User talk:Stho002/Archive 6

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Tribolium[edit]

Good work on Tribolium. But where are the histories of the old pages? Wikiklaas (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To explain myself a bit more: it seems you created two new pages and deleted the old ones, instead of moving the old ones to the new names. Or is this what happens on wikispecies when one moves a page? If not: you're an administrator, I saw, so you could correct the situation and recreate the new pages with the old histories. Thanks. Wikiklaas (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know ... but there is no point in this case and time is short ... Stho002 (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But you made the error and although time is short, it may be important in the future to see that a number of beetle species was listed under the plant genus and vise versa. It's that other users can learn from the history to not make the error a second time. So I urgently request you to correct the situation. Thanks in advance. Wikiklaas (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LOL!
@Stho002: Wikiklaas asked me to help him so here I am. He asked you politely to restore the histories of the two pages. That's all. As you probably already know, the history is important because of copyright issues. It's important to know who helped to write the article. I understand you're busy - we all are I think - but I would appreciate it if you could take him serious and just fix this. As I'm a steward I could do it myself as well, but I prefer not to since there are local administrators and I don't want to cause any problems. Please, fix it and be a bit more nice in the future. Thanks in advance for your understanding. With regards, Trijnstel (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the page I deleted Tribolium Macleay to Tribolium (Animalia), leaving a redirect, and then updated the latter accordingly. I did not delete a second page, so no other move is required ... Stho002 (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC) [PS: You will note from the history that I was not the editor responsible for adding the plant names to the beetle page ... Stho002 (talk) 00:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)][reply]
Trijnstel, then in that case, please investigate User:Shizhao's behaviour. Shizhao is a steward and not a local administrator yet he has been updating the main page images [1], raising concerns pertaining to his choice of images by various editors. Despite repeated attempts to communicate with him in this project, he doesn't seem to stop and correct his behaviour. As you said, there are local admins here so it appears that Shizhao's intervention is not necessary. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Stho002: Thanks for helping. :) The second page Wikiklaas mentioned was Tribolium of which you moved the content to Tribolium (Plantae), but didn't move the page.
  • @OhanaUnited: You're right. He's not supposed to do that. I'll notify him about this discussion on his user talk page on meta. Hopefully he'll reply here soon.
Kind regards, Trijnstel (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chloris (Fringillidae)[edit]

" m Chloris (Cuvier) ‎ (Stho002 moved page Chloris (Fringillidae) to Chloris (Cuvier) without leaving a redirect)" - - Why, right when I was in the middle of working on it? It's messed everything up :-(( Please restore it! - MPF (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm trying to work on this, please stop messing it up! It's going to take even more of my time to repair it now. - MPF (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With four animal genera, and one plant genus, all called Chloris, it is going to be an even bigger mess if I don't sort it out now ... Stho002 (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And Chloris (Fringillidae) is the sensible name for the bird genus concerned, following the standard disambiguation style used here. It doesn't affect the others. Please put it back to how I started it. It's a complete mess now, all of your creating. - MPF (talk) 22:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the name will always be associated with the author, but the family can change (or be disputed) .. it is best to go for greatest stability. It shouldn't affect what you are doing at all, I have moved the page, so the history is intact, it is just a change of page name ... Stho002 (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It affected what I was doing, because I was right in the middle of doing it, including moving the two remaining species, leaving some of the species with one link and others with the other, with red links and dead templates everywhere. I think I've got everything repaired back to Chloris (Fringillidae) now. What you did, fair enough if you'd waited until it wasn't going to cause edit conflicts, or requested me to hold fire before you started, but you shouldn't when it is a work in progress. It's wasted about half an hour of my time now, and I'm rather annoyed to say the least. - MPF (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More red links . . .[edit]

You've deleted a template which has left a whole lot of red links - MPF (talk) 23:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes, thank you, I know! I'm still working on Chloris ... Stho002 (talk) 23:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent activity[edit]

"There's the cliff, you can jump if you really want to ... Stho002 (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)"
This is something serious, your majesty. Please remove your last edits on my talk page and revert your undo's. And don't write to me directly: use an intermediary next time, because I don't think that we can make a productive discussion without someone else. Kuzia (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Out to lunch..." — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stho002 (talk • contribs).
What, am I not allowed to have lunch now??? Stho002 (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you seem to be reading far more into the above (metaphorical) comment than was intended, so I retract it on that basis Stho002 (talk) 06:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re: zfg

Note, please, that this kind of your conduct may be regarded as an abuse of administrative privileges, forcing your self-concept of WS. Ark (talk) 08:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not forcing anything of the sort. The reason you gave for unprotecting the template page was just plain wrong: I protected it for a valid reason in the menu of possible reasons. If you must unprotect it, then pls at least come up with a half-right reason! The formatting issue here is EXTREMELY MINOR, i.e. capitals vs. lower case! Haven't people got anything better to do?? Stho002 (talk) 08:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...for a valid reason in the menu of possible reasons, but in context of your personal conflict showed here, not in the menu. Ark (talk) 08:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's your personal interpretation ... get consensus from the other active admins, and then I will of course comply ... Stho002 (talk) 08:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean minor formatting edits, but your way to force them. Consensus to accept warnings like this? There is no acceptation! Ark (talk) 09:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just saying it as it is ... Stho002 (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chloris - more arising[edit]

