User talk:Monster Iestyn/IRMNG and Dejean's catalogues

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Initial discussion Feb 2020[edit]

Regarding the BZN, it's on the BHL up to 2007 Here's Opinion 2083. After that it's on BioOne: Opinion 2214 is DOI: 10.21805/bzn.v65i4.a1. Circeus (talk) 04:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware thanks, I just was being a bit lazy and copied the links from this page, but thanks all the same. Monster Iestyn (talk) 06:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind if I throw in a few comments of my own in the table as I add the info to IRMNG (and note what names have been corrected)? I.e. I noticed that Cyclous Melsheimer, 1844 of Neave (which they took as the valid place of publication for that name, I assume) really is just a later use of Dejean's name. Circeus (talk) 02:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I don't mind, I'm probably not going to catch absolutely everything (though I'm probably a bit late since you already made some edits hah) Monster Iestyn (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Circeus: Also on that note I added a "Done" column to make it easier to keep track of which are done or not. Unfortunately I'm still miles away from finishing the list itself as it turns out, there are probably hundreds (maybe thousands?!?) of names left to be added. Monster Iestyn (talk) 03:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't give a number, annoyingly enough. Dejean's catalogue (the one dealt with in the article, anyway) is only 443 pages, so I doubt it gets up to thousands of names! When I did a preliminary merger of the many different uses of that catalogue on IRMNG, it landed on around 730 names. Regardless how much of it you end up actually doing, your preliminary research is incredibly helpful. Circeus (talk) 04:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well okay then, phew. And yeah, I'm glad to be helping, a lot of these records clearly needed attention as it was. The ones that actually motivated me to start with were those now for Chrysomelidae, a number of which have both N.Z. and Hallan imported records which don't reference each other on IRMNG (the N.Z. records for them are often "Dejean, 1835" when they're usually supposed to be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" or such, making them actually bad records/duplicates rather than later usages). Though as it turns out those names are at nearer the end of the list than the beginning, so they're a long way off yet for me to fix! Monster Iestyn (talk) 04:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it from what Tony told me, by and large most records are large-scale automated imports, and for the last about 8 years, he has been doing small-scale manual updates in whatever part of the database he was focused at the time (updates which are mostly new names), so yeah, the vast majority of records are very old mass imports with little to no actual follow up. Not by design, but rather because it has been, by and large, a one-man operation. (For comparison, I'm "Girard, Jean-Sébastien"). Circeus (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────┘ @Circeus: oh yeah, before I forget: looking through Nilsson & Hájek (2019) (the Dytiscidae catalogue which you used as a source in your own findings), I spotted something we both missed: Pelocatus Zaitzev, 1908 is a replacement name for Liopterus Dejean, 1833, so it should be a synonym of that rather than Copelatus Erichson, 1832. Monster Iestyn (talk) 02:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony 1212: Quickly pointing out a mistake related to this list that you or Circeus may have made a few days ago, which I just spotted now: on Cybister Dejean, 1833 you accidentally noted the name to be a junior homonym of "Cybister Curtis, 2017" rather than "Cybister Curtis, 1827". Monster Iestyn (talk) 05:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's on me. I've been doing most of the work on these so far (working slowly because most times I have to untangle a small network of names, not Just Dejean's), so you can poke me directly. Good catch with the Pelocatus thing, btw. Circeus (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So I saw, thanks for doing those. Unfortunately though, the name webs get especially more tangled as I've been finding out for myself! Monster Iestyn (talk) 02:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would you believe the Astenus homonym (=Stenus Latreille) was entered twice because neither original sources noticed that the author was an Argentinian with two family names and so each picked a different of those names? Circeus (talk) 05:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Circeus: @Monster Iestyn: Just to say thanks both for making the running on this - I've been busy entering new Fungi and then fixing errors with algae names (and some protists) prior to the next approximately annual release - due in March. Selected algae and protists from this release may end up in the 2020 CoL release so I'm attempting to fix errors in those as they are apparent to me :) Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 07:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tony 1212: Thanks, and good luck with those then. :)
Circus: At this point, yes I would believe it. Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Later usages[edit]

