User talk:Accassidy

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archive1 to Jan 2013
Archive2 to Mar 2017

Oversight nomination[edit]

Please refer to Wikispecies:Oversighters/Requests/Koavf for a second Oversight nomination. Note that we must have at least two Oversigthers in order for anyone to have these user rights. All feedback is welcome. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Pallas volumes[edit]

Hello! What's up with the "4 to 3 volumes" in the {{Pallas,PS, 1771}} template you created a few years back? (Also, you might want to see the diff. with my changes.) Is that a typo? It should say "3 volumes", right? Or have I totally misunderstood it? That wouldn't be the first time, so please excuse me if that's the case... :-) All the best, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC).

The "4to" as originally written without a space is a publishers shorthand for stating that the size of the pages is "quarto", part of a measurement system that predates modern digital civilisation. I have reinstated the abbreviation but separated it from the "3" so that the two numbers are more separated and this may avoid further confusion. Accassidy (talk) 07:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for correcting the template, and for the explanation. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC).

Anadara[edit]

Hi Alan! Please take a look at the edit history of Anadara. I haven't got a clue about the vast complexity of the synonymy going on there (in Euploea, that is) but thought I should make you aware of the edits. Hopefully everything is fine, but contrary to you I can't really say. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC).

Tommy,
Anadara is a valid genus name in mollusca, authored by Gray, 1847. Frederic Moore appears to have made a synonym in 1884 by creating an insect genus of the same name, and which was in any case synonymous with Euploea Fabricius.
I will create a page Anadara (Lepidoptera) and redirect that to Euploea. It will then come up in searches, and may be of use to researchers in Lepidoptera.
Thanks for pointing it out. Accassidy 12:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick response. I've added a disambiguation hat-note to the Anadara page, linking to Euploea. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC).

"Schroder, Treadaway, Nuyda, 1993" template[edit]

Hi again Alan. Regarding the {{Schroder,Treadaway,Nuyda, 1993}} template, shouldn't the citation read Fil-Kulisap 12: 5–7, 10–11, 20 rather than Fil-Kulisap l(2):5 -7,10-11, 20. Or in full wiki code: ''Fil-Kulisap'' 12: 5–7, 10–11, 20 rather than ''Fil-Kulisap'' '''l'''(2):5 -7,10-11, 20 ?

Also, I guess it would be best to rename it {{Schröder, Treadaway, Nuyda, 1993}} with spacing as in proper author designations, but that's perhaps not as important. Friendly greetings, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC).

Actually, I believe it is correct as it is. It refers to Volume 1, issue number 2, of the magazine. The volume is in bold and the Issue number in brackets. This is an established convention among many publishers. Accassidy 16:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC) (Moved back from User talk:Tommy Kronkvist#"Schroder, Treadaway, Nuyda, 1993" template since the discussion started here.)
Okay, if you say so. :-) The reason I asked is that I came across this page: https://eurekamag.com/research/022/039/022039520.php. ErurekaMag might not be the most scientifically correct webpage out there, but I still felt I had to ask. Regardless, the volume number "1" in the template is actually a lower case "L" rather than a digit, and should of course be changed. Using bold text for the volume number contradicts consensus and our Village Pump poll on reference format, but in most cases I don't think the finer details of text formatting is a huge deal. (Although I generally correct it anyway, if I happen to edit the page for other reasons.)
Thanks for your recent Lycaenidae fixes! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC).
Odd, but I don't remember being aware of, nor making a contribution to, the Reference format consensus. I would prefer bold volume numbers as thatis the convention I grew up with, but for new references I will conform to the consensus.Feel free to change older ones as you come across them.. Accassidy (talk) 08:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
You're right, you didn't take part in that particular Village Pump discussion. However a total of 13 users did. 11 of them voted in the poll, and 2 abstained from voting. Considering that there are only about 180 active users on Wikispecies I'd say that's a fair number anyway, and the result is since then reflected on the Help:Reference section page. As a last note in this discussion, I've changed the letter "L" in the template to the digit "1". Best wishes, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC).
Yes, the right thing to do. Easy to look at but not see... Accassidy (talk) 13:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Afarsia morgiana[edit]

Alan,

You have create Afarsia morgiana. I have a few questions.