Do you know what the type of Chloris Boie is? I see it is a synonym of Parula, but Parula is itself now reduced to synonymy, of Setophaga (P. americana [the type of Parula], P. pitiayumi) and of Oreothlypis (P. gutturalis, P. superciliosa). This follows the wholesale reclassification of the Parulidae (updated IOC list here; summary of USA-related changes here); there's the whole lot to be done here, including the moving of all 33 Dendroica spp. to Setophaga - is there an easy (robot) way of doing this, or do they all have to be moved one-by-one, by hand? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By hand! I will continue to work on it, when I get time. The protocol that I like to follow should end up with a sensible result, though there may not be a simple right or wrong answer ... Stho002 (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS: This isn't something we can just do overnight. It is something to be slowly improved, preferably from the top down (so get the genera right first, and then worry about the species) ... Stho002 (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! See you've already started. One overdo though, Catharopeza is still retained as a separate monotypic genus (the ref you cite may synonymise it, but this hasn't been taken up by IOC, who are the authority we follow for Aves). - MPF (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The authority YOU follow for Aves ... I will have to consider ... Stho002 (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC) We may have to mark it as "disputed" .. Stho002 (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And Commons, en:wikipedia, de:wikipedia, fr:wikipedia, etc., etc. And most of the World's official ornithological organisations. You are just following one research paper that you chose yourself, not a set of several different research results as IOC do; a single paper can easily come up with anomalous results that are not matched by other studies. MPF (talk) 09:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, the paper offers scientific evidence in support of its results, whereas the IOC opinion is just an unsupported opinion ... Stho002 (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you look back through the archives, you'll find all the references it is based on. And the IOC is comprised of most of the World's professional ornithologists; their opinion is highly respected. You talk as though you think it is a bunch of amateur nobodies. It isn't. - MPF (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{Aut}}[edit]

The template looks great, but it doesn't support disambig like this example. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned pages[edit]

What exactly was incorrectly named in Incertae sedis (Microcerberidae)? Ark (talk) 08:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, I have fixed the problem ... no more orphaned pages ... Stho002 (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regulus ignicapillus[edit]

Should rename the page Regulus ignicapillus in Regulus ignicapilla. The name has changed. But there is a redirection and I do not know. Thank you to you could do. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I do not see enough evidence to support this ... Stho002 (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See David, N. & Gosselin, M. (2002). Gender agreement of avian species names. Bull. B.O.C. 122 (1): 14-49 (Regulus ignicapilla on page 38). Briefly, original names ending in -capilla are to be treated as nouns in apposition; the original spelling of these names is to be retained with gender remaining unchanged (ICZN Art. 31.2.1, 32.3, 34.2.1; Glossary: compound, noun phrase). <quote>175: Sylvia ignicapilla Temminck, 1820, must be spelt Regulus ignicapilla [as per e.g. Hartert 1903-1923], and should not be changed to Regulus ignicapillus [as in Peters 1986, etc.] — David & Gosselin 2002</quote>
This correction has been accepted by all of the major ornithological authorities, e.g. International Ornithological Committee, AERC (p.38), BOU, Avibase, etc. - MPF (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now we have the evidence, we can do it ... Stho002 (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! - MPF (talk) 01:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Radiozoa incertae sedis[edit]

Ok, I kind of get what you're saying but not sure how to correct it. Can you modify that for me? OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see. By the way, are you experiencing slow page loading time or other weird stuff (e.g. broken page formatting)? OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does this from time to time .. it will pass ... Stho002 (talk) 03:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Benthocodon[edit]

I found the name in a book that interviewed the photographer who took those photos. They didn't specify to what extent of the common name, but in a picture that is labelled Benthocodon sp., it stated the common name is "Deep-sea trachymedusa". OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cephalocereus[edit]