You generally don't need to say "presumed to be a later usage". 99% of the time, you'll find it's a Neave supplementary record ("basis of record Nomenclator Zoologicus (supplementary record created)") i.e. Neave listed the name as nomen nudum and ascribed it to a later purportedly correct author, hence the duplicate. Circeus (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sometimes I actually remembered to check Nomenclator Zoologicus, but most of the time I forgot to do so, whoops. Though, I'm aware sometimes the later names are treated separately, like in the case of Catoxantha. (Perhaps I'm just overly cautious too, haha) Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sternoxes in general onwards gave me a lot of trouble anyway, just be warned. There's even actually some Dejean names that are totally missing from IRMNG (and probably Neave too), so those may be harder to figure out. Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cerambycids.com[edit]

FWIW, turns out that the Buprestidae pages were the work of the late C.L. Bellamy, which explains why the latest updates ([1]) where in 2013. So they can be considered somewhat trustable (if not contradicted by more recent material such as Löbl & Löbl, 2016). Circeus (talk) 22:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The references for places of publication (sadly not the placement of names) are compiled here. Circeus (talk) 22:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was aware the site was originally by C.L. Bellamy, though apparently some parts of it (but not the checklist, I take it) still get updates even up to this year according to the home page. I figured pretty quickly the checklist was good as a baseline reference for all things Buprestidae up to 2013 if nothing else, especially for regions other than the Palaearctic. Though Löbl & Löbl, 2016 does sometimes give different information, yeah. Monster Iestyn (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I literally just found out while checking to find if there was a bibliography. You've been referring to it as "a page here" which sounds kinda like "this random website I have no idea whether I can trust", so my first thought was to share the info lol Circeus (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I had just discovered it for myself initially when going through Sternoxes, and then later I put a link to the main checklist page as a "web reference" once I realised it was rather useful. That, and I'm a bit messy anyway, sorry! Monster Iestyn (talk) 04:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pyractomena[edit]

@Circeus: "No idea why wikipedia ascribes authorship to "Leconte, 1845"."

This is probably because that's the authority stated on both the BugGuide and ITIS pages, at least as of writing. Regarding taxon pages, the English Wikipedia has an awful tendancy to just read what the databases say without fact-checking them (and other language Wikipedias sometimes just blindly copy the English Wikipedia's). I'm not sure where those pages themselves got that authority from. Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is rather mystifying. It muddies further the situation that Barber, 1951:15 suggests the first to make Pyractonema available may in fact have been Sturm, 1843, with Lampyris marginata Linnaeus, 1767 as the type (A species of which I can't even figure out what the current placement is). I have sent Oliver Keller (from the Insecta Mundi paper) an email regarding this, which I am copying below, minus the links and formatting. Circeus (talk) 04:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dr. Keller

I am a contributor to Wikispecies and the Internet Register of Marine and Nonmarine Genera (IRMNG). Recently, I and a fellow editor have been working on names connected to the 1833-36 edition of Dejean's Catalogue (mostly based on Bousquet & Bouchard, 2012).

While following an unrelated line of enquiry (namely why the hell ITIS, and thus Wikipedia, lists "Leconte, 1845" for authorship of Pyractomena) I stumbled across both your 2018 Insecta Mundi paper as well as a much older publication (Barber, Smithson. Misc. Coll. 117(1):1-58). Barber points out (p. 15) that likely Pyractomena became available from Sturm, 1843:76, with the type being Lampyris marginata Linnaeus, an assessment which seems accurate to me.

We are not entirely sure what to make of this information, especially seeing as initial attempts at finding out where that species is currently placed (i.e. Google searches) have left me with no information whatsoever (!). We would be grateful for any insight you are able to share on this matter.

Callitheres[edit]

Actually, looking around again just now (I didn't properly do this the first time), particularly on BHL, I wonder if Callitheres Dejean/Spinola can actually be placed under the family Cleridae, since it seems to pop up under Cleridae or "Tillidae" (now Tillinae, a subfamily of Cleridae):

So maybe Callitheres is actually a synonym of Pallenis Laporte, 1836 currently, though it would be easier to tell if there was anything in the last hundred years mentioning the name again. All I can find so far from the 21st century even are articles showing Callitheres louvelii under the synonymy of Diplocladus louvelii (Spinola, 1844). Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Circeus: Pinging you in case you missed what I said. Monster Iestyn (talk) 12:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the "Hallan", "other" and "correct name" columns[edit]

