User talk:Mariusm/Archive3

Combinations: Answer

The term "combination" is not mine: I use it in the way unambiguously stated in the last Code. Combination is not a synonym at all. Combination is the same name of species which [species] is just transferred to another genus. For details see the Code. We have no rights to treat them as "synonyms". If it is uncommon to mention combinations in the Project I will not mention them at all. But as I understand, one of the ways to develop Wikispecies is to extend details on each taxon. --Andrey A. Kuzmin 10:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Combination

Marius,

A new combination is a species from one genus to an other genus and a new synonym is a species that is synomyzed with an other exist specie. In Wiki we have only one capital === Synonyms === I send you herewith a bulletin with examples. [1]. I hope that you understand the differences.

Regards,

PeterR 11:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Mariusm, I suppose that we (as all biologists) have to use the Codes in treatmen the names. The only source for meanings of terms associated with nomenclature is (in zoology) ICZN IV: its articles and glossary. There we can read that synonymy is a list of synonyms. Synonym is "each of two or more names of the same rank used to denote the same taxonomic taxon". By contrast, combination is THE SAME NAME and synonym is DIFFERENT NAME.
Common practice in zoological articles is to note all mentions of current taxon: synonyms, misidentifications etc. Mentions are not formal, not ruled by the Code and leave some ambiguities - I think we don't have to use "mentions" in Wikispecies. Here is the link to glossary of the Code [2]
Andrey A. Kuzmin 19:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I and we all will use "synonymy" in false broad meaning (that is in conflict with ICZN). But I still don't understand why should we act in such a wrong way... It is much more clearer to distinct different categories of names than to put them into one ambigous group with uncorrect name "synonymy". The process of composition of "mentions" is very difficult for unprofessional users especially in groups where revisions are absent or out of date. It would be easier and clearer to include only synonyms and combinations (in two different groups).Andrey A. Kuzmin 21:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Synonymy

Thats means that the Helpfile synonyms have to change in SYNONYMY.

Regards,

PeterR 18:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Ambystoma silvense

Hi there, I am going through the orpaned pages and see that Ambystoma silvensis is orphaned. On Ambystoma silvense, you indicate that it is a synonym of Ambystoma silvensis. I would create the redirect, but I was not sure. Both the en en:Ambystoma silvensis and pt pt:Ambystoma silvensis have Ambystoma silvensis, (although I realize it doesn't mean they are correct). Could you either change Ambystoma silvensis to be a redirect or if it really warrants its own page, link back to it? Thanks. --Open2universe | Talk 02:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

RV:Plant species data

Is this OK? --Digigalos 10:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

If this is OK I think that what I understood it. --Digigalos 18:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Suicidalhamster

Thanks for the support for subgenera. I have explain him how to do this, but he thinks Bombus (Bombus) is enough. He will ask in the Village pump for the wright manner.

Regards,

PeterR 18:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Bombus

Hey, just to reply to your comments (in the same order)

1. I knew that moving species page would create a redirect and was unsure whether procedure was to keep or delete it. I asked PeterR and mentioned that I would ask at village pump. From your comment is it right to assume that the redirect is allowed to stay? In my opinion this is vastly preferable as links from Commons and Wikipedia are unlikely to have the subgenus in the name.

2. Yes I know I failed to change the templates for Bombus (Pyrobombus), mainly because real life called me away and I hadn't actually finished moving the individual species pages. This will be rectified :)

3. Sorry I ran out of time, I know these need changing :)

4. I realise this will be time-consuming and I do apologise for the inconvenience that it has caused.

When PeterR first pointed out my errors I tried to quickly correct them on Bombus (Kallobombus) and Bombus (Kallobombus) soroeensis. Do these pages follow the guidelines? I will correct all the other pages to follow these formats.

One thing I would like clarifying is (as PeterR mentions above):

For subgenus Bombus (Bombus sensu stricto) should the individual species just be Bombus (Bombus) .... or does wikispecies include the sens. str.?

Sorry for using up your time - Suicidalhamster (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers. Everything has been corrected, apart from the ones in the Bombus subgenus (Which will be done today). One minor point is that moving a page does turn the old page into a redirect. If you look in my contributions it will look like I made two edits: one to make the new page and one to redirect the old, however both were done automatically by moving the page. I did double check this at meta:Help:Moving a page so hopefully I have understood it correctly. Again sorry for making some rubbish edits - at least you won't have to teach me about subgenuses again! Suicidalhamster (talk) 12:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Village pump

Congratulation with the great score for amphibia. You have done a great work. I hope that others listen for not to uses ITIS and other sides, but when I look to others I see that many use ITIS. Now you have to do the updates for 2008. There are a lot of new species.

