User talk:Tony 1212

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome to Wikispecies![edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikispecies! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

If you have named a taxon, then it is likely that there is (or will be) a Wikispecies page about you, and other pages about your published papers. Please see our advice and guidance for taxon authors.

If you have useful images to contribute to Wikispecies, please upload them at Wikimedia Commons. This is also true for video or audio files containing bird songs, whale vocalization, etc.

Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username (if you're logged in) and the date. Please also read the Wikispecies policy What Wikispecies is not. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or in the Village Pump. Again, welcome! -- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

IRMNG records (see for additional info)[edit]

Notifications 8 Feb[edit]

Hi Tony,

In passing I noted that IRMNG_ID 11396725 ( Achnatherum wallowaensis Maze & K.A. Robson will be wrong. It should be Achnatherum wallowaense. Even ITIS has corrected this. - Brya (talk) 06:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Brya:Thanks Brya for spotting this, I have now corrected the IRMNG record - I don't know whether this has any flow on implications for wikispecies and wikidata, probably it has - maybe @Succu: or @Pigsonthewing: may know. FYI, IRMNG has many species binomials imported in 2006 from the then current version of Catalogue of Life, some of which contain errors, which I have generally not checked further since the task of compiling the genera (principal IRMNG focus) has taken up all my time. (IRMNG has species names from other resources as well). So, to the extent that there were errors in CoL 2006 at species level, some/most of these will remain in IRMNG at the present time, although as individual ones are pointed out I can certainly correct them on an ad hoc basis. A future task would be to re-synch IRMNG species content ex CoL 2006 with the most recent version, but it is a big one and unlikely to be done in the immediate future (at least by me...) Best - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, past versions of CoL had a considerably higher rate of error than the present one. Having said that, I don't often find errors in IRMNG, although I do from time to time (I will try and keep notes for the future). However, I mostly look at IRMNG for generic names, for which it is extremely useful.
        I will take care of the Wikidata entry. - Brya (talk) 04:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Brya, I am always happy to make small fixes to IRMNG if you encounter any content that requires correction (there is other content that is incomplete e.g. lots of names to "class xxx unallocated" and so on, but that is a much larger task), since I am working on it for an hour or two most days at this time (must retire at some point though!) Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 06:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Another small error is Ephesiella muehlenhardtae Hartmann-Schröder & Rosenfeldt, 1988 IRMNG_ID 11832865. Presumably published as Ephesiella mühlenhardtae and (wrongly) "corrected" to Ephesiella muehlenhardtae instead of to Ephesiella muhlenhardtae. See the WoRMS entry.
OK, fixed now, thanks.

Notifications 9 Feb[edit]

Something which will also be wrong is Corystes Mulsant, 1850 IRMNG_ID 1284213 and its two species. In Opinion 689, the ICZN has accepted Corystes Latreille 1802-03, so Corystes Mulsant, 1850 is a later homonym. No idea as to the current status of these two species. GBIF has deleted both species. - Brya (talk) 12:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@Brya:OK, all fixed. Previously in IRMNG I had (all as "accepted"):
  • Corystes Bosc, 1801
  • Corystes Latreille, 1802
  • Corystes Mulsant, 1850
  • Corystes Reinhard, 1865
After further investigation and cleaning up we now have:
  • Corystes Bosc, 1801
  • Corystes Latreille, 1802 accepted as Corystes Bosc, 1801
  • Corystes Mulsant, 1850 accepted as Meltema Özdikmen, 2007
  • Corystes Reinhard, 1865 accepted as Polystenus Förster, 1862
It turns out that the assignment of Corystes to Latreille, 1802 in ICZN Opinion 689 was incorrect, Bosc is correct according to the ICZN Official List (1987 publication) where is says "original entry corrected" (took me a while to find this and sort out the associated confusion).
I had added Meltema Özdikmen, 2007 to IRMNG in a 2015 effort with the information that it was a nomen novum for Corystes Mulsant, 1850, but had not updated that record for some reason (normally I would have done I hope). Must check some other/similar cases now...
For now I will leave the 2 IRMNG records for species/child records of Corystes Mulsant "as is" since the names are correctly spelled even if their currency is now incorrect - too many similar cases to fix at this time (and for now, species are not included in the IRMNG download files, for this reason in the main); on the relevant IRMNG species pages it will automatically appear that the generic name is now unaccepted.
Cheers and thanks for the alert(s) - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Like you, I had based myself on the ICZN Official Lists and Indexes (but online, updated March 2012), but had stopped at the first entry, that of cassivelaunus, Cancer. I based my edits in Wikidata on this: these were thus correct. It is only in making the note here that I added the wrong authorship ... I see you have a Corystes cassivelanus IRMNG_ID 10246488, in addition to Corystes cassivelaunus (Pennant, 1777) IRMNG_ID 10544076. The latter has been set by the ICZN as the type species, so no doubt is correct. The former is a misspelling (presumably derived from ITIS).
        If you are up for another case there is also Holocnemus Brenske, 1894 IRMNG_ID 1354189. The other entry Holocnemus Simon, 1873 is not only earlier, but is well accepted as a current genus by lots of databases. - Brya (talk) 05:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Notifications 10 Feb[edit]

There is also some inclarity in your entry Euscelus Claus, 1879. This is a later homonym, and as noted in your entry Eusceliotes Stebbing, 1888, a replacement name has been published. This has been accepted as a current name by WoRMS (and GBIF), see also this. Your entry is not incorrect by why not simply state "unaccepted, junior homonym" and "Accepted name Eusceliotes". - Brya (talk) 06:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Brya, no problem, I will attend to these tomorrow. The explanation for the incompleteness of the "Euscelus" entry is that it represents a class of homonyms for which a replacement name has been created, but the replacement name did not appear as current at the time in any of the sources I had consulted - i.e. older versions of WoRMS etc., so there was the open question of whether or not it should be cited as a taxonomic synonym of the replacement name (if you get my drift) - now it seems it can be. (Sometimes replacement names are themselves replaced, or turn out to be superfluous or unavailable for some other reason, or are merged into something else anyway). There are probably several thousand names in this category at the present time, all lurking a bit under the radar until someone cares to check further. Stay tuned! Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 06:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. As an aside, it is interesting to note that likely we both caused the Zeidler publication of April 2017. I reported this to WoRMS in December 2016, which explains Zeidler's "It was recently brought to my attention" and IRMNG and you are being mentioned by name. - Brya (talk) 06:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Brya. I have made the following fixes in IRMNG in light of your comments, thanks:

  • Corystes cassivelanus - kept, labelled as a misspelling (since it has hits in Google Scholar), pointed to correct spelling Corystes cassivelaunus
  • Holocnemus Brenske, 1894 - kept as "accepted" for now (as several lists have it as such and it is apparently in use although a junior homonym), added a note RE homonym status
  • Euscelus Claus, 1879 set as unaccepted, junior homonym and pointed to Eusceliotes Stebbing, the latter set as an accepted name with new ref. to Zeidler, 2017. (Previously it had my standard "unresearched" note along the lines of "name from a nomenclator only, present status unknown").

