User talk:PeterR

From Wikispecies
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 (March 10, 2008 - June 30, 2008)
Archive 2 (July 1, 2008 - December 31, 2008)
Archive 3 (January 1, 2009 - December 31, 2009)
Archive 4 (January 1, 2010 - June 30, 2010)


assistance required[edit]

Peter, can you please do me a favour and create species pages for all the species I have listed in Dieuches? They all have the same author/date, so all you need to do is copy and paste the page for Dieuches abundans and change the species name (two times per page)... Stho002 (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks Stho002 (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I have made one minor change, please copy and paste from the Dieuches abundans page Stho002 (talk) 05:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Excellent! Thank you ... Stho002 (talk) 06:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I have added more species. Can you please copy and paste Dieuches africanus to all the names without pages (i.e. red names)? They all have different authors/dates, but I can put these in later. They are all mentioned in Eyle's book. Stho002 (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
something else I would appreciate help with: can you please go through, adding {{Taxonav|FAMILY}} to each FAMILY template? Stho002 (talk) 08:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC) I have just done it for Template:Agelenidae. A few others may be done already...
the list is only for N.Z., but the templates are global. All the world spider family templates need fixing, but this is a start... Stho002 (talk) 09:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Chamaeleo[edit]

Hello Peter, I'm glad to see you're still hard at work at WS. As to Chamaeleo, Trioceros was a subgenus of Chamaeleo, but in 2009 it was elevated to genus status, so Chamaeleo and Trioceros are considered now separate genera.

One point about author pages: I saw you put the author's publications in the talk page. Why you do this? Why not put the publications in the main author page? Mariusm (talk) 04:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


Well, I just finished archiving Steven's talk page. Would you like me to archive your talk page? OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Re:New Combination[edit]

yes, they do count, but it can be complicated, ... Stho002 (talk) 07:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Chasminodes nigrifascia[edit]

Are you sure you provided the right link? It is showing a blog when I visited it. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Give me the full link. My google doesn't show what appears on yours. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

doi template[edit]

Peter, PLEASE, PLEASE use the doi template {{doi|}}
you then just have to click on the doi number and you get the abstract page (no need to add another URL to the abstract)
thanks, --Stho002 (talk) 08:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


Peter, I have now obtained a copy of the paper by Fric et al, 2007, and have set out Phengaris accordingly. I have used their species groupings, but not Sub-Genera, as they do not use that term explicitly. Best Wishes, Accassidy (talk) 11:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is an Item 3508 on the ICZN website concerning a proposal to give Maculinea precedence, though no argument is given. I won't plan to make any changes here until I see a full report from ICZN, I have other stuff I want to spend my time on, but we may revert later if necessary. Alan. Accassidy (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


Do you think MZB ("Museum Zoologicum Bogoriense") is the same as your newly added ZMBJ in the institutions list? If it were, I'll "redirect" the former to the latter in the list. Circeus (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

RE: +iw[edit]

I use iw as an abbreviation for interwiki, adding links to the other wikipedias. I know that there are bots that can do some of it, but they haven't run here in a while. I am going by the articles at Special:WithoutInterwiki. Open2universe | Talk 14:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year[edit]

Hello Peter,

Happy New Year to you too. My collection is not very big, but it does contain some interesting Lycaenids from SE Asia. I suspect the paper you have read was by Kurt Johnson. Unfortunately, more recent S. American specialists consider Rhamma cassidyi to be con-specific with R. hybla. Cheers, Accassidy (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


Dear Peter, I hope soon to be able to make some contributions to the rather cumbersome Genus Arhopala, which you have started some while ago. You have given a fairly comprehensive list of Species Groups etc, but I am not sure where you have adopted this from, as the only revision I have here is by Evans in 1957 and that is now somewhat out of date. Can you tell me which paper you derived the Species Groups from and the Synonymy of Panchala? Thanks, Alan. Accassidy (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Peter. I'll look at Tolweb and see how it is based. Regards, Alan. Accassidy (talk) 10:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Peter, under Arhopala sakaguchii you have listed a taxon from Seki, 2005, called Arhopala sakaguchii monstrosa, but on the page for this subspecies you have spelled it also monstrosi with an "i" on the end. Can you consult the Seki paper, if you still have it, and see which is correct? Is this paper available on the web? Thanks, Alan. Accassidy (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Peter, Thanks for making the change. I am assembling a full Wiki-revision of Arhopala based on numerous source documents, now approaching 640 published names!! Do you have the Seki paper in e-form (PDF etc) that can be sent easily for me to keep a copy in my records? Cheers, Alan. Accassidy (talk) 10:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Very good. If you could email me the files of those relating to Arhopala I would be most grateful. My direct email is Many thanks, Alan. Accassidy (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Peter, no. Nothing received yet. Check again address Accassidy (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
What a puzzle. Then try sending to Thanks, Alan. Accassidy (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Peter, I'm sorry but I have not received any email from you on either of the addresses I gave. I do not understand the difficulty. It is very frustrating. My main address, if you would like to try again, is I can think of no reason why your computer should refuse this. I have had the address for about 15 years and it is very busy every day. Thanks, Alan Accassidy (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Peter, yes please go ahead and add the Museum locations where you discover them. That would be very helpful. Thanks, Alan. Accassidy (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Type Specimens and Synonyms[edit]

Dear Peter, I notice a few updates from you concerning the re-location of Lycaenid type specimens from Schroeder & Treadaway, now in Frankfurt rather than Twig Treadaway's own collection. This is useful information, thank you. However, I note that in 1 or 2 instances you have also removed some of the information about the type specimen, e.g. that it was collected by (C. G. Treadaway) or some such. I think that it helps to have as much information as possible about the type specimens and I will continue to include who actually caught it, if known. Removing such small details takes away some interesting facts. For example, again, specimens taken by A. R. Wallace, or the Pratt Brothers, may be of special interest historically.

You have also noted that I use Synonymy as a section heading in preference to Synonyms and you have reverted some of my headings to this second form. I use the term Synonymy as it has a wider meaning in English and can be held to include such things as mis-spellings and mis-identifications in the literature as well as true designated Synonyms. So I would be grateful if you could leave my use of Synonymy uhchanged when you find it in future. Thanks, Alan. Accassidy (talk) 22:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


I don't know what you mean, exactly. The tribes are correct as far as I know, but there are lots of changes recently. Please put anything you want to add on my talk page first, so I can advise you if it is good ... Stho002 (talk) 08:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


What is your source for ca. 350 species of Isoetes? The Flora of North America gives a figure of "ca. 150". --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


Peter, the pages of this genus Callophrys are not of a high standard and your improvement of them would be appreciated. By all means use the system of Lamas, for there is no better, more recent publication covering the higher taxonomy of these species groups. I suggest that you use Lamas' sub-genera and make suitable templates for them. Best of luck, Alan Accassidy (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Lepid Soc Japan[edit]

Peter, you have been kindly adding some external links to articles from Trans Lepid Soc Japan here but when I click on these I get an error page, not the pdf file. Can you investigate adding the link in a form that connects successfully? Thanks, Alan. Accassidy (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Peter, look at what I have added to Jamides elioti as a version of this may work. Even if you just link to the abstract page rather than the full article, people can then click once more for the download. Alan. Accassidy (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


Hi Peter, Mostly Mr Hayashi is adding small details to pages of the species he has named. For example, the location of Holotypes etc. There is also an issue over disambiguity of Hayashi so he is changing references to himself to "H. Hayashi". I have n problem with this. There is one taxon whose status I disagree with, but I will return to that when I have time. I will also fill in any gaps he leaves in the higher order pages when I find them I suggest you do the same. I'm not familiar with the Journal you mention, but I'm sure your contribution will be welcome. Best Wishes, Alan Accassidy (talk) 12:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


Dear Peter, you probably realise that I am currently revising the Genus Arhopala from the Arhopalini. In the sense currently generally accepted, since Eliot, 1992, in Corbet & Pendlebury, Edn. 4, Arhopala includes other genera such as Narathura, Nilasera, Aurea etc as synonyms of Arhopala. I removed some of these synonymous genera and those pages now include only redirect statements to Genus Arhopala, however, you have now relisted them under the Arhopala Section of the Arhopalini. Can you explain this? I don't think that these should be listed as valid genera when the page content is just a redirect. Have you a recent reference, since 1992, that re-establishes Aurea, Narathura, Nilasera, Panchala, Acesina, Darasana, Satadra as valid genera? Regards, Alan. Accassidy (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

In view of the redirects, I think it would be best to remove the synonymised genera from the list of genera on the Arhopalini page. If others try to add, for example a page for Narathura they will find it already exists as a redirect. Accassidy (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


Did you mean hide the upper portion? I have done that. Koumz (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


No. We would have to make each museum its own page, and I think others would disagree with that. I will try to think of some other way to help you, though. Koumz (talk) 13:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


I moved that template to Template:Calospilos. The name of the template page is easier to type that way. I just changed the name of the template page, not the template itself. The template itself still says: "Subgenus: Abraxas (Calospilos)". I should not have done anything to this at all. Koumz (talk) 13:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to do anything at all with subgenera of insects anymore, since there is a disagreement between you and others about how they should be. There will always be duplicate pages, and there is nothing I can do about that. I don't care which way it is, I was just trying to make it so there aren't two pages for the same species. Sorry for the trouble. Koumz (talk) 13:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Species of the week[edit]

The "species of the week" is intended to attract some interest to Wikispecies, so that the main page won't be just a dull boring "face".

By the way: many thanks for your persistent good work! Mariusm (talk) 04:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

IP edits[edit]

I was actually already working on this. Unfortunately, he edits while I am asleep like you do. There is reason to believe that IP (and several others like it) is Vladimir Dubatolov. His IP changes a lot within the same range. He adds a lot of good information, but he doesn't format correctly. He also is just beginning to understand how to use talk pages. He is editing a lot, and I don't have time to fix them all right away, so I'll work on it slowly. I will try to help him understand. Koumz (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your help with this. If we work together, we can keep his formats correct until he learns the right way. I am tracking all his addresses. One thing to watch for: He puts == Synonyms == , which needs to be changed to === Synonyms === . Koumz (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I've figured out a way to fix all the mistakes quickly each day. The only problem is tracking the addresses. When you see him editing, you can add the address he uses to my list here if you want, and then I can fix all the edits from that address quickly later that day. Koumz (talk) 23:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Special characters[edit]

All Wikipedias have this problem right now, too, so it's a general wiki problem and not something I can fix. Sorry. Koumz (talk) 15:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Help Dubatolov[edit]

It is very hard to explain to Dubatolov how the wiki works! Meanwhile we must correct his work. We must first convince him to open a user name and register, but that will take a lot of effort... Mariusm (talk) 06:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


I'm sorry. I did them the way Dubatolov was already doing the others. I was trying to get him to make the pages with the templates the right way. I was concentrating on fixing the problems with his pages, and forgot about the subgenus thing. I won't create them anymore because it didn't work anyway. You will have to fix all of Dubatolov's bad pages yourself. I am tired of being caught between your way of doing things and Stephen's. I will probably just leave the site now.Koumz (talk) 04:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

What you say may be right, but what happens to me is this: If I do the pages your way, Stephen is unhappy with me. If I do the pages Stephen's way, you are unhappy with me. Any way I do them, someone is unhappy with me. I want to help everyone, but there is no way, and someone is always unhappy with me. I have enjoyed helping you with Lepidoptera, but right now I don't want to do anything with any Lepidoptera pages ever again, even to fix bad pages like Dubatolov's. Sorry. Koumz (talk) 04:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I knew that it is normal for wiki for everyone to do things his own way. I didn't know it's also normal for wiki for people to try to make other people do it exactly the way they want. I don't like that part of wiki at all. I wish you the best with your butterfly and moth pages.Koumz (talk) 05:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Re:Stopping with additing species[edit]

On my computer everything works fine, including the special characters. Maybe the problem is with your computer? (some kind of virus or a bad installation of software). Can you please try to edit from another computer and see if it works there? Mariusm (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean these characters? : – — … ° ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · § ♀ ♂ † Mariusm (talk) 08:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand you: There are (1) The chars which I listed above. (2) The chars such as èéêë etc. These can be accessed (a) By opening the program C:\WINDOWS\System32\charmap.exe or by (b) using the <alt> key + the respective number on the keypad. For example to input <á> (0225), hold down the ALT key and type 0225 on the numeric keypad. Here is the table: Mariusm (talk) 09:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

0192 À
0200 È
0204 Ì
0210 Ò
0217 Ù

0224 à
0232 è
0236 ì
0242 ò
0249 ù

0193 Á
0201 É
0205 Í
0211 Ó
0218 Ú
0221 Ý

0225 á
0233 é
0237 í
0243 ó
0250 ú
0253 ý

0194 Â
0202 Ê
0206 Î
0212 Ô
0219 Û

0226 â
0234 ê
0238 î
0244 ô
0251 û

0195 Ã
0209 Ñ
0213 Õ

0227 ã
0241 ñ
0245 õ

0196 Ä
0203 Ë
0207 Ï
0214 Ö
0220 Ü
0159 Ÿ

0228 ä
0235 ë
0239 ï
0246 ö
0252 ü
0255 ÿ


Peter, we need to change the way we handle subgenera, to make it simpler and more logical. So, please avoid using subgenera for the moment ... there is plenty else to be done ... Stho002 (talk) 04:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

fine, but I won't be answering any questions relating to subgenera ... Stho002 (talk) 04:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Lepidoptera Biodiversity[edit]

  • 155,181 described species (Pogue, 2009: 334) [excluding fossil taxa?]


  • Pogue, M.G. 2009: Biodiversity of Lepidoptera. Pp. 325-355 in: Foottit, R.G.; Adler, P.H. (eds.) 2009: Insect biodiversity: science and society. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN 9781405151429


Thank you for your comments. I added my larva photo to Antheraea polyphemus a few weeks ago. I noticed the nonstandard Photos head in the article and thought it was for links to external photos not available in Wikimedia Commons (normally, these would be linked under a Links head below References). It is true that the image guidelines specify 2 images only if there is sexual dimorphism, but differences between larva and imago are far greater than those between the sexes of adults and I would argue that a photo of each stage is desirable. Lack of room for text on the page is not an issue -- Antheraea polyphemus has a lot of white space even on the small netbook I am using at the moment (just 1024 x 600), and the image size can always be reduced if needed. Regards, -MKOliver (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Re ITIS[edit]

Thank you for the information. I made a mistake because I copied the template from an existing article, in which the ITIS treated as a reference rather than as links. Of course, comply with fair attention. I greet and wish you a pleasant afternoon. TMzander (talk) 12:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


There is some kind of a problem with the page Eucosmini. It does not display any templates the way it should. I do not know why, all the other Tortricidae pages work fine. Sorry. Koumz (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the problem fixed itself. Koumz (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Lepidoptera families[edit]

I have now updated all the rest of Lepidoptera families so that they are like the ones you asked me to update before. Koumz (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


Hello Peter, I am adding information on Oriental species and subspecies of Deudorigini. I see that Deudorix on Wikispecies has been split into two subgenera as proposed by Williams in Afrotropical Butterflies. This is a bit of a problem as not everybody goes along with Williams in this respect. Williams also suggests, effectively, that all Deudorix (Virachola) are African and all Deudorix (Deudorix) are Oriental. The latter may be true, I do not have a problem there. However, there are a number of Oriental species that current authors put in Virachola and which do not fit with the strictly African interpretation of Deudorix (Virachola). Furthermore, the Type Species of Virachola is Deudorix perse Hewitson, 1863, from Sri Lanka. This species is not included in Williams' 29 species of Deudorix (Virachola) all of which are African.

I propose removing the controversial subgenera and reverting to two separate genera: Deudorix and Virachola within the Deudorigini. The former will be Oriental while the latter will contain both African and some Oriental species, such as perse, smilis, subguttata, kessuma and masamichii which occur in the East.

Do you have a strong objection to this proposal? If you do, I will leave it as it is, and separate the African and Oriental taxa within Deudorix (Virachola). Regards, Alan Accassidy (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Peter, you are right about Poritia phama Lectotype. I have Takanami paper here too. See the additional changes I have made. Thanks. Alan Accassidy (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Celastrina neglectamajor[edit]

Peter, you created a page called Celastrina neglectamajor with a reference to Opler & Krizak, 1984. Neglecta-major was actually a name coined by Tutt in 1908 as a form of Celastrina argiolus ladon, which has its own page here. I am not familiar with the paper by Opler & Krizak. If you have seen a copy, is it possible to give me a link to it, or email me a photocopy? I would be interested to see how they have elevated this to species status, in contradiction of what was published by Eliot & Kawazoe in 1983. Thanks, Alan. Accassidy (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Zfg formatting for Taxonavigation[edit]

Hi. I just want to ask your opinion on the usage of Template:zfg in Taxonavigation. See also one of admin opinion on User_talk:Stho002#Zfg_formatting_for_Taxonavigation. Thanks.--Ultima.ramza (talk) 13:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


Peter, You included igolotiana Murayama & Okamura from Philippines under Creon cleobis. Treadaway & Schroeder, 2012, revised Philippines checklist, has entries for Tajuria igolotiana at species rank, and two other subspecies T. i. fumiae and T. i. nonoyi. As this is the most recent information, I propose to remove igolotiana from Creon and move it to Tajuria. Do you have any strong reason to retain igolotiana in Creon? Cheers, Alan Accassidy (talk) 23:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

See also discussion at the end of this paper on Tajuria discalis Accassidy (talk) 23:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Type locality and holotype are indeed important when known. I always include these headings and will continue to do so. Regards. Alan Accassidy (talk) 08:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


Peter, if you make threats like that again, without first trying to talk to me about any problem you might have, then YOU WILL BE BLOCKED! Now, what's the problem? Stho002 (talk) 23:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


See my talk page ... Stho002 (talk) 19:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Lycaenid Tribes[edit]

Peter, the older species listed in some places under Shirozuozephyrus were previously in Chrysozephyrus, which is part of the Theclini. I suggest you include Shirozuozephyrus there. Best wishes, Alan Accassidy (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks also for amending the entry for R. persephone to make it more accurate. My assumptions from the Japanese website were clearly unjustified! Alan. Accassidy (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

How to edit redirects[edit]

Peter, you can get rid of the redirect by editing the page Lecithocera squalida as you edit any other page. To edit the redirect, you can first click on the link to Lecithocera squalida from the page Lecithocera. It will redirect you to Lecithocera aulias, BUT just underneath the page title Lecithocera aulias, it will say "(Redirected from Lecithocera squalida)". Then you click on the link in "(Redirected from Lecithocera squalida)" and it will take you to Lecithocera squalida, which shows a redirect image. Then just click edit and add the content you want to the page Lecithocera squalida. Hopefully this helps you. Koumz (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Mexicantha is no genus of Tortricidae, but of Saturniidae: Hemileucinae[edit]

I am not experienced with Wikispecies pages and internal links (and editing these), so I cannot do the changes by myself, but I would really appreciate if someone more experienced with this could move the "Taxonavigation" links for the genus Mexicantha from presently Tortricidae to family Saturniidae, subfamily Hemileucinae, (and, of course, adopt the entire tree correctly) where it really belongs. I should know that, as I am one of the authors of that genus: Mexicantha is no micromoth, but a [small] saturniid ... If there are any questions, please ask me under my email wnaessig [at] . I am not having any Wikispecies identity so far, and presently have neither time nor interest in becoming a Wiki contributor for the time being, but I could offer some help [restricted in capacity by time problems] on specific requests regarding Saturniidae, Brahmaeidae or Eupterotidae. Wolfgang A. Nässig

Re: Wikimedia[edit]

Hello, Peter. Firstly I want to express my appreciation to your solid work for WS. As regards Stho002, I'm at a loss of what to do. I agree he's a kind of a bully, and his conduct is unacceptable, but what are the alternatives? Most of the requests he makes are sound enough (for example, I agree with his opposition to subgenera [see my treatment of subgenera here: Bolitoglossa]). For now let's just calm down, and proceed with augmenting data to WS as we find fit. Mariusm (talk) 06:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


Peter, thanks for the update. No, I don't know any more than you about this User. I will keep an eye open. Alan Accassidy (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I've also tried to establish more meaningful contact, so we will see what happens next. Accassidy (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


Hi Peter,

First of all I have to confess I admire your perseverance to the Lepidoptera. As to the template BASEPAGENAME, it is simply the current page-name (which is also eventually the genus or species name). So instead of writing the species name you can put this template, and in case the species needs a relocation to another name, you won't have to retype it.