Regards

PeterR 07:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ameerega altamazonica

Marius,

The author Brown is the false Brown. It is not Thomas Brown but Jason L. Brown. Maybe you can make a new Catalog:Taxon Authorities for Jason L. Brown and Evan Twomey both biologist from the USA.

Regards,

PeterR 08:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Osornophryne puruanta

There is a full text edition from zootaxa with all the data you need for complete this species. [3]

Why don't you create new biologists?

Regards,

PeterR 08:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Psychrophrynella

I'm missing this new species [4]

Regards,

PeterR 08:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Craugastor

Why didn't you make subgeneraspecies for Craugastor.

See [5]

Regards,

PeterR 09:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Bryophryne nubilosus

Why didn't you make a link to Zootaxa 1784: 1-10? I allways make links to the original full text bulletins, because people who want more information they can find it directly.(photo's, details etc.) [6]

Regards,

PeterR 09:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ranitomeya

There are new species from Ranitomeya. See [7] and [8] and [9]

Regards,

PeterR 09:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Species

Marius,

Your a nice guy, but for me you are the frog expert. If I see something wrong I mention it to you and I expect that you do the changes. So I know that the frogs side is clean without mistakes.

Regards,

PeterR 08:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Arthraxon inermis

How did I do on this one, reference-wise? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Anu and its species

Looks like you're wrong this time (same as me as I deleted the page). It's a new species according to the reference. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Vernacular names section

Okey, does not have case. I will introduce changes.--Arturo 17:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Two doubts

1. A single species may belong to two families? For example: Amaryllis australasica Ker Gawl. in Amaryllidaceae and Liliaceae (see here).

2. Is correct this pag?: Amaryllis.

--Digigalos 07:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response. I'm just a simple fan with little knowledge in botany ... --Digigalos 09:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

One doubt more

Do you know where can I find a species of genus: Abaphus? --Digigalos 08:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Where can I find the complete Amaryllidaceae's list? Does this list is not correct?

Re: Do not use http://www.ipni.org/ for species and genera lists !!!!!

I do not set in that detail. I'll have more careful from now on. Should these synonyms appear in any section of the article? Watch to see what you think about this --Digigalos 07:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. --Digigalos 08:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

About Amaryllis and Crinum aquaticum

Amaryllis is a genus very complicated for me:

• Is Amaryllis belladonna a synonym of Hippeastrum equestre, like I can see here or is a s species of Amaryllis like I can see here?
• If Amaryllis has only 2 species (A. belladonna and A. paradisicola, like a can see in the last external link), are all species listed in IPNI are synonymous? I have looked all synonyms starting with A to delete them, and these are the remaining. I do not know very well how to continue.
• Where I must redirect Crinum aquaticum? To Crinum erubescens or to Crinum campanulatum? I have thought about a solution like this. What do you think about?

--Digigalos 10:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Then how much species can be Amaryllis? I see that Botany is not an easy science, perhaps why I like it. Thank you for your clear answers. --Digigalos 14:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Marius,

Can you answer this person?

Sysop access

Do you know how i get sysop access? I have been an active editor for the 2 months as stated in the requirements. Chemistrygeek 12:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks,

PeterR 12:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Cytisus scoparius x dallimorei

Is correct the taxonavigation of Cytisus scoparius x dallimorei? --Digigalos 08:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Where do you find all this information? --Digigalos 11:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Genista 'Porlock'

Do you know if Genista 'Porlock' is a species, a hybrid or a cultivar? How should I add this taxon? --Digigalos 21:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Labridae

Marius,

I see you have done Labridae genera, but there are a lot of subfamilies (Bodianinae, Cheilininae, Corinae, Pseudodacinae, Labrinae, and others?) and maybe subtribus. I have write == Is Wikispecies reliable?? ==. See for comment.

Regards,

PeterR 15:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

answer 14 spet

Marius,

What I mean is that there are a lot of sides incomplete. Professionals can make Main pages after there section. Contributers don't have to look if everything is allwright. If contributers have a bulletin with other information they can ask them what is wright. About the genera of lepidoptera: I have done Coleophoridae, Micronoctuidae, Gracillaridae. The next I'm doing are the Nymphalidae, Lycaenidae, Papilionidae, Pieridae for a part. (After books from Williams and Lamas.) Africa and South America.