I've noticed you almost never use them (presumably because you're not confident enough to place your "presumed later uses" in them), but unless you have actual suspicions of homonym shenanigans, you should probably use those columns a little more aggressively. Especially for Hallan records. Otherwise they're just taking up space end creating pointless visual clutter. Circeus (talk) 05:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I made them originally because I noticed a lot of duplicate records for at least the Chrysomelidae genera from IRMNG importing both Neave and Hallan data (e.g. Bromius Dejean, 1835 from Neave and Bromius Chevrolat, 1837 from Hallan, where the actual authority should be Bromius Chevrolat, 1836), which is partly what motivated me to make the list in the first place. However, it wasn't until after starting the list I realised I didn't need the extra columns that much for everything else. I obviously did not plan this page through very well to be honest. Monster Iestyn (talk) 05:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The particular case you point out is universal for the Chrysomelidae, and I have actually put in a reminder in the page itself for when you get there. Hallan (though not perfect) frequently has older dates because it was based on more recent scholarship about attribution, whereas much of Neave dates from the early 20th century. Circeus (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That plus the fact that many of the "Chrysomélines" (= Chrysomelidae and related families) are attributed to Chevrolat (rather than Dejean) I assume is why there are so many duplicates for them on IRMNG. That it wouldn't be the same for the other sections I didn't actually think about properly until too late. Since then I've been unintentionally working with a sunken costs mindset about those unncessary columns; maybe I'll rework the columns for the final few sections when I get around to them? Monster Iestyn (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IRMNG names attributed to "Guérin-Ménéville in Duperry, 1838"[edit]

@Monster Iestyn:@Circeus:Just letting you know that I have discovered some problems with these names, and all will be adjusted over the next few weeks... I originally entered them in this form from equivalent Nomenclator Zoologicus records which say (e.g.): name=Coptorhinus, authority=Guérin-Ménéville (1838), publication=in Duperry, Voy. "Coquille," Zool., 2 (2), 1, 72. It turns out that there are several issues here:

  • N. Z. consistently misspells both Ménéville (should be Méneville) and Duperry (should be Duperrey)
  • Duperrey authored the work, but the chapter/section is authored by Guérin-Méneville. Therefore the names should be attributed to G-M alone, not "G-M in Duperr[e]y"
  • Prior to 1836, Guérin-Méneville's name was simply Guérin. I believe I may have altered such instances to Guérin-Méneville in IRMNG, but should now change them back (or correct them if ingested as G-M from other sources).

A separate issue, pointed out to me by Doug Yanega, is that the text of this chapter appeared in 1838, but the plates (and their legends) a number of years earlier, in 1830 and 1831 (depending on the plate), and in some/many cases the names are available from there. In these cases I am merely changing the cited authority and publication details in IRMNG, leaving the IRMNG ID unchanged (a technically more correct solution would be to create a new IRMNG record and ID for the earlier published instance, and leave the 1838 one as a "later usage" pointed to the newly created, earlier one, but I think this would be too confusing for folk who have already linked their own records to the 1838 instance previously presumed to be the available one).