Actually if Stebbing's name was unavailable as seems to be suggested by Zeidler (I do not have access to the full paper, just the abstract), then correctly the replacement name should have new authorship i.e. Eusceliotes Zeidler, 2017, with Eusceliotes Stebbing kept as a nomen nudum. I note that the WoRMS record does not do this but is possibly in error in this respect. On the other hand, as a general rule (although sometimes I break it), IRMNG attempts to be reactive rather than proactive in such technical pronouncements - although I definitely think it looks wrong in such a case - I could chase further via the Taxacom and/or ICZN lists and get an opinion from the "experts", perhaps. Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

As to junior homonyms, the zoological Code states "When two or more names are homonyms, only the senior, as determined by the Principle of Priority (see Article 52.3), may be used as a valid name", so I would regard the fact that a junior homonym is somewhat in use as an error to be reported, not as evidence that it is valid ("accepted"). Of course, it is possible for a junior homonym to become valid by petitioning the Commission, but that will not happen here.
        As to Zeidler, he is a zoologist, so he uses "validate" in its zoological meaning (in the botanical meaning it would mean "make it validly published", which would be "make it available" in zoological terms). "To make valid" in zoology refers to taxonomy, not nomenclature. What Zeidler does in this publication is accept Eusceliotes for taxonomic use, in his taxonomic framework (supplementing his earlier publications), for use in checklists etc. - Brya (talk) 04:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Brya, I am aware of what the Code says about homonyms, but it does happen that in a small number of cases, unreplaced homonyms are still "names in current use" which is how I - for the time being - assign the [taxonomically but, clearly, not nomenclaturally] "accepted" status in use in IRMNG (IRMNG now shares its terms with the WoRMS - technically "Aphia" - controlled vocabulary). E.g. for a good while there were some family level homonyms in current use in distinct groups, which have mostly now been sorted out, but a few remain as unreplaced homonyms, both of which could be listed as "accepted" until the situation is sorted. I guess it is a matter of my desire to go with the "situation as used" rather the strict Code compliance, on the basis that at some point, the latter should prevail and result in the choice of a different name for the taxon denoted by the junior homonym; although I appreciate that the opposite view can also be taken as you point out. Cheers - Tony (By the way, just wondering what time zone you are in - here in Oz it is the end of the afternoon...) Tony 1212 (talk) 05:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Another thing, I have a difference of opinion with VLIZ (current IRMNG host agency) about a significant subset of names that I had as taxonomic status = unknown (i.e., unresearched) in the previous version of IRMNG. By default these have all switched to "accepted" in the new (2016 onwards), VLIZ-hosted copy, which is a bit sub-optimal, however they do not have a category corresponding to "not researched" for taxonomic status. If they introduce such a category, about 100,000 genus names should go into it :) - mainly animal genera from Nomenclator Zoologicus not encountered in other sources used to date. Best - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 05:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
It's very early in the morning here, pre-dawn. And yes, "unknown" or "unresearched" would be very useful; there is a lot of what I sometimes call "nomenclatural detritus". This should be kept in its proper place. - Brya (talk) 06:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I do notice two different shades of "accepted" in IRMNG, only one of which apparently really means "accepted". - Brya (talk) 06:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Correct. Probably time for a renewed attempt to convert the VLIZ folks to see the "correct"/optimal solution... I mention it at approximately annual intervals; just depends if they have heard the same message from any other data compilers in the mean time. Tony 1212 (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi @Brya, more discussion with VLIZ and a result: 126,000 unassessed genus names now changed to status=uncertain, example So now "accepted" should mean "accepted"... onwards and upwards! Cheers - Tony

Notifications 14 Feb[edit]

WoRMS has updated its view of
  • Sigmella Azbel & Mikhalevich (1983) non Hebard (1940),
  • and of Sphaeridia Heron-Allen & Earland, 1928 non Linnaniemi (1912). - Brya (talk) 12:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Also Visaya Poppe, Guillot de Suduiraut & Tagaro, 2006. - Brya (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Also Ptychogaster A. Milne Edwards, 1880. - Brya (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Also Psammonyx Bousfield, 1973. - Brya (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Polyneura (J.Agardh) Kylin (1924) (nom. cons.), in IRMNG as "Polyneura J.Agardh, 1924". - Brya (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Brya, I'll check these out - may be a couple of days since I have to do some big jobs around the house today :) (workmen coming at 8 am to demolish a water tank, with some flow-on effects, pun intended...)Tony 1212 (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @Brya:, updated IRMNG records are now as follows:

  • Sphaeridia Heron-Allen & Earland, 1928 accepted as Kuremsia Özdikmen, 2009
  • Sigmella Azbel & Mikhalevich in Mikhalevich, 1983 accepted as Novosigmella Özdikmen, 2009
  • Visaya Poppe, Guillot de Suduiraut & Tagaro, 2006 accepted as Suluspira Fedosov, Herrmann & Bouchet in Fedosov et al., 2017 (record for the latter added)
  • Ptychogaster A. Milne-Edwards, 1881 accepted as Gastroptychus Caullery, 1896
  • Psammonyx Bousfield, 1973 accepted as Wecomedon Jarrett & Bousfield, 1982
  • Polyneura J.Agardh, 1924 now appears correctly as Polyneura (J.Agardh) Kylin (1924).

Interestingly, in 2 of these 6 cases, the IRMNG record I supplied to VLIZ in 2014 was actually correct, and was later uncorrected by VLIZ staff (acting in good faith I should say) when they did a bulk comparison with WoRMS in 2016 - although of course they did make many good adjustments/updates via that process.

Thanks for spotting these, and I am happy to receive advice of further minor fixes as needed - though if there are a large number, I may need time to address them... FYI there are around 150,000 of 500,000 generic names in IRMNG which have received no further checking (e.g. for current taxonomic status) since their initial upload - see, and as you have spotted, things can change since data were last checked as well over the interval 2006-present. It is a different question, of course, of whether the effort of checking these names justifies the end result, and/or how this should be resourced!! Best - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Notifications 17 Feb[edit]

Thank you. Yes, large-scale systematic checking of names is problematic. I try to get errors removed whenever I can, but this is only moderately succesful. In this case I am rechecking corrections which I passed on to WoRMS to see what they did with them. Further items WoRMS has updated:
  • Phasganon Targioni-Tozzetti, 1826
  • Phasganon F.J. Ruprecht
  • Cuvillierina Rossi de Garcia, 1972 † (they acknowledged me in publishing the replacement name, which is nice)
  • Panda Martens, 1860
  • Ovulina Anderson, Rogerson & Hannah, 1996
  • Oncodiscus J.W. Bailey
  • Olgia Mikhalevich, 2011 (a replacement name has been published for the genus, but, unaccountably, not for the family! This will need to be replaced as well)
  • Natlandia McCulloch, 1977
  • Mirifica Shlykova, 1969 †
  • Campylacantha Jörgensen
  • Trichogaster Sterki, 1878
  • Wrightia E. O'Meara, 1867
  • Catena Schröder, Medioli & Scott, 1989 †
  • Chenia Sheng, 1963 †
  • Gallitellia Loeblich & Tappan, 1986 †
  • Mccullochia Özdikmen, 2009
More later (presumably). - Brya (talk) 09:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, IRMNG changes to date (will update this list as I go):