  • 1. is the original combination Cupido morgiana?
  • 2. Where are the subspecies?
  • 3. I have a new subspecies Plebejus morgianus lorestanensis, described by Jean-Francois Charmeux, 2016 in Lépidoptères - Revue des Lépidoptéristes de France 25(65): 104-106. Can I tranfer it to Afarsia morgiana or is Plebejus morgianus reinstate?

PeterR (talk) 08:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Peter, the authority for Afarsia is Talavera. I would stay with this, unless the new paper contains a specific rebuttal to Talavera. I am not aware of any other subspecies, hence there are none listed. You can create pages for the new and the nominotypical subspecies. This would be the minimum change. Accassidy (talk) 09:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Alan thanks. There are three other subspecies: blomi, badgeri and montetaftanus (information funet). I shall add them today. PeterR (talk) 09:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Thnk you. I am in South Africa for a few weeks and rather out of touch. Accassidy (talk)

Phoenicurusia Verity, 1943[edit]

Alan,

Did you already read Zootaxa 4306 (1): 137–139, 2017 from Krupitsky about the status of Phoenicurusia Verity, 1943?

PeterR (talk) 09:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Peter, no I have not read this before. The first significant change is that "differences in the male genitalia structure supporting distinct genera Phoenicurusia and Athamanthia". So we should elevate subgenus Phoenicurusia to genus and associate the subordinate species accordingly. I will not be able to do this in the near future as I am a long way from home. Please go ahead if you can. Accassidy (talk) 10:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Discolampa[edit]

Discolampa ethion
Discolampa sp.

Hi Alan. Thanks for creating the many Discolampa pages. As a curiosity, did you know that in Swedish "discolampa" literally means "disco light"? Fairly suitable, I think. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC).

I guess it means something similar in a lot of places now, but in Nederlands in 1920s it was probably something else. Or maybe Minheer Toxopeus was well ahead of his time!! Accassidy (talk) 17:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
(Message moved back from User talk:Tommy Kronkvist#Discoblanca [sic] since the discussion started here.)

Vandalism of user pages[edit]

Hi, I'd like to ask a question. What happens if somebody vandals a page or user page? Does it get reverted? What if somebody does that to my user page, so many times, does that mean that eventually my page will be protected from vandalism? Penny Rose Smith (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Penny Rose Smith (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Chilades contracta[edit]

Does this a valid species now. Only Chilades parrhasius is mentioned in all new books in India. Jkadavoor (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Reference format[edit]

Hi Alan! I know we've discussed this before, but please note that your recent copy edit of the {{Fruhstorfer, 1902b}} template doesn't comply with the outcome of Wikispecies' Village Pump poll on reference format back in December 2015, which lay ground for the version of the user guidelines in Help:Reference section we still use. (That poll took all aspects of the reference format into consideration. When specifically talking about whether to (not) use bold type for volume numbers, 2 users voted "yes", and 9 users voted "no".) Here on your talk page in September 2017 you and me had our first discussion about reference format were you wrote "I would prefer bold volume numbers as that is the convention I grew up with, but for new references I will conform to the consensus. Feel free to change older ones as you come across them." Today, since I was already adding BHL templates and ISSN links to your newly created Fruhstorfer reference template, I figured I might as well go ahead and also replace the text formatting with the format preferred by the community. In our talks you and me shared the opinion that these aren't matters of huge importance, and I still feel the same way. Also, I think you know I'm not the guy who would start an edit war – especially not with one of our best contributors! 😃 Hence I'm not going to "revert your revert" but please don't change a recommended format into an unrecommended ditto in the future, at least not simply for the sake of doing so without also making other (more important?) changes at the same time. That's all for now. As always: thank you for your very welcome contributions! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC).