I would prefere if you did not include unsolved names from The Plant List as many of them are indeed solved scientifically. The Plant list are based on only a few databases, all far from complete. Uleli (talk) 06:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We need to use The Plant List as a consistent starting point. You can put conflicting sources on the pages for the individual species when you create those pages. The way I did it was not saying that the names were unresolved, it was just saying that they are unresolved according to TPL ... Stho002 (talk) 06:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree theat we must use it as a rule. The plant list are full off errors which they don't correct as the source data comes from other databases. I heve been in contacts with the editor and he agrees there is a problem. I belive The Plant Base should be used carefully. In Cactaceae there are severas other much better sources as:
No, a comprehensive and up-to-date source like TPL trumps anything else, and it is the only way for us to make real progress, rather than going through each species one by one. As I said, if you have a better source for a species, I suggest you put a disputed template on the species page, and explain on the talk page. Taxonomy is full of contradictions, and it is not our job to present the one correct taxonomy. It is our job to give a sensible taxonomy which is linked to sources and literature .. Stho002 (talk) 07:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So when I have solved a name should from the Plant List. Should the name remain in the species list, even when it has no standard? Uleli (talk) 07:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand you, pls show me an example ... Stho002 (talk) 07:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Under Cephalocereus you added unsolved names from the Plant List, some of them I have now solved by using other references. Check Pilosocereus royenii where some of the Cephalocereus names are listed. I have used three refrences for this synonymy. Do I remove the names from the Cephalocereus species list, even thou they stand as unsolved in the Plant List? Uleli (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, better to leave the lists as they are in TPL (hopefully this might highlight the problems and hurry them up to solving it). I will add the relevant disputed notes to Cephalocereus royenii ... Stho002 (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I don't realy like it as TPL does not seems to anything else than a robotic motor combining other databases. I have approched them several times with obvious errors and they can not correct them. World Checklist, Tropicos and IPNI welcome corrections and info. This new uncritical listing of TPL names makes my work here on Wikispecies far less attractive, when we publish easily correctable data. I am aware that this is my view, but many times I think TPL, and now Wikispecies, only add to the cunfusion. Well, well... maybe it is time for me to do something else. Uleli (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Under the general policies of Wikimedia sites, we cannot "correct" errors (NOR), but we can do a valuable service in highlighting them. Finding good ways of doing this isn't easy though, nothing is easy! Sources of biodiversity information are all full of errors and contradictory. I think you misunderstand, TPL is just a starting point for our pages. We start with it, them highlight any problems, add better sources, etc. If you want to go, then go, but I think you would be going for the wrong reasons ... Stho002 (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well maybe I overreact, sorry :-) I am aware of the Wiki policies even though it is almost impossibe to follow to 100%. There is always a little choice between different references and sources... one must start somewhere. I am fully aware that my edits to the Wikispecies are far from perfect, but I try to add the data and hope someone else add some more to highlight different views. I guess I have to live with the TPL even though I think it is a catastrophy that they do not fix errors or contradictions. World Checklist is betten as they only list names that has been checked, solved or not, and they do welcome new additions. What I generally do when I reserach for the Wikispecies is that I contact the sources, as IPNI, World Checklist or Tropicos... but TPL is a looked door and that is frustrating... but in time maybe. Thank your for your patience Uleli (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, TPL is a starting point, and if we highlight enough errors in it, I'm sure they will start to take a more urgent attitude to fixing them! Or, at least anyone sensible enough to look here will be made aware of the problems with TPL. Stho002 (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have contacted TPL and offered my help... again. Just for fun... and if you want. Take a look at this record in TPL:
  • Harrisia portoricensis Britton. TPL list it as a synonym with reference to Tropicos . As you can see Tropicos makes no such statement. So I have listed the name as an accepted species with some other references. But I just can't follow TPLI as I am sure no taxonomist would do either. So what to write in a note? Is TPL errors realy something to be noted in Wikispecies? Uleli (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neoceratodontidae[edit]

Please can you explain why you placed Neoceratodontidae in synonymy of Ceratodontidae? Any ref. --Haps (talk) 06:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to investigate, but my reason was that the genus Neoceratodus was listed (as the only genus, in fact) as a genus of Template:Zfg before I ever edited the page (see http://species.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ceratodontidae&action=history), so I just added the automatic synonymy on the assumption that what was there already was correct ... Stho002 (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC) Also, see Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queensland_lungfish[reply]
  • I agree with Haps - seems mistaken to consider Ceratodontidae senior. Neoceratodontidae Miles, 1977 according to CoF; Ceratodontidae Kirkland, 1987 according to PaleoDB. Appears CoF might be wrong in recognizing Ceratodontidae as the valid name; but I haven't checked original references and it is not easy to verify earliest family authorship. MKOliver (talk) 12:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks like confusion abounds, and Ceratodontidae dates from Gill, 1873 ... Stho002 (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gill, 1873? Happen to have the citation? I see Wikipedia attributes Ceratodontidae to a Gill 1873, but I can't confirm any Gill 1873 paper using such a family name. A Gill bibliography gives several 1873 papers, but possible titles for that year do not mention this family name (On the limits of the Class of Fishes, http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2448462.pdf; On the homologies of the shoulder-girdle of the dipnoans and other fishes - BHL). Maybe it's in "The number of classes of vertebrates and their mutual relations." Am. Journ. Sci., vol. VI, 1873, pp. 432-435. Can't find it in BHL or elsewhere. MKOliver (talk) 01:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At any rate, it must date old, see BHL bibliography: http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/name/Ceratodontidae
Gill, 1872 is often cited, but the corresponding publication isn't cited! Stho002 (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NZ Podocarp identity[edit]

Hi Stho002 - any chance you can identify the Podocarpaceae species in this pic? File:PodocarpHeaphy.jpg Or if you can't, if you know anyone who could; it has been languishing in Commons Category:Unidentified Podocarpaceae for far too long. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not a botanist. Technically though, it is a photo of "podocarp forest", not a photo of a particular podocarp ... Stho002 (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus users[edit]

Look urgently at http://species.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/newusers&offset=&limit=500&type=newusers&user= . Someone (bot?) is creating hundreds of fake accounts, right now. I don't know how to block it at the source. MKOliver (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the last 7 days, 7000 of these automatically created accounts. I stopped looking at that point. Someone's trying to bring down WS. MKOliver (talk) 02:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's fine and need not to be alarmed. Whenever someone registers in any foundation-project wiki (see Template:Sisterprojects for those projects, most of which have multiple languages), their account will also be automatically created here. You can read more about this at meta:Help:Unified_login. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whew! Thank you Ohana. Sorry for the false signal. Looks quite alarming to the clueless (me). MKOliver (talk) 02:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