So the bottom line is - when I have finished this batch of updates, there should no longer be any IRMNG genera attributed to "Guérin-Ménéville in Duperry, 1838", instead reading either "Guérin-Méneville, 1838", or Guérin, 1830, or 1831, as appropriate. I will also take the opportunity to assign non-current names to their present accepted names, in cases where relevant info is available. Hope this is of interest (it affects around 80 or so IRMNG names I believe). Also, I will do some reconciliation/standardization of the IMNG literature citations, presently split over a number of slightly different text strings, as originally imported verbatim from N. Z. ... no peace for the wicked! (and thanks for all your contributions as well). Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I usually try to do some of that standardization whenever I add an old work (I've given up using the merge reference fucntion as it becomes too much of a pain afterward when I very often have to split out articles from journal volumes!), but it's not easy to find all the variants N.Z. used (or which were accidentally altered while importing etc.). I can't even access the ubio.org website to doublecheck anything anymore. What's up with that?
Anyway, I was actually going to say that a similar situation exists as regards the Histoire naturelle des Coléoptères (or more generally the Histoire naturelle des animaux articulés, of which this constitute vols. 1 and 2, cf. Bousquet, 2016). That work is not by Brullé, as given by Neave. What the French title actually means is that the quoted "introduction renfermant l’anatomie et la physiologie des animaux articulés" is by Brullé rather than the whole work, so a large number of names attributed to "Laporte in Brullé, 1840" or "Blanchard in Brullé, 1840" also needs correcting (I have it listed in my current "database corrections" compilation, but maybe I should first merge all the relevant refs firs so all names are more conveniently connected... Circeus (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the "A in B" form authorships, I'm sure there will be other cases in IRMNG requiring retrospective fix-up... basically I created this "long form" of author citation (which generally does not exist within the N.Z. "authority" field alone) for IRMNG records wherever the N.Z. "publication" starts with "in ..." - in some cases this will be a genuine "A in B" type taxon name (where authorship of the surrounding work or sub-work is by "B" not "A"), in others such as the ones under discussion, it will not, since the surrounding sub-work (section or chapter) will turn out to be by "A", within a larger work under the general authorship (or editing or coordination) of "B" - the 2 cases not being distinguishable without additional investigation.
On your other point, yes I too have noticed that the electronic (uBio) version of Nomenclator Zoologicus has been inaccessible for a while (a week or several at least). I have a local copy on my machine which helps - as a MS Access database table; I could write it out to a text file if anyone wants, or email someone a copy as a database, although as a text file would be pretty long (around 320,000 lines) and might overwhelm some text editors (could be split into smaller sections I guess - e.g. genera starting with "A" and so on ("A" is typically around 10% of the total, other letters are larger or smaller...) Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 02:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The uBio version of Nomenclator Zoologicus didn't seem to working properly even when it was online, frequently missing the option to actually search for anything. Very weird. Monster Iestyn (talk) 06:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Circeus:You wrote: >> "Laporte in Brullé, 1840" or "Blanchard in Brullé, 1840" also needs correcting << ... I/we can request bulk changes to be made of this type in IRMNG by VLIZ if needed. I just checked, there are currently just under 14,000 names of the authorship type "A in B", under the ICZN Code, originating from a N.Z. "in ... " publication... I can post a list "somewhere" (where?) if anyone wants to take a look... Was wondering if there is a "user sandbox" for temporary stuff on Wikispecies (like there is on Wikipedia), but have not found one... Tony 1212 (talk) 06:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, figured out how to do it, the lists are here:
Tony 1212 (talk) 06:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was simply going to include it in my list of requests for bulk changes (similar to what we did for names to be moved from one homonym to another) by using the work pages as the list (i.e. [2] and [3]). Circeus (talk) 11:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, that would be a good (or potentially, better) method too so long as it correctly identifies all the names concerned. (just those for which the cited work is the "original description"). In my case, though, those references would need an extra pass to consolidate them since (particularly the "in Duperry" names) are not yet all linked to the same "data item" (IRMNG source ID) on account of the way they were created (minor differences in the original N. Z. citations).Tony 1212 (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update 10 September[edit]

OK, I have revisited all the previous IRMNG genera attributed to "Guérin-Ménéville in Duperry, 1838" and similar from the "Coquille" voyage, and now apportioned them to either:

  • Guérin, 1830 or Guérin, 1831, source = "Guérin, F.-É. (1830-1831). Atlas. Insectes. In Duperrey, E.-I. Voyage autour du monde: exécuté par ordre du roi, sur la corvette de Sa Majesté, la Coquille, pendant les années 1822, 1823, 1824, et 1825. (Zoologie)." (current list here) - noting that plates 1-2 and 13-17 of this work appeared in 1830, the remainder in 1831 (thus some names are dated 1830 as well)
  • Guérin-Méneville, 1838, source = "Guérin-Méneville, F.-É. (1838). Crustacés et Insectes. In Duperrey, E.-I. Voyage autour du monde: exécuté par ordre du roi, sur la corvette de Sa Majesté, la Coquille, pendant les années 1822, 1823, 1824, et 1825. (Zoologie), 2 (2) 1, pp. [i]-[vii], 9-320." (current list here) - these are names that first appeared in the text only, not preceded by publication in the plates.

Noting also that prior to 1836, Guérin-Méneville's surname was simply Guérin, Méneville is spelled with a single accented "e" not 2, and Duperry is correctly spelled Duperrey...

