User talk:

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Handling the Holotype[edit]

Hi there !

Thanks for your valauble contributions to Wikispecies!

Just one thing about the holotypes:

Instead of handling the holotype as: [[XYZ]] please write: [[Holotype|XYZ]] .

This is because all holotype museums are concentrated in a single page, and aren't supposed to have each a unique page.

Keep on with the good work!

Mariusm 05:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered getting an account? You're doing some good work, it'd be nice to be able to take credit for it... Kylu 05:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am doing this just as a convenient way of storing data that is useful to me...

While you won't encounter obstacles at the moment, when you start adding html links in reference section, you will find that IPs have more restrictions than registered account. I strongly recommend you to register. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You wil be also more anonymous than the ip address you now use, which gives away the university you work from now. Moreover, it will be much easier for us admins to check ip vandalism when your ip (which does a good job btw) does no longer show up in the recent changes. So I hope you will change your mind. Lycaon 22:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Log in[edit]

Please login with a name. You have add species etc. conform the templates.


PeterR 09:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects vs deletion[edit]

You recently marked a few articles for deletion. I wonder if they should be redirects instead. If someone might search on that name then it should be a redirect. If, however, that is not a name it was ever known by, we can delete. --Open2universe | Talk 02:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC) better to delete, if someone tries to find it, they can browse or search instead for a genus within it and then they will see where it is now placed. If we have a redirect page for every old synonym or defunct name, things could get VERY complicated. Your call though... 02:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


You have make a bad side again. There were no species. I have to update your side again.

PeterR 08:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About unfinished articles[edit]

I have replied on my talk page OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Please write Holotype: ISAZ. male. See Help name section.


PeterR 10:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I have update Euceros. The species groups are now correct.


PeterR 10:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove vernacular names and interwikis[edit]

Hi, it was probably just a mistake, but I do not see why you would remove vernacular names and interwikis. see here

--Open2universe | Talk 00:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remove them when they don't work properly
They worked fine for me, so I replaced them. --Open2universe | Talk 02:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I'm busy with Zootaxa 1864. The subfamily is NOT Prostethopinae but Prosthetopinae. I have done all again with all tribus. When I have finished Zootaxa 1864 I look under Prostethopinae which changes there be. Maybe you was pissed but cool down, because if I,m finished to day all is good.


PeterR 07:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The genus is Laricobius (The subfamilia is Laricobinae). If the genus was Laricobia (The subfamilia is Laricobiinae). See Jirí Háva in Polish Journal of Entomology,volume 75: 29-38, 2006. If he is wrong you may tell me who is wright.

I'm a amateur entomologist and member of the Dutch Entomological Society. I borrow books etc. from their library and add the species in Wikipedia. I e-mail with entomologists off the whole world about new species from Lepidoptera (my speciality).

What is your background?


PeterR 07:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I find now genera from the subfamilia ceutorhynchinae under baridinae , tribus ceutorhynchini and a lot of subtribus. My information is that it is now subfamilia ceutorynchinae. (See the link to Russian beetles and Fauna Europaea). with no tribus and subtribus. Have you other information? I wait for your answers before I go further with add Zootaxa 1871.


PeterR 08:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

READ the talk page and references! The information is there! 08:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the information.

PeterR 08:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page says which classification I am following, and you can d/l the pdf to see for yourself. There are many different weevil classifications, but we need to choose just one... 08:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For me it is very difficult to follow something that I can't find in the past 5 years. All bulletins I found says it is Ceutorhynchinae and I have to add the genera under Baridinae . Even Have the tribus under Ceuthorhynchinae. We are the only side who says it is subfamily Baridinae. You have to ask yourself if your method is the wright one.


PeterR 08:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My method is a CONSISTENT one - anything else will lead to a big mess for a group like the weevils where there is no agreement on classification. No offence, but this is science, not stamp collecting! 09:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I go in the field with Society members for collecting insects we don't talk about stamps. We surch for new species for the Netherlands and they will be published in NEV.


