User talk:Kempf EK
- 1 Welcome to Wikispecies!
- 2 extinct daggers
- 3 Orphaned pages
- 4 Cypris madagascarensis
- 5 email
- 6 More on Linking
- 7 The Wikispecies system: simple or complicated
- 8 Cypris tuberculata
- 9 Cretaceous etc. Ostracoda
- 10 Re: Online editing
- 11 Ostracod reference
- 12 Autopatrolled rights
- 13 Admin?
- 14 Patrolling rights
- 15 Patrol stats
- 16 Dutoitella
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:
- Help:Contents provides a good introduction to editing Wikispecies.
- Templates are there to help you following syntax and formatting rules.
- Have a look at Done and to do.
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! Koumz (talk) 06:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
The contributions of an expert such as yourself are very valuable to Wikispecies, especially as there is much work that needs to be done on the Wikispecies pages for Ostracoda.
The formatting you used in the "Taxonavigation" section of the pages you created needs a small adjustment to make it display all the information properly. I have made the changes to the formats of the pages without changing any of the content. You can use the adjusted format for your future pages. When creating pages for a genus (or its species) that hasn't been worked on here on Wikispecies before (like many of the pages you created), you will also want to create the template for the genus. You can see an example of how the template is written at the edit screen of Template:Xestoleberis.
The "orphaned" category means that there is no page linking to Klie's page. Since nobody could find the article other than typing it in the search bar, hence the page is referred to as "orphaned". OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Please remember to link to your synonym pages on the page for the current name, or they will wind up as "orphans" (unlinked to by anything), as "Cypris madagascarensis" did. If it had not been left as an orphan, I would not have changed it at all. Koumz (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dr Kempf
I'd like to discuss a presentation I'm giving this week about Wikimedia projects, would you be able to email me? Wikimedian@nhm.ac.uk
More on Linking
Thanks for your comments on OhanaUnited Talk page. With embedded hyperlinks, it is not a case of either linking from the Author name or the reference to the Author page or even to the BHL. It is possible to have links in a number of places. Look at recent work on Chilades which has links to author pages in Name, Synonymy and Reference sections plus links to BHL and other online document sources in Reference Templates. We can build a huge amount of hyperlink flexibility into Articles by this wide range of options. Accassidy (talk) 08:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
The Wikispecies system: simple or complicated
Since Stohner, wikispecies system is very complicated. Their are many Entomologist who want add their species and genera. I got e-mails from different entomologists to do this for them. But now it become to difficult for me to do this. When I started wikispecies their where templates. We work after these templates and get help from marius and others. Now people makes templates for their own use and if you are not a programmer you don't understand it. Even they make the same contributions but other templates like Stohner and Accasidy. Sorry for my english.
I just recently completed listing and registering in ZooBank the nomenclatural acts of J de C Sowerby, 1836. When I found Cypris tuberculata in blue, I clicked on it and found your entry as Methuen, 1910. As Sowerby's name is illustrated and described, it appears valid. It would seem that Methuen, 1910 would be pre-occupied. Sowerby's species is named for a fossil Cretaceous marine form. Neferkheperre (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
You are right. This is one of the very old Ostracoda homonyms. During the last 40 years, while building up the "Kempf Database Ostracoda" which at present covers about 80.000 named ostracod taxa (recent and fossil, inclusive of synonyms) based on the original literature of about 20.000 publications, quite a number of homonyms were detected. Over the many years I wrote a lot of letters to taxonomic authors to get those homonyms resolved. Only in recent years I started to work on some homonyms of the remaining list myself.
The ostracod specimens of fossil Cretaceous non-marine (not marine!) forms described by Sowerby in 1836 under the name Cypris tuberculata were figured on plate 21 (figs. 2 a, b, c). They really represented more than one species. For the specimens of fig. 2a the name Cypris fittoni was coined by Mantell in 1844.