  • Phasganon Targioni-Tozzetti, 1826 now a nomen nudum, children transferred to Phasganon F.J. Ruprecht
  • Phasganon F.J. Ruprecht in A.T. von Middendorff, 1850 accepted as Alaria Greville, 1830 (links to WoRMS records for the above taxa had become transposed, now fixed)
  • Cuvillierina Rossi de Garcia, 1972 † accepted as Rossicuvillierina Brandão, 2017 †
  • Panda Martens, 1860 accepted as Hedleyella Iredale, 1914
  • Ovulina Anderson, Rogerson & Hannah, 1996 accepted as Ovulinata Anderson, Rogerson & Hannah, 1997
  • Oncodiscus J.W. Bailey now set to unaccepted (nomen nudum for now, unaccepted later), ?unpublished name
  • Olgia Mikhalevich, 2011 accepted as Olgita Mikhalevich, 2017
  • Natlandia McCulloch, 1977 accepted as Doyrana Özdikmen, 2009
  • Mirifica Shlykova, 1969 † accepted as Ugurus Özdikmen, 2009 †
  • Campylacantha Jörgensen in Nordgaard & Jörgensen, 1905 † accepted as Neosemantis Popofsky, 1913 (Deflandrella Loeblich & Tappan, 1961 † now also accepted as Neosemantis, and Deflandrella de Wever & Caridroit, 1984 † now accepted as Cauletella Caridroit, De Wever & Dumitrica, 1999 †)
  • Trichogaster Sterki, 1878 accepted as Prooxytricha Poche, 1913 (taxon inquirendum)
  • Wrightia E. O'Meara, 1867 now a nomen nudum, homonomy also noted
  • Catena Schröder, Medioli & Scott, 1989 † accepted as Neocatena Özdikmen, 2009, also fossil flag removed (was error)
  • Chenia Sheng, 1963 † accepted as Turgutia Özdikmen, 2009 †
  • Gallitellia Loeblich & Tappan, 1986 † accepted as Neogallitellia Özdikmen, 2009 †
  • Mccullochia Özdikmen, 2009 (superfluous replacement name) accepted as Krebsina McCulloch, 1981

That's it for this batch, I think - Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. - Brya (talk) 05:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

21 Feb[edit]

I have found some more, where WoRMS has updated its point of view:

  • Nanlingella Rui & Sheng, 1981 †
  • Sabaudia Charollais & Brönniman, 1965 †
  • Teichertina Palmieri, 1994 †
  • Tyria Ehrenberg
  • Pavonia H.F.A. Roussel, 1806
  • Myriactis Kützing, 1843

Up for it? No hurry. - Brya (talk) 05:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

OK... updated versions in IRMNG now, all done:

  • Nanlingella Rui & Sheng, 1981 † accepted as Novonanlingella Özdikmen, 2009 †
  • Sabaudia Charollais & Brönniman, 1965 † accepted as Akcaya Özdikmen, 2009 †
  • Teichertina Palmieri, 1994 † accepted as Palmierina Özdikmen, 2009 †
  • Tyria Ehrenberg, 1912 accepted as Serratia Bizio, 1823 (Approved Lists, 1980), a bacterium (cf. WoRMS/AlgaeBase who have this genus listed as Ochrophyta incertae sedis)
  • Pavonia H.F.A. Roussel, 1806 accepted as Padina M. Adanson, 1763
  • Myriactis Kützing, 1843 accepted as Myriactula O. Kuntze, 1898.

Cheers and thanks for the alerts - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

24 Feb[edit]

I came up with another small pile, some of them just spelling corrections:

  • Muelleriella H.Van Heurck, 1896 †
  • Synedrella F.E. Round & N.I. Maidana, 2001
  • Comephorenema now Comephoronema
  • Ataxoorbignya Voloshina, 1965 † now Ataxoorbignyna
  • Kroyerina : now Kroeyerina
  • Dasyoncocotyle : now Dasyonchocotyle
  • Trasserkidrilus : now Tasserkidrilus
  • Aeotearia : now Aotearia
  • Schmidtia C. Janisch, 1888 : now "invalid" sensu ICNafp
  • Platytheca F. Stein, 1878
  • Hyllus Wade, 1917 †
  • Wadia Cossmann, 1920 †
  • Thalassia Martens, 1860
  • Fyfea Winsor, 2006
  • Papularia E.M. Fries, 1825
  • Chilodontidae Wenz, 1938
  • Neocnus Cherbonnier, 1972
  • Micrella Punnett, 1901
  • Reussina impressa (Reuss, 1846)

Brya (talk) 13:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Bry. I was wondering what I would do today :) New IRMNG versions as I go:

  • Muelleriella H.Van Heurck, 1896 † (junior homonym) accepted as Rhopalodia O. Müller, 1895 (WoRMS has it accepted as Muelleriopsis N.I. Hendey, 1972 †, however the type species M. limbata (Ehrenberg, 1854) Van Heurck, 1896 † is placed in Pyxidicula Ehrenberg which is itself a synonym of Rhopalodia - not 100% sure about my decision since the WoRMS record is a mess) - also fixed IRMNG record for Muelleriopsis at the same time
  • Synedrella F.E. Round & N.I. Maidana, 2001 (junior homonym) accepted as Pseudostaurosira D.M. Williams & F.E. Round, 1988
  • Comephorenema (misspelling) accepted as Comephoronema Layman, 1933; species all fixed as well
  • Ataxoorbignya Voloshina, 1965 † (misspelling) corrected to Ataxoorbignyna
  • Kroyerina Wilson, 1932 (misspelling) accepted as Kroeyerina Wilson, 1932 (new record created for the latter name)
  • Dasyoncocotyle (misspelling) deleted since WoRMS was the only source, species moved to Dasyonchocotyle (with additional fixes)
  • Trasserkidrilus (misspelling) accepted as Tasserkidrilus
  • Aeotearia Benham, 1927 (misspelling) deleted since WoRMS was the only source, species deleted since already exists correctly spelled
  • Schmidtia C. Janisch, 1888 (MS name) set to nomen nudum (will be unaccepted), MS name and also junior homonym
  • Platytheca F. Stein, 1878 - kept as accepted for now, since it is an unreplaced homonym in current use (note added RE status)
  • Hyllus Wade, 1917 † (junior homonym) accepted as Parafusus Wade, 1918 †
  • Wadia Cossmann, 1920 † (superfluous replacement name) accepted as Parafusus Wade, 1918 †
  • Thalassia Martens, 1860 (junior homonym) accepted as Nitor Gude, 1911
  • Fyfea Winsor, 2006 (junior homonym) accepted as Marionfyfea Winsor, 2011
  • Papularia E.M. Fries, 1825 (junior homonym and synonym) accepted as Arthrinium G. Kunze, 1817
  • Chilodontidae Wenz, 1938 - not changed (junior homonym in current use), so far as I can see the WoRMS record is anticipatory, no ICZN ruling at this tine (still waiting since the case was submitted 8 years ago) - I have sent a message to Taxacom to be sure
  • Neocnus Cherbonnier, 1972 (junior homonym and synonym) accepted as Incubocnus Thandar & Vinola, 2017 (new record created for the latter name)
  • Micrella Punnett, 1901 (junior homonym and synonym) accepted as Zygeupolia Thompson, 1900
  • Reussina impressa (Reuss, 1846) changed to correct parent (Reussina Kluge, 1962 accepted as Reussinella Gordon, 2009, not Reussina Neviani, 1896). Species name not changed at this stage as there are *lot* of species names requiring update (new combinations etc.), perhaps may be done as a batch job one day (or not...)

That's it for now - with possible exception of Chilodontidae Wenz according to any additional feedback I may receive on Taxacom, see message at

By the way I am close to "closing the books" on this year's batch of IRMNG updates so as to be able to create a March 2019 release to be picked up by Catalogue of Life for their 2019 annual edition. So only a day or two, maybe, for any other changes for now...