Regards,

84.84.150.164 08:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Coleophora abbasella

Marius,

If I ask on Google Coleophora abbasella I see allso my talkpage. How to delete that?

Regards,

Peter.

Coleophoridae

Marius,

I see there is an Incertae sedis with two genera, but the genera don't exist. The five genera that now mentioned are good. I have build this side in accordance with van der Wolf. I see allso that the notes are gone. I don't like this.

Regards,

Peter.

Amblyxena is a genus of the Agonoxenidae family and Aesyle thats need a better study (allready sent an e-mail to Hugo van der Wolf for an answer) Aesyle don't exist (answer Hugo van der Wolf). Aesyle fasciella Chambers, 1875 is now Marmara fasciella Chambers, 1875 in the Gracillariidae. So some people use old information.

Regards,

Marius,

About Coleophoridae

The Russian have to try to work with subgenera and the chinese with species groups after Toll, but both are not recognized by the international entomologists. The subgenera are now synonyms by the genus Coleophora. If I setup a new family I do this with the original data mostly books. If I doubt about a genera or species I e-mail with the author or specialist. So I have e-mail contact with a lot of entomologist about the whole world. Because I work systematic a few genera can be lost. If I have done all the Superfamiliae all genera comes on the wright place. If you have doubts you can allways ask me for help.

PeterR 09:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Boophone

I've seen on the internet that gender Boophone appears in some places within the Alliaceae and others within the Amaryllidaceae. Can you solve this question? What classification method used preferably in Wikispecies? --Digigalos 10:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Nepticulinae

Marius,

The Nepticulinae have to be revised with tibus etc. I have done this.

I have a look for the subgenera of Ectoedemia.

I have all species of Ectoedemia (Formoria) transfered to Ectoedemia (Fomoria).Only the species Of Ectoedemia (Formoria) have to be delete.

It was not a controll of you but I had new information about Acalyptris and I saw the tribus in red.

Regards

PeterR 11:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Mistakes

Marius,

In the beginning I have made a lot of mistakes, I'm sorry for that. I thrust to many people like Isfisk. I thought that every one who works on Wikimedia where specialist and working on the same way. Now I know better and I know that all work Isfisk have done I can repair by adding Type species, Type locality, Holotype, Synonyms, Species etc.

Regards,

Peter.

Ectoedemia (Formoria))

Marius,

I have Ectoedemia (Formoria) and the species as candidate for speedy deletion. I hope I have done this well.

Regards,

Peter

Just a question:

How does this look, in regards to the way I have laid out the taxonomic referencing? Bothriochloa anamitica. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Araeopteron

Marius,

How is it possible that some people change the text in my work without I see their names by history.

I didn't look well. The changes are done by 130.216.1.16. He writes Fibiger, M.; Kononenko, V. I have allready e-mailed him to do Fibiger, M(ichael) & V(ladimir) Kononenko, but I get no answers. He allways change my authors in the references text.

I think you are wrong in this case. A time ago we have discussed about synonyms and authors. We should handled conform internatonal rules. Authors is international Fibiger, M & V. Kononenko. We wrote M. Fibiger & V. Kononenko. Now I do all on the international agreements and now you say that I have to do it on the way of 130.216.1.16. Fibiger, M; Kononenko, V. Now I don't know any more what is write.

To see the differance between me and others and 130.216.1.16 you have to see in edit.

Regards,

Peter

Ornithoptera

Marius,

Please can you repair Ornithoptera (Schoenbergia). I have a lot of new subspecies 2008.

Thanks,

I have add formae to Ornthoptera (Ornithoptera) aesacus. If I want add var. then I have change the f.in var.?

How can I delete the species under Onithoptera and the Subgenera?

In the Lepidoptera there are a lot of forma and variation species. Even forma local species. I have now about a twenty forma species of Ornithoptera.

Peter

Lamiinae

Agapanthida is a genus of Cerambycinae from New Zealand! Why do you put it in Lamiinae??? 130.216.1.16 08:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Eumaeini =

Marius,

I have done the Eumaeini with sections. Now I have a lot of genera that I can't place in a section in red. Can I delete those genera without <<delete>> Most of the genera are synonyms.