You are using admin tools to gain an advantage in a dispute in which you are involved. For something like this you can be blocked. Ark (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no dispute, I blocked Kuzia for vandalism (removing a reference) after he had been warned...Stho002 (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Block[edit]

You are blocked. One day should be enough to think about your attitude. Ark (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you reconsider, and quickly, or else I will be reporting you as a rogue admin. I blocked Kuzia for vandalism, after he had been warned. He unjustifiably removed a valid reference from a page. I did NOT use my admin tools to gain advantage in any "dispute", I simply blocked him for vandalism, and only for 3 days, to try to deter him from further acts of vandalism ... Stho002 (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, an admin blocking another admin without the backing of consensus is a far more serious matter than an admin blocking an editor ... Stho002 (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alnus alnus[edit]

Could you decide? Ark (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gelis[edit]

The author is NOT Gelis but Gielis (its a dutchman from naturalis)

PeterR (talk) 07:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Templates[edit]

Stephen, I've been looking at your Reference Templates. Clearly these have a lot of use if at any time a change needs to be made. However, on this one there is a call to a Template BASEPAGENAMEE [sic]. Is that a typo or is that a valid Template? Alan Accassidy (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a typo. It changes spaces to underscores ... try it! BTW, ref templates are very useful if a link to a PDF suddenly becomes available (or dies). One change adds/subtracts the link to all instances of the ref .. Stho002 (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ahah, far too clever. Thanks, Alan Accassidy (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks, I'll look at the mods you made. I'm starting to work on creating and implementing some templates, starting with the papers that refer mostly to genera or higher classifications, as those will be quickest to implement. Once the Template is created, it would be good to be able to have a Bot that went through everything and replaced all the earlier instances of the non-template version. I Any ideas on how to do this? Accassidy (talk) 18:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Siphonophora or Siphonophorae[edit]

Can you check and see if Siphonophora (ordo) should have an "e" at the end? OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your question has no answer ... it isn't a Code governed name, but there seems to be little or no reason to depart from the usual spelling Siphonophora ... Stho002 (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IPv6[edit]

Dear Stho002,

I noticed you blocked 2601:1:240:6A:8FF:4377:6682:62EC for being a "vandalism-only account", but it's actually a IPv6 address, not a registered account.

Kind regards, Mathonius (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joinvillea[edit]

Joinvillea is a valid genus name in Plantae, but it's also an available name in Animalia. There it's a synonym for Deuterodon. What would be the best way to fix this proplem. --Haps (talk) 11:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done ... Stho002 (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --Haps (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chelodina changes[edit]

Heya,

I have done a couple of page moves etc. First for some reason Macrodiremys was misspelled so I fixed that, I also made the necessary changes as per Opinion 2315 of the ICZN, including changing Chelodina rugosa to Chelodina (Macrochelodina) oblonga, Chelodina (Macrodiremys) colliei etc. I can supply a pdf of the opinion if anyone wants it, it can also be seen in abstract online of course. The species account for Chelodina (Macrodiremys) colliei is not displaying the subgenus at this point correctly. Cheers Faendalimas (talk) 14:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen, wanted to let you know of a nomenclatural change. In the Chelidae the subfamily Chelidinae (South American forms) was corrected to Chelinae in the most recent (2012) edition of the turtles checklist. Reference = Peter Paul van Dijk, John B. Iverson, H. Bradley Shaffer, Roger Bour, and Anders G.J. Rhodin. 2012. Turtles of the World, 2012 Update: Annotated Checklist of Taxonomy, Synonymy, Distribution, and Conservation Status. Chelonian Research Monographs No. 5, pp. 000.243–000.328... Cheers, Faendalimas (talk) 17:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TOC[edit]

TOC begins to appear if you have exceeded X number of sections (forgot the specific number for "X"). You can use __NOTOC__ code to suppress it. But the script only works on local scale (per page) and I am not aware of any ways to suppress it globally. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lampides[edit]

Stephen, I note your recent change to the Lampides genus page, including a long list of species group names derived from Catalogue of Life. Catalogue of Life in turn refers back to the BMNH Lepindex, an old database that is apparently no longer maintained by anyone at the museum. The vast majority, if not all, recent specialist authors from Europe and Japan, following Eliot, 1973, have considered Lampides to be monobasic and to refer only to the widespread boeticus. All, probably, most, certainly, of the other species group names in this list belong to Jamides Hübner, and are listed on Wikispecies pages for that genus. Unless you can find an authoritative current publication that supports the inclusion of Jamides within Lampides, and pass that info on to me, I would prefer we revert back to simply retaining this genus for boeticus. Alan Accassidy (talk) 13:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Eliot, J.N. 1973: The higher classification of the Lycaenidae (Lepidoptera): a tentative arrangement. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), entomology, 28: 371-505.
OK, for now. Most will redirect to species already listed under Jamides. I'll make some redirects myself. Accassidy (talk) 21:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Parachela[edit]

How can Parachela Schuster et al. 1980 be a valid taxon, if this name is preoccupied by Parachela Steindachner 1881 in fishes? I doubt that it plays a role, that the first is a higher class family-group name and the other "only" a name of a genus. A homonym is a homonym! What do you think?--Haps (talk) 22:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it makes all the difference! The only homonyms to worry about are within either the species-group, genus-group, or family-group, nothing else matters. For example Gorilla gorilla is perfectly fine, even though genus and species names are identical. Also, higher class-series names don't technically have authors and dates, so the 1881 name above doesn't necessarily have priority over the 1980 name. This is one of THE MANY GOOD REASONS why I strongly argue against citations of author or date for such higher names ... Stho002 (talk) 01:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But in opposite this is a good argument for such a citation, because if you talk about Parachela do you mean Parachela Schuster et al. or Parachela Steindachner?