Also I am interested on how you pick up these discrepancies - is it just chance or do you have some systematic comparison method in place? Best regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 05:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

As to this last, Wikidata throws up lists of "constraint violations", which then hopefuly will be resolved by one or more users, so I am processing these rather than finding them. (WoRMS, IRMNG, see also this list)
        As to Chilodontidae, I seem to recall having encountered more such cases. I have more or less have given up trying to track such cases in ICZN decisions, and am going along with unofficial corrections. This may be lazy, but it seems better than to keep struggling with homonyms. - Brya (talk) 07:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
                RE Chilodontidae: I have decided to follow WoRMS which uses "Chilodontaidae" for the gastropod family, in anticipation of the ICZN case being successful - although has already waited 7+ years with no action. Other sources have picked this up too so it qualifies (vaguely) as "current use" even though published in only one actual publication. Best to "go with the flow" i.e. WoRMS on this occasion, methinks... Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 05:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

25 Feb[edit]

There is also a small pile of spelling corrections in specific names:

  • Venezillo pleogoniphorus (Rioja, 1951) : add -o-
  • Lunella coreensis (Récluz, 1853) : add -r-
  • Eucratopsis crassimana (Dana, 1851) : -us
  • Calliostoma insignis Olsson, 1971 : -e
  • Niphargus pavecevici G. Karaman, 1976 : -i-
  • Prunum estafaniae Pérez-Dionis, Ortea & Espinosa, 2009 : -e-
  • Austrobalanus anatarcticus Buckeridge, 2000 : minus -a-
  • Paguristes starki Provenzano, 1965 : add -c-
  • Bolma bartschi Dall, 1913 : add -i
  • Eunereis elittoralis (Eliason, 1962) : minus -t-
  • Niphargus frasiassianus : minus -i-
  • Niphargus glontti : -t- = -i-
  • Niphargus juguslavicus : -o-
  • Niphargus longicatidatus : -au-
  • Niphargus microberberus : -c-
  • Niphargus pavecevici
  • Anamobaea oerstedi
  • Clathrodrillia tryonii
  • Krebsia liberata (Pease, 1868) (not accepted by WoRMS)
  • Cubaris tarangensa (Budde-Lund, 1904) : -is
  • Lunella smaragdus (Gmelin, 1791) : -a
  • Philoscia novaezealandiae Filhol, 1885 : -zel-
  • Stenoniscus contogensis Mulaik, 1960 : -oye-
  • Macrostomum finlandense (Ferguson, 1940) : -nn-
  • Sargocentron suborbitalis (Gill, 1863) : -ale
  • Dentalina mitsui Hada, 1931 : mutsui
  • Echinoptilum macintoshii Hubrecht, 1885 : -shi
  • Colubraria cumingii (Dohrn, 1861) : minus -i

- Brya (talk) 07:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Brya, I will maybe look at these a bit later - I know there are plenty of errors at species level, it's how long is a piece of string... Luckily we do not include species in the data download file, or in the export to CoL, at this time at least :) There is some talk of dropping all species in IRMNG, due to the maintenance overhead, but I am not sure this is the best solution - although who knows. Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 09:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh sure, it is no coincidence that I kept these for last. Anyway, I have now processed the backlog, so from here on only occasional cases. - Brya (talk) 11:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

26 Feb[edit]

Two minor points:

  • Synaxiidae Bate, 1881 : now single -i- in WoRMS
  • Araeosternus Man, 1881 : treated as a synonym by WoRMS

- Brya (talk) 06:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

OK fixed in IRMNG now:
  • Synaxiidae Bate, 1881 : now deleted in IRMNG, Synaxidae already existed (now accepted as Palinuridae)
  • Araeosternus Man, 1881 accepted as Palinurellus von Martens, 1878
Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 07:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Any more genus (or higher rank) issues before I move towards a wrap for this year's activities (March 2018-Feb 2019)? - Tony
Well, if you are interested, there are also Nuculanoida, Arcoida, and Solemyoida where WoRMS has (sensibly) dropped the -o-. But these are above the family group so ... - Brya (talk) 11:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Brya, yes I do care (in theory) about ranks above family, just have not got round to reviewing a lot of them as yet (on the longer term "to do" list...). Anyway thanks for the alert, these three order names now fixed and child taxa now reallocated as needed. I did have one or two of them already so it was in part a consolidation exercise which is always useful. Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

1 Mar[edit]

OK, I've made a final round of IRMNG fixes and closed off for this release (March 2019), should be available as a new data dump on the IRMNG web site shortly. Additional changes can of course be made to the dynamic (live web) version as needed, and will be picked up in next year's static release. Tony 1212 (talk) 06:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, it seems sure that at some point further items will surface. - Brya (talk) 12:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Sure, especially when you/we check current allocation of a particular genus to its containing family and higher rank taxa, and current taxonomic status (accepted name vs. synonym). If we are talking IRMNG vs WoRMS here (which I guess we are), there are also some cases where the discrepancy is intentional, as well, for example I mostly follow Ruggiero et al. (2015) in which Foraminifera is a subphylum of Retaria, whereas in WoRMS is it a phylum; also WoRMS incorporates some data from AlgaeBase which is incorrect according to other sources that I prefer (I am thinking of Cyanobacteria in particular here...). Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't concern myself too much with classification, as long as whatever taxonomy is being followed is accurately represented, I am fine. It is the spelling errors and "objectively invalid names" (in zoological parlance) which concern me. And yes, there are errors in AlgaeBase as well. - Brya (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

3 Mar[edit]

Hi Bry, I already have it as a synonym of Cunila origanoides (L.) Britt. as in GRIN, ITIS, CoL and POWO - not sure what else you are suggesting? NB some pertinent discussion here: (full article is available via sci-hub) Tony 1212 (talk) 18:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Tony, well, "is a synonym" is of course perfectly true, but as you know there are two kinds of synonyms: taxonomic synonyms, which may change as the taxonomy changes and nomenclatural synonyms ("objectively invalid names"), which mean that the synonym may never be used as a correct/valid name, no matter what taxonomy is followed. I find it useful to have the "objectively invalid names" marked by a note. WoRMs does this, as does GRIN, and I seem to recall IRMNG including such notes, copied from the ING and WoRMS. But if you don't want them, I will not pass them on. - Brya (talk) 05:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Brya, OK, I get what you mean. At present such distinctions as there are presently in IRMNG were copied across from WoRMS and ING via (semi) automated ingestion, not entered longhand by myself. And in truth, I have to prioritise my IRMNG activities (already spending 1-2 hours most days on it, working mostly on continuously adding new genera - 2,000+ new ones published per year - as well as other fixes) so doing this would be unlikely to ever get done for genera, let alone species. So "synonym" is good enough at this time, with the present state of IRMNG resourcing (basically zero except for what I choose to put in...), thanks anyway. Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 06:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Latest IRMNG additions if interested (all genera without species, par for the course these days although species can theoretically be added later, plus new higher taxa as needed):
New records 2019-03-01 to 2019-03-04 (so far):
Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 06:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, thanks, I will pass it on. - Brya (talk) 07:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, the info to pass on would be to look for all new IRMNG entries from whenever they were last crawled - that is the date that should be entered as the start date in the web call above. Or, find the last highest used IRMNG ID in the last crawl and increment from there if doing a live crawl via the API... Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 07:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
For example the same query set to the last 12 months (2018-03-04 to 2019-03-04) yields 2,218 new records (largely genera) at this time. Tony 1212 (talk) 08:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I will wait to see what the response is. Most likely there already is a mechanism in place to regularly update entries for both WoRMS and IRMNG. - Brya (talk) 11:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Some discussion now at . Tony 1212 (talk) 05:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

5 Mar[edit]

A minor one:

  • Weissia ligulaefolia Grout, 1938 should be Weissia ligulifolia (E.B.Bartram) Grout, 1938