I believe I have all the above names correctly attributed and sourced now, but am of course happy to be advised of any residual errors or omissions. A key work for dating of the plates, and listing of the names therein, is Cretella, 2010, "The complete collation and dating of the section Zoologie of the Coquille voyage", online copy available here; noting that in this work, at least one genus name in the plates list is misspelled ("Rhynolaceus" for Rhynolaccus...)

Hoping that fixes these names for now, no doubt others remain to be done (still some varied treatments of Guérin/Guérin-Méneville/Guérin-Ménéville as originally ingested from Nomenclator Zoologicus records). Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

re: extra names/subsequent publications[edit]

I was assuming that for some reason you had simply decided not to look at them at all for chrysomelidae. After a couple of them I realize what was going on and backtracked to check manually. Circeus (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Circeus: Well, I honestly don't remember what I thought when I did some of them to be honest (considering how much time has passed on this project), I think I did genuinely miss a few extra names in some cases. For instance, speaking of which, there was one extra name I remembered for Bromius only after you had already fixed that name on IRMNG! I don't think you saw my note for that one yet. Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I'm just checking myself and not bothering with point it out unless I stumble across one that's not documented. Circeus (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

where to go after[edit]

Once we're done with this, I intend to go back and double-check all the nomina nuda's first subsequent availability. It seems worthwhile given that we've uncovered or dealt with several overlooked availabilities so far (Cladophila, Caelidia, Aniara, Gnaphalocera, Apophylia). Might combine this with a follow-up on needed nomenclatural actions noted in Bousquet & Bouchard and package the whole thing into a paper. Would you come on board as a coauthor again? Circeus (talk) 06:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't expect that would happen again so soon, but sure, I don't mind. Monster Iestyn (talk) 07:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

back on track[edit]

I paused for a bit after that aphia software update kinda broke the process (used some of that time to work out the basics of my errata to Mound & Hastenpfug), but now I'm back and I'm gonna try to do as much of it as I can! Probably won't make it to the March release, sadly (three weeks is a HUGE productivity loss), but hey, that's life. Circeus (talk) 13:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's good to hear, luckily I've just got the Trimères left to go over myself, just 29 genera in it! (I probably should have got to this point two years ago to be honest, but along the way I ran out of that initial motivation I had somehow.) Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notes of mine you may have missed and other stuff I forgot[edit]

@Circeus: Some notes for names in the Chrysomélines section:

  • To be honest I'm not sure if Bathis Dejean, 1836 really counts as a synonym of Colaspis; what Duponchel & Chevrolat were saying is that Bathis was *formerly* part of Colaspis (unless my French understanding is not good enough), which I don't believe to be enough to make it a synonym??
    • Given that I have nothing else to work with, I consider it good enough. Besides, the name is unavailable, so it hardly matters where I synonymize it anyway. Circeus (talk)
    • Well, okay then I guess (still not entirely happy, but oh well). Monster Iestyn (talk)
  • Eumolpus Illiger, 1798 is also a synonym of Bromius Chevrolat, 1836 (by designation of Cryptocephalus vitis Fabricius, 1775 as the type species by Latreille, 1810 [as "Eumolpus vitis"]), but was suppressed by Opinion 2298 in order to conserve Bromius, Chrysochus and Eumolpus Weber, 1801 (which is also on the Official List). This means among other things that Tony's "Possibly available" etc note for Eumolpus Illiger doesn't apply anymore.
  • According to {{Flowers, 1995a}}, Neochalcoplacis Bechyně, 1950 is a valid genus, not a synonym of Chalcoplacis Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836, but Parachalcoplacis Bechyně, 1950 is a synonym of Chalcoplacis! (I just remembered this now, you didn't miss this in the table)
  • Regarding Berthold in Latreille, 1827 vs Latreille, 1829 argument for Oedionychis (or -us), Longitarsus and Psylliodes, you may want to talk with Doug, as he also believes the Latreille, 1827 names to be nomina nuda judging by [4]. Again, it seems the leaf beetle experts think so too, e.g. the introduction text of Konstantinov (2005), and Bezdek (2020)'s Gistel names article using Oedionychis Latreille, 1829 as the valid name for Haplosonyx Gistel, 1848. Though to be fair, this *possibly* wouldn't be that important, if it wasn't for the fact the spelling of Oedionychis Latreille, 1829 is instead Oedionychus in Latreille, 1827. That would also affect the gender of the genus I believe? Either way, this should probably be checked with Doug I think.
    • I think the case for Berthold's names being available is a lot stronger than people assume because it's fairly uncommon for art. 12.2.1 (the relevant provision here) to be invoked. Also a much more important detail is that Haltitarsus Berthold would displace Dibolia Latreille. I have initiated discussion with Doug. I keep worrying he things of me as an annoying or trollish contrarian whenevr I ask these questions... Circeus (talk)
      • I'm sure he doesn't view you that badly tbh, you've put in the effort to understand the nomenclature codes which is something at least. (More effort than I have put in to be frank). In any case these discussions probably do at least something to help clarify or improve the ICZN code, or at least stablize the nomenclature (?). Monster Iestyn (talk)
        • Oh, I'm well-aware it's probably just me being insecure about it lol. He's explained why I'm wrong and I have to concede the point. Oedipodes Dejean is unavailable because a name reference cannot be considered a bibliographic reference. Oedipodes Chevrolat, however, remains available. Circeus (talk)

