to do that on several of the other languages if you're willing to do the enwiki as starting point). Glad to hear (and now see) that you're making efforts on IRMNG, i've found the leads there to be very responsive and informed on various issues and glad you've chosen to support. It could be great if other database initiatives had better integration to them.

//

RE "Fastuolina" and that terminology. That's now getting to the real fun of nomenclatural arguments which most of those on the bioinformatics side of biodiversity databases seem to miss. Well, yes - i'd noticed that Warchałowski is using a concept as "nom. nov" for you refer to as "Dlochrysa sensu Bechyné", but i hadn't integrated any of that into how i'd slightly tweeked the taxonomic comment on enwiki. Interesting to hear what Petitpierre and Alonso-Zarazaga say - i haven't seen that, if that's the sole logic of why "Fastuolina" is unavailable, then i don't agree - even knowing that Alonso-Zarazaga was a beetle specialist and ICZN commissioner!

With "Dlochrysa Motschoulsky" being unequivocably Dlochrysa Motschoulsky in Schrenck, 1860: 203 (as per your wikispecies page for Oreina), then indeed that explicitly has the type species Chrysomela speciosa Linnaeus, 1767. I searched the revised combination Dlochrysa fastuosa (Scopoli, 1763), but i couldn't find anything older than already linked elsewhere (e.g. Fasta fastuosa as Bechyné, 1950: 173. A little differently from your thoughts above Bechyné, 1950 uses "Dlochrysa Motschoulsky" as a genus (rather than a subgenus, but i suspect that's no matter) which is monotypic for Chrysolina fastuosa (=Coccinella fastuosa Scopoli, 1763). However, at least there, I don't see that reference as saying fastuosa is the type species, although it might be interpreted as such by monotypy. Notably however, p.174 then includes "ssp speciosa Linne". Hence "Dlochrysa sensu Bechyné" (at least per 1950) includes speciosa.

You say "Petitpierre and Alonso-Zarazaga point out ... Dlochrysa sensu Bechyné is not an available name (or even a separate name at all) ". Where i might disagree with them is on the availability - whatever concept being used by Warchałowski (for his "Fastuolina") then his still appears to be explicitly referring to the available name per Motschoulsky - even if his later "Fastuolina" very conceptually different from earlier versions. If Warchałowski, 1991 had said his name was for "Dlochrysa sensu Bechyné" etc, then on hindsight i think we can all agree would have been far better, and then recognise what was needed was a new name for a concept without any available name yet! That said, it seems reasonable that "Fastuolina" of Warchałowski, 1991 can (and perhaps should) be interpreted as an attempted replacement name for Dlochrysa Motschoulsky. However, seen in the context of him distinguishing Oreina speciosa from Fastuolina fastosa then it's malformed. (Randomly, I'd be curious to know now if/when/how various authors distinguished speciosa from fastuosa around this time, but no matter). Whatever, at the time and still. Dlochrysa Motschoulsky was and is an available name, therefore it *could* be replaced, Of course, replacement is superfluous once recognised as an objective synonym of Oreina. As an aside, I had to recheck ICZN about the "nom. nov." wording, but at least the glossary then after some more thought, i agree that should (perhaps only) be viewed explicitly as a replacement name "nomen novum (pl. nomina nova), n. A Latin term equivalent to "new replacement name". The ICZN text is less clear as only a recommendation (part of 16A), under article 16, the recommendation saying "nomen novum". The abbreviation "nom. nov." should only be used to indicate a new replacement name". Then, the crux is that any replacement name retains the same type species of the available name it's replacing, even of the later 'concept' of that taxon (e.g. subgroup inclusion, rank, or placement) may differ from the original. To be a replacement then must still be based around the same type concept by inclusion. But indeed, Warchałowski doesn't do that, quite the opposite - by trying to claim the type species as fastuosa whilst simultaneously (seemingly) aiming to distinguish whatever his concept of that is, apart from speciosa (and its now wider Oreina). From all this, my point being, all the mayhem, and confusion about the concepts doesn't mean Warchałowski, 1991 "Fastuolina" should be unavailable - only that he malformed his specification of the type species (which can be seen as speciosa by default), then becomes just as a superfluous replacement name for Dlochrysa Motschoulsky. I maintain though, that where the unavailability thankfully comes in through lack of a differential diagnosis. Otherwise it might need appeal to ICZN for opinion, etc. Despite all the other mayhem, the concept of "Fastuolina" remains essentially undefined through lacking differential diagnosis - therefore nomenclaturally unavailable. Sjl197 (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Sjl197 Once again, glad to help!

I don't really have any real persuasive reason to not move en.wiki's article at least to be honest. I just don't like to be hasty really if I can help it; also, I think some en.wiki users prefer new scientific names to be in common usage in literature or databases before adopting them on-wiki? (Though, I'm not honestly sure how long we'd have to wait for that to be resolved in theory; e.g. I believe Fauna Europaea has not been updated in many years and their new website has been down for at least a year now... and there are really no other other databases that aren't "user-generated" that would be relevant here I think?) I do not know what users on the other language wikipedias prefer in terms of policy for updating scientific names, and that's apart from me not having much knowledge of any of their languages in the first place.

Oh whoops, you're right, I forgot Bechyné used Dlochrysa as a full genus, I wonder when it became a subgenus of Chrysolina then?.. Regardless, I think Bechyné was probably the first one to use the combination Dlochrysa fastuosa though (even if only indirectly), given he also names it as Chrysolina fastuosa in the same page?

My thinking may have been influenced a bit by a discussion I had with Dyanega some time back about "sensu" names, particularly a few examples in Chrysomelidae where certain "sensu" names have been treated as separate available names when this is incorrect under the ICZN Code. I thought this was what was going on with Dlochrysa sensu Bechyné too, but now I'm not entirely sure... though, Bieńkowski (2019)'s Chrysolina of the world does in fact list Dlochrysa sensu Bechyné as synonym of Fastuolina with its own type species, but then again it even includes the "sensu" literally.

Word of warning actually, it's possible I may be summarizing what they said slightly wrongly; part of the difficulty is that the whole of Petitpierre's work including their notes on Fastuolina/Fasta is written in Spanish, and all I can do is use online translators to interpret it! That said, among other things, I think they also argued that Fastuolina would therefore be a synonym of Oreina because of Dlochrysa being a synonym; though to be honest this point seems somewhat pedantic and potentially confusing, it seems more convinent to list it as an unavailable name-synonym of Fasta which coincidentally is what the new CPC v6/2 (2024) already does. Plus, Warchalowski also explicitly gave a type species for Fastuolina different to that of Oreina. Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Sjl197 Okay sorry for the delay, en.wiki is now also updated with the new name. I just need to fix wikilinks to the species on other articles. Monster Iestyn (talk) 22:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Greetings. Ok, i have now done some subsequent wikidata changes. I started (or did basic) transition in several other languages, the french i can next do easily (but pause now), the portuguese and italian i must try to remember how to setup formalities to move pages (i thought i had permission already in already portuguese but no). Anyway, in progress. Sjl197 (talk) 02:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

@Sjl197  Done updated Fastuolina to Fasta on Wikispecies now as you can probably see. I also just created new Wikidata items for Fasta and Fasta fastulosa while I was at it, though for now I am hestitant to move pages over while the Wikipedias still use the old species name... Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)