Talk:Protosclerogibba australis

Dispute

According to Doug Yanega (pers. comm.), this taxon is the pompilid Herpetosphex staphylinoides! — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stegana (talk • contribs) 04:09, 28 June 2016‎.

• 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) 05:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)