- Brya (talk) 05:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, my inclination is to retain Weissia ligulaefolia as an incorrect original spelling (which is what it is) and create a new entry for the correctly spelled name, does this sound OK? Although as stated earlier, I am not really about to check my other present 1.9m species names, within which I imagine plenty of errors still lurk from want of attention (as well as taxonomic reallocations since 2006 and onwards...)Tony 1212 (talk) 03:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, OK. I am just noting them here. Don't feel obliged to take action. - Brya (talk) 06:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Done, new record here: However I may or may not get to the other species name alerts ... :) Currently adding new animal genera from 2018 version of ION (updates since 2014), only another 6,850 to check (of which maybe 5,000+ will require new records)... will let you know when done in a couple more years... Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 06:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Wow! I will leave you to it then. - Brya (talk) 06:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Rolling total as of today (last 6 days sporadic efforts): - should grow from here depending on my degree of commitment :) Tony 1212 (talk) 08:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
That comes to something like one percent of your list? Long road ahead ... - Brya (talk) 11:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
True, in the past I have found some shortcuts but they produce a poorer quality result, so, will see how I go... maybe will think of other efficiencies along the road as well! The ultimate goal is to find an exit strategy (hand over to someone else) one day but actually I still enjoy the challenge for now. Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Thinking of giving myself a small merit award every (say) hundred more names processed - bottle of wine or other... Tony 1212 (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Ah, the classic problem of how to wear away at a a mountain of work. A lot of writers producing novels have commented on this, and most favour setting aside a regular time slot, when they can work free from distraction. But no doubt there are lot of other strategies.
        I agree that quality is important (I just spent time looking at two weird problems in WoRMS, almost certainly caused by sloppiness), but quality does take its time. -Brya (talk) 06:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

9 Mar[edit]

  • Drasa Kapur, 1950 has an "(unassessed)". However, Lepindex did assess it, assigning it to the synonymy of Talis.
OK, now fixed. FYI "unassessed" is unassessed by myself, not by others... This category of names are largely genera I imported from Nomenclator Zoologicus, and did not encounter again in bulk taxonomic checklists that I have used to date, but can be sorted with some sleuthing (probably a lot will be in LepIndex as Lepidoptera are pretty numerous). Now only 125,993 similar names to go - priorities, priorities :) Will check the others you have flagged tomorrow. Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 08:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Beeria Hartig, 1963: this is more tricky, although obviously a later homonym. The card in Lepindex assigns this to the synonymy of Casama. IRMNG (copied from Lepindex?) notes three species-level names:
    1. Beeria flavipalpata Staudinger, 1896
    2. Beeria innotata Walker, 1855
    3. Beeria uniformis Rothschild, 1913
Of these, innotata is accepted by Fauna Europaea (copied by GBIF) as Casama innotata (original combination Spilosoma innotata). Lepindex regards flavipalpata as a synonym of innotata. The same for uniformis. Since flavipalpata is the type, Beeria appears pretty solidly accepted as a synonym of Casama (Note: author designations for the species should be in parentheses)
OK, Beeria Hartig, 1963 now set to synonym of Casama Walker, 1865. From "There is no objective replacement name but O. flavipalpata [Ocneria flavipalpata Staudinger, 1895, type species of Beeria Hartig] is congeneric with Casama indeterminata Walker, 1865, the type-species of Casama Walker, 1865. The latter is therefore available for use as a subjective relacement name."
I have not adjusted the species at this time since if I start down that particular hole (correcting incorrect/non current species names in IRMNG imported from other "trusted" sources) I may never emerge :)
  • Carama Walker, 1855: marked as "(unassessed)". It is very noticeable that there is an accepted genus Casama Walker, 1855 (see above), so presumably it is a misspelling. - Brya (talk) 06:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Listed as an available name in Now changed to "accepted" (for now) in IRMNG, with the following note: Taxonomic remark From Pitkin, B.; Jenkins, P. (undated): Butler, 1877, showed that Walker's diagnosis of Carama was based on specimens that he had misidentified as Arcturus sparshalli Curtis; Butler then established a new nominal species Carama walkeri Butler, 1887, for the misidentified specimens and one from Mexico. See Frontispiece, fig.2, Carama walkeri Butler, male. The true Arcturus sparshalli Curtis, 1830, is the type-species of Trichiocercus Stephens, 1835, in the Thaumetopoeidae. Under Article 70(a) of the Code the case of a misidentified type-species should be referred to the Commission. Carama was established in the Liparidae, now Lymantriidae; it was transferred to the Megalopygidae by Berg, 1882, An. Soc. cient. argent. 13: 264, 275.
Yes, ButMoth even provides a link to the original publication. This was too hasty of me. - Brya (talk) 05:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Lesiandra Meyrick, 1914: Lepindex and Fana Europaea state this to be a synonym of Fuchsia Spuler, 1910. ButMoth states this to be an objective synonym of Fuchsia (the equivalent of a "superfluous illegitimate name"). They appear to have the same two species, anyway (one species at the time of publication). - Brya (talk) 09:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, now set to synonym of Fuchsia Spuler in Hofmann-Spuler, 1910 following
  • Aulacocephalodon Seeley, 1898 †: there is a paper claiming that the correct spelling is Aulacephalodon and that the name is dated 1876 ... This accords with the IRMNG entry "Aulacephalodontidae Toerien, 1953 †". - Brya (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, Nomenclator Zoologicus (where my record originates) has Aulacocephalodon but no Aulacephalodon. From wikipedia (presuming this is correct): "... Broom finally recognized Seeley's subgenus, Aulacephalodon, as a valid genus in 1932. However, the spelling was altered to Aulacocephalodon. The incorrect genus Aulacocephalodon was used for many years until the correct spelling was pointed out by Keyser (1969)." The misspelling is documented by Kammerer et al., 2011, with the date confirmed as 1898. So I have created a new record for Aulacephalodon, and made Aulacocephalodon an incorrect subsequent spelling of it.
I have left the family as Dicynodontidae for now despite IRMNG having Aulacephalodontidae from another source. has no family stated; Fossilworks has Cryptodontidae; Wikipedia has Geikiidae. Dunno who to follow at this time - need a recent citable source of sufficient authority - suggestions welcome.
Thanks for these alerts, chasing them down is sometimes fiddly but always an improvement. Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, now found Kammerer, C. F.; Angielczyk, K. D.; Fröbisch, J. (2015). Redescription of the geikiid Pelanomodon (Therapsida, Dicynodontia), with a reconsideration of ‘Propelanomodon'. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 36(1): e1030408., available online at which synonymises Aulacephalodontidae with Geikiidae Nopcsa, 1923, so have created a record for that family and moved relevant genera into it. Plenty more such cases to find I am sure :) Tony 1212 (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
I am very wary of trusting any bit of text in Wikipedia; I have seen lots of cases where they list a series of good publications (Wikipedia often is a good source for a list of publications) and then base some text on these that says something wildly different. On the other hand, there are also many taxonomic publications that are not sufficiently rigorous when it comes to nomenclature. Often enough, good, citable sources are hard to find. - Brya (talk) 05:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Me likewise... however in this case the WP statement was borne out by the article I found, which is what I have cited as the source for the synonymy. Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 05:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

