Talk:Protosclerogibba

Dispute

According to Doug Yanega (pers. comm.), this taxon is the pompilid Herpetosphex!

• For clarification; Simon van Noort has examined the relevant types, and confirmed the synonymy, and a large number of qualified hymenopteran taxonomists are evidently in agreement; myself, John Huber, Lars Krogmann, Roger Burks, Celso Azevedo, Bolívar Rafael Garcete Barrett, Alexander Berg, and others - all of whom are aware of this, and support the conclusion. The crucial point is that this is NOT one person's opinion; it is a consensus of experts, none of whom presently have the time or inclination to submit a manuscript for the sole purpose of sinking Protosclerogibba, and it is imperative that the scientific and lay communities know NOT to use the name Protosclerogibba, and that it is NOT a sclerogibbid. If it takes 20 years for someone to get around to publishing this, that is a long time for this name to remain in circulation, doing damage, and I would argue that it should not appear in any Wikimedia resources, because its appearance in Wikimedia IMPLIES THAT IT IS VALID WHEN IT IS NOT. That is a huge disservice to the global community. Dyanega (talk) 22:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

This is jumping the gun. It is ludicrous to suppress a peer reviewed publication in favour of non-peer-reviewed hearsay. I actually think that the synonymy will hold up, when it is published, which it is not at present, but uncertainties remain as to whether the taxon is a sclerogibbid or a pompilid. It is even possible that sclerogibbids are just derived pompilids! Until these issues are investigated properly and published properly, the status quo must stand... BandyOarman (talk) 05:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Stephen: you seem to have no concept of what the concept of "peer review" means; it means people qualified to critically evaluate the accuracy and quality of a work. The paper Olmi submitted was not reviewed by anyone qualified to evaluate it critically, evidently, given the remarkable magnitude of the error that was overlooked. On the other hand, we have 8 very qualified hymenopterists who ARE qualified, and who are all in agreement that the wasp in question is a pompilid (in a completely different superfamily, so no, sclerogibbids are not at all related). The unpublished opinion has been peer-reviewed, the published one is not. The only difference is that one opinion is printed on paper, the other one not. Just because it's printed doesn't mean it is correct, and it does not mean anyone should accept it. Dyanega (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)