I don't quite understand what you mean by: "Don' t forgett that we did' t have had take classes. I'm working now for Razowski (Tortricidae, Poland) and Nässig (Saturniidae, Germany). I'm 67 year now and i need templates." Can you be more specific please?

I am really glad to have you around here, Mariusm (talk) 14:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Yes, you're correct about the strive for consistency, but we need also to progress somehow, if we realize there's a better way to do things. I don't think we're using Java here in WS ... or am I wrong? Mariusm (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
No, No!! You don't have to make a new template! Instead of writing:
== Taxonavigation ==


Species: ''[[Micragone morettoi]]''
You write:
== Taxonavigation ==


Species: ''[[{{BASEPAGENAME}}]]''

Mariusm (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Reference templates[edit]

Peter, please do not revert reference templates that I add! Thanks, ...Stho002 (talk) 07:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

PS: If you want to know why they are a good idea, then please ask someone else around here, and they can give you an unbiased answer (hopefully!) ...Stho002 (talk) 07:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Let me be clearer: if I change a reference to a reference template, please do not change it back, thank you ... Stho002 (talk) 08:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


Peter, I am in the USA for a few weeks and do not have access to my reference library at home. I suspect that the large discrepancy is due to splitting or lumping of related genera. For example, some include Freyeria under Chilades, while others do not. If there has not been a recent revision to follow, then it may be hard to get wide agreement. Do you have a recent paper that you are trying to follow? I have not turned my attention to this area for some time. Alan Accassidy (talk) 12:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Peter, There are a lot of species missing from Chilades. I would use Williams for Afrotropical species (and he includes Freyeria under Chilades) and a mish-mash of other books/papers to review the Oriental species. This might be something I can get round to during the later parts of the winter, but for now I don't really have the time to spend. Regards, Alan Accassidy (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

orbitulus Prunner[edit]

Peter, currently its on this page: Plebejus (Albulina) orbitulus. Higher classification of the Holarctic Polyommatini is not very stable right now, as lots of new papers being circulated following molecular analysis. This is where we have the species page for orbitulus, not under Agriades. Alan Accassidy (talk) 17:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Speiredonia darwiniana[edit]

You left a comment at the top of the page. I don't know if that was intentional or not during page creation so I removed it in the mean time. OhanaUnitedTalk page 09:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I see. I have restored your comment. OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not a professional either so I can't comment or observe these potential mistakes. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
As far as I know, credentials are not required for the participation in this project so I fail to see how an individual's credentials make his opinion more (or less) valued than others. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


Peter, can you give me an example of what you mean. It is not completely clear to me. Thanks. Alan Accassidy (talk) 14:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

OK. If you think it important to have the full title spelt out, then you can modify the text on the Reference Template and it will be on every page once the change has been made. Another very good reason to have a Template for the Reference rather than a separate entry on each relevant page. Accassidy (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you also. I have made a Redirect from the A. p. insulana page to A. p. insula. Well spotted. Alan Accassidy (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I made a redirect in case anything else links to the old page. This way the link still leads somewhere (the new page) instead of leading to an error message. Accassidy (talk) 10:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


Peter, I now have a copy of the Talavera et al 2012 paper published in Cladistics on Polyommatus sensu lato. I think this is the paper to which you refer as 'recent molecular studies'. The Talavera paper disposes with subgenera under Polyommatus sensu stricto and has Cyaniris, Eumedonia, Neolysandra, Lysandra and Polyommatus as separate genera. As you have done most of the work on this group, I thought I would discuss it with you. I think it would be a good idea to raise the subgenera to full genus status in accordance with this paper. Talavera's genus Polyommatus includes a great many taxa. It may be possible to group these under some existing sub-genera. Do you agree? Alan Accassidy (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. According to Talavera we should also keep Neolysandra as a separate genus. I have a pdf copy of the paper I could send you if you do not have it. I just need your email. Alan Accassidy (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes I will email pdf, just confirm email address to use. Alan Accassidy (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't have Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 2013, 69: 469–478. Do you? Alan Accassidy (talk) 12:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Peter, the taxonomy of the wider Polyommatus group is treated differently by different authors. My own view is that it is very unwise to copy what is on other web sites, and that we should work primarily from serious academic papers. This whole area was treated quite recently by Talavera and a few others who published a paper in 2012. Cladistics, 29(2): 166-192. I have purchased a pdf copy of this, but you should be able to find it in Naturalis. See what they say about Vacciniina on page 175. If we could agree to stay with the higher classification of Polyommatus group using that paper, I think we would be doing the right thing. Reference Template below. Alan Accassidy (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Lycaena subgenera? preferably not.[edit]

Peter, I suggest you look at Bridges, 1994 which gives some basic information about these various generic or subgeneric names that fall within Lycaena sensu lato. Part IV deals with genus group names. The most recent document I have that deals with Palaearctic Coppers is Tshikolovets, 2011, Butterflies of Europe and the Mediterranean Area. He is a lumper and he uses several names as sub-genera of Lycaena, including: Lycaena, Helleia, Thersamolycaena, Palaeochrysophanus, Thersamonia, Alciphronia, Loweia, Pheonicurusia and Athamanthia. Many of these genus-group names are already listed as Synonyms of Lycaena. Oddly, the type species of Pheonicurusia is margelanica not pheonicurus, as the author made a mistake. Bridges has notes on this in Part IV. Species phoenicurus Lederer is included by Tshikolovets in (subgenus) Athamanthia Zhdanko, 1983. Sub-genera are not easy to deal with in Wikispecies, especially when the data is addressed by other semi-automated website, so I much prefer now to keep the designations and titles of pages to genus/species/subspecies without putting (subgenus) in the middle. On the genus page you can note that certain species are included by some authors under a certain name as a sub-genus or a species group (whatever the difference may be!!). I hope this helps. Alan Accassidy (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Signing your contributions[edit]

Hi Peter, as I was informed on this via the Dutch Wikipedia, I had a look at your contributions here. I see an awful lot of good work. The one thing I do think is not wise is when you place signed comments like this one: "This subspecies is valid PeterR (talk) <time>, <date> (UTC)" at the top of pages.

First thing that springs to attention is that you create a useless red link here. Second thing is that you're not supposed to sign your contributions in the main article space. Most important however is the content of this message: This taxon is valid. Taxa are just one way to create an ordered representation of what's out there, in the field. They are a human interpretation of the complex nature of nature itself. A taxon is never valid. A name can be published validly, or can be illegal. A taxon can't. A taxon is something that's created in the mind of a scientist. It can be accepted by other scientists. It can be accepted for a while and then be discarded. It can be accepted by some and be regarded as superfluous by others. Classification is never finished, and even if the moment comes when all creatures can be given a "correct" place in a "tree of life", then there still can (and will) be debate as to their ranks.

By placing this comment at the top of a page, you try to say the data is correct and definite, and others should not make amendments. That's a very unscientific approach and also not the way Wikispecies works. If new publications come out, and new data reveal your work is outdated, then it will have to be changed. Moreover, you stated yourself you're an amateur. And indeed I saw you make some mistakes that show a lack of knowledge, like when you created an article on the Dutch Wikipedia about "Incertae Sedis (Psychidae)", stating this was a subfamily.

You do very good work here, which I appreciate very much. I argue however that you don't have the expertise to make the decission whether a taxon is valid or not, and whether the page on that taxon is definite or finished. I therefore urgently ask you to stop making these comments, to stop signing your contributions in the main article space, and to remove these comments you already made on quite a number of pages. Kind regards, Wikiklaas (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Ik weet niet wat voor beroep je hebt, maar Incertae Sedis heb je in de insektenwereld op verschillende nivo's. Toen ik bij species.wikipedia kwam waren er al heel wat aanwezig en na studie van diverse bulletins en boeken heb ik verschillende toegevoegd. Ook in officiële boeken wordt Incertae Sedis vernoemd onder familie, Subfamilie ec. Ik doe niets in species.wikipedia zonder overleg met andere gebruikers of de authors van de nieuwe species. Ik heb nu al een paar keer meegemaakt dat ik species had aangepast en anderen het verkeerd hebben veranderd. Op andere sides zie ik staan bij een species valid zoals bij de species van BMNH. Na overleg heb ik besloten om dit ook bij species.wikipedia te doen. Het is een soort vlag. Sommige veranderingen kun je nog nergens vinden, deze moeten nog gepubliceerd worden. Ik zou eerder vallen over de families, subfamilies, tribus etc. in nl.Wikipedia welke niet correct zijn. Aan de bijdragen te zien zijn deze mensen geen professionals of amateurs. Ik ben een gepensioneerde liefhebber van 68 jaar zonder kennis van programma's.
Mvg. PeterR (talk) 08:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Dear Peter, "Incertae sedis" means "position uncertain". It is neither a rank, nor a taxon. It basically means: we don't know. It is used to inform the reader that certain lower taxa are likely to belong to the higher taxon that is the subject of the study, but that they don't fit in the overall hierarchy of that taxon as it is proposed at that moment. You treat "Incertae sedis" as if it were a taxon. It only shows you're not very well educated in taxonomy.
Another sign which gives away your lack of knowledge is that you think of classificatioins as something fixed. If this were the case, then the treatment of a species could be "correct", meaning "without errors" and reflecting a fixed position. Classification is however nothing more than a certain view upon the hierarchy of nature. Views can be disputed. There is a lot of debate among authors as to the position of taxa and as to their ranks. Different names for one taxon reflect different views. It's not like one is correct and the other one erroneous. Different views can coexist. In this light, it is ridiculous when you put the message "This species is valid and correct" at the top of a page, which basically means that you don't want others to make amendments anymore. Since you're a not very well informed amateur, I argue that you're not in a position to make such statements. Wikiklaas (talk) 10:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Subgenera (again)[edit]

As the discussion on the topic of subgenera is scattered over several talk pages, I did not yet find what exactly the debate has been about so far. I however see an important problem with the way you add species names with the subgenus added in brackets. If a species is assigned to a genus, lets say the carabid beetle species with the epithet melanarius is assigned to the genus Pterostichus, then there can be no other species in this whole genus, bearing the same epithet (also not in another subgenus). So if I want to look up this species, it should be enough for me to type Pterostichus melanarius, not Pterostichus (Morphnosoma) melanarius. When you start adding names like this last one, with the subgenus included, you run a risk of adding duplicate lemmata. At some time, the database can then have a lemma on Pterostichus melanarius and one on Pterostichus (Morphnosoma) melanarius, which both represent the same taxon. This is no theoretical risk, it already happened at some scale in the Dutch Wikipedia and in Wikidata, with as a result lots of work to clear up things and remove duplicate items. One can off course mention the subgenus in the treatment of a species (like it is done in the example of Pterostichus melanarius) but making it part of the name of the lemma will cause significant problems. Wikispecies is a database, and when editing a database, you should treat it as a database, with it's specific database problems.

Pterostichus as treated in Wikispecies, has 33 subgenera, and about 1200 species. Distributing these species over the 33 subgenera, would mean that someone who tries to find a species name in an alphabetical list, would have to look in 33 places in stead of one (so on average the species would be found after checking half this number, that is, if the name exists; if it is not in the list, one should check all 33 subgenera to find it's not there). That's just not very convenient. Another thing is that many species are not assigned to a subgenus, even in genera that are subdivided into subgenera. This place will become a mess if contributors keep on adding these superfluous parts to names. If that's what you were critisised about before, then I can see your opponents have a valid point. Cheers, Wikiklaas (talk) 10:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Ik weet nog steeds niet wie je bent en wat je doet. Het voorbeeld wat je laat zien is tegen de afgesproken regels in. Wij vermelden de species met subgenus en als synoniem de species zonder subgenus. Op deze manier kom je automatisch op de goede plek terecht. Ik vind dat je nogal een hoge dunk van jezelf hebt en meer van entomologie weet dan bv. Dubatolov. Sinds de afspraken geschonden worden door verschillende mensen lopen de echte entomologisten weg. Species.wikipedia wordt i.p.v. betrouwbaarder steeds onbetrouwbaarder wat niet de bedoeling was met het opzetten van species.wikipedia. PeterR (talk) 13:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Dear Peter, as this is Wikispecies, and most contributors here do not understand Dutch, I guess it would be wise for you to formulate you contributions to discussions in English. This is not some debate between you and me. Others might be interested in the matter too.
Who I am, and what I do is not of great importance. It is the arguments I give that are to be discussed here. And so far, you did not really refute the things I had to say. Dubatolov is without doubt a very well informed entomologist, but is he also schooled in the rules of taxonomy? Did he encourage you to write an article on "Incertae sedis" as a subfamily? Does he recognize the specific problems coming up when entering names into a database like Wikispecies? And you may be a member of the Dutch Entomological Society (NEV) but you are not an entomologist yourself. And if entomologists run away from this project because they are not willing to adhere tot the rules and standards, then let them, I would say. This is Wikispecies, a project that has rules for all who would like to contibute. If someone doesn't want to go along, you can't stop them from leaving.
You state that there are some rules in place here, regulating the names of taxa with the subgenus included. I guess you will be able to point me to the page where this rule was formulated and approved. Seeing the vast amount of discussion you already had on the topic of subgenera, I can hardly believe there really is such a rule, or it would have to be that we do not include these names in page titles. And having a look at Trifurcula (Glaucolepis) sinica for example, seeing there's no redirect Trifurcula sinica, or to the last one you added, Chrysartona (Chrysartona) stipata (Chrysartona stipata), you do not really reassure me that these taxa will be found easily and that this problem has been tackled. Wikiklaas (talk) 01:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Also, one of the main reasons for not including subgenera in species article titles is that it complicates automatic linking to external sites like CoL, EOL, etc., none of which bother with subgenera. The linking code would have to remove the subgenus, which is a pain. Stho002 (talk) 03:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
See templates Taxonavigation section. From the beginning we have set-up them after these templates. But is allways the same. There come new ones, they don' t look at the templates and go their own way. After a few weeks they are gone.
I didn't say that I'm an entomologist. I said I'm a amateur with insects (butterflies and moths) as hobby. You say that I'm not able to see of a species is valid or not. But I don't want to discuss with someone who thinks he is very clever and better is than Dubatolov and think that we don't need his contributions and a coward for not saying he's doing. I'm able enough to see that nl.wikipedia is not good. PeterR (talk) 09:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Discussing matters on any Wikimedia project is not about who we are but about arguments. I pointed at several mistakes you make, and at a number of points that cause problems in Wikispecies, and the only thing you argue is that you discussed things with several professional entomologists. That's not a proper argument. And it certainly doesn't show how this is beneficial for Wikispecies.
I had a look at Template:/Taxonavigation. I don't see any agreement on using names with the subgenus included for titles of articles. Not in that page, not in the history and also not on the discussion page. Which agreement are you refering to then, when you say you set up taxonavigation after these templates, but include the subgenus name in the title? Where did you find evidence that this was standing practice or that an agreement on this was reached before? Isn't it the other way around? You have a certain idea about how to present your taxa, and although this is contrary to standing practice, and although it is pointed out to you that you create severe problems by doing so, you did not agree to re-evaluate your methods so far.
Oh, and by the way: I like to keep questions and answers together, not scattered over several pages. You can post your replies to this discussion here: I will read it because your talk page is on my watchlist. Wikiklaas (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
See Subgenus (Non-Plantae) 13:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC). This was allready before my contribution and I had to work after those templates from MariusM.
Dear Peter, I tried Template:Subgenus (Non-Plantae), Subgenus (Non-Plantae) and did a search on "Subgenus (Non-Plantae)" (also in different combinations with the initial letters not capitalized). I found no results. Can you give a link? Wikiklaas (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

... The genus who is made after this template is Polyommatus. Contributions from Accassidy and me. PeterR (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Peter, Wikiklaas. Yes, Polyommatus is set out with sub-genera, but this was done before I made some edits a few weeks ago and I did not disturb it. But to remake the whole of Polyommatus without the sungenera will take a longer time than I have at present. I prefer not to use subgenera in page titles. We could still have pages for the subgenera, linking to the species, but these and the main genus page are linked to species pages that are strictly binomial e.g. Polyommatus icarus, not Polyommatus (Polyommatus) icarus. The links effectively go like this:
Genus X
..↓....Subgenus X(Y)
Species X z
If we could agree that this is a good solution, presenting the concept of sub-genera but keeping binomial page titles, then we would have a very good way forward. I think this is also the best way to treat the "Species Groups" that some authors have also used in place of more formal sub-genera. Can we reach consensus on this way ahead? Alan Accassidy (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the subgenus is still listed on the species page, but it is not part of the page name. This is what I have been doing for a while now. Alas, it is a challenge to explain it to Peter! Stho002 (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

It is not a challange to explain it to me, but it is a challange to make an official template PeterR (talk) 07:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC) I have done Hadena (Anepia) wolfi. But if we do it this way I can't use BASEPAGENAME. PeterR (talk) 07:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Peter, I have made a small change to Hadena wolfi to show my suggestion in action. I have also put a link direct to the species on the Hadena Genus page. The Subgenus still appears in the Taxonavigation on the species page but not in the title. I would be happy to make this a standard procedure. In any event, the exact status of genus, subgenus and all higher classification is a matter of discussion, not of fact. So using the method shown above we are keeping the notion of the subgenus alive but not allowing it to interfere with the binomial naming system at the species page level. Alan Accassidy (talk) 09:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Now the subgenera is a mist. You have pages with:

  • Subgenus: Hadena (Anepia) - I think its OK to have this page but the links to included species links are best kept to the form Hadena wolfi
  • Subgenus: Anepia - This page is not necessary as Anepia is not accorded status of Genus. If it has been created, it should simply REDIRECT to Hadenia (Anepia)
  • Species: Hadena (Anepia) wolfi - this page is the one that other websites find difficulty accessing, so if it exists it should be made a simple REDIRECT to Hadena wolfi
  • Species: Hadena wolfi - this is the good species page that we want to have all the information in.
  • Species: Anepia wolfi - this is not a good combination, but if we have a page of that title it should REDIRECT to Hadena wolfi

No body works after the official templates. Who controlls or every body works after the same template? Which templates we use? Who is changing all the contribution with subgenera like Dubatolov and many others? What to do with people who works with taxobox in stead of Taxonavigation? Who can objective give a meaning about classification. I think that Wikiklaas can't do this. You have to work with official bulletins or books like Accassidy and I do. PeterR (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Peter, I've put some notes in bold on the multitude of page names above as to how I would deal with them. The page simply called Templates shows how to format for species aggregated in both genera and subgenera, and it would not be wrong to format a whole bunch of pages including the subgenus, but we now know that this makes interaction with some other websites rather difficult so we are wise to revert to the small model I used above and have our species pages strictly binomial. I have used Subgenera myself in some places in the past, but I will eventually get round to formatting and redirecting to revert to strictly binomial species pages. The trouble with publications and authors is that sometimes even contemporaneous articles use different arrangements of species groups, subgenera, and even genera. If two publications disagree, as they often do, - especially recently in Polyommatini - both cannot be right and neither should pretend to be fact. As the primary data should be included at Species level, then we are best here, following the name WikiSpecies to keep our main data pages as binomial without intervening (Subgenus) in the title. At least, that is my view. Alan Accassidy (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC) And my view Stho002 (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

OK. I understand now that you don't want that species.wikipedia be a reability side. Every body can do what they want for example working with Taxobox in stead of Taxonavigation etc. I have send Sthoner an massage about a false Subgenus, but no answer. I go further with the way we started. PeterR (talk) 10:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC) Templates are made for people like me. I'm not a programmer but I have now an example how to add genera etc. PeterR (talk) 10:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Peter, I don't know what you mean by "reability" and I think you use "side" where I would use "site". I am not a user of Taxobox notation but I wish to spend my own time adding useful information, not changing the inputs of others, so I do not raise the issue for discussion. I want this site to be a reliable store of information on the taxonomy of species. Where there are areas of greater subjectivity, such as higher order classification, Sub-tribes, Sub-Genera, whatever, I am happy that such ideas are mentioned but I think it best to keep the species pages strictly binomial. The method I have outlined above allows species to be grouped in sub-genera by those authors who want to do so, but keeps the species pages readily accessible just using binomial names. When there is doubt about the correct genus, one should be chosen for the page and the other(s) made redirects. This arrangement can quickly be changed if authoritative revisions suggest that is the correct course of action. Best wishes, Alan Accassidy (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I mean reliable. (sorry). PeterR (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC). Kheller use taxobox and nl.wikipedia use it. PeterR (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. It seems that Taxobox just presents the same information in a different underlying configuration. As long as the information is based on reliable sources, I don't see that the method of generation is better or worse. We should just strive to present information that is based on authoritative sources and not be over-sensitive about small differences in presentation. Alan Accassidy (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I had add some species and Kheller change it in Taxobox without further information and not after reliable sources. So I can add the species in Dutch or German. The result is the same. Thanks. PeterR (talk) 09:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


Peter, I am sorry but I have no knowledge of David Agassiz. Can you tell me the context of the question, and I might be able to speak to someone in BMNH and get an answer. Accassidy (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

OK. So why don't you just send an email to one of the addresses and ask for confirmation that they are both the same person. I think it most unlikely that there are two different people with such similar names in such a small institution. I am sure he won't mind you asking. You will know which section to ask for (lepidoptera, Coleoptera etc) from the content of his papers. Alan. Accassidy (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


As one of the most active users on Wikispecies, I wonder if you would accept to be nominated as one of its Wikispecies:Administrators? Dan Koehl (talk) 09:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

C.A.W. Jeekel[edit]

Hello there! I have recently started an article on C.A.W. Jeekel on the English Wikipedia. If you have any relevant information to add, it would certainly be welcome! Cheers, Animalparty (talk) 05:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Rubriek in de nieuwsbrief van Wikimedia Nederland[edit]

Beste PeterR, Voor een nieuwe rubriek in de nieuwsbrief van Wikimedia Nederland, ben ik op zoek naar iemand die kort wat wil schrijven over Wikispecies. Het stukje hoeft niet lang te zijn (een regel of 6) De bedoeling is om mensen te informeren over de diverse wiki's naast Wikipedia. Wellicht vindt u het leuk om iets te schrijven, of weet u iemand anders die dit zou willen en kunnen doen? Ik hoop iets van u te mogen vernemen. Bij voorkeur via de email info((at)) Alvast bedankt!SindyM3 WMNL (talk) 10:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Ik heb geen interesse. PeterR (talk) 10:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Chamaesphecia (Scopulosphecia) chalciformis[edit]

Peter, The page title and species name on Chamaesphecia (Scopulosphecia) chalciformis differ. Probably as a result of a hasty cut and paste process. This problem can be avoided by using the ''{{BASEPAGENAME}}'' template. Also, you may see on my Talk page some correspondence from Wikiklaas regarding the quality of your contributions on Wikipedia. Perhaps you would care to respond with your side of the matter. On the separate subject of subgenera: I think that it is OK to include a page for a subgenus and to list the species reportedly included in it, but the primary pages for a species should always be binomial, excluding the subgenus. So the principal article name would just be Chamaesphecia chalciformis. You can see how this structure works at Udara dilecta, as Udara has a number of subgenera. The benefit of having primarily binomial species pages is that these are then much easier to find with external search engines. There was some Village Pump talk on Subgenera some while ago, and I think it would be much better if we could deal with them as I described above. Thanks, Alan. Accassidy (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Create a new page called Chamaesphecia chalciformis and then copy your data from Chamaesphecia (Scopulosphecia) chalciformis and paste it in the new page. Use the BASEPAGENAME template as appropriate. Then on the Chamaesphecia (Scopulosphecia) chalciformis page put #REDIRECT [[Chamaesphecia chalciformis]] to refer readers to the new page. Create a page Chamaesphecia (Scopulosphecia) for the Subgenus but when you list species on it just use the binonmial citation. Accassidy (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I have done Scopulosphecia. I hope this is good now. PeterR (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that seems appropriate. I think it would also be useful to but an Overview of Species on the Chamaesphecia page, so that all the species are listed on the main Genus page. You can see how I did this on Udara. Accassidy (talk) 08:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Ok I make an Overview PeterR (talk) 08:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC).
Done PeterR (talk) 09:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
That's good. Do you have access to a reference that will give you the information needed to add a Name section and a Type Species for the Genus Chamaesphecia? Accassidy (talk) 17:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Done PeterR (talk) 08:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

incertae sedis[edit]

Peter, yes I have an alternative suggestion. Look at Xestia and see what I have done. Also, I don't think that it is worth the time to link all the authors names in the Synonym list to their author pages. I have slightly changed the links to Jacob Hübner in the Name section, but having all the links for all the synonyms is probably not worth the effort. Thanks for asking. Accassidy (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your alternative suggestion. PeterR (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
The subgenus is still Incerta Sedis PeterR (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
For the unassigned species, just use a genus template as I have on Xestia bryocharis. Sorry to hear of your medical issues, but happy to have you back here helping us. Take it easy. Alan Accassidy (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Craniophora tapaishana[edit]

Peter, this happens occasionally. Three steps. 1) Create a new page with the correct title and copy across the text from the incorrect page. 2) replace the text on the old page with a REDIRECT to the new page. 3) Correct the spelling of the species on the Genus page so that it links properly to the new page. Well spotted. Accassidy (talk) 10:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

My mistake: 4 steps. 4) remove the old incorrect spelling from the Genus page list of species.Accassidy (talk) 10:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


Peter, I see no reason not to add species C. inquieta based on the Draudt description. It appears in a number of other places and you have a valid citation from its original description. I am not familiar with the "Poole" reference that you quote, so cannot comment on its reliability as a list. Can you give me more explicit information on it? At the least, you would have to carry out searches to check whether other species names have been added already, but under different genera. Accassidy (talk) 11:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

That is quite a list. Poole has authored a number of books, especially on Noctuidae, since the late 1980s. I do not know whether these have been peer-reviewed, but I suspect not. They appear to be books for collectors, rather like Bernard D'Abrera's butterfly volumes, rather than academic papers. A lot of the taxa you list are from old journals with original authors names given. If those species do not yet have pages, and you can find the original descriptions in journals on BHL, then it would be reasonable to add pages for them under Craniophora. Just be sure to search on WikiSpecies for the species name first, in case they already have a species page under a different genus. Accassidy (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


Different people have different ideas. It might have been more understandable if you clarified which authority you were using to assign species to subgenera. The consolidated list does conveys less information than the two lists. However, it is pointless to get into a war about it. I suggest you continue to create the species pages for the whole genus. For those that are assigned to a subgenus, include that in the Taxonav hierarchy. If no subgenus is assigned in your source, then just go from Genus to Species in the Taxonav of the species page. Anyone interested will see from the species page that no subgenus is listed. The collapsing boxes are not standard and serve very little purpose unless the enclosed list is a very long one. But I would not get into an edit war over them as long as the content is reliable. I suggest that you put an entry on the Genus "discussion" page noting the source for the list of subgenera, something like my note about the species included in a different group, see Talk:Harpendyreus. Accassidy (talk) 15:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

You could also make a list of species in each subgenus on the Genus Talk page, as I have done for Talk:Udara. Nobody should revert additional information that you put on a discussion page; to do so would be considered vandalism, at least by me. Accassidy (talk) 15:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Hadena caelestis[edit]

Peter, I found that the link to the primary reference on Hadena caelestis did not work for me. I went to the web page with the pdf and have made a second link, after yours, on the reference line. You might want to look at this and see whether both links work for you. If the "Hacker, H.H. & Gyulai, P., 2013" reference is likely to appear on a lot of Noctuid pages, it might be worth your creating a Reference Template for it, or else it might need changing on every page. Thanks, Alan Accassidy (talk) 11:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC) By me both are working now. PeterR (talk) 11:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC) I don't know how to create a Reference Template. I hope you can help me PeterR (talk) 11:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Peter, I have created a Template at Template:Hacker,Gyulai, 2013 that will give you an example. The text that you normally include in the reference all comes before a space and then you add the bit that starts "<noinclude>". You can copy and paste this second part into any new reference template. The second part also includes the template name and so you have to make this the same as the Template Name when you make a new one. The text on the one I just made is "Template:Hacker,Gyulai_2013" Note the underscore between the author names and the date. I keep the following text in Micorsoft Word, so that I can just paste in the new Template name - in this case by replacing everything in bold.

"<includeonly>[,Gyulai_2013 reference page]</includeonly> <noinclude> ** [{{BASEPAGENAMEE}} find all Wikispecies pages which cite this reference][[Category:Reference templates]]</noinclude>"

Once the Template has been created you just list its name in curly brackets in the References section. If the template subsequently gets minor changes, such as the addition of a BHL link, then it will appear that way on all pages where it is used. So all the pages that use the Template are future-proof. On the Template I have enhanced the author names so that they link to the respective author pages, and I have added the Template to their list of publications. See Hacker and Gyulai. Have fun... Accassidy (talk) 15:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


Peter, your Template seems to be fine now, so perhaps you already discovered the fault you referred to before. You will also see from my Talk page that your changes to the initials of the Chinese authors of the Template:Zt3044.49 has caused User:Stho002 to be annoyed. On the actual Zootaxa paper they only list a single initial for each author, while you have added a second initial, probably to make that reference consistent with some others. I think for now it would be better for you to take away those second initials on that paper, so that the authors are consistent with the pdf, even though their names appear more fully in other references. Thank you. Accassidy (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I have made a Template for the reference you want to cite in Polyploca laororshanae. First go to that page and see the result so far. From the pdf of the paper, I see that the first author is Müller and as there are so many co-authors it is not sensible to list them all in the reference or its template. There is a red link at the author name and you can resolve this by creating an Author Page titled "Gunter C. Muller" (no accents - just plain letters) and then putting a link to the Template on that page. You could also generate Author pages for the other 7 authors, entitled "Gyula M. Laszlo" and so on and then add the same Template link on each author page. It would be good first to search just for Muller so that you can double check that he does not already have an Author Page, and the same check should be done first for all the other authors. Its a long process with so many authors, but the only way to be careful. Accassidy (talk) 11:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Anthene Subgenera[edit]

Peter, the current sub-generic arrangement of African Anthene follows Williams, 2008. If you have access to the 2010 Libert paper revising African Anthene can you tell me how Libert deals with the other subgenera, Neurypexina and Triclema? Does he also raise those to full Genus status? I won't make any structural changes until I have been able to understand Libert's revision. Does it really run to more than 400 pages? Thanks for pointing this out. Alan Accassidy (talk) 09:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Safian has also set up an online database of African butterflies, but it is clearly not yet in accord with Libert's published work. Libert's 2010 "paper" is actually a book, and I think that is what we should presently be using as the most recent authority for African Anthene. I cannot ask the RESL library to photocopy something that big. I can buy a copy for about €100, but my interest in African Lycaenidae does not yet stretch to spending the money. One of us will have to try to borrow a copy from somewhere. Accassidy (talk) 09:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I think Libert will keep you busy for some while. I will be unable to do much on WS for a while as I will be in Cologne for the next 4 days and then in South Africa for about 2 weeks. Best wishes. Accassidy (talk) 11:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I saw the Libert volume at a colleagues office two days ago, but I do not have it here. You can re-arrange the genera and species as he lists them and dispose of the sub-genera, following his arrangement. Accassidy (talk) 11:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Peter, I have now rearranged all the Genera under Lycaenesthini to accord with Libert, 2010. I have included Libert's Species Groups, but not SubGroups nor Complexes, as these seem to be less authoritative and we have no agreed way of dealing with those ideas. If you want to continue to add species information from Libert's book, as you have already done for some species, that would be very useful. I find it interesting that Libert resurrected Monile as a good genus. Alan Accassidy (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Peter. I use "===Synonymy===" as a heading because then it is proper to add original combinations, new combinations and so on to the list, rather than just actually objective synonyms. Also, I have a subroutine that automatically creates redirect pages for these other combinations, as long as the heading is "Synonymy" not "Synonyms". Could you change your process to include this small change? Then I can create the redirects etc. Alan Accassidy (talk) 09:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I shall change synonyms in synonymy. PeterR (talk) 10:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done PeterR (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: Stohner[edit]

Thank you Peter for your massage. Would you please post your complain also at the PUMP, so that everyone can see what damage Stho002 does to a lot of WS users? Mariusm (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Author name[edit]

Peter, regarding Teinopalpus imperialis herteri, is the first author's first name really spelt "Steeve" as opposed to "Steve" Collard? I would have thought the latter much more likely. If I am right then you will need to change the author page accordingly. Regards, Alan. Accassidy (talk) 20:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Speed delete[edit]

Dear Peter, do you agree on delete on those two files? Dan Koehl (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dan Koehl: Note that there is no space between the initial and the family name, and they are not used on any pages. Stho002 (talk) 23:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, @Stho002: but its polite and doesnt hurt to communicate. Dan Koehl (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree PeterR (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg DoneThank you, they are deleted. Dan Koehl (talk) 03:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done I deleted the files you requested. Dan Koehl (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Template format[edit]

Can you please, to be consistent with other users to name article templates "Template:Adamski & etal, 2009‎" instead of "Template:Adamski,etal, 2009‎" and with spaces after each ",".

