User talk:PeterR/Archive 2016

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This is an archive of closed discussions. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.

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): [1]. 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: [2]. Oh, and now, I've found the original article from 1835. :) But I don't know, is it help you or not: [3]. And this is the link [4], 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)

 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 adiecta 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)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.