I know, the Code does not fully regulate names of taxa above the family group, but it would make sence in many cases, and this is one too. As it is stated in the Code is it based on certain underlying principles, and one of it is: "(3) The device of name-bearing types allows names to be applied to taxa without infringing upon taxonomic judgment. Every name within the scope of the Code (except for the names of "collective groups" and of taxa above the family group) is permanently attached to a name-bearing type. For species and subspecies this name-bearing type is either a single specimen or a number of specimens that together constitute the name-bearer; for genera and subgenera it is a nominal species; for taxa at ranks of the family group it is a nominal genus. Accordingly, when a taxon at any rank is delineated by a taxonomist it may contain several name-bearing types, each with a name that is available for use at that rank The Principle of Priority (which may be modified in its operation in the interests of stability and universality - see (4) below) is used to determine which of those names is the valid one." Again here taxa above the family group are excluded, so one can't blame the Code or in opposite one can, because if this would be regulated we wouldn't have to worry what Parachela is meant, that of Schuster or that of Steindachner. --Haps (talk) 05:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At any rate, Wikispecies has the means to disambiguate, so there is no problem that can't be solved. Don't forget that a genus name can be a "homonym" of an author's name, or a placename, etc... Stho002 (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ref. plates[edit]

Stephen,

Why i change the templates Zt.

1. When I add species i can't see the authors.

2. The names on the Zt are often wrong.

3. We agree to add the references on the way i do now (a proposal of your self).

4. If under References are more zt I don't know to add other bulletins, because i don't see names of the authors.

So I add the references after your first proposal. You cant change every time the agreements. You have find a solution for all bulletins and not for one or two. So I add the references on this way.

Regards,

Peter

That's not quite correct, is it Peter?! Let me be clear: if I change a reference to a reference template, please do not change it back, thank you ... Stho002 (talk) 08:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Above is correct. I see you have block me to add the real species. You are a great guy.

Thanks for the compliment! :) BTW, I haven't "blocked" you in any shape or form ... Stho002 (talk) 09:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen,
Reference Templates are clearly a good idea as making changes to a lot of pages if a reference has to be modified is a big job. Can you point me to a fully-fledged reference template with some explanation of the code/syntax used? I will try to gradually update my long list of references and make them into Templates. Thanks, Alan Accassidy (talk) 13:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, yes reference templates are particularly critical in situations where journals change platforms, or start doing things differently, in such a way that old links to abstracts/full articles no longer work. It happens! They are also useful for seeing which pages cite the reference. Reference templates are essentially very simple. You just give the template a name (anything will do, but something a bit meaningful is best), put the reference details on the template page, and "Bob's your uncle!", as a minimum. However, I have devised a useful addition ... try appending {{subst:reftemp}} to the end of the reference citation (without a space) on the template page, and see what happens... Stho002 (talk) 23:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, no page or user has been blocked. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He is probably referring to the fact that he got locked out of an edit conflict, but he doesn't have the words to express that ... Stho002 (talk) 04:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re: Gasteruption[edit]

for Hymenoptera I mainly use [2], in addition to other sources. Cheers, Mariusm (talk) 05:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

see also the "Hymenoptera Name Server" [3]. Mariusm (talk) 05:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remelana[edit]

Stephen, Clearly you have noted that I have started to make some revisions and create new pages in the Oriental Lycaenid Tribe Remelanini. All modern authors that I can find agree that Remelana contains at most 3 species. The best known of the is jangala which is widespread from India to Sulawesi and the Philippines. The other two are davisi, which occurs with 4 described subspecies in the Philippines (Treadaway & Schroeder, 2012) and, with slightly less confidence, westermanii. Treadaway & Schroeder now give this latter taxon species status and consider its distribution to be wide in the Philippines proper, with R. jangala callias and R. jangala esra restricted to the islands of the Palawan chain. I intend to construct the full quota of species and subspecies pages over the next few days, based on Treadaway's published treatment of the Philippine fauna and the view prevailing among all recent authors that the other extra-Philippine taxa are all subordinate to R. jangala. I will do my best to retain your formatting with regard to authorship and authority, but will arrange the species and subspecies names as summarised above. If you have any reliable authorities for treating more than 3 of the taxa as valid species, please let me have the details, but I do not accept that the various databases listed on your "Links" list are at all current or valid. For example, the BMNH Lepindex database is woefully un-researched and is no longer even being curated or updated. EOL is as yet a mere ghost of what it could be, and would be much better if it could port taxonomies and images from Wikispecies. I have been corresponding intermittemntly with EOL for nearly 2 years and have admin status there also, but find it much easier to work on Wikispecies under the current modi operandi. Regards, Alan Accassidy (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Remelana page was a mess, and I have made a start at giving it some solid structure. I hope you can see the step by step methodology at play here. Please go ahead, but please remember that, in order for someone like me (who knows nothing of the genus) to make sense of it in a verifiable way, we need to list ALL included species-group names on the genus page. First you put a list of the valid species as usual, then under subheading "In synonymy" you list all the others. Note that a subspecies is a synonym at the species level. In other words, for valid subspecies Aus bus cus, cus goes in the "in synonymy" list on the genus page as a species (redirected to the valid subspecies). In the name section for each page, put "Authority for placement:" and then some justification for the placement of that name within the system (i.e., as genus, subgenus, species, subspecies, etc.) This way, it will all make sense ... Stho002 (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is all understood. My habit has been to list all relevant synonymies, starting with the combination of the original description and at some stage including the current position, along with all of the references needed to justiy this 'cascade' of detective work. You can see a recent example at Ancema blanka. I have not always listed all currently accepted subspecies names in the species-level synonymy, as these, and their justifications, can be readily determined by interrogating the list of subspecies above the Name section. This saves a bit of repetition, but I can see that it might superficially appear incomplete. Accassidy (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All good, but some things to consider:
  • Combinations are different to synonyms
  • A species-group synonym is automatically recombined with the genus of its valid synonym, and can enter into homonymy whether species or subspecies
  • Listing all "in synonymy" names on a genus page allows you to (i) see at a glance all potential homonymy, and (ii) see at a glance if a name has been overlooked