Tommy,
Just me falling back to old habits. Thanks for the reminder. Will keep to unbold in future if I remember. Accassidy 19:58, 12 August 2018 (UTC) — The preceding comment was moved from another user talk page, since the discussion was initiated here.
No worries. On other matters if you like, please have a look at Problems in User:Knson2 edits at the Village Pump, and New user group for editing sitewide CSS and JavaScripts on the Admins' Noticeboard. Neither of them has anything to do with reference formats, nor each other. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC).
I have looked at both those situations, but they are a bit beyond my level of expertise to resolve myself. I am content that you will do the best thing under the circumstances. Accassidy (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Kretania martinii vs. martini[edit]

Hi Accassidy,

I see that both spellings (martini / martinii) were used in the original description, and martini seems to be widely considered as the correct one (I have never heard martinii). Would you please modify the page Kretania martinii? Thanks! --LamBoet (talk) 08:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

–––––––––––––––––––––– (The text below was copied from User_talk:LamBoet.)

Thanks for your comment, and well spotted. However, the original spelling of martinii is actually used by Allard on both the text and the accompanying plate. I have included links to both of these original pages. Also, Bridges suggests that there was an "incorrect original spelling", but without any justification. So there is need for a discussion regarding the validity/precedence of the original spelling as against current usage.My feeling is that original spellings are correct unless there are clear ambiguities in the original text, and that is not the case here. There is also a similar issue, oddly enough, with Kretania allardii which has had either spelling in the past, but seems settled on the -ii ending. We can discuss this further, but for the moment I feel it better to stay with Allard's original spelling of martinii until there is clearer resolution. Can you explain why the original spelling with double-i might be "incorrect"? We can no longer ask Mr. Allard!! Accassidy (talk) 09:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi @Accassidy: actually, Mr. Allard used the martini spelling at page 323, as the title of the description itself. That's why I wrote that both spellings are used in this original description: this is actually an ambiguity. According to Article 32.2.1 of the ICZN, in such a case, the correct original spelling is the one chosen by the first reviser. But I don't know who the first reviser is. I suspect that martini makes more sense since it is derived fron the name of "Mr. Emmanuel Martin", but this is probably not for us to decide. Unless we find more information, I think it is best that we follow the principle of least surprise, i.e. using martini. --LamBoet (talk) 09:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
About Kretania allardii: yes, I was aware of this; funny how such ambiguities reproduce. But this case seems a bit simpler, because only the allardii spelling is used in the original description (as far as I can see). --LamBoet (talk) 09:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
@Accassidy: Are you OK with this, and can you make the change, or shall I? Cheers --LamBoet (talk) 10:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

–––––––––––––––––––––– (End of copy.)

...Thanks for getting in touch. I have to answer here as you do not have a user page.
If you look at the original text and plate, you will see that the name given was martinii. The only odd thing about this original print is that the dot is left off the second "i" on the plate caption. However, the stem of the second "i" is clearly printed and carries the author's intention. I have made a page with the single "i" spelling and it links to the double "i" page. That others have mis-read the original in intervening years is not cause to change the original spelling. I have also added an explanatory note at the completion of the synonymy. I think this is sufficient for now, until a convincing argument for a single "i" is put forward. Accassidy (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi @Accassidy: I do have a talk page (you used it last week ;-) ) and I wrote to you from there, but it seems like you did not read all my answers. (Does the template "reply to" not send notifications in Wikispecies as it does in Wikipedia?) To make things simpler, I have just copied all messages back here, in chronological order.
Now, please (re-)read my above message of “09:43, 22 August 2018”, and you will now understand my point. --LamBoet (talk) 13:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Freyeria minuscula[edit]

Hi Accassidy, I think this one should not be miniscula but minuscula, or have I missed something? Kind regards --LamBoet (talk) 08:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

NBM[edit]

Alan,

Maybe you can help me with NBM (National Butterfly Museum) in W. Sussex, England. It don't exist anymore. In 1982 a part (2 lots) via an auction from Christie’s is in the Glasgow Museums. In 1983 there was a new auction in Sotheby’s but I don't know which Museum have bought it. It Seem that Tennent, W. J., 2005 know more about this. See Entomologist’s Gazette, 56 (1): 13-24. I can't find it on google. PeterR (talk) 13:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society[edit]

Ten Year Society.svg

Dear Alan, tomorrow is a special day, if I am not wrong you will celebrate 10 long years on Wikispecies.