Monster Iestyn (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Circeus: Some more corrections for Chrysomélines names (mostly just going through the Dictionnaire entries since for a while I didn't bother with that for some reason):
  • Aulacoscelis Chevrolat, 1842 is actually authored by Duponchel & Chevrolat: [5]. Fixed
  • Axiotheata Duponchel in D'Orbigny, 1842 is actually authored by Duponchel & Chevrolat: [6]. Fixed
  • Cladophila Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836 turns out to be actually available from Chevrolat, 1843 in Dictionnaire vol. 3, page 430, with the spelling "Cladophilla". It's definitely referring to the same genus because it refers to the same species as in Dejean's catalogue [7], but it is available since it gives a brief description at the end of the entry comparing it to Languria. Cladophilla Chevrolat, 1843 predates even Cladophila Schaum, 1847.
    • I'm not so sure it counts since it says the difference is "in the number of antennomeres forming the club", but it fails to state how the difference actually goes. It's like saying that two genera have different colorations, which I'm not qualifies, but then as Doug has noted, the code is set-up to accept extremely flimsy degrees of description... I think I'll wait until we publish to actually update that.  On hold Circeus (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cyrtocephalus Dejean, 1836 has me scratching my head a bit... Chevrolat in the Dictionnaire volume 4 mentions it is a "very small insect" but nothing else about its physical characteristics, does this maybe make Cyrtocephalus available from here or can it be dismissed? Meanwhile I just learned that its only species, the nomen nudum Cyrtocephalus cephalotes, is listed as a synonym of Calyptomerus dubius according to CPC vol. 3 edition 2, page 426, which possibly makes Cyrtocephalus a synonym of Calyptomerus Redtenbacher, 1849 in the family Clambidae?? (actually what's weird to me is that CPC is listing the species name as apparently available at all, let alone from the third catalogue, unless they do in fact intend to list nomina nuda species names in CPC?)
    • Oh I see, the species might actually be available from 1859 from the same link you mentioned as a possible point of availability: [8]. But then that means CPC is citing the wrong authority.
  • Goniocephala Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836 is possibly available from Chevrolat, 1845 in Dictionnaire vol. 6, page 268, because it gives a brief description of the head at the end of the entry?
(That's all of them up to G, I'll do the rest later)
Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also Caeporis Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836 should have the authority "Dejean, 1836". Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC) Fixed[reply]
Part 2 (H-L):
Part 3 (M-P Z (there are no more)):