Stho002 (talk) 23:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand, but where do you stop? Do you just go up one level, so that you list all 'subspecific' synonyms on the species page? For some species this would be a very long list. Do you suggest putting all the 'subspecific' synonyms on the Genus page? The point about seeing at a glance if something has been overlooked is also something of a nicety as a simple search for "X y" will readily find "y" even if it is only combined in a trinomial such as "X z y". If we were working in a database format, this would all be more simple, but we are not (yet) and I fear making things more complicated, and slower to create, than is absolutely essential. Accassidy (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a logical place to stop. There are species-group names, genus-group names and family-group names, which are independent classes of names (they don't enter into homonymy with each other, etc.) Hence there would be no point listing species on a family page. At any rate, you can, of course, do as you wish, but we just need to avoid conflicts ... Stho002 (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just jump in for a second. When using images on a page, it should not include the author. The author (and more) information can be found within the file description. This policy is consistent for all wiki projects and not just WikiSpecies. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are referring to Accassidy's images which he self-attributes in the caption. I agree this is unnecessary for the reasons you state, but I'm not going to enforce it ... Stho002 (talk) 06:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to Plantae[edit]

I view your changes to the classification of Plantae down to family level with some trepidation. You have abandoned the APGIII system almost completely and have done away with the evolutionary and classification clade divisions below the level of Classis Magnoliopsida, namely basal angiosperms, monocots and eudicots. Likewise getting rid of familiar and useful terms, such angiosperm, is itself controversial. It also seems to force a misleading and inappropriate hierarchy onto the Classis. Well. of course this is the nub of the debate, which many have simply sidestepped in favour of a more liberal approach until a better formal classification has been agreed, if indeed it can be agreed at all or is necessary.

The term Familiae incertae sedis on your Magnoliopsida page is definitely not to be recommended, as their phylogenetic and taxonomic status is not uncertain. It is a misleading and inappropriate use of a term that is meant to be a stop gap until relationships are clarified. For many of these families there are no appropriate Ordines, or if there are, usage just generates a large number of monotypic high level taxa, which is redundancy and not helpful. We tend to use Unplaced families or Unplaced orders

In addition, the layout itself produces a misleading hierarchy which does not reflect the accepted cladogramm for angiosperms. OK the previous layout did not really do this either. The hierarchy debate is not to be underestimated for plants, as this is one of the main reasons for dissatisfaction with the older formal system. Reference Amborella tricopoda sister to all extant angiosperms.

In general you seem to be forcing a formal animal based taxonomy and classification on to plants where as yet there is no genuine consensus. Most plant scientist seem to be happy with a mix of agreed clade and formal names. Should Wikispecies force consensus or reflect it?

You may want to read this paper, where Chase and Reveal propose a formal classification significantly different to your suggestions. Chase, M.W. & Reveal, J.L. (2009) A phylogenetic classification of the land plants to accompany APG III. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 161, 122–127. An online copy can be found at Chase and Reveal. It is hierarchical and more or less matches APGIII as well, but I have not seen it used widely, have you? It is perhaps too radical with all land plants (embryophytes) changing to Class: Equisetopsida C.Agardh, Classes Pl.: 7. 20 May 1825. and angiosperms to Subclass: Magnoliidae Novák ex Takht., Sist. Filog. Cvetk. Rast.: 51. 4 Feb 1967. (not Magnoliopsida, which will become a homotypic synonym). It does however, meet your needs for strict formality and if Wikispecies is to change perhaps this is the way forward for plants? The main Plantae page will need modifying as will many others including numerous templates!