Thank you, Mariusm (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The preferred standard is Template:Author1, Author2, Author3 & Author4, 2014 Mariusm (talk) 11:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean by "I don't see anything". can you give me an example? Look for an example at Template:Wolski & Gorczyca, 2014 which is composed this way:
* {{aut|[[Andrzej Wolski|Wolski, A.]]; [[Jacek Gorczyca|Gorczyca, J.]]}}, 2014: Revision of the plant bug genus ''Xenocylapidius'' (Hemiptera, Heteroptera, Miridae, Cylapinae), with descriptions of five new species from Australia and New Caledonia. [[ISSN 1313-2989|''ZooKeys'']], '''459''': 73-94. {{doi|10.3897/zookeys.459.8015}} <includeonly> [,_2014 reference page]</includeonly> <noinclude> ** [{{BASEPAGENAMEE}} find all Wikispecies pages which cite this reference][[Category:Reference templates]]</noinclude>
Notice that in the URL path you have to replace every space with a "_" and the "&" with "%26". Mariusm (talk) 05:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Noting is really wrong but instead of:

Template:Paukstadt,Paukstadt, 2013

* {{aut|[[Ulrich Paukstadt|Paukstadt, U.]]; [[Laela Hayati Paukstadt|Paukstadt, L.H.]]}} 2013: ''Antheraea (Antheraea) selayarensis'' sp. nov., ein neuer wilder Seidenspinner von der Insel Selayar, Provinz Süd Sulawesi, Indonesien (Lepidoptera: Saturniidae). [[ISSN 1612-2674|''Beiträge zur Kenntnis der wilden Seidenspinner'']], '''11'''(3): 107-118. <includeonly>[,Paukstadt,_2013 reference page]</includeonly> <noinclude> ** [{{BASEPAGENAMEE}} find all Wikispecies pages which cite this reference][[Category:Reference templates]]</noinclude>

It is better to write like this:

Template:Paukstadt & Paukstadt, 2013

* {{aut|[[Ulrich Paukstadt|Paukstadt, U.]]; [[Laela Hayati Paukstadt|Paukstadt, L.H.]]}} 2013: ''Antheraea (Antheraea) selayarensis'' sp. nov., ein neuer wilder Seidenspinner von der Insel Selayar, Provinz Süd Sulawesi, Indonesien (Lepidoptera: Saturniidae). [[ISSN 1612-2674|''Beiträge zur Kenntnis der wilden Seidenspinner'']], '''11'''(3): 107-118. <includeonly>[,_2013 reference page]</includeonly> <noinclude> ** [{{BASEPAGENAMEE}} find all Wikispecies pages which cite this reference][[Category:Reference templates]]</noinclude>

Mariusm (talk) 10:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

NO NO, Template:Author1, Author2, Author3 & Author4, 2014 isn't a real template, it's just a syntax example. (Instead of what you write: Template:Author1,Author2,Author3,Author4, 2014) Mariusm (talk) 12:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Only the NAMES of the templates are wrong. Everything else is good. Mariusm (talk) 12:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done The 15 files you requested speed deletion for, are now deleted. Dan Koehl (talk) 13:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Peter, do you agree that Template:Zhang,Li & Wang, 2014 should be deleted? Dan Koehl (talk) 11:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes I do, because Sthoner have make an other without to ask me. He is changing every day my contributions.PeterR (talk) 11:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

As I've already said, for 3 authors the name would look like: "Author1, Author2 & Author3, 2014" with spaces after each comma. Mariusm (talk) 11:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Re:Editing Template:Ou,Wang & Wei, 2014[edit]

What is wrong is that you forgot to put a space in the template's name between "Ou," and "Wang". Just edit this template, select Move at the top and move the template to "Template:Ou, Wang & Wei, 2014" With this space included. Mariusm (talk) 06:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Peter! I love animals. Can you help me using this site! You can better ask Accassidy. I'm not a programmer PeterR (talk) 13:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Peter, happy new year to you too. Accassidy (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Global account[edit]

Hi Peter! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, DerHexer (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I was previously PeterR elsewhere but have now vacated the name PeterR so this may help - see --PeterR2 (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Walter Leopold Victor Hackman[edit]

Dag Peter Roelofs, bij nazicht stelde ik vast dat deze entomologist niet voorkomt op de List of entomologists, enig idee waarom? Ik voegde de naam ondertussen toe aan de Hackman (sukunimi) Finse wikipedia. Hopelijk volgt hierop een positieve reactie. Lotje (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Geen idee. Ik zie dat deze lijst (voor mij) door vreemde mensen wordt bij gehouden. Er ontbreken ook veel Chinese entomologisten. Ik zou niet weten bij wie je hiervoor terecht moet. Misschien één van de personen die onder view history staan. PeterR (talk) 07:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Toch bedankt! Lotje (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Als je op de pagina van Walter Leopold Victor Hackman kijkt en je drukt dan op entomologists bij Category, dan staat hij er wel. Ik denk dat dit een idee is van iemand. Net zoals Category:new species etc. Het wordt niet bekend gemaakt of besproken. Je moet er toevallig tegen aanlopen. PeterR (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


Dear Peter, the file Comphotis is now restored. At the same date, 16th of December, I deleted more files, which were submitted to the speedy delete, namely Template:Comphotis sophistes (Incorrectly named) Comphotis sophistes (Incorrectly named) and Template:Comphotis (Incorrectly named). Would you like me to restore those files as well? Dan Koehl (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Please do. I have checked the genera and species Original bulletins and the book from Lamas, 2004 and Funet. PeterR (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Dan Koehl (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks PeterR (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
@Dan Koehl: Dan, can you please determine who marked those Comphotis pages for deletion. If it was me, then either I had a good reason, or I made a mistake, but I don't think it was me? Stho002 (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
@Dan Koehl: @Accassidy: @OhanaUnited: In fact, something funny is going on here! If those files were submitted to the speedy delete, as claimed, then this would be logged in their edit history, but there is nothing in their edit histories to indicate that they ever were submitted to the speedy delete, as this would require editing the files (i.e. adding {{Speedy}}). What is going on here??? Stho002 (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Here you can see the list of files I have deleted upon request at speedy delete. I gather most of the files were submitted there by User:Stho002. Dan Koehl (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Just let me know, and I will restore any file at your wish. Dan Koehl (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Côrecha Jauffret[edit]

Hello Peter. What's up with the Jacques Dominique Côrecha Jauffret article? I saw that you've marked it for speedy deletion, and you're the only contributor. If it gets deleted (and consequently also the the redirect pages Jacques Côrecha Jauffret, J.C. Jauffret, and Corècha Jauffret) it will affect 20 other pages where the links are present. Therefore: is the problem with the page fixable, and if so, can I help? Regards Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC).

Dear Peter, I also want to ask, should the file Jacques Dominique Côrecha Jauffret really be deleted? Dan Koehl (talk) 09:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Dan , I have allready make a new file Jacques Dominique Corêcha Jauffret. This is the real name. I don't know Jacques Dominique Côrecha Jauffret. To add new authors you have to concentrate you very well. Will you add them via search like DeVries he gave you Devries. So I have learn now to make first the author template and then add the new author via the template. (sorry for my english). PeterR (talk) 10:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I see, I deleted, but please not that two files link to the deleted file; Semomesia wallacei and Semomesia alyattes fassli. Dan Koehl (talk) 10:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Dan Thank you. I have change the Somesia. You can See in the Reference page that the name is wrong. PeterR (talk) 10:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Tommy. Côrecha Jauffret is wrong. It have to be Corêcha Jauffret. Official it is Jacques Dominique Corêcha Jauffret. I have the same problems wit Philip James DeVries. If I type Philip James DeVries automatic he create Philip James Devries. PeterR (talk) 10:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC) (Moved from User talk:Tommy Kronkvist)
It seems to work now. Cheers, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC).
Thanks. PeterR (talk) 12:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Subgenera & photos[edit]

Peter, I see we have the question about subgenera again, this time with regard to Catasticta. Could I ask you please not to include the subgenus name in brackets in the species and subspecies pages. Just keep the species pages binomial the Genus species and the subspecies pages trinomial Genus species subspecies. You can group the species into sub-genera on the genus page and can include the Subgenus in the Taxonav hierarchy, but please not in the taxon pages as it makes the collection much more accessible to keep species pages simply binomial. The simplest solution is to cut and paste the data from the existing species pages into binomial ones and then to create REDIRECTS from those now empty pages that had the subgenus in the title. Also, I noticed that your link to "Photos" on one page led to a website that appears not to exist yet. Maybe there is a spelling mistake. Thanks, Alan. Accassidy (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Alan. This is old. I'm updating them to our agreement see Catasticta flisa. I can't do all in one. PeterR (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
redirects to Photos or bulletins can change. I can't help it or have you a solution. PeterR (talk) 09:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Appeal to WMF[edit]

@Dan Koehl: Peter you should consider an appeal to WMF about your treatment- see the Pump how Stephen Thorpe has undertaken this. I am sure Dan will help you out if needed. If you did this then it would be ironic and also beneficial to you and the community. Andyboorman (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Peter, they are just trying to push you out on to the battlefield as "cannon fodder", while they sit back and watch from a safe distance. By all means, feel free to make an appeal to whoever you like about me, but it would be in your own interests to make 100% certain that you are right and I am wrong, before embarking on any such move Stho002 (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Peter, I will look into this issue, please give me a day. Dan Koehl (talk) 12:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Peter, is it possible that you activate your email, so we can communicate through emails? Ich wurde lieber durch Emails reden, wäre es bei dir möglig? Dan Koehl (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
@Dan Koehl: Be aware Peter, User:Dan Koehl may just be trying to manipulate you now. As a crat, he can see all the relevant "evidence" of blocks, and so he doesn't need your input at all. But if he can convince you to make a fuss about nothing, then he is safe from any bad consequences, should it all go terribly wrong ... Stho002 (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocking done by Stho002 proof[edit]

Here is your proof of the blocking done on you by Stho002: BLOCKING LOG Mariusm (talk) 12:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Mariusm: Can block logs be found in other places other than as a record on the users page? Andyboorman (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
@Andyboorman: In the above link just enter either the user-name of the Performer of the block or the one of the Target and press go. This is the only place for block logs. You can enter also the log type such as a deletion-log for a certain user. You can go the the log main page by clicking on the right on Special pages and then select Logs ([1]) Mariusm (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
@Dan Koehl: @Mariusm: @Andyboorman: @Accassidy: @PeterR: I may well have blocked you once or twice in the past. Maybe I was justified, maybe I wasn't. More likely, the truth is somewhere in between. However, the important point is that only admins can block, and I am no longer an admin. Therefore, I cannot now block you (or anyone), even if I wanted to, which I don't. The only "punishment" (actually "cure") for an unjustified block is to have admin powers taken away. Since I have already resigned my admin powers, this whole "discussion" is purely "academic". If you don't believe me, ask your friend Alan to confirm. Stho002 (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
@Stho002: my dear sir - this block is only a SYMPTOM of your inadequacy to cooperate with others and to disservice a WS user. When you tried to chase away the user Fagus you were no longer an admin, yet the harm was done nevertheless. Mariusm (talk) 05:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
@Mariusm: If User:Fagus or anyone else refuses to listen to reason and puts pointless stuff all over core taxon pages, then we are better off without them. All he had to do was listen to reason and move it to categories. He didn't care about the project, he only cared about himself ... Stho002 (talk) 05:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
@Stho002: Again I repeat: I'm not talking about the editing-controversies or whether a certain practice is right or wrong. I'm talking about the STYLE you use, about the LANGUAGE you use, about your overall CONDUCT. Mariusm (talk) 05:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
@Mariusm: I am a mirror ... Stho002 (talk) 05:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Friendly advice[edit]

Peter, we both want what is best for Wikispecies, don't we? You are making a very valuable contribution to the project, but it just needs overseeing and correcting when necessary. That is the reality. By resisting that, you are putting WS in danger. The project is only going to survive if current levels of activity are maintained. User:Dan Koehl and the others are making a huge mistake. If they block me, WS activity will drop by at least 50%, making it possible that WMF will close us down. Sometimes you need to accept what you don't want in order to get what you do want in terms of the bigger picture. Think about it ... Stho002 (talk) 05:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC).

@Accassidy: @Stho002: I agree that sometimes some people have to make corrections. But if I ask Accassidy how to create for example an author template and I create this after his advice, you don't have to change that. You think that you are the only clever boy here, but you are not. And all those corrections irritate me. On the side of Acassisdy I have made proposals for templates, but no reactions. I want only do contributions after original bulletins and books and in consultation with others. PeterR (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

An IP contributor[edit]

Hi Peter - I was looking at's contributions, and am guessing they are yours, from if/when your computer logs you out of Wikispecies without your knowing. The number locates to the Netherlands. Is this correct, please? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 12:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

MPF. I think there is nothing change. But I'm not sure. Where have I to look. PeterR (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! If you look at the contributions link above, are any of them edits you remember making? It happens to me sometimes that my computer logs me out without my knowing and I end up making anon contributions without realising it. - MPF (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Ackery et al 1995[edit]

Peter, I notice that on a number of species in Anthene and Neurellipes that I have looked at recently, you have listed some combinations, usually starting Anthene sp. as new combinations by Ackery et al, 1995,presumably from "Carcasson's African Butterflies". It is also apparent that most of these Anthene sp. combinations were earlier published by Stempffer, 1967, in his "Genera of African Lycaenidae". This latter paper is available to download through BHL. So it is clear that these were not, in most cases, new combinations by Philip Ackery in 1995. As he worked in BMNH and Stempffer published in BMNH I would be surprised if Ackery had actually claimed the new combinations. If you have access to the Ackery book, perhaps you could check. Cheers, Alan Accassidy (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Alan, I have no books from Ackery and Stempffer. If you have an example of my mistake I can look in the book from Libert. PeterR (talk) 08:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Jiao & Yang, 2015[edit]

Some hours ago, I was going over Zootaxa Feb 4, for any articles not templated. There was conflict, as Zootaxa citation said "Jiao" only, and ZooBank said "Jiao & Yang". At that time, there was no template at all, so I opted for citing it as in Zootaxa, as that would be more authoritative than ZooBank. I do suspect Zootaxa may have made an error. If you confirm, I will delete my template.

Zootaxa citation is Jiao & Yang. So you can delete your template.
Done. My only access to Zootaxa is contents/abstracts. If those have mistakes, I have no idea. LSU has no subscription. Thanks to our Republican administration for 8 years, education budget has been cut to nothing nearly. All journal subscriptions have been halted since 2009. Some have been subscribed to since before 1900. We used to have one of the finest science libraries on world. Our 4 floor library now has only one help desk, on lower floor. Each floor had one, but all others closed down. Aggravating. Neferkheperre (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I also entered Meng Jiao on your Jiao disambiguation page, and added {{disambig}}, which sets up format and enters it into its appropriate categories. Neferkheperre (talk) 09:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


I handled that affair today. I located original description (Erwin, 1978), templated it. Seems he named his genus after the acronym. I hope that isn't contagious. Apparently it is monotypic. I moved Inpa to [[Inpa (Coleoptera)|Inpa]], made disambiguation page, and used @Mariusm:'s suggestion on acronym. I built acronym page, and category. I put Erwin's reference template on your taxon page for your use. Erwin's taxon authority page is gold mine of his references, but only one is templated. Neferkheperre (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Logged out from templates[edit]

Peter, I can not find anything wrong with the template file you mentioned, I dont get logged out, and when looking on the file, I dont see anything strange. I do understand that this is annoying though, and would be happy to solve the problem, but presently Im not sure why this happen.

I believe it maybe can be a result of using several tabs on your browsers, where some sort of conflict regarding your cookies occur.

The page Login_issues_and_problems gives following advice:

(The dutch version is located at Anmelden)

I get logged out just after logging in

There are a few possible causes of this problem:

  • If you appear to have logged in, but as soon as you try to look at a page after 'Log in successful', you appear logged out again, it is very likely to be a cookie problem. See this brief tutorial on how to enable cookies for your browser.
  • Make sure your computer's date and time are set correctly; if they are not, cookies may expire before they are supposed to. Note that some firewall and ad-blocking software may interfere with the cookie that Wikipedia uses to keep a person logged in.
  • Some ISPs use transparent proxies which cause problems logging in. Try using the secure server to bypass the proxy. This happens most often with some satellite ISPs (particularly HughesNet/DirecWay/DirecPC).
  • Occasionally, a user may find him/herself "automatically" logged out between beginning an edit and saving it, or when switching between multiple wiki pages open in multiple windows or tabs. This can be a result of your browser's cookie, cache, or firewall settings, but sometimes, especially during heavy server load, the system can "glitch" and your login information will be lost, resulting in a logout.

I believe in dutch:

  • Incidentele fouten
    • Een gebruiker kan automatisch worden afgemeld tussen het openen van de bewerkingspagina en het opslaan ervan. Dit fenomeen doet zich ook sporadisch voor bij het wisselen tussen verschillende Wikipedia-pagina's in verschillende vensters. Dit kan te maken hebben met de cookie-cache van de browser of met firewall-instellingen.
  • De beste oplossing
    • Ongedacht wat de oorzaak van het afmelden is, de makkelijkste oplossing is het onthoud mij vinkje: in de meeste gevallen lost dit het probleem keurig op. Let er wel goed op dat je je afmeldt als je op een publieke computer werkt (bijvoorbeeld een bibliotheek, het werk of school).

I understand that all this may be a tiring process to go through, still this is the best advice I can give, presently.

Ill try to make further research, and will tell you as soon as I find something that may explain the problem. Meanwhile, I suggest you go through the list above.

regards, Dan Koehl (talk) 12:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I have an Apple. Those give more problems then others. I have problems to with downloads. He don't finish them. If my son comes to me I shall ask him for a solution. He is a manager by Apple Amsterdam. I'm nearly 69 so it is too difficult for me. PeterR (talk) 12:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I see, well then its even more impressing, seing your large contribution to Wikispecies every day, thanks a lot for putting all energy into the project. I hope you can continue in spite of the logging problems. Dan Koehl (talk) 12:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Modern versions of the Apple "Safari" web browser often have very strict security policies when it comes to cookies – and most prominently, third-party cookies. I think that in this case it is important that any cookies share both the same second-level domain (for example "wikimedia") and the same top-level domain (in this case ".org"). Cookies from any other second- or top-level domain will be considered third-party, and can quite often lead to the user being automatically logged out.
Example: If you have several tabs open, and they all have the same second-level and top-level domains, you shouldn't face any trouble. For instance, having tabs with both Wikispecies ( and Commons ( shouldn't pose any problem, since the second- and top-level domains (marked with bold text in the examples) are the same for both tabs. However, if you add a third tab with another second- or top domain, you might also add a third-party cookie, and then you might get logged out. This is very apparent if you open a tab with a totally different domain, say However, it's worth mentioning that some second-level domains are quite sneaky. For instance, it's easy to miss the fact that Wikipedia would be considered third-party from Wikispecies, since "" of course isn't the same sub-level domain as ""
Solution: 1) Simply log in again, since this most often only happens once every session, or 2) Use another web browser, for instance Mozilla Firefox or Google Chrome. Both are free, and work flawlessly with the Mac OS X operating system. (Internet Explorer is since long Windows only, and no longer available for OS X.)
–Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC).


Peter, now that we have a page for each museum it doesn't make sense to write [[Holotype|NHMW]]. It's better to write [[NHMW]], so you can reach directly to the museum page. [[Holotype|NHMW]] was constructed because we didn't have specific pages for each museum. So please write [[NHMW]]!!! Mariusm (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Saenz Manchola,García Aldrete & González Obando, 2015[edit]

This title seems cumbersome Saenz Manchola,García Aldrete & González Obando, 2015. Neferkheperre (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand you. This are peoples real backnames. PeterR (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
True. Page title normally would be expressed as Manchola, Aldrete & Obando, 2015. Those backnames are more suited to inside the template body and linking to taxon authority pages. Neferkheperre (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I could easily fix it if you like, including all the links to (and from) the template. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC).
This template is good. PeterR (talk) 08:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Category by author[edit]

Peter, I see you you started to make categories by author. Please make them in the format "Category: Willem de Haan‎ taxa" and not "Category: Willem de Haan‎". Mariusm (talk) 07:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

OK. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by PeterR (talkcontribs) 07:51, 13 February 2015.

Defaultsort and categories[edit]

Hello Peter. Please note that the magic word "defaultsort" (and categories and links to Wikipedia, if any) should be placed last in every page. Not before "Works include" or any other such section. Otherwise the author names might not get sorted correctly in automatically generated lists and category pages. I've made a correction to one of your edits, and you can see the difference between your code and mine here: Kevin R. Harrison(diff)

Also, if you use "defaultsort" on a page then you should not specify the sort in the categories. See for example Andrey Sergeyevich Ukrainsky(diff)

Here you can see a picture with examples of how the error looks in a Wikispecies' category page: DEFSORT.png

Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC).

OK I shall do it. Maybe you can make an overview of defaultsort who are wrong and repair it. PeterR (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
As you can see from my list of contributions, I have already repaired some of them. I don't know of any good way to automatically make a list of all the wrong ones, since both types of errors are quite common. For instance Mariusm have made quite a few, and I did it too when I was a new user. I will check out yours and some of the other users' edits, and make the repairs when needed. I think these types of errors are only present on pages about humans individuals, such as author pages, pages about botanists and zoologists, and so forth. Except for some very rare cases the errors are never present on pages regarding taxa or reference templates, so luckily it is not necessary to check all Wikispecies pages. It will take some time, but they will all get fixed, soon enough. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC).