Yet again, thank you for catching all these. Circeus (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Circeus: Another thing I should have noticed before involving Chrysomélines-section names: regarding the spelling problem of Botryonopa vs Bothryonopa, {{Bouchard et al., 2011}} goes for Botryonopa and deems it the correct original spelling because it is in prevailing usage (according to them, anyway). This seems to be in disagreement with Staines (2010) which states the correct spelling to be Bothryonopa, though they do cite his article for the correct author and year. Do you think IRMNG should use the spelling Botryonopa instead of Bothryonopa after all based on this information? (The main reason I'm bringing this up again is to resolve whether Wikispecies should call the tribe name Botryonopini or Bothryonopini, since I happened to be going through Cassidinae pages again) Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand it looks like Shameem & Prathapan (2019) accept the spellings as Bothryonopa and Bothryonopini respectively. (Zootaxa omits the second author on its website for some reason, but Prathapan is definitely the second author according to the article itself, as well as ZooBank and Plazi) Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Staines has it right and the correct spelling is Bothryonopa/ini. The spelling couldn't have been considered in prevailing usage in 2010-2011 because when discovered, it was NOT attributed to Guérin-Méneville to begin with, and that is a prerequisite for prevailing usage to come into play. Plus after a cursory search, there doesn't seem to have been enough use since Staines pointed out the problem for a clear usage to exist either way, so better to go with the strictly correct nomenclatural decision IMO (but note Bothryonopini in Sekerka, 2015). Circeus (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, Bothryonopa and Bothryonopini it is then. Monster Iestyn (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is done[edit]

@Circeus: I have now filled in the Trimères table (sorry for taking so long to actually do it), which hopefully brings this project to an end at long last... unless we missed anything from the third catalogue? (There's also another set of possibly unavailable names hidden in the Dejean catalogue that B&B didn't cover or maybe missed entirely, e.g. Acalypha Dejean, 1834 at page 311 cited for a species under Latridius, but I don't want to take us down another rabbit hole if I'm being honest, we've spent over 2 years on Dejean's catalogues as it is) Monster Iestyn (talk) 02:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll understand if you'd rather not be involved in the follow-up I talked about. I'm still trying to figure out how to get a confirmation about certain publications in an obscure Egyptian journal for my errata. Circeus (talk) 11:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While it would be nice to have a break (I think I'm long overdue for one frankly), it would be a shame for me not to be involved in the follow-up I think. Monster Iestyn (talk) 12:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry. I'm not in too huge a rush to get started. Besides, I expect to do most of the work while you keep an eye out for obvious oversights on my side rather than you doing the heavy lifting as you mostly have so far. Circeus (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough then. (By the way, I added some more corrections to the previous discussion on this talk page, if you didn't notice already) Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I saw. I'm trying to wrap up a paper that turned out to be a lot more material than I expected (It didn't look like there was a whole catalogue of Xystodesmidae in there!) in time for the IRMNG official release, then I'll get to that. Circeus (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

species inquirenda[edit]

FWIW, here's how I understand the concept of a species inquirenda: "I don't know at the moment if this available name/taxon is valid or a synonym, but I think it should be possible to figure out". By contrast, a nomen dubium is "I don't think anyone will ever figure out what this name actually refers to."

A doubtfully included is just what it says on the tin.

Now B&B state (I had not checked that detail at the time of my answer in the table) "A species name followed by a question mark in Dejean's catalogue indicates that Dejean was uncertain if his identification was correct", which would indeed make them species inquirenda if that is the case. However, they provide no justification/explication whatsoever for that interpretation. SO that's why I prefer to interpret it as doubtful inclusion.

So yeah, my correcting was too interpretive and uncalled for. Circeus (talk) 11:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they based their view of the question-marked species on the text in the preface (or rather "avertissement") in the third catalogue? I'm going to have a look through it now to find out, since it is viewable on BHL here. Monster Iestyn (talk) Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All he does is explain his sources and main taxonomic approaches with a digression to rail against the (at the time) budding application of the principle of priority. He says nothing of the formatting itself. Circeus (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I couldn't see anything about "?" from what I'd managed to translate of the avertissement either, after a point it didn't seem likely any mention of that formatting was going to be there. Oh well. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amatodes[edit]

Just so you know in case you intended to update the relevant pages (and as note to myself re: our planned publication), the priority of Amatodes Dejean over Oncosoma Westwood was formally acted upon by Kamiński, et al., 2021, who made all the necessary combinations ("The majority of the new combinations introduced in the catalog below are a result of a synonymy noticed by Bousquet and Bouchard (2013), which concerns precedence of Amatodes Dejean over Oncosoma Westwood."). Circeus (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Circeus Thanks, wasn't aware of that one. Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrtoderes Solier[edit]