PeterR 10:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I have upgrade the Micronoctuidae, Pollexinae after the original fulltext from M. Fibiger, Zootaxa 1567. In your answers I think your a professional Entomologist. If you have comment I hear this via my talk page. I wait with add Zootaxa 1867 till I have an answer. I allso write an article about a reliable Wikispecies. Please can you tell me if you agree with this or have you other suggestions.


PeterR 14:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Even I get no answers on my questions I try again to get an answer. I have a new species of Neoncylocotis (2008). I can't find this genus in Wikispecies. The bulletin mentioned only the family Enicocephalidae. Can you tell me which subfamily it is and maybe tribus? Or is it subfamilia Incertae Sedis?

Regards, PeterR 12:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


In Wikispecies Cylapinae have no tribus. So far I know are there two tribus: Cylapini and Fulviini. Can I add this tribus or are there more tribus


PeterR 12:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


In Wikispecies under Psyllinae are no genera. Before I add genera I would like to know if there are tribus and subtribus


PeterR 13:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I'm now updating the Hesperiidae after Gerardo Lamas (Atlas of Neotropical Lepidoptera, 2004) and Mark Williams (Checklist of Afrotropical Papilionoidea and Hesperioidea). To day I recieved Cladistics 24 (2008) 1-35 of Andrew D. Warren, Joshua R. Ogawa and Andrew V.Z. Brower. Andrew D. Warren et al. have make a new Hespperiidae with new subfamilies, tribus and subtribus. My proposal is first Hesperiidae updating after Lamas and Williams and then Warren et al. I hope you agree with this proposal.


PeterR 12:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if I agree or disagree ... the Wiki system allows you to do it your way, but accepting that anyone else can come along and edit it according to what they want. However, I have little interest in Lepidoptera at present, so I don't think I'll even look at Hesperiidae for a long time ... 00:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Can you tell me the difference between Ornithoptera (Schoenbergia) goliath f. letiranti and Ornithoptera (Schoenbergia) goliath f. loc. atlas? Means f. loc. local form?




You're probably right. I've put it anyway under Incertae Sedis because its exact placement is unclear. Deleted it from Lamiinae. Mariusm 09:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bona species[edit]

Please can you tell me what Bona species means?


PeterR 13:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The unification of Cerambycoidea and Chrysomeloidea is disputed, and many recent authors tend to separate them based on larval features. This separation facilitates the arrangement of subfamiliae such as Bruchinae, which is elevated to familia status. That's why I adopted the more "broken" classification. However, I'll not argue with you. Be it as you wish... Mariusm 09:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy isn't a precise science like mathematics, so disputes are normal. The big question is who decides which authority to follow and which to discard. You may adhere to some school of thought, while I favor an opposed one, and each being free to act as his convictions guide him, chaos frequently arises. I see here often half a taxon classified according to one scheme while the other half to a different one. So who's the "greater" authority you or me? A difficult question... Mariusm 06:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even the experts, having all the evidence in front of them, cannot reach a definitive agreement. How is it possible that we, the amateures, can make an objective decision? I don't believe you have the time, nor the material nor the resources to be the judge of a taxonomic controversy. Even if you can, how am I to trust you made the efforts, and have enough knowledge to make such a decision? Everyone thinks he knows better and that the other is a fool, otherwise we all would vote for the same political party... Mariusm 07:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, please .. cut the crap! All that matters is that I cite good references for my choice of classification. Even "the fool" can surely see that a recent major phylogenetic analysis is better than some author who just says "this is the classification..." 07:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I'll try to preserve your higher classification for the Curculionoidea, but what am I supposed to do with Baridinae? You placed there the former subfamiliae Orobitidinae and Conoderinae at tribus rank. They have under their names many tribus. Shall I trnasform them to subtribus? Shall I merge them all to one big tribus? You must come with a reasonable answer for this, else I'll move them back to subfamilia status. Mariusm 13:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your speedy vigilance... Mariusm 08:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zootaxa 1900 =[edit]

In Zootaxa 1900 Erebia there are a lot species with ab. You say ab have no status. What to do with it?