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikispecies project for ten years or more.

Best regards, Dan Koehl (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Very symbolic, I do wish there was champagne, trumpets and a coffin with gold, but Wiki is wiki... But, the honor is yours, and we are all greatful for your devoted work! You are now listed at Category:Members of the Ten Year Society of Wikispecies editors.Dan Koehl (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Kardakoff, 1928[edit]

This article is formatted as though it were an article split in sections through a single volume, but really it's two different articles in two different issues that happen to have the same title. The first is from issue 4, while the second is from issue 8 and opens [rough translation] "I would like to add to my report in vol. 17 issue 4, the following news on Rhopalocera". Zobodat is a great resource for German 19th and early 10h century literature (and sometimes just German journals in general). Circeus (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Liphyrinae[edit]

Hi Accassidy, would you have a recent reference to make Liphyrinae a subfamily? I see that Espeland et al., 2018 still view it as a tribe within Miletinae. Kind regards --LamBoet (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, well spotted, however...
I refer to Eliot's higher classification which carries a lot of respect. I note that in this new circular chart the Aphnaeinae and Lycaeninae originate exactly as the Liphyrini, so they are not internally consistent even with all their data. I don't think its really important from a Wiki point of view, but the more modern work is inconsistent and I have a lot of respect for the common sense of John Eliot. Accassidy (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
(Moved back from User talk:LamBoet#Liphyrini/ae since the discussion started here.)
Hi Accassidy,
The problem is, as far as I can see, current taxonomic references do not follow Eliot's 1974 classification anymore for this particular taxon, and reinterpreting Espeland et al.’s 2018 paper would be original work, which we are not supposed to do on wikispecies. (I agree that their tree makes it looks like Liphyrini could deserve subfamily status, but I wouldn't call their work inconsistent: they just don't make age an absolute criterion for taxonomic rank, and they don't comment on this particular taxon.)
Since there doesn't seem to be any publication about a molecular higher-level phylogeny of Lycaenidae yet, I think it would be best to just wait for it and see what happens... Kind regards. --LamBoet (talk) 07:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't want to overstep the mark. So have reverted to the earlier hierarchy, but retained both references and noted the synonymy. Accassidy (talk) 10:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
However, they definitely raise Aphnaeini to subfamily as Aphnaeinae, from tribe status. I hope you can agree with changing that much. Accassidy (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! Yes, good point about Aphnaeinae. By the way, it's interesting how messy the situation in Theclinae and Polyommatinae is, I am curious to see how future publications address this. --LamBoet (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
I am still very admiring of John Eliot's Higher Classification. Nobody has yet really taken a broader and more convincing view. Accassidy (talk) 22:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I have no doubt that it was remarkable work! In the meantime, I have dug a little deeper into the history of Liphyrini/ae: see my edit here. I found an interesting paper of Kaliszewska et al., 2015 about Miletinae: they treated Liphyrini as a tribe and Lipteninae as a subfamily, but the relationships between subfamilies don't look very robust in their tree yet, and are different from Espeland's. --LamBoet (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Content with that, thanks. Accassidy (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

reference formatting[edit]

Practice onn Wikispecies is currently to not bold volume numbers (While bold is also my preferred formatting to match Wikipedia, this was voted against when the topic came up) or include links in article titles. Think of it as the links in the reference being meant for bibliographic disambiguation. Circeus (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Accassidy, I have the same request as Circeus. You create a lot of reference templates, and none of them exactly follows the formatting recommended in Help:Reference section. An example here. Thanks! --LamBoet (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

F.G. Browne[edit]

Alan,

Do you know the full names from F.G. Browne? It is an english coleopterist from 19, Vivienne Close, Twickenham, Middlesex, England. I don't know if this gentleman lives today. He signs his work with F.G. Browne. Regards PeterR (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, Peter, but I do not know his names, nor have I found them after quite a lot of searching. Not able to help, this time. Accassidy (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Alan PeterR (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)