Regards,

Peter

Cerambycoidea

Marius, you are stuffing up the beetles with a non-standard classification recognising Cerambycoidea as distinct from Chrysomeloidea! Unless you have a good recent and phylogenetically based reference for this, please stop! I will have to change it all back again! 130.216.1.16 19:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Coleoptera

Marius,

I have stopped with the Coleoptera, because 130.216.1.16 handle other criteria then the bulletins. When I had questions about these mattersI get no answers. I know that I have not criticized him.

Regards,

Peter

Cerambycoidea, and PeterR

Marius, Just about everything in taxonomy is disputed by someone somewhere, and specialists in alpha taxonomy tend to want to elevate and split off their particular groups. However, there is a huge body of phylogenetic evidence supporting the relationship of Cerambycidae with Chrysomeloidea, so I suggest that we go with that for broad classification. Otherwise, it becomes arbitrary and very difficult to render disparate classifications consistent, or choose between them. PeterR seems to have "issues" with me. He asks me the occasional question, often about what he should or shouldn't do, but I haven't got time to answer, and anyway he is free to do whatever he wants, as we all are under the Wiki system. 130.216.1.16 20:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

you say >So who's the "greater" authority you or me?

The answer is neither of us! The authorities are the authors of the publications. Our difficult task is to evaluate the strength of the scientific evidence as presented in their publications and then decide who to follow on that basis... so not so much a difficult question as a difficult task! 130.216.1.16 20:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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..."130.216.70.101 07:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ornithoptera (Aetheoptera) victoriae

Marius,

I have make forma, forma loc. and forma loc. forma under Ornithoptera (Aetheoptera) victoriae. namely forma belai, forma loc. epiphanes and Forma loc epiphanes forma julesi. Please have a look and tell me if I have make mistakes.

Thanks for all. I have improved the victoriae.

Regards,

Peter.

Hymenoptera

Marius,

If you want add Hymenoptera here is a sidewith fulltext from author Buhl. http://osuc.biosci.ohio-state.edu/hymDB/taxon_catalog.list_publications_by_author?id=980

Regards,

Peter

Weevils

Hello again Marius, Beware that weevil classification is HUGELY controversial. Please concentrate more on putting in genera/species, rather than reclassifying them. The Alonzo-Z. & Lyal catalogue (plus 2 addenda and corrigenda supplements) is good for genera/species, but the one thing most weevil experts do agree on is that the A.-Z. & L. classification is COMPLETELY WRONG! Please leave the families/subfamilies as I have them, but I don't care what you do with tribes... Cheers, 130.216.1.16 07:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Re weevils: the best option as I see it is to just lump genera into tribes and not worry about subtribes. For example all genera in subfam. Conoderinae according to A.-Z. & L. will now be lumped into one big Baridinae: Conoderini. This is consistent with the main aims of Wikispecies, which is to keep track of species, but not to classify them beyond what is possible under present knowledge... 130.216.1.16 20:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Bebearia eremita

Marius,

Please look at Bebearia eremita in the Incertae sedis group. I have placed here == Note == with information for other contributers.

I have done this with Incertae sedis because if I know the real subgenera I can change it easely. The structure is then good. I have only change the subgenera.

Regards,

Peter

Amyeterini‎

Should be Amycterini! Please correct it... 130.216.1.16 07:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

subspecies

Marius,

There are different subspecies such as ab., var., forma, forma loc, forma loc forma etc. Most of them are template forma(e). But ab. which template is this?

Regards,

Peter

ab. is aberration, and has no status today 130.216.1.16 08:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

weevils

I understand what you are trying to do regarding the weevil tribes, and I'll leave it for now, but we will have to find a better way eventually... 130.216.1.16 22:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Anura

Marius,

Herewith I send you new species from China {http://www.actazool.org/pdftemp/%7B99CABFAE-B387-4A22-99D8-ABE9218D3945%7D.pdf] and there are new species in Zootaxa.

Regards,

Peter

Spathiphyllum wallisii needs a picture

Do you know how to upload pictures, because the new page on Spathiphyllum wallisii needs one

Biotaman, 3:29 PM October 18th, 2008

weevils again

yes, you are doing a good job Marius - keep going... 130.216.1.16 20:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Cisanthribini

I am surprised to see you put more than just Cisanthribus and Sicanthus into this tribe! I don't have a copy of A-Z. & L. (1999) at hand to check - do they really put those other genera here??? Please double check. 130.216.1.16 08:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)