10 Mar[edit]

  • Diplosalis / Diplopsalis, as I make it out, there are three/four entities involved:
    1. Diplopsalis Sclater 1866, published for a subgenus of Hydropsalis, with two species. The first of these, as Hydropsalis climacocerca, is an accepted species of Hydropsalis, so that it seems safe to conclude that Diplopsalis Sclater 1866 is a synonym of Hydropsalis.
    2. Diplopsalis Bergh (1881) (1882 according to Nom. Zool.) as a generic name under the ICNafp. This appears OK, listed as current in the ING.
    3. Diplopsalis Bergh, 1882 (1881 according to the ING) as a generic name under the ICZN. This is a junior homonym of Diplopsalis Sclater 1866, and may not be used for a taxon treated as an animal (although fine for a taxon treated as an alga)
    4. Diplosalis Moebius 1887, a replacement name for Diplopsalis Bergh, 1882 (as an animal name, the junior homonym). This also appears OK.
So, if the taxon is treated as an alga the name Diplopsalis is proper, but if treated as an animal the name Diplosalis is proper ... - Brya (talk) 13:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Brya, we are in the realm here of the "ambiregnal protists" where a few problems indeed lurk; I try to address cases individually according to current usage in the main, also following some general principles where possible. Here the general principle (treat dinoflagellates under the botanical Code) and current usage agree that Diplopsalis Bergh, 1881 (probably not 1882 as given in Nomen. Zool.) is the correct name for the dinoflagellate under the botanical Code and is not threatened by Diplopsalis Sclater 1866. Also so far as I can see, Diplosalis Moebius 1887 is a misspelling for Diplopsalis Bergh, 1881, not a proposed replacement name (listed as "pro" in Nomen. Zool., not "n.n. pro", listed as "nom. null." in Loeblich & Loeblich 1966 compendium
So in IRMNG, just a little to do:
  • Upgraded the record for Diplopsalis Sclater 1866 - now listed as a synonym of Hydropsalis, in the same family (previously was "Aves - awaiting allocation")
  • Added Möbius, 1887 authorship back to the IRMNG record for Diplosalis (had disappeared in one of the VLIZ cleanups)
  • Noted the date inconsistency in the Nomen. Zool. entry for Diplopsalis Bergh, 1881 (appears to be the same work)
  • Added a note to the IRMNG record for Diplopsalis Bergh, 1881 noting the disregard of potential homonymy with Diplopsalis Sclater 1866, the bird subgenus, on account of being treated under the botanical Code. - All done now, I think that covers everything?? Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I see I let myself be confused by the "pro", while there also is a "err. pro". Thanks for pointing this out. - Brya (talk) 06:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
No problem. Nomen. Zool. "pro" and "err. pro." seem to be used more or less interchangeably. Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 08:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Not sure about that, there seems to be a difference, perhaps one of degree. But I could not put a finger on what exactly constitutes the difference. - Brya (talk) 11:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, I had not thought that through sufficiently... on reflection, "pro" is possibly intended to indicate an emendation - justified or unjustified. As I recall, many of the early workers e.g. Rafinesque would emend a spelling to make it more harmonious to their mind, or for another reason. There was some discussion of "unjustified emendations vs. unnecessary replacement names" recently on the ICZN list, if you can be bothered to wade through it: and . Maybe that is the answer - although I think I labelled them all "Misspelling" when I did the original import from Nomenclator Zoologicus 10+ years ago, since at least some of them appeared to be that (Nomen. Zool. also has "err. pro" as we know, e.g. see sample page at I did once read the introductory pages to the Nomen. Zool. print work, but cannot recall exactly what it said... but I do imagine that sometimes the compilers themselves were not clear whether a changed name was an intentional change or an accidental error. Perhaps I need to change my note in IRMNG to say "misspelling or subsequent emendation" for these cases - there would be quite a lot. Tony 1212 (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I always feel a little lost when I have to deal with the exact terminology in the zoological Code regarding original spellings and alterations thereof. Especially the original spelling not found in the original publication weirds me out. However, at the time the Nom. Zool. was compiled the zoological Code did not exist, so we are not necessarily dealing with the same concepts. But it does seem there are alterations of spelling based on minor linguistical considerations (perhaps "pro"?), while there are bigger alterations ( "err. pro."?) with a different basis. I guess my Latin and Greek are not up to it. - Brya (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I take "err. pro" to be an accidental published misspelling - same (?) as lapsus. "pro" *might* be an intentional spelling change (justified or unjustified), if my logic above is correct; or might just mean the compilers did not know if it was intentional or not... Tony 1212 (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

11 Mar[edit]

If there comes a time when you can spare attention for this, WoRMS has effected spelling changes for:

  • Turricula tornatus (Dillwyn, 1817)
  • Turbo lamniferus Reeve, 1848

- Brya (talk) 06:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

13 Mar[edit]

WoRMS has accepted a "Flabellina McMurtrie, 1831" (accompanied by comments), missing in IRMNG. - Brya (talk) 06:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Brya... new IRMNG record created for Flabellina McMurtrie, 1831, existing records Flabellina Gray, 1833 and Flabellina Voigt, 1834 flagged as later usages, and their 70(!) child species records moved to the new parent (the latter a somewhat tedious task... I can ask VLIZ to do it with a single command or two, but sometimes it gets the job out of the way to do it longhand). Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 22:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Ow, that is tedious. I would be inclined to fudge and relabel the parent entry, creating a new entry for the old name, rather than move all the children, but I guesss this might irritate users. - Brya (talk) 05:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, we do not have fudging in the land of IRMNG :) Tony 1212 (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

15 Mar[edit]

  • Megalomma bioculata (Ehlers, 1887)
  • Megalomma bioculatum (Ehlers, 1887)

WoRMS has committed to -um. - Brya (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

17 Mar[edit]

  • Arthuria Klautau, Azevedo, Cóndor-Luján, Rapp, Collins & Russo, 2013: Worms has replaced this by Arturia Azevedo, Padua, Moraes, Rossi, Muricy & Klautau, 2017. - Brya (talk) 11:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Brya, that is on my present batch of 6889 ION names to work through - in fact it is #159 on my list (2018 [part], authors A-Z then 2017 authors A-Z etc.) and will be reached in the next couple of days - good to see some convergence here... :) Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, now got there - see . Curiously, the abstract of the paper in which new name was published does not mention (a) that the genus name is new, or (b) that it is a replacement name - you have to go to the full text to find that out, so I may have missed it if it were not for your info and checking the WoRMS record. So a good catch... Best - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

23 Mar[edit]

Reached 201 new names from the current ION batch today (4% +/-...) (plus a few others as collateral additions)

Percentage based on estimate that I may have around 1,500 of the names already - perhaps this is an overestimate, we will see.Tony 1212 (talk) 03:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

3 Apr[edit]

Cracked the 300 barrier today - but progress is not as fast as needed to process the 6,800+ candidate new names (genera and above) in the latest ION batch, covering the period approx. mid 2014 to early 2018, within e.g. a 12 month time frame. So I will need a revised strategy - at present I am thinking to get the higher taxa in as a first priority now (e.g. around 350 new families alone) then see if there is a way to speed up entry of the genera - e.g. compile in a spreadsheet and send to the db managers for a bulk upload (I have done that before, I think it saves a bit of time versus the web-based data entry). We shall see! Tony 1212 (talk) 04:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

For the record, #300 is a new family of Neogastropoda, Bellolividae Kantor, Fedosov, Puillandre, Bonillo & Bouchet, 2017 (working through the families as we speak...).Tony 1212 (talk) 04:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, it will be quite neat to have the families in place since it allows one to get a sense of IRMNG completeness at that level by analysing the results by year published. For example in the 02 March 2019 release we have the following:

  • pub. year ... #families

(these might be underestimates since in the past, families in IRMNG were entered without author+year and not all have this attribute, although the more recent ones should - with the exception of viruses for which authorship is not recorded)

  • 2006 ... 128
  • 2007 ... 106
  • 2008 ... 101
  • 2009 ... 117
  • 2010 ... 128
  • 2011 ... 96
  • 2012 ... 118
  • 2013 ... 87
  • 2014 ... 73
  • 2015 ... 44
  • 2016 ... 64
  • 2017 ... 21
  • 2018 ... 4
  • 2019 ... 0

- it will be interesting to see an update of these figures once the new families from ION are entered (doubtless there will also be a few that ION have missed, also almost certainly some new ones in algae and fungi I have not yet sought out). Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 05:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

4 Apr[edit]

Got to new family Pakynidae Lowry & Myers, 2017 (in the BioNames "new names" list ex ION) and discovered the following in their paper:

Pakynidae nom. nov.