The main nomenclatural/taxonomic history of the names is as follows:
Cypris tuberculata Sowerby, 1836 (= figure 2b + 2c)
Cypris (Cypridea) tuberculata (Sowerby, 1836) Jones, 1854b
Cythere ? tuberculata (Sowerby, 1836) Jones, 1878a
Cypridea tuberculata (Sowerby, 1836) Jones, 1878b
Cypridea tuberculata tuberculata (Sowerby, 1836) Jones, 1878b
Cypridea tuberculata adjuncta Jones, 1885
Cypridea tuberculata wyomingensis Jones, 1893
Cypridea tuberculata gypsumensis Vanderpool, 1928
Cypridea tuberculata langtonensis Anderson, 1971
Cypridea tuberculata dorsiclavata Anderson, 1985
Cypris fittoni Mantell, 1844 (= figure 2a of Sowerby, 1836)
Cypris (Cypridea) fittoni (Mantell, 1844) Jones, 1854b
Cypridea fittoni (Mantell, 1844) Jones, 1878b
Cythere fittoni (Mantell, 1844) Jones, 1885
Metacypris fittoni (Mantell, 1844) Jones, 1888
Gomphocythere fittoni (Mantell, 1844) Wicher, 1957
Bisulcocypris fittoni (Mantell, 1844) Pinto & Sanguinetti, 1962
Theriosynoecum fittoni (Mantell, 1844) Morkhoven, 1963
Dryelba fittoni (Mantell, 1844) Sohn, 1982
Cypris tuberculata Methuen, 1910
Sclerocypris tuberculata (Methuen, 1910) Klie, 1939
- Great. I have been doing the same with barnacles, going back to original descriptions, and finding many mis-spellings which have cropped up over years, and can clear up many obscure authorship/date problems. I have found relatively few pre-occupied names. I track down in detail what I do suspect, and have found some apparent homonyms to be errors in previous publications. Sometimes, researching this can be rather lengthy. Neferkheperre (talk) 22:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Cretaceous etc. Ostracoda
Looks like I did cause some confusion. Sorry. I had forgotten about non-marine Ostracoda, as I do very little non-marine work. I venture into brackish water at times, that is all. I have been creating some number of categories relating to habitat (such as Littoral Marine Species, Reef Coral Symbionts, Epibionts, etc.), and just began to create broad-based geological age related categories. Jurassic and Cretaceous is as far as I have gotten. While keywording for already existing categories, I discovered your ostracod categories. I simply incorporated them into the era categories as sub-categories without any other alterations. I was happy to see someone else with similar ideas. I had envisioned era categories to include sub-categories for high-level taxonomic groups.
I can easily reverse this with no net effect, but I like Ostracoda included in some fashion. They are very important elements of marine faunas, and important biostratigraphic markers. Since there are few non-marine species, suggest to establish era categories for fresh-water taxa, with subcategories for high-level taxon groups. Be a good idea anyway. Hopefully get everybody to chip in with their own specialties. You and I can get this worked out, and maybe get the rest of the gang on board with their own work.
I have also begun pages for type repositories, and got agreement on Village Pump. This will eliminate [[holotype|acronym]], which is unusable as such. Example is BMNH. There is an accompanying category page titled with same acronym, which is to list species reposed. All are collected in Category:Repositories. I have been creating reference templates for type and figured specimen articles, which are placed in Category:Type Number Inventories and listed in appropriate repository pages. My newest species page is Concinnalepas costata in this type of format. Neferkheperre (talk) 22:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- My proposal is to coin Category:Cretaceous taxa, Category:Jurassic taxa, etc. as higher categories. A splitting into marine, non-marine, etc. can be done later, if necessary.
- I was mindful of working towards same higher categories, just from bottom up. In my vision, each age category would contain marine taxa, terrestrial and fresh-water primary subcategories.
For extant marine Ostracoda I have coined categories like: Category:Atlantic Ocean Ostracoda, Category:Indian Ocean Ostracoda, Category:Deep Sea Ostracoda, etc. which seems to me more useful than just marine Ostracoda. The same could be very useful for barnacles, too.
- Yes they are, and I shall be making some geographic categories for my barnacles. Although for me, Deep Sea would subdivide into Bathyal, Abyssal and Abyssal Hydrothermal Vent, which have their own faunas. I am wondering how to allocate shelf faunas (sub-littoral-500'). Usually these go to inner, middle, and outer. There is considerable blending of faunas there, and literature is not necessarily completely clear.