UCB repository page[edit]

I am working on UCB page, but won't have it finished till [my] tomorrow. Essig Museum of Entomology is but one full museum on UCB campus. I shall enter them all on repository page. I studied your taxon page Tetracis australis, and read Ferris, 2010. Turns out Ferris gave VERY confusing information on his type specimens. He never provided any type numbers, and was never that clear on acronyms. Please see Tetracis australis. Note actual acronym as EMEC. Ferris did actually list EME as Essig's acronym in his introductory section, but failed to note it in that species types section. His use of UCB is actually for locality citations. This last page I cited derives from EMEC's searchable database. I plan to create linkable template for this, which should be placed in External links section. It won't work well on Types line. It will call up type specimen pages as above.

Please note that EMEC's type pages contain clickable illustrations of subject specimens. I shall let you know when everything is finished. Neferkheperre (talk) 02:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I had already such a suspicion, but i didn't have yesterday the time to find out this. PeterR (talk) 09:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Saved what I had yesterday, and added more this morning. I have not found collections for any invertebrates other than EMEC, which restricts to land arthropods. I created one template to call up type specimen pages. It worked partially, with an error page. I shall keep on, as similar templates can be used for USNM, UF, LACM, and BMNH. Neferkheperre (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Add "Described taxa" to author page[edit]

If you make "Category: AUTHOR taxa" then it would by appropriate to add at the author's page the following:

==Described taxa==
* [[:category:AUTHOR taxa|{{PAGESINCATEGORY:AUTHOR taxa}} taxa described by AUTHOR]]

Where AUTHOR would be the respective author name.

For example for Volker Assing you'll get: 782 taxa described by Volker Assing      Mariusm (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

User name PeterR[edit]

I was previously PeterR on 15 Wikimedia projects including and

Wikimedia recently invited me to set up a global unified account, and since you have far more edits than me, I have given up the name PeterR and am now PeterR2. This should mean that you can claim PeterR as your global account name. See and for help, you can email --PeterR2 (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Autopatrolled rights[edit]


Dear PeterR, 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.

Wikispecies-logo.svg This user has autopatrolled rights on Wikispecies. (verify)

You may as autpatroller use the autopatroller user box on your user page. Copy and paste the following code on your user page:

{{User Autopatroller}}

Dan Koehl (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Camptoscapus planiusculus[edit]

Hello Peter, There is something missing. Do you have a reference for Camptoscapus planiusculus? Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 10:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Camptoscapus was made by Sthoner. All I have done was making author taxa and create species. I have no further information. PeterR (talk) 11:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, that's not good. Probably this is the original description. Do you think, it could be used as a reference for the species article? Anyway, GBIF is telling, it is a doubtful species. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, the problem seems to be bigger: Broun (1909) cites "Man. N.Z. Coleopt., p. 511", which obviously is this page, where he himself has described in 1880 Pentarthrum planiuscula (which probably should have been P. planiusculum - neuter gender). So, the author citation actually should be "(Broun, 1880)", as in 1909 he only made a new combination. Anyway, we seem to have one more candidate for a reference in the species article. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 12:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
See also here. --Franz Xaver (talk) 12:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Be very careful with assuming specific epithets to be adjectives. The author of the above species indeed recognizes Pentarthrum as a noun with gender neuter, as is to be concluded from the epithets zealandicum, longirostre, subsericatum, apicale, brunneum, rufum, brevirostre, parvicorne and others. It is clear from this that P. fulvicornis was an error. The epithets assimilata and planiuscula may however be nouns in apposition. "Assimilata" may be a plural. One should at least know the meaning of "planiuscula" in order to be able to treat it as grammatically right or wrong. As the protologue doesn't reveal anything about the etymology, some external evidence is needed. Not just another coleopterologist who "corrected" the epithet, but someone who explains what it means and why is has to be treated as an adjective. If no reference to this effect is to be found, then the protologue is authoritative with respect to the correct spelling, especially as most other epithets were given the neutral gender there. I found this epithet as planiusculus, planiuscula, and planiusculum in combination with many other generic names, so it's most probable that this is in fact an adjective. But one has te be sure that it was meant as an adjective here too. Wikiklaas (talk) 12:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
@Wikiklaas: OK, a noun in apposition might explain this seemingly wrong termination. However, the author himself should have known, if it was intended as an adjective or as a noun. At least, when Broun himself in 1908/1909 created the new combination in Camptoscapus, he treated the epithet as an adjective by changing the gender. The meaning of "planiuscula" is not too difficult to explain. The termination "-ulus/-ula/-ulum" indicates a diminutive of "planius" which is the comparative of "planus". So, "planius" means "more flat" or - as the protologue is telling - "less convex" and "planiuscula" can be translated as "the small more flat one". Basically it is an adjective, but of course adjectives can be used as a noun. If at first place it was intended to be noun, its female gender expressed by the termination "-a" in my opininion does not make much sense, as in 1908/09 Broun writes that he had seen a male individual and "one only", i.e. as I understand this, no female individual. I suppose, Broun did not care much about gender of names. E.g. when he described Toura ( see [2]), he mixed female epithets fulva and morosa with the neuter epithet longirostre. --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I know my way in Latin and Greek. And as I already expressed: it seems most likely that this is meant as an adjective but with the wrong termination. Wikipedia however is not about one's own interpretation, but about expert knowledge, i.e. what experts published about it. The same goes for Wikispecies. It's not about what we think is right but what the experts tell us about it. It is already hard enough to decide which expert to give most credits when it comes to classification or correct names. We don't want an extra level of semi-expert knowledge. Don't interpret this as a disqualification: I really appreciate your obviously well-informed contribution. But we can't change names stating "Franz Xaver was sure it should be spelled like this". Wikiklaas (talk) 23:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
@Wikiklaas: Anyway, the wrong termination in the original description by Broun 1880 was not my main point. More important is, that Camptoscapus planiusculus is missing any source and that obviously the author citation is wrong. I provided links to the original description as Pentarthrum planiuscula by Broun (1880) and to the place, where the same author created the new combination Camptoscapus planiusculus. And you may source the correction of the author citation with NZOR. Is there any reason, why these two references cannot be added and why the author citation cannot be corrected? Moreover, at the place, where Broun described Camptoscapus (see [3]), he mentioned this species under the name Pentarthrum planiusculum. So, probably this can be used to source a correction of the spelling. If you think this correction by the author himself is not sufficient, you may keep the original spelling, but both references Broun (1880) and Broun (1909), as well as the basionym, anyway should be added to the article. Otherwise it will be a candidate for deletion as being unsourced content. --Franz Xaver (talk) 12:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


The original diagnosis of Nepalorhynchus and Nepalorhynchus lucidus obviously is contradictory as far as it concerns the gender of this genus. The author writes "Species tip.: N. lucidum n.sp.", but on the same page he describes this species with the name Nepalorhynchus lucidus. At least one of both is an error. As far as I know, -rhynchus generally has male gender, so lucidus would be correct. However, maybe you have better information? Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I have search on internet and the species have to be Nepalorhynchus lucidus PeterR (talk) 11:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Admin nomination[edit]

Dear Peter, you have made a comment on the present admin nomination, on the place where the nominated is supposed to confirm the acceptance of the nomination. The poll have not even started. I ask you kindly to remove your comment, but please feel free to vote, comment etc later, once the nomination has started, but then please do it on the correct place. Dan Koehl (talk) 14:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Done. PeterR (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Dan Koehl (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


Fixed. I made appropriate changes to ZFMK, redirected MAKB there, and put Category:MAKB onto ZFMK. I have been doing that on my newer repository pages, but this was one of my older ones. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Is it possible to do this with other museums? PeterR (talk) 14:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Definitely, in fact, I have been doing that as I locate them. Hopefully this weekend, I shall have some time to catch up on some repository pages, and fill them out. Neferkheperre (talk)

Cyphon sieberi[edit]

Peter, as far as I understand, User:Bastenbas has on the article Cyphon sieberi put the wrong picture (File:Cyphon_princeps.jpg)on and his version should be rollbacked to your version, or am I wrong? Dan Koehl (talk) 10:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Both are not listed in the species list through Sthoner. I shall answer you what is good or wrong. PeterR (talk) 10:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Both species are valid. Picture is wrong. Cyphon princeps. PeterR (talk) 10:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Explaining needed[edit]

Peter, can you please explain why did you remove all content from the pages Silenis and Plebicula in 2013? Please don't make this sort of editing in the future without explaining or requesting the pages to be deleted. Thank you. Mariusm (talk) 06:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't but I have repair them. PeterR (talk) 09:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Please check also the following pages which you've blanked: Bunaeinae Anthony C. Galsworthy Boloria distincta distincta Boloria distincta distincta Boloria distincta machati Boloria distincta ershovi Cnidocampa, Chrysodeixis (Pseudoplusia), Torodora silvatica, Latoia undulata, Sciopetris nigrocinerella, Callophrys (Ahlbergia) bimaculata, Ctenocompa javensis. Please, in the future do not blank pages like this, as it's doing us much damage. Mariusm (talk) 08:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Done. PeterR (talk) 09:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


Peter, I have made reference templates for the two volumes of Saalmüller's treatise on Lepidoptera of Madagascar. (see Max Saalmüller). You can use these templates on any pages relating to taxon descriptions by Saalmüller. Accassidy (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by PeterR (talkcontribs) 15:07, 17 March 2015.


Peter, you submitted Bunaeinae for deletion, but not Template:Bunaeinae, should both be deleted? Dan Koehl (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes the template too. Thanks PeterR (talk) 12:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC).

Patrolling rights[edit]

After you were granted patroller user rights, it seems you did zero patrolling. (since you are autopatroller, the pages you edit gets automatically marked. But if you have patrolled pages , and marked them patrolled, your edit gets a "marked revision (number) of page (page name) patrolled")

If you dont wish to patrol pages, this is no problem at all, but please inform me if you tried and experienced any difficaulties, or if you have any questions.

Since you have not made use of your patroller user rights, I need to know if you still want to keep them, because you plan to use them in the future, or likevise. If you are not interested in patrolling, you dont need to do anything, and I will remove the user rights in a couple of days.

In any case you will keep your autopatrol user right, but there is no need for both.

But please consider carrying out daily patrols of new pages and edits made by users who are not autopatrolled.

If you want to try to patrol pages:

In Special:NewPages you can see the not patrolled new pages with yellow background. Presently there are probably none, since the pages made today and the last days has been made by users who already have 'autopatrolled' user rights. But if you do, or you choose to see the last 500 newly made pages, you may se files with yellow background. You can click on such a file, and scroll down to absolute down-right corner, where you can read "mark as patrolled" or similair, becasue the contributor does not have autoptarolled/patrolled user rights. When you click on the link, the file becomes patrolled.

But theres older files that need patrolling. In unpatrolled pages on recent changes, and you will see a list of unpatrolled pages. You will see a red colored ! in front of the unpatrolled file. If you click on each diff, you can mark the diff patrolled.

Dan Koehl (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear Peter, thanks for showing interest for the patrolling. It is not so difficault at all.Its a system of double checking pages, and see to that they are OK and follow the Wikispecies Policy; and if so, you can mark them "patrolled": If you go to Chamaecytisus podolicus, you will notice in the lower right corner of the page, the text "[Mark this page as patrolled]". If you decide that the page follows the policy on Wikispecies, just click on that link, you will mark the page patrolled. Please try with Chamaecytisus podolicus, Chamaecytisus rochelii and Eucestoda, good luck! Dan Koehl (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for any confusion. Please see this list, can you see pages marked with yellow background? And roughly, how many, more than 1, 10, 50? (this may depend on dates of creation of the page, and the date you had the user rights) Dan Koehl (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
There is a new edits that you hopefully will be able to patrol: if you go to a revision of Euphorbia pulcherrima and Colchicum, you most probably can see in the upper right corner:
Latest revision as of 2015-03-19T08:55:45 (edit) (undo) (thank)
Agnese (Talk | contribs | block)    [rollback 1 edit]
(→‎Vernacular names)   (change visibility)
  [Mark as patrolled]

Try click on [Mark as patrolled] and I think you will have success. Theres also at the very bottom of the page a "[Mark as patrolled]" link.

Please let me know that it worked. Dan Koehl (talk) 08:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


Hi Peter. My guess is that the name of the genus in Diatypa satipo should really be Diatrypa, with an "R". Is this correct? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC).

Tommy, you're right. I have changed the name Diatypa in Diatrypa see Diatrypa satipo. Can you delete the names with Diatypa? PeterR (talk) 09:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I'll take care of it. Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC).
Yes check.svg Done, 19 deletions. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC).
Thanks PeterR (talk) 10:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Patrolling rights[edit]

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.

Wikispecies-logo-patroller.png This user has patrollers rights on Wikispecies. (verify)

Patrollers may use the Patroller user box on their user page. Copy and paste the following code to your user page:

{{User Patroller}}

Please consider carrying out daily patrols of new pages and edits made by users who are not autopatrolled.

Dan Koehl (talk) 13:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Blanked pages[edit]

Peter, it seems you blanked this page Euryzonella latifascia, does it mean that it should be deleted?

Yes. There is already a new page with Euryzonella latisfascia
Sorry, it was Euryzonella latifascia, I deleted that file. Dan Koehl (talk) 07:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Its now and then that you need to have files deleted, and Im sure all admins are happy to do this, but the question is if you would like to do it yourself? I asked you before if you would consider adminship (as admin you can delete files) and you were reluctant, due to language and that your are not a programmer, but you could use adminship in the way you prefer, e.g. delete files but nothing more, there is no demand to take part of administrative work just because you are admin. In your case, I can see that you could use it, and Im sure you would not misuse the admin tools.

Everyone will be happy and help you by deleting files, but its easier to know tht they should be deleted if you mark them for deletion. As for now, the category stubs may contain files which should be deleted, and noone knows.

Dan Koehl (talk) 22:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

More questioons regarding files you have blanked: Boloria distincta dubatolovi, Callophrys (Ahlbergia) korea, Callophrys (Ahlbergia) arquata, Callophrys (Ahlbergia) chalybeia, Callophrys (Ahlbergia) chalcidis, Callophrys (Ahlbergia) ferrea, Callophrys (Ahlbergia) pluto, Callophrys (Ahlbergia) pluto pluto, Callophrys (Ahlbergia) pluto cyanus, Callophrys (Ahlbergia) clarofacia, Callophrys (Ahlbergia) clarofacia clarofacia, Callophrys (Ahlbergia) clarofacia meridionalis, Parnassius (Driopa) eversmanni ukukensis, Anatoly V. Krupitsky, Lobelia purpurascens, Protautomeris, Eremicamima, etc...

You can find them in the beginning of the listings, with files 8 Kb, at short pages

Please delete mark them if they should be deleted.

Every admin is happy to delete those files, but wouldnt it be easier for you to be able to delete those files yourself?

Dan Koehl (talk) 07:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is. PeterR 07:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
If you would accept to be admin, you would be able to delete them! I relly think that would be easier for you. Dan Koehl (talk) 08:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Ok. I accept PeterR (talk) 08:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Great, thanks a lot! Please confirm here that you accept to be nominated, between where I signed my nomination and the line which starts with Support. Dan Koehl (talk) 08:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Edits on Chelodina (Macrochelodina)[edit]

Hi @PeterR: wanted to ask why you are removing subgenera on for example this edit this edit? It makes no sense since you have left it on the other species in the same subgenus. Cheers Faendalimas talk 15:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok in response to your answer on my page thats fair enough, I just was not sure which way you were going with it. I am editing many of these taxa right now too, so will follow that. By the way, since you made a Cat for NTM, my species Chelodina canni also has its type in the NTM, save you finding it. Cheers Faendalimas talk 16:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I have no issue with the solution, just was not sure which way you were going with it. Cheers Faendalimas talk 16:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


I noticed this morning (mine) that you created MNHS for Coleophora koreana. Baldizzone apparently made some confusion. Swedish Museum of Natural History is really SMNH. Digging around in their databases was slightly helpful, and gave me this. (GP Bldz 7988) seems more like type number with Baldizzone as ID authority, while "Korea Shuotsu ..." represents collection locality and date. Labels are photo'd on that link. Here is their search portal, but collections are only about 20% online. Coleophora koreana is naturally not one of them. Going through lists, entomological entries seem to begin with NRM or NHRM, as these are older acronyms. Looks like I shall have to upgrade SMNH soon.