Pachynidae Lowry & Stoddart, 2012a: 5 (homonym).—De Broyer et al., 2007: 157 (nomen nudum). Included genera. Acheronia Lowry, 1984; Coriolisa Lowry & Stoddart, 1994; Drummondia Lowry, 1984; Ekelofia Lowry, 1984; Figorella J.L. Barnard, 1962c; Pachychelium Stephensen, 1925b; Pakynus nom. nov.; Prachynella Barnard, 1964b; Renella Lowry & Stoddart, 2012; Sheardella Lowry, 1984; Smaraldia Lowry & Stoddart, 2012; Ultimachelium Lowry & Stoddart, 2012. Habitat. Marine, epigean. Distribution. Cosmopolitan. Remarks. It was recently brought to our attention by Tony Rees (CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research) that the generic name Pachynus was a nomen nudum, originally proposed by Rafinesque (1815) for a genus of cephalopod (preoccupied by Hippurites Lamarck, 1801), by Reichenow (1881) and for a psittaciforme bird (preoccupied by Graydidascalus Bonaparte, 1854). Even though Pachynus Rafinesque, 1815 and Pachynus Reichenow, 1881 are unjustified emendations, they are still available names (ICZN art. 33). Thus Pachynus Rafinesque 1815 is the senior available name and Pachynus Bulycheva, 1955 must be considered as preoccupied.

We propose the new name Pakynus to replace Pachynus Bulycheva, 1955 in accordance with Article 39 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999, fourth edition).

I know that others (including these authors in the main) do all the hard work of describing the taxa, but it is nice to get a namecheck (also shows IRMNG is working in disclosing homonyms previously missed).

19 Apr[edit]

Over 450 new names added from the ION batch to today, working through families and higher taxa in the main after starting with some genera... growing list can be consulted at Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

20 May[edit]

Got a bit distracted over the last month updating the internal treatment of many of the protozoan phyla from the exhaustive revisions by Cavalier-Smith et al., 2013-2018 (some of the most recent ones not yet done) which yielded some hundreds more higher taxa in the main... just getting back to the ION batch, now up to new name #633. Will see how I go without additional distractions (fingers crossed...)

Opinion 2430[edit]

Opinion 2430 has eliminated hundreds of scientific names of protists (these stopped being formal names, let alone species). IRMNG includes at least these two:

  • Cephalodella vacuna
  • Sinantherina triglandularis

- Brya (talk) 17:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Brya, I was aware of some recent discussion around this item and the cited list - "Parts of the List of Available Names in Zoology for phylum Rotifera: accepted" - but do not have access to the list itself via my available channels, and advertised links supposedly on the ICZN site do not work at present (maybe they are presently under construction, I don't know). (Note also these are rotifers, not protists...). In principle if there are items in this Opinion affecting genus names I will adjust IRMNG accordingly in due course; matters affecting species will probably remain unaddressed until someone (else) may care to do so... If you have access to the full work I would not mind a copy to take a look, you can reach me at Tony.Rees (at) if you would like to do so. Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 19:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, rotifers (sorry for the slip, I was rushed). These two lists are online: genus-group names and species-group names. This last consists of an A-list of accepted names, and, just to be careful, a B-list van definitively discarded names. I don't know how many generic names were discarded, if any. I assume these can be turned up by matching the list against a list generated from IRMNG. - Brya (talk) 05:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Brya for the links. It's a pity the authors do not also have a list of genus names they have rejected. As you say, I could do a cross match against IRMNG genera but that would have to wait since my hands are a bit full at the moment. However there is a short list "Genus-level taxa wrongly classified as rotifers" which I will take a look out over the next couple of days and make adjustments to IRMNG as appropriate. I have made a start by adding the reference and updating the first name on that short list! - see here: Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 07:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
OK, I've adjusted the IRMNG entries for the excluded genus names on the Rotifer list, probably all I can do for now - now back to the new name additions... Tony 1212 (talk) 06:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
That is good! - Brya (talk) 05:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
In passing I noticed that Cathypna Gosse, 1886 is marked as "permanently invalid", a junior objective synonym, so this can be taken out of circulation as a possible current name. There are a further ten "permanently invalid" generic names on the list. - Brya (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Brya, I have fixed up those cases. Also noted 83 cases of genus names cited as junior subjective synonyms which I will work through today and tomorrow - I most likely have all the names (hopefully) but not all the synonym statuses at the present time (also means I can upgrade the taxonomic placement where required). Perhaps that covers all the unaccepted names on the list which would be good - not sure if all the remainder will be valid (=accepted in IRMNG speak) but maybe. Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I had noticed the 83 but decided not to mention them yet, so as not to risk overloading you ;). I think that does not cover all cases, see Hydrias which is marked as "genus inquirendum et incertae sedis" which is well short of acceptance. I am not clear why they did not just eliminate these (thirty more cases). - Brya (talk) 08:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
OK, have done the 83 junior subjective synonyms as well as the 30-plus genera inquirenda... probably need to stop there in order to return focus on the ION names, although I still have 54 of my present 441 Rotifera genera marked "uncertain [unassessed]" which will make a mini-project for addressing at some stage. Interestingly (as does happen), 6 of the names in those portions of the LAN were new to IRMNG although one was held as a misspelling (as uploaded from Nomenclator Zoologicus - misspelled there), so these exercises are always worthwhile to some degree. Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 06:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Good. If you have it down to 54 names, it will be doable to check if these still exist (are listed in the LAN), or if they have been eliminated, even as names. - Brya (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Actually that would not quite be all - to be thorough one should also check all the remaining IRMNG Rotifer genus names (accepted, unaccepted or nomina nuda as well) to compare with their LAN status - some may not be on the LAN as well, in which case we would need to chase them further; then check all the "valid" LAN genera against IRMNG to confirm they are held in the same form (e.g. some may be missing or have different cited authorities). All tasks doable, all take time and prioritising... Tony 1212 (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Oh yes, to be thourough all 441 would have to be assessed (minus the 11, the 83, and the 31), even if it is just to check the current taxonomy. On the other hand, the really annoying problem cases are likely to be concentrated in the 54, so the big strides are to be made there. - Brya (talk) 11:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
True. Ideally I do like to be thorough, given unlimited time which of course one does not have. As someone else once said, "Forwards in all directions!" Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 18:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

5 Jun[edit]

Making bit more progress on the last ION "new names" batch (main period covered 2014-2018, with some earlier) since 1 March - having added in all the families and higher taxa, now working through the "new" genus names in chronological order - reached new entry #801 which is Algaeformis Anfimov, 2012, a fossil foraminifer see . So just the rest of 2012/13/14/15/16/17/18 (part) to go... also a further 213 other new names entered from the literature during various side forays/distractions from the main task, and another 1,883 adjusted in some way. Onwards and upwards... Tony 1212 (talk) 05:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

9 Jun[edit]

IRMNG has Adapsilia Waga, 1842 and and an Adapsila in the same family.