I'm allso waiting for an answer what Bona species means.


PeterR 08:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

just list the ab. names (prefixed with ab.) under synonymy. I don't know what Bona means .. bona fide???


I decided to retain the tribes of the subfamilies that are merged togeather. The reason is, they are widely recognized, and may be looked after by many Wikispecies users. Look at the Baridinae and the Brachycerinae to see my revisions. Mariusm 16:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, Take a look please at Molytinae (especially at "Cryptorhynchinae") and see if all is OK so I can go on. Mariusm 17:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How so? I followed Alloophorus robustus and FishBase[1] to create those pages. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yah, I realized that when I looked it up in FishBase. So I just moved it and deleted the wrong page. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Yea, I'm preaty sure, but I wish you won't use the format

  • Valenfriesia Alonso-Zarazaga & Lyal, 1999 [nomen novum pro Notioxenus Wollaston, 1861]

because it's not Wikispecies' standard. Thanks for the close survaillance! Mariusm 16:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I have ask kopies by the library of my Society.

I have update the species of Kiwiaesthetus in the tribus Austroesthetini after the original bulletin from Puthz.

I can send you the papers. I have copies from the bulletin.

I have send you the papers. Why have you change Kiwiaesthetus whitehorni? I miss here the combinations which I add. We have made agreements with other sciencist to do this on the way I had made. Combination is not Synonym.

Did you received the copies?

I have send you the copies again yesterday., but maybe I do something wrong. I do Acrobat reader the documents copy to emailreceiver with your adress It is possible that my mailadress is from my wife Jokeroelofs.

I have send then now again.

I have send them again to you in



A good source[edit]

Here is a good source for Author name & publication for genera: Nomenclator Zoologicus Mariusm 08:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I noticed you're New Zealand-oriented. No special sources except some books etc. In my opinion it'll do more service to Wikispecies in being more cosmopolitan, handling all the species in a taxon, and not concentrating in a specific region only. Why don't you adopt a name instead of this silly IP number?? I'm from Israel. Mariusm 07:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


You'll be an effective administrator. Since MediaWiki software doesn't allow to assign user rights to IP addresses, I either suggest, in the event you wish to become an admin (I'm more than willing to nominate you), that you edit with an account, or, if you wish to remain an IP, create an account from which you will use your sysop tools. Thoughts? Maxim(talk) 01:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can block, protect and delete by yourself without bugging others. You can do all the housekeeping and vandal-whacking the {{delete}} tags. There's somewhat of a description on WS:ADMIN. Maxim(talk) 01:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Voila. Maxim(talk) 02:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in Ontario, in Canada. I'm actually pretty clueless with regards to biology, I'm just the resident vandal-whacker. I'm sad to say I haven't contributed any new pages here, but I plead stupidity in this case. Although, I've deleted more pages (and a quarter are your requests for sure... being an admin would save so much time for you...) than I've actually made edits. Maxim(talk) 02:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm a volunteer, I don't get paid. I can't really pinpoint the exact attraction to reverting vandalism... I created an account to revert vandalism 10 months ago, and I haven't stopped. --Maxim(talk) 02:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have replied what CU means on the admin nomination section. By the way, try not to create a new section every time you want to add something. You can just add a colon ":" on the bottom of the previous message and you can start your new message right away (similar to what I'm doing in this section here) OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I would recommend you to do is stop editing using the IP and only use the account for editing. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I would like to politely point out is that the IP is registered to the university of Auckland.--MrIPAddress 16:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has been under Stho002 since then. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I see that you have update the Coccidae. I have new species in the tribus Pulvinariini. Which tribus are in the Coccidae?



This is the discussion page for an anonymous user who has not created an account yet or who does not use it. We therefore have to use the numerical IP address to identify him/her. Such an IP address can be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user and feel that irrelevant comments have been directed at you, please create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users.