If I recall properly, which I may not, you made museum page for Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. I cannot find anything in our very rapidly growing Repositories section. Do you remember? I located excellent website for their foundation, with acronyms and databases for several collections related to our project. I am going to put it under one blanket title of its initials, FIOCRUZ. I plan to have it finished this weekend. Neferkheperre (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

You can see in the Holotype list under IOC. I have found three species: Paraephydra freitasi, Stichelia cuneifascia & Ischnocnema hoehnei. PeterR (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


Peter, where did you get the name Phrynops hoggei from? Please this is actually really important. Email me. Faendalimas talk 18:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Just typo maybe, on EnWp is Mesoclemmys hogei with one G listed. Dan Koehl (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
No It is Phrynops hogei. I have change it already. PeterR (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC).
Yes sorry, on the EnWp Phrynops hogei is redirected to Mesoclemmys hogei. Maybe someting to look into? Dan Koehl (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Dan. In the museum you find this turtle under Phrynops hogei and not under Mesoclemmys hogei. If you look by Phrynops hogei you see Current status: Mesoclemmys hogei PeterR (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually the current status is Mesoclemmys hogei please trust me on that I am currently writing a paper on it. It has not been in Phrynops for decades after Mesoclemmys was split out from Phrynops. Phrynops are distinguished from Mesoclemmys by the presence of a first neural in contact with the Nuchal bone, absent in Mesoclemmys, including M. hogei. However, I will say that is not correct the species is actually not a Mesoclemmys but this is information not yet published. Where did you get info that it is a Phrynops? Only about 5 people know its real status at the present time. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 18:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I trust you, but in the SMF museum you find him under Phrynops hogei and not under Mesoclemmys hogei. The status now is Mesoclemmys hoggei and that is not changed. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by PeterR (talkcontribs) 18:47, 23 March 2015.
That is the original lodge meta data for the specimen when it was described, Chelodina longicollis is listed as Testudo longicollis because in 1790 thats what it was thought to be. Museum data is often wrong, around 90% for turtles. I would really prefer not to see this species listed under Phrynops until it is sorted out in the published literature, the most recent combinations have it in Mesoclemmys. I am fine with the synonymy calling it by its original described name, but it should be listed by its latest accepted combination on the Wiki. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 18:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
A little history may help, with this one, McCord et al made a complete mess of the south american Chelids in their 2001 and 2002 papers, their genus Bufocephala and Rynchocephala are paraphyletic and their use of Mesoclemmys was disastrous. Molina decided the best was was to lunp them all together again, however in recent times since 2005 (Bour and Zaher, Mesoclemmys has been resurrected for the non Phrynops species. However it is far from resolved. It is one wehere it is best to keep it out of Phrynops for now. Things are going to change here but we need to wait for the publications not preempt them. The reason the ENWP has links from Phrynops to Mesoclemmys is those pages date back to when it was a real mess, and as some species were púlled out of Phrynops, again, redirects were made. I know that, I made the redirects. Cheers Faendalimas talk 18:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
If I understand you well the original species was not Phrynops hogei? PeterR (talk) 07:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
No you are correct the original name was Phrynops hogei because at that time Mesoclemmys was a junior synonym of Phrynops see here But Mesoclemmys was resurrected in 2005. Cheers Faendalimas talk 09:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I guess my other concern is there are currently two pages for the same species. Phrynops hogei and Mesoclemmys hogei, both indicating a valid name, the valid name at present is Mesoclemmys hogei, should not Phrynops hogei redirect to that? By the way I am sorry I reacted, this happens to be a very political issue right now, and I was not sure how you knew this, but now realise you are using the original metadata of the museum specimen, which is fine. My initial shock was I thought someone had released unpublished information I am privy to. Cheers Faendalimas talk 09:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
So what I have done is wright. The original species is Phrynops hogei and the current status is Mesoclemmys hogei. PeterR (talk) 10:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes except Phrynops hogei should be a redirect to Mesoclemmys hogei since the latter is the name in usuage. The former is no longer used. Cheers Faendalimas talk 10:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Current status is the redirect. Cheers.PeterR (talk) 10:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
No its not both Phrynops hogei and Mesoclemmys hogei find separate pages on the same species, clicking on Phrynops hogei should take you straight to Mesoclemmys hogei through the #REDIRECT magic word. It also should not appear on the Phrynops genus page, since the species has been removed from that genus, having it appear in two separate genera is confusing. Comment out the info on the Phrynops hogei page and add the redirect at the top and delete the link from the Phrynops genus page is the correct placement of this species, the name Phrynops hogei appears in the synonymy on the Mesoclemmys hogei page. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 10:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Faendalimas here: if Phrynops hogei is a synonym of Mesoclemmys hogei, then the P. hogei page should not include any data, but instead only be a redirect to the M. hogei page.
As a side note Faendalimas, thank you for the background information regarding McCord et al. etc. It was an interesting read, especially when investigating the matter a little closer. Regards,Tommy Kronkvist (talk) , 11:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC).
I add Museum and author taxa. Where should you add them? The original taxa (who I can find in the Museum) or the latest taxa (who I can't find in the Museum)? 11:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Info on the holotype can go in the Mesoclemmys hogei page, its still the same species, just the genus has changed, the type data belongs to the species name not the genus. The types of the genera are differnet, for Phrynops its Phrynops geoffroanus and for Mesoclemmys its Mesoclemmys gibba so neither are relevant here. Name combinations change the types do not. The Mesoclemmys hogei page already has this information, just I have not made a link to the museum. All information on a speciesbelongs on its species poage under its current combination. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 12:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
@Tommy Kronkvist: and Peter, your welcome on the background. I will help you all out a bit here when it comes to turtles the IUCN Turtle Checklist that I have just linked the homepage for has much of this information in it. It is the most comprehensive list of the turtles of the world and is used by Peter Uetz of Reptile Database also. It has multiple editions and it helps to have them all the page I have linked has pdfs of every version. When you look at a taxa you will see small numbers next to the name egMesoclemmys raniceps (Gray 1856b) (12:41) on page 424 of the 2014 edition, the numbers refer to discussions on an issue, the 12 means the 2012 edition the 41 is the comment number in that edition. Anytime there is needed discussion or explanation there is a comment in the relevant edition. So as to make my position here clear I am a member of the Turtle Taxonomy Working Group, I do not author it, myself and James Parham are the reviewers of the document, we are both Taxonomists and Palaeontologists who specialise in turtles. I am second author on the Fossil Checklist of Turtles which should be out soon it is in final stages of its first edition. But I would recommend to anyone editing turtle pages they get those pdf's and follow what goes on in there, as I said this is where Reptile Database gets its information for turtles, it is also the document of choice for the ENWP and EOL is trying to follow it also. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 13:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
For me I don't doubt about your expertise. The only question for me is: where can I find the original species in the Museum. Under his first name or under his last name. PeterR (talk) 14:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
In a museum you will find a species under whatever name they were given when it was lodged, if you very lucky it may have been updated, usually not. However the only name that matters for holotypes of species is the species name, the genus is irrelevant only worry about the species name, ie the second one. the combination of the genus and species name will change, often alot with older specimens. It does not matter. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 14:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
oh and Peter, dont worry, I made my position clear for NPoV reasons, ie I am being upfront in my involvement with those documents. I did not believe you doubted me. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 14:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Edits on Anthene irumu[edit]

Peter, thank you for contributing to those pages. However, I have just seen your recent edits on Anthene irumu. In the last line of the Synonymy you have taken the brackets away from the author name. Stempffer originally combined irumu with Cupidesthes. Libert has now combined it with Anthene. Therefore the brackets around the original author name/date "Stempffer, 1948" should be reinstated. These brackets are a convention to show that the combination is not the one originally conceived by the original author. I would be grateful if you could conform to this convention in future and leave the brackets around the authors when this is appropriate. Alan Accassidy (talk) 10:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't remember that I have delete the brackets. But if you say so it will be wright. Normal I don't do that. PeterR (talk) 10:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Administrator rights[edit]


Dear PeterR, You have been granted administrator user rights, congratulations!

Admin userbox on Wikispecies[edit]

Wikispecies-logo-admin.png This user is an administrator on Wikispecies. (verify)

Administrators may use the administrator user box on their user page. Copy and paste the following code to your user page:

{{User Admin}}

Userbox on Meta-Wiki[edit]

If you have a Meta-Wiki user page, you can put the Wikispecies admin user box for Meta on your Meta-Wiki user page.

Dan Koehl (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Polyommatus Subgenera[edit]

Peter, I don't understand why you have reverted my edit on Polyommatus damone. We have a policy here to have species pages in binomial format, not with subgenus names in brackets in the title. This is to facilitate searches for binomial names from outside search engines. We keep the subgenus name in the Taxonavigation section, as you will see on my recently created binomial species pages, but not in the page title itself. So the Species Page title will be Polyommatus damone, but the taxonavigation shows sub-genus Agrodiaetus. I am also keeping a Subgenus Page for Agrodiaetus but this will link to binomial species pages such as Polyommatus caerulea. So please put Polyommatus damone back to the way I left it. Thanks. Accassidy (talk) 12:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Alan It was a very stupid mistake PeterR (talk) 12:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Your first action as admin[edit]

Peter, now you can delete G.D. Hale Carpenter. Go to the page, and then you find in the menu in upper right corner of the page an arrow after the word More. Click on that link, and choose delete. Good luck! Dan Koehl (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Dan done. thanks for explain PeterR (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Peter, bitte schau Austrophthiracarus_longisetosus an. Name und Synonyms ist gleich? Dan Koehl (talk) 11:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Glaucopsyche aeruginosa[edit]

Peter, on the page for Glaucopsyche aeruginosa you have a reference of Korb, 2013 with a link to the full article. However, I can only make this link connect to a Russian web page instead of a document. Can you refine this link or explain to me how to follow the web site to see the publication? Thanks, Alan. Accassidy (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Alan, this is the web site from Amurian zoological journal. When I started with it they had an english site with journals. Now it is only a russian site. PeterR (talk) 06:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC).

Paola Martin[edit]

Yesterday, I created author site for Paola, but with A.R., from information I got from Zootaxa. As yours looked somewhat better, I combined what I had into your page, and made redirect. Neferkheperre (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thats ok. PeterR (talk) 06:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


Hi Peter. Pages such as; Acontia (Acontia) cimbebasia are orphans and you have replaced them by their equivalent e.g. Acontia cimbebasia. It might be a good idea to delete them in order to tidy up the list of orphans. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Andy, I'm clean up the subspecies this year, but I couldn't do all. Every time if I add new species I update them. PeterR (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Sure is a slow process dealing with orphans. I made a few when I first started, but now going through those created by others - that is until my head hurts! Regards and good luck Andyboorman (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


I have two questions. First, "Jong, de R., 1991: A note on three species of Taractrocera Butler (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae). Zoologische Mededelingen 65 (19): 257-265. Full article." What are 65 (19) mean?

Second, I want to help out adding taxonomic contents but have no idea where to start. Is there a list of all the entries that have not been created? Or the list of all red internal links? Or something that points me to the direction of underdeveloped areas. Thanks! Trongphu (talk) 07:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't have to be original. There are currently millions of known species in the world, and there are only 425,311 articles as of now. However, I have no idea which area of the taxonomy is hugely missing. I don't mind what bulletin (original or not) it is as long as nobody has written on Wikispecies because I actually want to do some work here. Basically, I want to know which areas of the taxonomy are missing a lot. Thanks! Trongphu (talk) 07:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Author Template[edit]

Peter, I see that on Plebejus maracandicus gobianus, among others I expect, you have changed my formatting of the author name in the Name section from the {{a|Author Name|Name}} Template version which provides a link and puts the name into small capitals, to a [[Author Name|Name]] style that keeps the link but removes the Small Capitals formatting. As Small Capitals are invariably used in properly formatted scientific publications, and also in our references, It seems retrograde to go back to just ordinary letters on this quite important line of the page. If you could leave the name formatting as I have created it, then the final result would be better and you could save a little time for yourself. Thanks, Alan. Accassidy (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Peter, when you add the [[Author Name taxa]] link on a species page, I don't think that you should also add it on the nominotypical subspecies page. Really, these two pages Genus species and Genus species (sub)species still represent only 1 taxon, so give a misleading author count. Regards, Alan


I am dealing with three way homonym I found. Genus group Alaria shows up three times in Animalia. What may be senior homonym is Alaria Morris & Lycett 1850, Jurassic gastropod. Spider genus from 2012 is obviously junior. But I found one other mention of Alaria florida Guem., also called Peruvian Rose Moth, from one late 19th Century reference. Guem. may refer to Guembel. Can you help out with this? Neferkheperre (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I figured it all out. See Alaria for disambiguation. There were 3 junior homonyms in all, and lepidopteran is included, with replacement names. Neferkheperre (talk) 00:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Yin & Li[edit]

Looks like you and I created same reference template at almost exactly same time. Happens occasionally. Anyway, I wanted to let you know that Zookeys has partnership with Wikispecies since 2007, where Zookeys automatically uploads its illustrations to Wikimedia Commons. No reference citations, that is on us. So you should be able to link original illustrations from Commons to your taxon pages. Neferkheperre (talk) 12:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Koiwaya 2007[edit]

Peter, I have a copy of Koiwaya, 2007, The Zephyrus Hairstreaks of the World. In it he erects 11 new Genera: Neogonerilia (2), Pseudogonerilia (1), Noseozephryus (1), Borneozephyrus (1), Palawanozephyrus(1), Fujiokaozephyrus (2), Uedaozephyrus (1), Kameiozephyrus (1), Shirozuozephyrus (13), Inomataozephyrus (2) & Kawazoeozephyrus (2). The numbers in brackets show the number of species included in each new genus. I have not seen any follow-up from reputable authors with any comment on the clarity of the distinctions between all these genera. I do not really have a view on the validity, but it does appear odd, and probably un-necessary, to create so many monotypic, or bitypic, genera based solely on minor variations in genitalic structures. Personally, I have experience of borneanus and I have always been happy with its inclusion in Austrozephyrus. I do not really see why Koiwaya has erected Borneozephyrus for just that species. On this website, however, we should include that action and should probably construct a page for Borneozephyrus and move borneanus to it. Here we just report other papers, we do not create new synonymies. However, I would not be surprised if at some future date another author creates a new synonymy and Borneozephyrus sinks as a synonym of Austrozephyrus. Regards, Alan Accassidy (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


Peter, yes there has been confusion about "CMNH" as there is the Chicago MNH, which is also called the Field Museum, and the Carnegie museum which is in Pittsburgh. You can find an active page for the Carnegie Museum at CM. So if you want to link to Carnegie, just use that shorter abbreviation. I think I will change the page titled CMNH to a disambiguation page, but it will be best to use just "CM" for Carnegie. Alan Accassidy (talk) 11:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC) Peter, you are not wrong, but it is a potentially confusing issue with abbreviations. Go to CMNH now and you will see that I have made an explanation and a disambiguation. Accassidy (talk) 11:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I added CMNH to FMNH as informational. I am trying to find out Carnegie Museum's present official acronym, which must be unique, but I think can overlap with former no longer used acronyms. Neferkheperre (talk) 10:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I just did some further digging. Chicago Museum's official name and acronym is Chicago Natural History Museum (CNHM). It carried this name and acronym 1943-1966. See Holotype and Field Museum. Carnegie Museum of Natural History is definitely CMNH. There is confusion potential in names, but acronyms are distinct. Neferkheperre (talk) 11:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

B.S. Chang[edit]

Hi, Peter. I just got this in from Benny K.K. Chan. Here is website for Chang; B.S. Chang. His note: "This bookbis written in chinese and there are only chinese names and short form of english name". I sent this link to Chinese editor here for help in translating.Neferkheperre (talk) 10:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@Neferkheperre: What do you need exactly? I can read Chinese. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
The full firstnames. B. = and S. = PeterR (talk) 06:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Is supposed to be on this website, which I apparently forgot to include; Taiwan
@OhanaUnited:, I forgot you spoke Chinese, too. Neferkheperre (talk) 11:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
@Neferkheperre: This is a head scratcher. B. = Bao (Mandarin) or Bo (Cantonese). What's confusing is what S. should represent. In Mandarin it should be Xin. But in Cantonese it's Shun. Now Taiwan uses Mandarin so it should be Bao Xin. But obviously the abbreviated initials are B.S. This means it's either Bao Shun or Bo Shun. However, you never mix your name spelling. So realistically it should be Bo Shun. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


Hello PeterR, have a look in the title please: Clanis hhyperion hyperion. Best greetings. Orchi (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for warning. Its ok now/ PeterR (talk) 06:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Bugs in Cossidae[edit]

Hello Peter I've noticed that some of your records for Cossidae are linked to Coleophoridae. For example - look at genus Deserticossus. Couch you check it please and fix if possible? ;-)

Chris Jonko, European Butterflies and Moths — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lepidoptera~plwiki (talkcontribs) 12:34, 15 August 2015.

In 2006 Yakovlev create the new tribus Holcocerini with the genera Deserticossus, gen. n., Cryptoholcocerus, gen. n., Streltzoviella, gen. n., Barchaniella, gen. n., Plyustchiella, gen. n. , Franzdanielia, gen. n., Holcocerus and Yakudza. See Eversmannia Supplement 1 [4]. The tribus Holcocerini belongs to Coleophoridae, subfamily Blastobasinae. So Deserticossus belongs to Coleophoridae and not to Cossidae. If you have other information please inform me. PeterR (talk) 16:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


Maybe it's me, but I'm pretty sure CAS and CASC are in fact the same institution. Shouldn't these be merged? Circeus (talk) 11:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

This whole architecture is pretty brand new to me. Is that our attempt at the Biocol/Index Herbariorum merger (which never materialized) for a standardized set of collection acronyms across biology? IH already standardizes most significant herbariums, but it seems no one has genuinely tried to compile a list of unambiguous acronyms across all types of collections. Circeus (talk) 11:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

CASC does not appear to be valid acronym. According to CAS website, entomology acronym is CASENT. Zookeys article is confusing and not too clear on holotype catalog numbers. I will do further work this week. Neferkheperre (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not blaming Peter. I'm pretty sure he creates these pages and categories based on what appears on the taxon page, itself based on what's in the published source, and what's in the published sources? It's a mess. Different specialties, different languages, different regions have different sets of semi-standardize acronyms, which have often varied depending on time period, too! There is no such thing as "invalid" acronyms as used outside herbariums because there has been no standardization whatsoever, and people (although they tend to reuse acronyms) will just use whatever they want since they only need to separate the institutions used in the article at hand.
I'm mostly asking because I approve of the standardization effort, but I don't know what to do about such cases of several abbreviations. Another case: AM and AMS Circeus (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
That last one should be AM the official acronym of the Australian Museum and what appears on all their material. Cheers Faendalimas talk 16:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Basically, my question comes down to: what's the best way to document duplicates and what to do about them? I barely have to look to find more: UNAM, CNIN, INBUNAM are the same, but refer to a single collection (I count three herbariums--the national herbarium MEXU and two departmental herbarium FEZA and FCME, none of which have pages--and at least 8 separate zoological collections hosted at UNAM). Circeus (talk) 14:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Best way to find out current acronyms is to visit that museum's website. This does not invariably work, but it helps. And most museums do keep collections under originally cited/published acronyms, for ease of loans and study.

Peter, can you please, PLEASE check for obvious duplicates before creating a page in category:Repositories? I BEG you not to make more work for us when/if we ever get around to clean and merge these pages. I only had to glance at your recent update to find out in the last week you've created no less than four duplicates, one of which I told you was already found in two different forms just earlier this month!

Circeus (talk) 11:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to apologize for attributing UZMC and AMSA to you. Since you're the one doing most editing in that area I did not look closely enough at the page creators. Mea maxima culpa. I'm starting a discussion on the broader issues (notably the collection/institution distinction) on the Village Pump. Circeus (talk) 04:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Harry ten Hove[edit]

Harry A. ten Hove is Dutch, from Naturalis. I have more of his pubs coming up for citations this weekend. Would he be better cited as "Hove" or "ten Hove"? Zootaxa is no help, as all authors are in allcaps. Also, their Chinese chief editor has some problems rendering European names. "Junior" comes up as if it were family name. Neferkheperre (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The backname is ten Hove, like van Son. In german it is van (von) and in french it is le Cerf etc. PeterR (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Neferkheperre (talk) 16:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Sonthonnax, update[edit]

Just today, got full name: Léon Sonthonnax (1844-1902). Neferkheperre (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

van Achterberg confusion[edit]

I have 3 van Achterberg taxon authorities, and I am beginning to suspect they are only one or 2 people. All 3 are listed with Naturalis. They are: Cornelis van Achterberg, Cees van Achterberg, and from today, Kees van Achterberg. For Kees, see van Achterberg et al., 2015 as source. Can you help with this? Neferkheperre (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear to me. All the zookeys article use a single email address (, and the only exception (the article under "Cees") has the email that's listed in the CV page for Cornelis. The only part that's confusing to me is the use of two distinct email addresses within such a small time period. Circeus (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
The official name is Cornelis van Achterberg (first name Kees) PeterR (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


Peter, I see your recent change on the Godart author page. If you title the section "Publications", then you are really obliged to list there all the author's work. I use the title "Works Include" to explain to readers that this is probably not a complete list. I think this is better terminology for our purpose. Alan Accassidy (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC).