You commented that you weren't sure whether that name was available. Revisit it while working on Bouchard et al., 2021, I find out that Solier synonymizes Dejean's name with his Cryptogenius, so Cyrtoderes Solier must be taken as available. Note that Solier (1844) was in fact issued the year before as a preprint. Circeus (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Circeus That was actually one of your comments that you didn't sign. In any case... since we know Cyrtoderes Dejean, 1834 to be available in the first place, and Solier states the name in text as "Cyrtoderes Déjean Cat. 1837", doesn't that make Cyrtoderes in Solier, 1843/1844 just simply a citation of Dejean's name rather than separately available? (i.e. it looks like the Ochralea thing again, which we discussed with Doug long long after we went through the names in Hétéromères: Mélasomes) Monster Iestyn (talk) 02:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oops... Anyway, in my opinion, Solier's name is an available junior synonym (according to the species' placement by Kamiński et al., 2019) and homonym of Cyrtoderes Dejean because a) his version of Cyrtoderes does NOT cite Cyrtoderes Dejean anywhere but b) he explicitly places Cyrtoderes Dejean in synonymy of a different name (Cryptogenius) so he clearly considers his and Dejean's genera distinct.
Synonym-homonym like that occurs from time to time. Another one is Caedius Mulsant & Rey, 1859 (type C. latipes), usually considered a synonym of Caedius Blanchard, 1845 (Type Opatrum sphaeroides). Mind you that when Mulsant published the name, Blanchard's genus was still spelled Coedius. Circeus (talk) 03:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Names in species synonymy[edit]

I've started working on compiling those. Between the two catalogues, Neave has eight generic name cited in synonymy of species. I will build a table on your model once I'm done doing a full compilation. We'll need it because boy do those names appear to have been overlooked. Ten pages in and I already have two antedatings under Art 11.6.1:

  • Philotechnus Mannerheim, 1837 (=Cymindoidea ) must be dated Dejean, 1833:8
  • Ompra Reiche, 1842 must be dated to Dejean, 1821:4

Circeus (talk) 02:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed some other names like those a while back, except they exist only in species synonymy in the Dejean catalogue, e.g. Acalypha Dejean, 1834. That name in particular was listed in species synonymy under Latridius Herbst, was never published before the catalogue and never has been used afterwards, nevermind that Acalypha mollis itself has never been used for a beetle species (but it has for a plant species apparently????) Monster Iestyn (talk) 03:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I wanted to go through them to check for more. 200 pages in, I haven't stumbled on any other antedatings so far, and only one additional name (Scapanetes) seems to have its first appearance in Dejean. The others are merely missing from the appendix, but I'm including them nonetheless. They account for less than 20 names so far. There aren't actually that many genera cited in the synonymy of species-group. Circeus (talk) 04:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phylan: Dejean, 1821 or Sturm, 1826?[edit]

@Circeus: Digging into this issue myself, I haven't been able to find a reason for the switch from Dejean, 1821 to Sturm, 1826 for Phylan's authority in recent publications either, but I do at least know it must be deliberate, because of this line in Bouchard & Bousquet, 2020:

"Page 421. In the entry “*Omocratates Mulsant and Rey, 1854: 266, in key…” replace “syn. of Phylan Dejean, 1821” with “syn. of Phylan Sturm, 1826”."

I also noticed that the original edition of CPC 5 uses "Dejean, 1821" while the revised edition from 2020 uses "Sturm, 1826". Monster Iestyn (talk) 11:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More notes on Berthold, 1827 names[edit]

@Circeus: I didn't realise this until just now, but {{Berthold, 1827}} is actually a German translation of {{Latreille, 1825}}, though he also latinized Latreille's French vernacular names (e.g. compare [11] with [12]). As far as I can tell, Berthold was also not writing in a work written by Latreille, but is the author of the work itself. So all of the "Berthold in Latreille, 1827" taxa on IRMNG (all of the taxa listed here in other words) should actually have the authority "Berthold, 1827" to be accurate unless I'm mistaken? (Also, how are you doing? I haven't seen you much on Wikispecies recently. I take it IRMNG or maybe other things are keeping you busy?) Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct and I was aware of this, which is why that source is formatted the way it is (otherwise I would've attributed it to Latreille). THis sort of things are best dealt through database edits by people higher up than me. Circeus (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay, fair enough... while I'm here actually, I just learned there's a duplicate of the same source here with some more names/emendations/etc by Berthold. Monster Iestyn (talk) 00:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://species.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Monster_Iestyn/IRMNG_and_Dejean%27s_catalogues&oldid=9074676"