User talk:Gavin.collins

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome to Wikispecies!

Hello, and welcome to Wikispecies! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

If you have named a taxon, then it is likely that there is (or will be) a Wikispecies page about you, and other pages about your published papers. Please see our advice and guidance for taxon authors.

If you have useful images to contribute to Wikispecies, please upload them at Wikimedia Commons. This is also true for video or audio files containing bird songs, whale vocalization, etc.

Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username (if you're logged in) and the date. Please also read the Wikispecies policy What Wikispecies is not. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or in the Village Pump. Again, welcome!

Gavin, you need to understand that the authority associated with a species name is that of the original descriptor, even when the organism has been reclassified into a different genus. So Macracantha arcuata is correctly written Macracantha arcuata (Fabricius, 1793) because Fabricius, not Simon, originally described the species, even though Simon reclassified it into a different genus. The parentheses in (Fabricius, 1793) indicate that the organism has been moved to a different genus than the one in which Fabricius described it. Koumz (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for taking time out to explain this to me. I was not aware of this principle until now. Is there any guidance, such as a help page, within Wikispecies that explains this? --Gavin.collins (talk) 08:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Help:Contents is a good general guide. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature also gives some insight. Koumz (talk) 15:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please see Author citation (zoology and Author citation (botany) to understand why the most recent changes you made to Macracantha arcuata are not in line with standard practice for zoological names. Koumz (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I understand. Even though the originator of the valid name is Simon, he has to be shown in the synonym section. --Gavin.collins (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. What you have written is still incorrect. The name associated with a zoological taxon is always the describer, and in standard practice, only the describer. Simon is the reviser, and according to the standard zoological convention, Simon would never be shown as authority for this taxon. I am sorry, but you need to stop altering pages out of the standard configuration. Koumz (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand that the describer gets priority, but what convention do you use to show that Simon is the reviser and the originator of the valid name? --Gavin.collins (talk) 22:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Think of it not as a name, but as placement of a species in a genus, just like placement of a genus in a family. Then you can put:


thanks ... Stho002 (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here by way of illustration is a further example. At the end of each line are the deductions you can draw from the data given.


  • Thecla ravindra Horsfield, 1828: pl. 1, figs 11, 11a, explanation Pl. 1. [ravindra was originally described in Thecla by Horsfield.]
  • Myrina ravindra (Horsfield); Horsfield, 1829: 117, No. 47. [Horsfield moved his ravindra to Myrina in 1829.]
  • Drupadia ravindra (Horsfield); Moore, 1884: 31; Piepers, 1921: 105, pl. 27, figs 168a, b and c [genus mis-spelt]. [Moore moved ravindra to Drupadia in 1884 and Piepers used this combination in 1921.]
  • Marmessus ravindra ravindra (Horsfield); Fruhstorfer, 1912: 250. [By 1912 a number of subspecies of ravindra had been described and Fruhstorfer was confirming the nominotypical subspecies, but moving them to the genus Marmessus.]
  • Marmessus ravindra medullia (Horsfield); Fruhstorfer, 1912: 250. Lectotype: BMNH S.E. Java [Synonymised by Kalis, 1933: 86.] [Fruhstorfer described medullia as a subspecies of ravindra in 1912, but Kalis subsequently published a revision that said they these two taxe were in fact the same.]
  • Marmessus ravindra (Horsfield); Seitz, 1926: 990, pl. 159, fig. g1 [as jalindra on plate]. [Seitz retained the combination Marmessus ravindra but made a mistake in the name on plate 159.]
  • Marmessus medullia Fruhstorfer; Seitz, 1926: 990, pl. 159, figs g4, g5. [Seitz considered medullia a valid subspecific name, this prior to Kalis' synonymisation.]
  • Biduanda thesmia javanica Toxopeus, 1932: LXX. 1 ♂, 1 ♀ syntypes, Java, not located, aberration. [Toxopeus described an insect under the name javanica as a subsepcies of Biduanda thesmia but this is now considered the same as ravindra.]
  • Marmessus ravindra ravindra var. transiens Kalis, 1933: 86. [Kalis infrasubspecific name transiens is considered to fall within ravindra.]
  • Drupadia ravindra (Horsfield); Cowan, 1974: 307. [This more recent revision is considered authoritative in using the combination Drupadia ravindra.]

You can see that a lot of information can be deduced from the special way of formatting the Synonyms section, and a lot of repetitive words left out. However, whenever cited, Horsfield is still shown as the author of ravindra and is shown as (Horsfield) when a different genus from the original Thecla is combined. Accassidy (talk) 11:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Taxon Authorities[edit]

Franz Daniel (1895-1985) and Franz Dannehl (1870-1947) are not the same person, even though both were German lepidopterists. Franz Daniel published papers in the 1950s and afterwards, after Dannehl had already died. Koumz (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • What are the sources of your information? --Gavin.collins (talk) 09:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Franz Daniel's obituary in a German entomological journal here clearly shows that none of the details of his life are the same as the ones you put on the page for Franz Daniel. The information you put on the page for Franz Daniel matches the Wikipedia article for Franz Dannehl. This entomological paper cites references by both Daniel and Dannehl. If they were the same person, the paper would cite them with the same spelling and place the 1964 paper after the 1929 paper in the reference list, but it doesn't. The Franz Daniel paper cited there was published in 1964, proving again that Franz Daniel was still publishing papers long after Franz Dannehl died. Koumz (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Nice work. I suspected Dannehl was a different person, but could not find anything about him. I am having similar problems with the identification of another entomologist, Closs. I have posted a question over at to see if anyone knows if he and Gustav Adolf Closs (an illustrator) are one and the same person, but I can't find any reliable sources that confirm this one way or the other. Do you know where I might look?. --Gavin.collins (talk) 18:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I think the quotes you gave on the German Wikipedia (and the reasoning given by others there) make a pretty strong case that they are the same person. Direct evidence is going to being tough to find in this case since it does not look like Closs ever used more than his initials in his papers, as was common for the period. Also, it was common for illustrators to be involved in taxonomy and vice versa during that period, see the Sowerby family for example. Koumz (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]