From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search


  • Wells is a controversial and independent herpetologist, who has personal conflict with Georges. There is some suggestion that the journal Australian biodiversity record is bogus, and that Wells' taxa aren't available names, but no proof of this at present. See discussion here. Stho002 07:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Wells may have conflicts with Georges but not the other way around. However that is opinion as I know both of them. In the mean time there are now 4 papers published declaring the Wells publications as invalid under the code, the latest being the IUCN TFTSG Checklist which is considered by turtle biologists to be the most up to date and well reasoned list of turtle species. This site is now unique in that it continues to support a taxonomy that is outdated and incorrect. The Pages here have been admin protected inhibiting the freedom to correct them or have any other views expressed except the personal and political views of Stho002. I feel that this page needs to be reviewed by a higher authority than the current admin who believes that his opinions are more important than established scientific publications. This page is not even in step with the Wikipedia pages on these species which is a sad review for Wiki in general. I am asking all admins and higher to look into this situation and see it for what it is. This page needs to be unprotected and updated according to the most recent publications on these species, and not be the private unpublished opinions of one individual. I have attempted to reason with Stho002 in private but he seems to feel he carries more weight than any turtle taxonomist and to be honest the ICZN itself. Faendalimas (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
      • nobody, except the ICZN, has or can "declare" Wells publications to be invalid under the Code, they can only offer opinions, preferably supported by arguments, and I find the current arguments unconvincing. I do not believe that my opinions are any more important than anyone else's, but I also don't believe that Thomson or George's opinions are any more important than Wells', and since Wells got there first on this one, I see no good reason to change anything to suit Thomson (Faendalimas) --Stho002 01:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
      • >This page is not even in step with the Wikipedia pages on these species which is a sad review for Wiki in general< Well, I'll just have to bring Wikipedia into step, then, won't I? --Stho002 (talk) 01:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
        • I have just asked for a third party arbitration of the issue here, surely as an admin you agree to that. So what is the problem here? I have tried to resolve it with you, your view on that is that your an admin I am not and hence yours is the final say. Pretty much exactly as you told me by email. You have claimed a number of things here over the last year. For example that myself and Wells were in a wheel war, Richard did put some comments on my talk page which I did not respond to as they did not warrant it, you even pointed out to him that his comments did him no favors. Yet Richard has never tried to edit a page I had edited. So where is the wheel war? If there is one its between you and me because the only two to edit the page was us, and you protected it to stop me undoing anything you did. All I asked of you was to cite a reference that supported your view? You said the name has widespread usage, it doesn't, in fact most are now using Myuchelys, some are still using Wollumbinia that is true but its becoming less and less. If you find our arguments unconvincing, well so what, until you publish that opinion in a journal with evidence to back it up, your opinion is original research at best, as such I always thought the guidelines cover this: Wikipedia:No_original_research. Cite your claims or accept the published material. In taxonomy we refute or accept, we do not ignore. Faendalimas (talk) 07:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I would like to ask what reason was the page protected for please? ZooPro (talk) 02:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

We should follow the consensus of published sources, not our own personal opinions. That is a basic principle at Wikipedia, and here too it seems the most sensible thing to do. I think the consensus in the sources is clear. Ucucha 02:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

  • I disagree ... we should follow the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, which is clear that Wells' name is the valid name, unless it can be proven to be unpublished according to the Code, which would be very difficult indeed to prove. We should not follow statements, published or otherwise, by people who are claiming themselves to have named the genus, and who simply try to discredit Wells. For just about any species, you can always find conflicting sources, so experienced Wikispecies editors need to make judgement calls, and if others disagree, then the page version stays put at the status quo --Stho002 (talk) 02:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • just to clarify one point: I agree that 'we should follow the consensus of published sources' FOR TAXONOMIC ISSUES, but this isn't a taxonomic issue, but a purely nomenclatural issue --Stho002 (talk) 03:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I have no dog in this hunt (I'm a fish taxonomist), but took a look at Wells's publication of Wollumbinia and it certainly appears to me to be published and available under the Code. It looks solid; definitely more so than many an accepted fish genus! Admittedly, I haven't hunted out and read those recent publications alluded to above that don't like Wollumbinia or Wells's work; I'm just judging by the original description. This issue reminds me very much of a situation I know of with a validly published and available genus of cichlid fishes that has, for 16 years, been hotly disputed and for which an unnecessary replacement genus was published, apparently by persons who have a personal animus against the person commemorated in the earlier generic name. I can cite easily more than a dozen publications (most by ecologists, geneticists, conservationists...) that employ each of the two names - which can only lead to confusion now and in the future - even though taxonomists and bibliographers (and the Zoo. Record) have clearly accepted the earlier name. Both the fish and the turtle slugfests could be, and probably should be, finally resolved by the Commission. MKOliver (talk) 05:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
      • If I understand MKOliver correctly, he is saying that for the sake of avoiding confusion, we should all give the status quo the benefit of any doubt, and THERE IS DOUBT IN THIS CASE, and we should not dismiss the existence of "personal animus" in these situations, so there is no good reason to change the page to Myuchelys. The original description clearly states that the paper was published in a Code compliant way, so we must give it the benefit of the doubt. The Code was not written to handle dishonesty, and so it gives no objective way to prove non-compliance of this kind. End of story --Stho002 (talk) 05:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with your statement "End of story", That seems to me as though you have made up your mind as to what is correct and what isn't. We must all remember that our opinions are of little value on here and we must follow what the facts and sources state. Regards ZooPro (talk) 00:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I have made my mind up about what the correct course of action is on Wikispecies, i.e., we maintain a NPOV over the facts of the case, which means that there is no reason to change the page from the current version, a version which allows the taxon to be found using both names Wollumbinia and Myuchelys --Stho002 (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Just for the record Stephen I do not have a personal gripe with Wells, I never have, and have never said anything bad against him personally. Only people like you have said I have this gripe and then I guess you repeat it so it becomes truth to you or something. I also refuse to get involved with wheel warring, even if this page was not protected I would not edit it right now. Again its only you that does things like this as when a bureaucrat here unprotected it you slapped that back on 20 minutes later to ensure your stamp on this. I have raised the issue for the bureaucrat's to look at, I think you do abuse your privileges here, but it is not for me to decide. You have turned this wiki into Stephen's blog. That is a pity. I changed that page to Myuchely's once, only. Faendalimas (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Whether or not you have a personal gripe against Wells is irrelevant, and I probably incorrectly used the term "wheel warring", but that too is irrelevant --Stho002 (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


  • Australia

Euchelymys spinosa[edit]

I assume you have the ?? because you dont know what to do with the name Euchelymys spinosa? Well I am aware that Wells did this, why is beyond me but that happens. However the name Euchelymys spinosa is not available. The type specimen by subsequent designation by Lindholm 1929 is an Emydura macquarrii, this has been well documented in the literature. Trust me on this one, I actually like the name Euchelymys and wanted to resurrect it back in 1992 when we started the work on Elseya. I looked for every possible way to ressurect Euchelymys and use this name for the latisternum group instead of naming it myself. However it could not be done unless we petitioned the ICZN to overturn the Lindholm 1929 decision. Conversly if you feel the first revisor (ie Lindholm, 1929) does not stand and this name is valid, then it follows that Wollumbinia and Myuchelys are both junior synonyms of Euchelymys (1873). If you can convince anyone of that I would actually support you, cause its a beautiful name. Up to you I guess.. Faendalimas (talk) 06:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Page protection[edit]

Any reason this page is still protected? ZooPro (talk) 13:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)