I will post on pump later, but I am less happy with your changes than the imperfections that existed prior to these. Sorry to be so negative. Andyboorman (talk) 08:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that Wikispecies is really designed for Linnean classification, not for cladistic classification. We use Linnean classification for Animalia, so why should we use cladistic classification for Plantae? Most of the external databases I am trying to link to use Linnean classification for plants. The general problem with cladistic classification is that it tends to be too unstable. APGIII is a REALLY BAD choice for Wikispecies! I hope we can work something out without too much conflict. The emphasis in Wikispecies is on the "leaves of the tree of life" anyway, and the classification is just a convenient way to manage the species. Stho002 (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I will change incertae sedis to "unplaced" Stho002 (talk) 21:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I seem very negative. but we have spent years in plant classification using formal names from orders to species, but a mixture for the higher divisions. APGIII is what we are used to I guess and to see a return to strict formality is a bit strange. APGIII gives us the flexibility when the inevitable changes occur! Plants do not have the stability of animals - too many mechanisms for speciation. If Wikispecies needs it then I am fine with a Linnean approach, but I still ask the question, which one? We are spoilt for choice when it comes to plants! Which external databases are you using as a model? EOL has a lot of divisions, but also inaccuracies, informal clades names and some inconsistencies. Tolweb is cladistic. Your NZOR is difficult to assess, but has no synonyms, trees or overview, so cannot comment. Agreed my interest really is in the 'leaves' so I am not going to have too much of a hissy fit. Andyboorman (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you may be interested in this formal classification from Tropicos Sesleria Scop.!

  • class: Equisetopsida C. Agardh
  • subclass: Magnoliidae Novák ex Takht.
  • superorder: Lilianae Takht.
  • order: Poales Small
  • family: Poaceae Barnhart

And then there is this output from GRIN (less up to date database than Tropicos with fewer academic collaborators) Scolochloa (Rivergrass) Plantae - Magnoliophyta - Liliopsida - Poales - Poaceae - Scolochloa

Good luck Andyboorman (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is the same problem with Animalia, i.e. many different options to choose from. That is why it may be best to think of the higher classification, for present purposes, not to be about relationships so much as just an information management structure to organise the species (a "filing cabinet") Stho002 (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some consider Tropicos (and similar) more 'scientific' filing cabinets (universities, research etc.), whereas GRIN more like a high school PowerPoint ! However, KISS is a pretty good maxim! Have you asked the advice of Kew, they can be very helpful - maybe try Mark Chase? Andyboorman (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The best choice is relative to context, and the context here at Wikispecies is different to most other contexts ... Stho002 (talk)
Please define what you mean by the 'context of Wikispecies'... I do not think this is flippant, as it seems that there is not a uniform definition given multiple requirements, contributors, users and minimal central moderation. Andyboorman (talk) 09:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS I did a quick check on some Animalia pages and most use a mixture of formal taxon, Cladi and even informal names (similar to APGIII)! Andyboorman (talk) 10:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we went through an experimental phase, but now we must render it all consistently Linnean Stho002 (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, Admin spates not withstanding, I would like to know your system for Plantae to Ordines (we do not need to use Latin, but I am OK with it). Can I have some references? In addition, will you unilaterally be simplifying Wikispecies so that Orders, Tribes and Subtribes etc. are removed, as I have enjoyed putting these on the site with references? I got rid of Alliance on Orchidaceae as these are not ICBN taxon, but.....! There are many simplistic, if fit for purpose, taxonomies on the web (GBIF, GRIN), but also a lot of more solid academic info (APGIII, WCSP, GrassBase..) I feel that the USP for Wikispecies should be that classification and taxonomy is as complete, consensual, accepted and accurate as possible and of course fully cross referenced. Hope you understand my concerns, because if Wikispecies is going in another direction I would like to know soonest. Andyboorman (talk) 20:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on a solution, but a more "simplistic" classification is probably most apopropriate for WS purposes. It is not our job to work out relationships between taxa (which are never conclusively established anyway). It is our job to catalogue primarily species, and genera, but the higher classification will have to be more pragmatic Stho002 (talk) 22:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed it is not the job of WS to work out anything whether taxonomy or classification, but we should simply report on the best consensus that is out there 'in the wild'? In addition, add pictures, links and references in order to enrich the users' experiences as well as backing up content. If contributors find admins deleting their well researched work without consultation then that is a problem, surely? Rich taxonomies both establish nomenclature and relationships - we can not get away from that fact. You mention species and genera, but their names have and are changing (10/20% per family in the last decade and ongoing), as knowledge increases and we ought to be able to reflect this and provide the evidence for these changes. Relationships between taxa are part of this evidence. Andyboorman (talk) 10:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if species or generic names change. Wikispecies records unchanging information about such names like the original description reference (and links to it wherever possible). This is the primary task of Wikispecies, and yet there are perhaps 100,000 species names in plants still with no Wikispecies page! Anyway, I am currently pondering Tracheophyta. Vascular plants are a central concept in practical botany, and I know of nothing to suggest that they aren't a monophyletic group, so surely Wikispecies should recognise them as a formal taxon? Perhaps at the level of phylum? Stho002 (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tracheophyta as a phylum definitely, as we do not need to use Divisions these days. Vessels are indeed a key monophyletic moment in evolution of plants. I suggest that this approach could be more widely applied. Acquisition of the chloroplast and the development of the seed are two more good examples and Magnoliopsida covers the flower. But as you point out keep it simple without being over-simplistic. Andyboorman (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTOC at Apus apus[edit]

Hi Stho - thanks for adding __NOTOC__ to Apus apus. What baffles me is why you had to add it, I thought TOC was disabled in wikispecies? Plenty of other pages have numerous headers without generating a TOC. Any idea why one appeared there? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a random bug creating TOCs on some pages. Annoying, but I don't know how to solve the problem...Stho002 (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'll try and remember to look out for it happening - MPF (talk) 21:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also ran into a page with TOC the other day. Wonder what was going on. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another one found. Look at Ciccaba virgata OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they crop up every so often. I just do a manual NOTOC to fix it... Stho002 (talk) 01:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent classifications[edit]