I agree earlier with you, but MariusM found References better and others Publications. (Publications means books and bulletins etc.). I can mention not complete. We have to find an agreement with all the editors which term we use. PeterR (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC).
I think this depends if we want complete bibliographies in the first place. By the general rules of "wikis are a work on progress", it's fine if the list is not exhaustive, as long as it at least include all works that wikispecies refers. Circeus (talk) 16:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
It is very difficult and time consuming to try to create a full bibliography for many prolific authors, especially from 19th and 20th centuries. We use References on species pages for works pertinent to the taxonomic acts represented on the page. My preference for author pages remains "'Works Include" for lists of publications that might be incomplete. However, I do not think it good use of my time to change the alternative conventions used by other contributors. I only make the point that my solution is the best phraseology in English to express that this is a list of the authors published works, but that it might not be complete. Accassidy (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Peter, I have no objection to subgenera following such a publication. However, I think that the individual species pages should be kept in binomial form such as Pilodurdorix whateveri. Then the genus page can list all the species of the genus and also link to subgenera pages, But when either of these pages links to a species, it should remain binomial, not have a species page for which the page name includes a subgenus in brackets. I hope this is clear. Alan Accassidy (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


Hi PeterR, I see you are quite prolific on Wikispecies, creating a lot of new pages. If it's not too much to ask, could you, for every new taxon page, check Wikidata if there are already pages on other Wikis, and add your new page to the respective item, or create a new item? That would be tremendously helpful for Wikidata and, by extension, Wikipedia folks. No need to fill in details on new items yourself (though "instance of":"taxon" would help), we'll take care of that eventually. Thanks, Magnus Manske (talk) 12:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Institution acronym[edit]

Please don't revert acronym normalization edits unless the new institution is not the same as the one originally intended (in which case there was probably a problem with the acronym anyway) or you intend to argue that the acronym in use should be changed. The important thing is that the correct institution be referred to, not that we refer to it using exactly the same acronym as the source reference.

If you disagree with the process, I've been asking for input on Wikispecies:Village Pump for over a month now. Circeus (talk) 19:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I could n't react that time, because I was with holiday in Portugal. I use the original acronyms in the bulletins such as ZMHB, MfN etc. The acronyms for ZMB change already 10 times. Some authors use to day still ZMHB. Neferkheperre makes redirects so you see the acronym of this moment. PeterR (talk) 08:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
It's useless to have these categories in the first place if the taxa are split amongst dozens of categories for a single isntitutions (that the users have no indication even EXIST) just because we've decided to exactingly reproduce zoologist's problems with basic standardization. Circeus (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Nyodes brevicornis[edit]

I added the Primary reference for Nyodes brevicornis. Mariusm (talk) 09:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

For Xanthia brevicornis you can add {{invalid}} (see the page). Mariusm (talk) 09:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


Hi Peter,
you deleted Template:Zt3590.51, but there is one page linkig to it: ISSN 1175-5326/2012.2. Could you please check, whether the link also should be deleted? Best --Murma174 (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Done PeterR (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Creation of Template[edit]

Many thanks for your help and patience. I have problems to create templates (author or taxon template). Any help would be appreciated. Hmandre (talk) 13:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Which repository?[edit]

Nola calochromata has its repository listed as NHMU (i.e. ZMB), but it is categorised in ZSM. Which one is correct? Circeus (talk) 13:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

It was by mistake categorised in ZSM. Hacker say in NHMU and Afromoths say in ZMHB. The species in ZMB is official Nola (Mecothrix) calochromata after ICZN. PeterR (talk) 13:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Same situation at Plusia aeneofusa. Circeus (talk) 04:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

done PeterR (talk) 08:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Ancylis halisparta (I dare not assume that the category is always correct because I suspect I will inevitably run into the reverse case eventually) Circeus (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Complicated case[edit]

At Agdistis kruegeri, it's a lot more complicated. The abbreviation actually given in the article is "BM", which is not one they are listing, and I can't tell/don't dare pick whether it's an error for "TM" (=DNMNH) or "BMNH".... Any thoughts? Circeus (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC) done PeterR (talk) 04:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


Hi Peter,
what is the difference between Batia and Batia (Stephens)? Why do we need two articles about the same Genus? --Murma174 (talk) 12:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not ready with update Batia.PeterR (talk) 13:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your reply. I created a disambiguation-page Batia now an corrected the entry at Wikidata. Take care --Murma174 (talk) 15:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I was forgotten to make this. PeterR (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


Hi Peter, there is one page still linking to the Zt-template:
Could you please check, whether the link in that page should be deleted? Thank you --Murma174 (talk) 13:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Done PeterR (talk) 13:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Make your edits easier[edit]

Hello Peter, Instead of writing [[ZFMK]] plus [[Category:ZFMK]] you can write just {{rl|ZFMK}} it will add the category automatically. Mariusm (talk) 06:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Marius, For me maybe it could be easier, but not for the reader. Now I add all on the same way and the reader see now immediate the results. Museum or species in museum. By {{rl|ZFMK}} you see only the museum. The reader have to know that he have to push on repositories to see the species. To add the just species who are in the museum I add in the redirect page the category museum and in the new combination page the museum. PeterR (talk) 09:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC).

Naturalis Biodiversity Center[edit]

I just saw you deleted that page with no comment. Why? There doesn't seem to be any good reason, and it's osing a significant amount of informations. Circeus (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense. I had mostly decided not to use an acronym because I didn,t expect things to be associated to Naturalis instead of a "member institution", but it turns out I was wrong. You could have just moved the page, though. Circeus (talk) 04:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

F.J. Laarman[edit]

Do you know this person's full name? He is Dutch archaeozoologist, quite active in Iron Age through Medieval archaeology. Googling has given me nothing but initials. Neferkheperre (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it is is Frits J. Laarman. He is an archaeologist) PeterR (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Archaeozoologists have both archaeological and zoological training, and normally operate in archaeological settings, where they routinely identify animal remains, mostly vertebrates. Other groups, they call in specialists. Neferkheperre (talk) 18:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Oeneis tanana[edit]

Peter, thank you for spotting my typing error in the name of the page. I have corrected it to Oeneis tanana following the source. In the original description, they only use the names of the first two authors following the new taxon naming. Sp I have kept just two names for the citation. I have altered the text on the Template to give both main authors and then the italicised et al. I think this is close enough to the original intention. I don't think it necessary to change the title of the Reference Template, as this is just a mechanism for finding the citation itself. Thanks again, Alan. Accassidy (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. PeterR (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


This new page just showed up in recent changes about 1 hour ago; Kip. It consists of one sentence, apparently in Dutch. Could you check it out and evaluate? Thanks. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Sometime after I posted this, someone else deleted it. Apparently it was spam, like I thought, but I couldn't make it out. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Rhamma Types[edit]

Peter, the types of shapiroi are illustrated on Butterflies of America and I have provided a link to the source data. The Type specimens shown carry labels for the Allyn Museum of Entomology, Florida (AME) not American Museum Natural History (AMNH). So I think I have shapiroi correct. Your info on livida may well be more accurate as the BoA images do not have a depository listed. So I agree that you should change that one. Thanks, Alan Accassidy (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Peter, I notice that on some pages, including Rhamma as an example, you have added double square brackets "[[]]" around synonymous genera in the "Synonymy" section. The effect of this is to create a loop back to the active page, as clicking on the newly-created link goes to the synonym page which then redirects back to where you started. Can you explain why you have made these circular links? Alan Accassidy (talk) 10:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that you have put repository and taxa categories on the pages for the synonyms. However, the link from the valid taxon page just comes back to itself because of the redirect. I don't think it serves much purpose. I do not feel strongly about the issue, but some taxonomists would suggest that once a name has been sunk as a synonym of a senior name, the junior synonym is no longer valid and would not form part of an author's list of credited taxa. Alan Accassidy (talk) 11:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Don't add the subgenus to the species name[edit]

Peter, we agreed long ago not to add the subgenus to the species name. Some of us have worked hard to sort the names out. Why did you start again adding the subgenus names? Why for havens-sake do you start this argument all over again? Mariusm (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Paul D. N. Hebert[edit]

Please can you explain your reason for making a cut-n-paste page move of Paul D. N. Hebert to Paul D.N. Hebert, and why you deleted the former? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Because the original author name is Paul D.N. Hebert. In that time I have make a mistake to create Paul D. N. Hebert. PeterR (talk) 10:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
    • My question was why you chose to use cut'n'paste, rather than deleting the redirect, and redirecting the other page to it. Please do not make cut'n'paste page moves, and leave redirects where such pages are deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Frivaldsky Species[edit]

Peter, there have been many spellings of this species and I cannot find the original Hungarian source, so I am not certain which is correct. There have been sephirus, sephyrus and zephyrus as well as your version sephinus. The most recent document that treats this in an authoritative way is Talavera et al, 2012. They list this taxon as Kretania sephirus (Frivaldszky, 1835). It is a red link here. There are details of subspecies in Tshikolovets, Butterflies of Europe and the Mediterranean Area. Alan.

Accassidy (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Since I like challenges of this nature, I researched slightly. Balint, 1987 is of some help. Here is one citation I found for Frivaldszky, 1835: Frivaldszky, 1835. This is book length, and here is more info for it: WorldCat. I have no idea of Hungarian, but if @Sphenodon: is still here, he is familiar. I also found this: Hungarian National Museum, which is devoted to Frivaldszky's contributions. Hope this helped slightly. Neferkheperre (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
The most common spelling is sephirus. The most recent paper dealing with this group is the Talavera, 2012, and I think we should follow the generic placing used there, namely Kretania sephirus - the Frivaldsky attribution is not in doubt. The subordinate taxa given by Tshikolovets are: trappi (Verity, 1927), = augustanus Mentzer, 1956, = delattini Junge, 1971; brethertoni Brown, 1976. Synonyms of nominotypical sephirus are: = akbesiana Oberthur, 1904; = uhryki Rebel, 1911; = modicus Verity, 1935; = microsephyrus Verity, 1935; = proximus Szabo, 1954; = kovacsi Szabo, 1954; = foticus Szabo, 1956; = albertii Nekrutenko, 1975; = abchasicus Nekrutenko, 1975; = magnificus Balint, 1987; = cubanensis Shchurov, 1999. Accassidy (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Neferkheperre:, @Accassidy: Hi, I'm not familiar with arthropods, but I've found also the article by Zsolt Bálint & A. Olivier (2001), where they writes about some scientifical names of Lycena Sephirus Frivaldszky 1835:269--270 (look page 164): [5]. Here you can find Frivaldszky-article as reference (the journal-name from 1835 is A Magyar Tudós Társaság Évkönyvei 2., so this journal is an annuary, and the Magyar Királyi Egyetem pressed in Buda), look page 194. Maybe Bálint, Zs. is better than Bálint, Z., because his first name is Zsolt, where Zs is a ligature in Hungarian. This butterfly's name in Hungarian is zefír boglárkalepke and is used Kretania sephirus scientific name here: [6]. Oh, and now, I've found the original article from 1835. :) But I don't know, is it help you or not: [7]. And this is the link [8], where I arrived after googling the name of annuary. That site is of Library and Information Centre of Hungarian Academy of Sciences (in Hungarian: MTA). --Sphenodon (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Sphenodon: Thanks for those leads. I am away for the weekend, but will look deeper into the matter next week. Alan Accassidy (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


Any sources for this? --Succu (talk) 21:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Bouvardia juarezana[edit]

(Thread moved to User talk:Wlodzimierz#Bouvardia juarezana, where the discussion started. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC).)


Hey. Can you please grant User:Rzuwig the authopatroller flag here? He is a WIkidata and plwiki admin and his edits do not need to be patrolled. Thanks! Jianhui67 (talk) 11:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC).
Thanks PeterR (talk) 06:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


FYO has been blocked, but may come back in new guise I am sorry to say. Andyboorman (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


I hope you are OK with this I am not an expert! [Talk:Herpetosphex] Regards Andyboorman (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Andy, I'm not an expert too, so I can't answer you. PeterR (talk) 00:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Craspedia rufinubes[edit]

I think this species does not belong to Craspedia. --Succu (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

  • You are wright. have fixit now. Thanks. PeterR (talk) 06:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


Sorry. I passed on Speedy deletions early this morning, and those two looked like simple straightforward matters. Vast majority of deletions involve mistakes in writing page titles, and don't require backchecking. If you want, I'll bring them back on. Neferkheperre (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Nefer, I know you are a good person and I have no troubles with you. I have only problems with Stohner who changed all my contributions. This genus was good, but not good enough for Stohner. He makes his own formats without discussed them. So I don't want quarrel about this and therefore let it be. Next time we changed it back. PeterR (talk) 13:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Please stop insulting Stephen[edit]

As much as I may dislike his attitude, calling him "stohner" (Regardless of whether or not he picks up on it) is entirely inappropriate and is not doing anyone any good whatsoever in these debates. Plus it's just downright unbecoming of an admin to so casually flout basic Wikimedia policy on civility. Circeus (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

He have to stop changing my contributions, that I made after our agreements and changed in not agreements. This irritated me very much. He have made author templates not after our agreements. He don't want communicate with me so what is the problem? PeterR (talk) 06:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I understand your frustration Peter, but it is still not okay to use disparaging or disdainful names ("abschätzig oder verächtlichen Namen") for a fellow user. For instance, see Wiktionary: stoner. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 06:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC).
Sorry, I always was the meaning for years that his wikiname is Stohner. Nobody before have told me that that is wrong. So what is his real name? From now on I shall use the real name. PeterR (talk) 07:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
His name is Stephen E. Thorpe, so "Stephen" is fine. It is of course also okay (and perhaps preferable) to use his Wikispecies handle, "Stho002". –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 07:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC).
Thanks Tommy. PeterR (talk) 07:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


Hello PeterR. When editing talk pages, please always only add one (1) extra colon ("Doppelpunkt") at the start of your edit. Not two, three or even four, as you did here.

It is a lot easier for other readers
to follow a discussion with
small indentions ("Einzüge", "Einrückungen") that is always the same width (like this),

instead of indentions

with different lengths
(like this).

–Thank you. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC).

Grote 1865 (or 1866?), Notes on the Bombycidae of Cuba[edit]

Dear Peter, there exist two reference templates, which obviously mean the same publication: {{Grote, 1865a}} and {{Grote, 1866}}

Having a look into the paper at BHL, it is clear that the publication is included in the fascicle of the Proceedings for December 1865. However, it is possible, that this fascicle was not distributed before January 1866. This could explain, that the paper is sometimes cited with the year 1866. Is it possible to ascertain the exact date of publication of the paper? (Before or after 1st Jan 1866?) This of course has an influence, if the author of Robinsonia and of its type species Robinsonia formula has to be cited with "Grote, 1865" or with "Grote, 1866". Moreover, both reference templates have to be merged into one. However, we should have this with the correct year of publication. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 08:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, when I have a look into the list of references in Vincent & Laguerre (2014), it is obvious, that these authors are convinced the actual publication year being 1866. They give the year as "[1866]". These square brackets actually are meaning, that the year given at that place is different from what may be visible in the paper/journal. It seems, that Vincent & Laguerre have got some better information on the exact date of publication. We may follow them. What is your opinion? --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
In the meantime, I found a solution for the question. Brown (1963) published a paper on the actual dates of publications. According to this, the second issue of the 1865 volume of the Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Philadelphia, comprising Oct–Dec, was received by the librarian of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelpha between Apr 17 and May 1 in 1866. So the date of publication is certainly in the first half of 1866, not in Dec 1865. And we must use "Grote, 1866" for citation of authority. I will do the changes now, as the riddle is solved. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

DOI in Vincent & Laguerre (2014)[edit]

Dear Peter,

Concerning your edit: In my opinion, it is really better to have both the PDF link and the DOI. The DOI link should be permanent. However, there the full text is not accessible for everybody. On the other hand, it is uncertain, if the PDF is provided for long at its present location. It is not too long time ago, that MNHN has removed a lot of interesting PDFs from their servers. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Franz, I have repair it. But we have this do all and not only we. PeterR (talk) 09:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Yes, I usually do this with my reference templates. --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I do too. Neferkheperre (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Reference templates[edit]

When you adjusted Aarvik, 2016, you removed </noinclude> which was after Nomenclatural acts section. That needs to be there, and not just after "What links here". See Cosmetra, and species. Neferkheperre (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I have repair it. Please don't add Category:Reference templates anymore. PeterR (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't add them. They add automatically with {{subst:reftemp}}. Wikigeeks need to adjust accordingly. I've never had much luck doing that. Neferkheperre (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


Is somebody hacking your account? Strange things happened today while I was at LSU. Trevathana tureiae. Neferkheperre (talk) 23:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know. I have update the author reference template after our agreements. The main text was already there. PeterR (talk) 07:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
"You" deleted Achituv & Langsam, 2005 without replacing it. Now two taxon pages are shambles without primary reference. No agreements were made on Reference templates, I keep up with this closely. No agreements were made involving removal of symbiont data and categories. This is not your style at all, is why I thought you were hacked. Neferkheperre (talk) 12:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Synonyms versus Combinations[edit]

Hello Peter, Please see Aurotalis argyrastis as an example of Synonyms versus Combinations error. You wrote there under Synonyms:

  • Aurotalis argyrastis Hampson, 1919 (comb. nov. by Bassi 2016:14)

What is wrong with this is:

  • The entry is not a synonym but a combination.
  • Aurotalis argyrastis Hampson, 1919 (comb. nov. by Bassi, 2016:14) is not correct. It should be written as one of the following options:
  1. Aurotalis argyrastis (Hampson, 1919) comb. nov. sec. Bassi, 2016: 14
  2. Aurotalis argyrastis — Bassi, 2016: 14
  3. Aurotalis argyrastis (Hampson, 1919) Bassi 2016: 14 [recommendation 51G of ICZN]

Mariusm (talk) 12:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Marius, I describe those synonyms for years on this way after your suggestion. For years their where a discussion between use Synonyms and Synonymy. At that time we have chosen for Synonyms. Accassidy still use Synonymy. We have never split synonyms. I have split synonyms after the introduction from Category Author taxa and category Museum. In the combination I don't write text, only in the original combination. If you write text in the combination you can be confused to add Category author taxa and Category Museum. If you want change (comb. nov. by Bassi, 2016:14) then I prefer comb. nov. sec. Bassi, 2016: 14.

To update this is a lot of work.