- For geography, my Northern Hemisphere barnacles subdivide into Warm Temperate/Cold Temperate. On US East Coast, subdivision is at Cape Hatteras. Barnacles have minimum/maximum survival temperature ranges, and minimum/maximum breeding temperatures, which do necessarily coincide. Megabalanus coccopoma, very widespread invasive species, now occupies US East Coast to Cape Hatteras, but last year's winter apparently made a major kill off. Semibalanus balanoides, native cold water species, extends south to Cape Hatteras. At this extreme for both species, populations may be non-breeding, maintained by steady supplies of waifs brought by prevailing shoreline currents. I do not know enough about ostracod biology to see if similar provincial regions occur.
For extant non-marine Ostracoda I coined categories like: Category:Neotropic Ostracoda, Category:Palaearctic Ostracoda, Category:Australasian Ostracoda, etc. which seems to me more useful than just non-marine Ostracoda.
- What I am trying to accomplish in long term is to select and erect category systems to be inclusive. Environments are holistic and interactive, and categories should be chosen to allow everyone to expand into them smoothly. I have checked out categories you outlined above, they are well thought out and easily intermeshed. I like the maps. I also note we are only ones doing this so far. Neferkheperre (talk) 21:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Re: Online editing
Yes Kempf, I can work offline, and I will probably do just that, but it's really like asking a theft-victim to add another lock on his door rather than putting the thief to task. I would expect you to ask Stho to improve his manners before advising me take more precautions to avoid his harassment. Anyway, I'm grateful for your concern. Mariusm (talk) 08:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I just got these 2 from Zootaxa while templating references. Is of use to you.
- Pieri, V., Martens, K., Meisch, C. & Rossetti, G. 2015. An annotated checklist of the Recent non-marine ostracods (Ostracoda: Crustacea) from Italy. Zootaxa 3919(2): 271–305. doi: 10.11646/zootaxa.3919.2.3 Reference page.
- Yamaguchi, T., Suzuki, H., Soe, A.N., Htike, T., Nomura, R. & Takai, M. 2015. A new late Eocene Bicornucythere species (Ostracoda, Crustacea) from Myanmar, and its significance for the evolutionary history of the genus. Zootaxa 3919(2): 306–326. doi: 10.11646/zootaxa.3919.2.4. reference page
Dear Kempf EK, You have been granted autopatrolled user rights, which may be granted to experienced Wikispecies users who have demonstrated an understanding of Wikispecies policies and guidelines. In addition to what registered users can do, autopatrollers can have one's own edits automatically marked as patrolled (autopatrol). The autopatrol user right is intended to reduce the workload of new page patrollers and causes pages created by autopatrolled users to be automatically marked as patrolled. For more information, read Wikispecies:Autopatrollers.
You may as autpatroller use the autopatroller user box on your user page. Copy and paste the following code on your user page:
Dear, Kempf EK! Would you accept to be an Administrator on Wikispecies? Wikispecies need more Administrators and presently there is only 27 out of 150 active users.
Please see Administrators for information about Admins rights. If you are positive, I can nominate you on the requests for adminship on your behalf.
- Thank you very much for asking. However, I cannot accept to be an Administrator on Wikispecies. The time I can spend at the Wikispecies project is limited and will not be enough to fulfill such a task. Most of my time I need for other projects awaiting publication. Kempf EK (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a lof for using your patroller user right and doing some patrolling! Please inform me if you experienced any difficaulties, or if you have any questions.
Since you have made use of your patroller user rights, you will keep them, and I will remove your autopatrol user right, since there is no need for both.
Patrollers may use the Patroller user box on their user page. Copy and paste the following code to your user page:
Please consider carrying out daily patrols of new pages and edits made by users who are not autopatrolled.
- @PeterR: No, I am in favour of "Authored taxa", as "Described taxa" has a different meaning. Therefore we should use "Authored taxa" instead of "Described taxa". Please, look at my explanation at the Village Pump. Kempf EK (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
This reference came in Thursday. I could not find where to put Dutoitella, so I am putting this reference here, for your study.
- Brandão, S.N., Stuhlmann, A., Vital, H. & Brandt, A. 2016. Biogeography of Abyssocythere and Dutoitella (Ostracoda), with descriptions of three new species. Zootaxa 4139(3): 391–418. doi: 10.11646/zootaxa.4139.3.4. reference page