Please stop making randomly inconsistent changes to high-level plant classification. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

...please have a look here: [4]. Orchi (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dealt with, thanks Stho002 (talk) 22:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dennyus[edit]

Thanks Thorpe Your modifications are nice indeed. Sometimes I am not familiar with this language. I'll be very glad in still contribute with Wikispecies, but once I realize that my informations added have been deleted I'll stop. My ideia is provide as much information is possible for these lice, then I'll prefer see all the reference related to that genus and/or taxon instead of just "the relevant ones". This wiki has the goal to catalog the life, let's do it. Thanks for your assistance. Michel P. Valim (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Dr Thorpe, You win. I am done with it. You are welcome to fill the other lice as well. I'll look for some place to spread knowledge, not somewhere where it is cutted-off. My time is precious and I work here for improve the knowledge about lice. I really appreciate your help and patience. Michel P. Valim (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand! You can spread knowledge about lice very effectively here. I was just trying to show you how to spend your time most efficiently Stho002 (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen, In your expanding and collapsing Nomenclature box, could you not find a place to note the Type Location and the repository of the type material (if these are known)? As this Name section isusually fairly small, I'm not sure making it collapsible is necessary. Alan. Accassidy (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand! You can put anything in the nomenclature box, you just have to enclose the section with {{Nomen|}}. I DO put Type Location and the repository of the type material in the box, see Geodorcus species. In some cases, I just may not have that info. or may not have included yet. ... Stho002 (talk)

Open links Vs Talk page Why did you included global link in Lunaceps genus, and are removing these new ones? Actually, I don't know how to create and what is the function of Talk page. Is it possible create it automatically? Thanks in advance, Michel P. Valim (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference template Hey Thorpe, I have included a new template for a paper see it: { { Price & Weckstein, 2005 } }, it is a recent review for a genus of lice from toucans. Is it possible automatically rescue the taxa within this paper into Austrophilopterus page (which is still blank)? Thanks in advance

One user by page[edit]

Hey my friend, what do you think to leave me finish one page BEFORE you start to modify it. I know that it isn't a BIG requestion, once we have LOT OF names to put in WS. Then, I don't think that we should write the same page at same time. What do you think? As I know, I am an expert in the ONLY group that I am include data and you are REMOVING information which seems irrelevant to you (only). I think that we SHOULD delimitate what each one will do, or at least we SHOULD agree in to not write the same page that our little friend is working on. I strongly recommend you leave me inserting my data and only AFTER I include them you are free to format as YOUR way (this is a insolit fight, I read lot of old discussion here in the WS about you behaviour), but you are NOT welcome to remove information that I am including here. Is it Ok for you? Now, may I finish the Cummingsiella page or you have the references, synonyms, species etc to set there (and others)? I am really appreciating your help, but I don't think that is good education write ON what other are writing. What's up? Have a nice day, Michel P. Valim (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Ok Thorpe, I understand what you are saying about "problems". Mas, I am doing that with books, reprints, pdfs all over the table. Than, sometimes I'll 'copy and paste' and will return fixing or correcting. My first goal, as you can see, is to fill the taxons and then include references and polish these kind of "copy and paste" problem. Then, take it easy and wait a minute. This was not the first time that I'll save my page and you have changed it before. Sometimes, I took "minutes" with a page opened and building it. I really appreciate your work here, but as I told you I want to include more that name of the taxon with ist author and date. You are doing things fantastic for me and Phthiraptera. THANKS, but please... take a break and wait to see if I am finishing some page before jump it.

Lastly, I'll not discuss taxonomy on the screen of computer Thorpe, I respect your oppinion but I won't include any reference only in link (following lot of others in WS which disagree with you). Sorry, but I'll construct my pages using my phylosophies and not yours (with all respect). If you think that, I would say you that I am building a page that I would like to find 15 years ago when I started, then if there is a "short communication" with a single geographical or host record for my insects I'll put them available for all students. Not sure for and in what kind of group do you work with, but for a such small group of insect like lice every single "short communication" can bring tons of new informations. If I had followed what all the "old guys" told me when I was starting: "...to work with lice is difficult because there are no references for such group..." I try to make shorter the way for those who listen some bullshits like these. Sorry, but I'll list as many references I can because in MOST cases these are all that we have. Hope you understand and learn to think with a mind of who works with a oligodiverse group of insect. Lastly, I would like again to thank you for ALL assistance and fix lot of mistaken done by me. Really. You have help me a lot with your experience... but take it easy. Cheers, :D Michel P. Valim (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Myrsidea[edit]

Hi Thorpe, I am in Rio for this week and moving slowing with WS. One request... could you remove the taxon Menoponoidea. There is no superfamilial rank in Phthiraptera, or at least with consensus. In addition, in WS there is only this superfamily and not the others, maybe because is still difficult to allocate correctly the genera in each small families. Thanks in advance. Cheers. Michel P. Valim (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)  Done Stho002 (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC) Thanks my dear! Michel P. Valim (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://species.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stho002/Archive_6&oldid=8327095"