I show you already on your page the suggestion from you for other species in the synonyms. I still work at that example, because otherwise you don't have a reliable list for Category:author taxa and category Museum. PeterR (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I saw today ZooKeys no. 607 pages 49-68. {]. You see here An updated list of type material of Ephemeroptera Hyatt & Arms, 1890, deposited at the Zoological Museum of Hamburg (ZMH). They describe the species under Original name and Current nomenclature. I use original combination and current status. But what is official I don't know. I'm not an expert.

Fabricius References[edit]

Peter, You created Fabricius 1776, Genera Insectorum, but according to Bridges this should be 1777 and we already have a reference Template for

  • Fabricius, J.C., 1777: Genera insectorum eorumque characteres naturales secundum numerum, figuram, situm et proportionem omnium partium oris adjecta mantissa specierum nuper detectarum. Mich. Friedr. Bartschii, Chilonii. 310 pp. BHL reference page .

Are you sure we need the 1776 Template? Alan Accassidy (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I make those reference templates after the library from :
  • Fabricius, J. C. 1775. Systema Entomologiae. Flensburgi et Lipsiae. xxx + 832 pp. (book)
  • Fabricius, J. C. 1776. Genera Insectorum. Chilonii. xiv + 310 pp.. (book)
  • Fabricius, J. C. 1781. Species Insectorum. Hamburg et Kilonii. Part 2. 517 pp.. (book)
  • Fabricius, J. C. 1787. Mantissa Insectorum. Hafniae. Tom 2. 382 pp.. (book)
  • Fabricius, J. C. 1794. Entomologia systematica emendata et aucta. Secundum classes, ordines, genera, species adjectis synonimis, locis, observationibus, descriptionibus. Hafniae. 3(2). 349 pp.. (book)
  • Fabricius, J. C. 1798. Supplementa Entomologiae Systematicae. Hafniae. iii + 572 pp.. (book) PeterR (talk) 13:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Phalaena Noctua quadra[edit]

Hello Peter, is this a typo for Phalaena (Noctua) quadra? --Succu (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is. In the past they describe it as Phalaena Noctua quadra. PeterR (talk) 08:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Notodontidae & Oenosandridae (Lepidoptera)[edit]

I have in PDF format the catalog of Notodontidae & Oenosandridae (Lepidoptera) / World Catalogue of Insects / VOLUME 11 / By Alexander Schintlmeister / BRILL / LEIDEN • BOSTON 2013 / 605 pp. If you want I can send you the PDF by mail. Mariusm (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Marius, I like to receive this PDF format. I had already loan the book from Naturalis, but now I can check the contributions. Thanks. PeterR (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
For this I'll need your email address. You can send me your address by email: Enter to my user page User:Mariusm and in the left choose "email this user". Good luck. Mariusm (talk) 17:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
OK, I sent it to your address. Mariusm (talk) 17:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Mailing Address[edit]

Peter, I have a reprint from a recent article published in the Japanese "Lepidoptera Science" that I would like to send to you. Could you inform me of the best address to post it to? If you don't want to put your address here, email it to me at Thanks. Alan Accassidy (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Alan, You can find my e-mail address in my Preferences.But here is my e-mail address PeterR (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Pristophora spinivalviceps[edit]

Hello Peter,

I think Pristophora spinivalviceps is a misspelling of Pristiphora spinivalviceps (see here) and should be deleted. --Succu (talk) 10:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

done. Thanks for the warning PeterR (talk) 10:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Panjab University Research Journal (Science)[edit]

Peter, I am back from Bali. I have asked the librarian at the Royal Entomological Society in London about this publication. Is there a particular article in a particular volume that interests you? Alan Accassidy (talk) 12:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
OK, will enquire at EntSoc Library about those. Had to go to Bali for a sports conference, so turned it into a holiday as well. You might see me upload a few live butterfly pictures, as on Rachana jalindra Accassidy (talk) 15:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry R. Ent. Soc. does not take that title but the Zoological Society Library and the Natural History Museum apparently have some of the volumes. Also the British Library. Maybe you would be better to contact them direct as I don't have any reliable contact there. Accassidy (talk) 10:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Anthene merioli aridicola[edit]

Hello Peter, the author of the subspecies Anthene merioli aridicola might be Alan J. Gardiner. I do not have access to the book by Michel Libert to verify it. Best regards, Korg (talk) 03:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Korg, I don't have this book any more. back to the library. I shall ask Alan. PeterR (talk) 07:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Anthene merioli aridicola[edit]

Peter, this is a new ssp described in the 2010 work of Libert, but he attributes the description to Gardiner, who it appears was a collaborator on the paper. Accassidy (talk) 10:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

So you don't know if it is Alan J. Gardiner or an other Gardiner. PeterR (talk) 10:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
It is Alan J Gardiner, not the Lion F. Gardiner. Accassidy (talk) 10:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Alan, thanks PeterR (talk) 10:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the confirmation! Korg (talk) 19:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Mimia phydile tatamaensis[edit]

Peter, he describes only a female and this should be accorded the status of a Holotype. I suspect that the author believes that Holotypes are male and Allotypes are female, as this precedence is often followed when both sexes are available for description. But choice of Holotype is free for the describer. Nowadays it would be more usual to see a Holotype designated and any other members of a type series noted as Paratypes regardless of gender. Accassidy (talk) 09:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Alan thanks. I believe he had made a mistake and I add it as a holotype. PeterR (talk) 11:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Typo on your userpage[edit]

Hello! You've got a typo on your userpage. 'Entmologische' which should of course be Entomologische. :) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 01:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Updating ISBN's..[edit]

OK I may have over-reacted slightly, and I've struck part of my comments on my talk page.

The update being made was technical in nature in that an ISBN in plain format won't necessarily be converted into a link automatically after some time after 2017. The technical update was to convert these magic links into explicit template calls.

I can understand your concerns when you see a lot of (unexpected) edits though. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

It is ok, but don't update the ZT numbers PeterR (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't plan on changing those templates myself (and the updating would be limited to the ISBN numbers ONLY.) given the concerns you expressed. However as I said above at some point the magic conversion may stop working. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Ok. you can help it. PeterR (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


Category:Reference templates Why are you removing this category? Was it an accident? —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Why not. It is not after our agreements. I update my own Reference templates and from Sthoner after our agreements. PeterR (talk) 07:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Navigation It makes it harder to find the templates and it puts them on a report for Special:UncategorizedTemplates. Please continue adding the category and not removing it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I go every time to the author to search if a template for his article exist. The author page have the first priority for searching references templates. Therefore must every reference template add in the author page. You have to fill the reference templates with the full author names. Thats the agreement. This category is made by Sthoner without comunication. PeterR (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Author pages Of course, add the templates themselves to author pages. But also please add them to categories as well so that 1.) this maintenance page is emptied and 2.) so other users can navigate all of the reference templates. The latter is also helpful in case someone needs to do maintenance across a lot of templates (for instance, adding {{ISBN}} to the ISBN magic links). Everything other than the root category should be categorized. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I can't find in the agreement of reference template to add ISBN but only ISSN numbers. So show me the agreement for ISBN. PeterR (talk) 11:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
ISBNs If you don't want to add ISBNs, then don't. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


This discussion started here.

Peter, Thomas de Grey Walsingham was the 6th baron of that name and lived 1843-1919. There is a bibliography for him here. The only paper that comes up under a search for The Lord Walsingham is from 1919. There is nothing outside this date range. I am confident that these are the same person, as the son and grandson of Thomas were John and George. Thomas is the only one alive in 1919 that has any publications in Lepidoptera. Where it says "Lord Walsingham M.A." the "M.A." refers to a degree of Master of Arts - which is consequent to graduating from Cambridge University where he was a member of Trinity College (which is, by a strange coincidence, where I did my degree also). Details of him here. Accassidy (talk) 13:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I have put in the web links that should have been there earlier!! Accassidy (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]


  1. This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

Ennomomima is invalid[edit]

Please look at Ennomomima - it is a synonym of Zatrephes (see reference at the bottom). Mariusm (talk) 05:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Marius. I shall fix it. PeterR (talk) 08:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)



Rothschild describes both male and female of carmesina here. This would be a good reference to add to the species page. He doesn't say "holotype" or "allotype", but the male comes first. If the BMNH has a series of males, as seems likely from the new paper, but only one has a "Type" label, then I think it is fair to describe these as "Holotype ♂ + Syntype ♂♂" and so on. Also, I would delete all the text on the Automolis carmesina page and just reduce it to a Redirect for Zatrephes carmesina.

Alan Accassidy (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Confusing deletion[edit]

Template:Zt3777.1.1 This has over 100 transclusions--why did you delete it? —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Because this reference template is not after our agreements. I Have made a new one after our agreements. If I update species or genera, I update the reference templates to. PeterR (talk) 06:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Template agreements I'm still a little confused: did you remake it already? If so, I will replace the old template with the new one to clear out all of these redlinks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
      • I'm not a programmer. So I have done nothing. If you want known more ask Mariusm. PeterR (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC).
        • First you say "I have made a new one", and then you say "I'm not a programmer. So I have done nothing." How can you both make a new template, and also not make a new template?? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 01:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC).
          • Peter, when you change a template's name which is used in many pages, please leave a REDIRECT on the old name. Mariusm (talk) 07:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
            • Marius, normal I do this, may be I have forgotten it to do with this one. He could sent me a list for updating. PeterR (talk) 07:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
        • On 18 july 2015 i have make a new one for Zt3777.1.1 namely Yang, Wang & Li, 2015. I have replace the new template by the species. See Edosa bicolor . total 24 pieces. PeterR (talk) 05:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
          • Tommy, you restore the template Zt3777.1.1. Thats against our policy. What is the real problem. I don't understand koavf with over 100 transclusions. PeterR (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry for my late response. The problem is that you deleted the template named "Zt3777.1.1". The template is used on more than 100 pages (see here.) As a result there are "red links" to the template on all of those 100 pages, which is not good. That is why I restored the template. I then moved the template to the new name, {{Yang, Wang & Li, 2014}}. Moving a page changes the name of the page, but it also automatically creates a redirect from the old name to the new name (see here.)

The final result is that the name of the template is now correct, and there are zero red links to the old name. That is how you should have done it: instead of deleting the template, you should have moved it to the correct name. Please see Hilfe:Seite verschieben on the German Wikipedia for information on how to move pages. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC).

I still don't understand it. I have made already more then 50 replacement names for Zt reference templates, without trouble. Why give this trouble. If I get a list where I have forgotten to replace ZT3777.1.1 , I can do this replacement. PeterR (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
As I mentioned earlier, the {{Zt3777.1.1}} template is used on more than 100 pages, and a list of them can be seen here: Pages that link to "Template:Zt3777.1.1". If you want to you can change all of the {{Zt3777.1.1}} links on all of those pages into {{Yang, Wang & Li, 2014}}. However that is not necessary, since I have made an automatic redirect from {{Zt3777.1.1}} to {{Yang, Wang & Li, 2014}}, as you can see here.
Unfortunately many of the "Zt" templates you have deleted are still used on many pages, without redirects. Now there are red "Zt" links on those pages, instead of the templates. A few examples can be seen on these pages:
Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC).
If you need a thorough explanation about redirects and redirect pages, please se Wikipedia:Weiterleitung in the German Wikipedia. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC).

Please don't include the (Subgenus) in the page-names[edit]

Peter, I thought we agreed a long time ago not to add the (Subgenus) to the species page-name. This causes so many pages to be incompatible with one another. We want our database to be standardized and our standard is Genus species. In the page itself you can add the Subgenus without problems; you can also redirect if you wish. I deleted many pages with Genus (Subgenus) species so why have you started now to make them again? Please be reasonable and conform to WS standard. Mariusm (talk) 12:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Marius, We have discussed this already. If there are new genera or species or subspecies with subgenera we can add those. If you add author taxa and museum you take the official combination. I know you don't like that, but I want to add the species or subspecies after official bulletins. There are genera with subgenera with only species with subgenera, so there are no old species transferred to them. I'm a little bit tired over all the discussions. For instance ZT3777.1.1. I have make a new one after our agreements and replace Zt3777.1.1 through the new one via authored taxa. What Kronkvist have done I don't understand it. I see a lot of new contributions also with subgenera. Every body here is doing his own thing. PeterR (talk) 12:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC) I have send this to Koavf: On 18 july 2015 i have make a new one for Zt3777.1.1 namely Yang, Wang & Li, 2014. I have replace the new template by the species. See Edosa bicolor . total 24 pieces.
Peter, I can't agree with your argument about "official combination". You can add the "official combination" in the species data. See for example a page I made: Zyras prudens. in the data I specify "Subgenus: Zyras (Cephalodonia)", isn't that enough to satisfy you? I'm talking only about the "name of the page" not about the data included. Mariusm (talk) 13:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
In this case I add the data by Cephalodonia prudens, because this is the original combination. After that I transferred it to the current status with subgenus. If you like I can show you by this species. PeterR (talk) 13:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC).
I understand you perfectly, you don't have to show me. What I say is only this: write the data exactly as you wish - ONLY make the name of the page in the format Genus species. Mariusm (talk) 13:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I shall try an other experiment. If it works its ok. I try to find a compromise for original species with subgenera). PeterR (talk) 13:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
    • You get only the original combination with the full text in the species. I'm sorry, but there is no other way. PeterR (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC).
      • Here an example of new contributions: Trachys reitteri. I see many more from others. Is there no control anymore? PeterR (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Polyommatus schuriani attalaensis[edit]

Peter, I have made a small revision to that page to remove the obvious inconsistency. Thankyou for pointing it out. If we take Tshikolovets 2011 as the current authority then Agrodiaetus has only sub-Genus status. There is a lot of catching up to do in Polyommatus (Agrodiaetus). I may get back to that when I tire of the current work I am doing on African Poritiinae. Alan. Accassidy (talk) 11:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Peter, Parnassius is in Papilionidae, while Agrodiaetus is in Lycaenidae. "Parnassius (Agrodiaetus)" makes no sense to me. Surely it is Polyommatus (Agrodiaetus). All the taxa under Agrodiaetus should be done as you have with Polyommatus yurinekrutenko. Thanks. Alan Accassidy (talk) 12:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Application for Checkuser[edit]

Referring to earlier discussions regarding a local Checkuser policy, I herebye apply to get Checkuser user rights, although we havnt reached a consensus reg Checkuser policy, but I want to give it a try if I can get the required votes. For a request to succeed a minimum of 25 support votes and an 80% positive vote are required (subject to the normal bureaucrat discretion). Requests for checkuser run for two weeks, and I ask kindly that somone starts the poll, like we do for adminship applications.

Please also note that CheckUser actions are logged, but for privacy reasons the logs are only visible to other Checkusers. Because of this, Wikispecies must always have no fewer than two checkusers, for mutual accountability. I dont want to suggest anyone, but hope that someone feel inspired and will step forward and also apply for checkuser.

My request to the Wikispecies community is here

Dan Koehl (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Another application for Check User[edit]

As pointed out above by User:Dan Koehl, we need at least two Check Users for this wiki. I am nominating myself and would be happy to receive any feedback that you have to give (positive, negative, or neutral). Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Koavf. Thanks. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Additional Checkuser Application[edit]

I also have added my name to those willing to be a checkuser. Please see my application here Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Faendalimas. I listed this yeasterday but have been encouraged to do a mass mail. I would also take the opportunity to make sure everyone knows that any editor can vote but that it is imperative that as many do as possible, for all 4 of the current applicants, please have your say. Checkuser voting has strict policy rules regarding number of votes. You will have other messages from the other Users concerned you can also read about it in the discussion on the Village Pump - Wikispecies:Village_Pump#Application_for_Checkuser. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Standing for role of checkUser[edit]

Like some of our colleagues (who I support), I am offering to serve as a checkuser, not least to ensure adequate coverage in case one of the others is unavailable.

Please comment at Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Pigsonthewing.

[Apologies if you receive a duplicate notification; I wasn't aware of Wikispecies:Mail list/active users, and sent my original notification to the list of administrators instead.] MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

RFC on Checkusers[edit]

With one week to go I wanted to remind everyone of the importance of voting on the current CheckUser applications. They can all be found together on a single RFC: Wikispecies:Requests_for_Comment#Checkusers.

It is extremely important with votes such as this for everyone to be involved. There are strict rules in the Wikimedia Foundation Policy guidelines on these votes. I would urge people to have a good understanding of what a CheckUser does. This can be read up on here on the page discussing CheckUser's Wikispecies:Checkusers. Links on this page will take you to other policy information on Meta, HowTo for our site etc.

I would also urge people to look at our own policy development and some past discussion on this can be found here: Wikispecies_talk:Local_policies#Local_CU_Policy.

Wikispecies has in the past had issues that has required the intervention that is supported by the ability to do a CheckUser. Many of us are aware of this. The capacity to do this ourselves greatly speeds up this process. Although SockPuppetry can sometimes be identified without using a CheckUser in order to do the necessary steps to stop it or even prevent it requires evidence. We all know that sockpupets can do significant damage.

This is an important step for Wikispecies. It is a clear demonstration we can run ourselves as a Wiki Project part of Wiki Media Foundation. When I and several others first discussed this we knew it would be difficult at the time to meet all the criteria. We have only now decided to try and get this feature included in Wikispecies. By doing this it can lead to other areas where Wikispecies can further develop its own policies. In some areas we have unique needs, different to the other Wiki's. It is timely we were able to develop all these policies.

Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for vote reg use of BASEPAGENAME[edit]

The previous discussions regarding if we should subst:ing BASEPAGENAME and change all [[BASEPAGENAME]] into [[susbt:BASEPAGENAME]] did not really reach a consensus.

Please vote here on the Village pump!

If you are not sure on your opinion, you can read and join the discussion about the claimed advantages and disadvantages of using BASEPAGENAME

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hallo Peter, danke fur dein kommentar bei Abstimmung von PAGENAME, du hast aber kein direktes Wahl gemacht, nur ein Diskussions Kommentar? Möchtest du dein der Stimme enthalten? Falls nicht, Könntest du ach bitte, dein Wahl einfügen? Schöne grüsse, Dan Koehl (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Neozephyrus uedai kachinicus[edit]

@PeterR: Peter, in Koiwaya, 2007, this taxon is given as kachinus not kachinicus. I do not have access to the original 2002 paper. Can you double check the original spelling, as clearly one form of the name must be wrong. Alan. Accassidy (talk) 13:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

    • Alan, The original description is Neozephyrus uedai kachinicus. This subspecies is described in Gekkan-Mushi, 381 page 8 in japanese and page 12 in english, 2002.
Secondly, you have created pages for suroia Tytler and its subspecies under Chrysozephyrus, with reference dates up to 2003. Koiwaya, 2007, p.184, has this species in Neozephyrus, so I think it should be moved. Have you any reference later than 2007 retaining the binomial Chrysozephyrus suroia?. Accassidy (talk) 13:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Alan, I don't know. I have the information from funet. If I ask on internet for Chrysozephyrus, I find a lot of publications. So, I don't know whart is wright. PeterR (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)