The nomenclator zoologicus has an Adapsilia, (BHL) with one original species A. coarctata, but no Adapsila.

Fauna Europaea has an Adapsila Waga, 1842 (including A. coarctata), so the same authorship, and presumably a correction. But no reason for why this should be correctable.

Some browsing suggests that there may also be an Adapsila Soós, 1984 apparently published in Soo´s A´. "Family Pyrgotidae" // Catalogue of Palaearctic Diptera. Vol. 9. Micropezidae—Agromyzidae. Eds. A´. Soo´s, L. Papp. — Budapest : Akade´miai Kiadó. — 1984. — P. 36–38.

A bit of mess. - Brya (talk) 06:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

From Korneyev V. A. 2004. A key to Palaearctic Pyrgotidae (Diptera), with nomenclatural notes. Vestnik Zoologii. 38(1): 19–46., Adapsila Soós, 1984 is an unjustified emendation of Adapsilia Waga, 1842, so in IRMNG terminology should be a synonym (unaccepted) with unjustified emendation as the reason (done). Other synonyms listed are Teliophleps Hering, 1940 (non Teliophleps Enderlein, 1942) and Adapsilea Enderlein, 1942 (error or emendation). At the moment IRMNG has a record for "Teliophleps Enderlein in Hering, 1940" but not Teliophleps Enderlein, 1942 so I have created the latter and changed the former authority to just Hering, 1940, with a note, and reallocated one of the 2 species accordingly. I did not have an entry for Adapsilea Enderlein, 1942 so have created one. That should cover it for now I think, thanks for the alert :) I presume the Fauna Europaea record is a combination of the emended name with the original authority, thus a hybrid entry and not a separate taxon. Tony 1212 (talk) 09:46, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that would compute. - Brya (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Fine, the reason I only had 1 entry for Teliophleps is that Nomenclator Zoologicus initially has a record for Teliophleps Enderlein, 1942 then later states in 2 places: "Teliophleps Enderlein 1942 actually dates from Enderlein in Hering 1940, Arb. morphol. taxon. Ent. Berlin-Dahlem 7: 288.", so I had used that correction as the basis for my IRMNG entry, as in other similar cases. However the taxa are different (with different types) according to Korneyev, which is a satisfactory basis for creating the second record now (in other words the Nomenclator Zoologicus "correction" is itself incorrect/incompletely researched). I have added a note to this effect to the 2 relevant IRMNG records (the new Teliophleps is at Tony 1212 (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the Nomenclator Zoologicus is confusing. The initial record is indeed different, suggesting that this name may be different. But in that case there should be an indication of homonymy. It clearly helps to have the considered judgement of a specialist. - Brya (talk) 10:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

15 June[edit]

Reached new name #1000 today uploaded from the latest ION batch... - in a little over 100 days since 1 March (plus a few side projects also completed). Hopefully the next 4,000-5,000 will be slightly faster if I am to finish in time for a new release in early 2020. Currently mid-way working through new (animal + protist) genus names published in 2013, which means that IRMNG entries for 2012 and earlier should be essentially complete (perhaps missing a few newer fungal, algal and fossil plant names, plus some earlier fossil plant names I cannot find time for just now). So, if interested, you can generate a list of all genus names known to IRMNG published (or in a few cases, emended) in 2007 or any other desired year using a link like this:

- generates the "new genera" list for 2007, and so on. Here are the totals presently held for the period 2006-2012 (out years still awaiting update from the ION holdings):

  • 2006: 2,625 new genera published (also including subgenera in zoology)
  • 2007: 2,867
  • 2008: 2,749
  • 2009: 2,824
  • 2010: 2,508
  • 2011: 2,263
  • 2012: 2,424

A small component of names not yet indexed by e.g. ION and IPNI as newly published may still be missing, as will some fungi and algae and also fossil plants as mentioned above, mainly for the intervals 2010 onwards. I will add figures for 2013 onwards as processing of those sectors of the ION list is completed (I already have land plants to 2016, and viruses and prokaryotes to 2018). Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 02:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations with this milestone! Nitpicking: these are not "new genera" but "new generic names" (for zoology: "new genus-group names"). Sometimes this distinction matters. - Brya (talk) 09:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Correct of course. Thanks. Tony 1212 (talk) 10:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
One more thing, the above totals exclude viruses, for which relevant compilers i.e. the ICTV do not include author names or years as part of the "name string"... One could try to find each published paper in which particular a particular generic name was proposed, but that would be a lot of work (c. 850 accepted genera as at Oct 2018, plus an additional 150 since then - see - and depart from virus naming conventions anyway). Tony 1212 (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

16 Jun[edit]

The LAN has set the date of Euchlanis Ehrenberg, 1830 as 1830, rather than the 1832 that IRMNG uses. - Brya (talk) 05:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Brya. I originally entered it in IRMNG as 1830 following Nomenclator Zoologicus, but it got changed to 1832 in a bulk synchronization with WoRMS carried out by VLIZ in 2016... now I've changed it back. I will make a note to advise WoRMS of the discrepancy - thanks. Tony 1212 (talk) 08:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I came across an oddity of which I cannot tell if it is interesting: the rotifer species-group list mentions a "Veltae, Bērziņš 1982" which is unavailable (it is not on the rotifer list for genus-group names, either). So this name does not exist, nomenclaturally; I don't know if it is worth recording. - Brya (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Brya, for IRMNG I do like to include unavailable names since they occur in the literature (with the exception of database errors) and require resolving, i.e. "what is this critter" - even if the answer is "nobody knows"... So Veltae Bērziņš, 1982 is good fodder for IRMNG; its original publication is here: and its absence from the LAN Genera list (as an unavailable name) appears to be an oversight. (Either you or I could contact the authors to point this out). Neither is the name indexed by Nomenclator Zoologicus, otherwise I would already have it :). So a good catch, the resulting new IRMNG record is here: . Also noted in passing, in the species LAN the entry is wrong in that it treats "Limnologiska Institutionen, Lunds Universitet" as a journal name where it is in fact the place of publication of this small monograph. Just one more brick in the wall (nevertheless an interesting one). I also took the opportunity to update the spelling of Mr (?) Bērziņš ' name in a few places where the source/s from which I had imported it lacked the diacritics... Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, the point of "they occur in the literature" is a relative one; it makes a difference in how much of the literature they occur. If it occurs with any frequency then it is a good idea to provide information; if it is very rare then a mention risks drawing attention to something better forgotten.
(Tony:) Well, we may have to agree to differ on this. Misspellings also have no status in nomenclatural land, however they are listed in e.g. Nomenclator Zoologicus and elsewhere (e.g. synonym lists, sensu lato). The view I follow is that names are either published or not; no grey here (MS names are not published, but are sometimes also included if they have been cited in the published literature). It is then a separate issue of whether or not they are available (validly published in Botany). IRMNG is a compilation of value to informatics projects that are attempting to organise names and associated info as they exist in the literature. Frequently, unavailable names can be reconciled to "accepted" equivalents but not always (as in this case), however as stated above, if anyone at any future point encounters the name Veltae mesembrinus they can at least get some information on it (from the genus portion)...
The issue of whether or not misspellings are validly published in 'botany' is dealt with in Art. 61 of the ICNafp. The answer is "never". Anybody encountering a misspelling has to act as if it is the correct spelling, at most acknowledging the misspelling in that particular publication: Correctspelling ("Wrongspelling"). In Zoology it is (lots) more complicated - Brya (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
        The new IRMNG entry is wrong in assessing this as "taxon inquirendum". With the adoption of the genus-group list into the LAN the status of Veltae has now been finalized (for ever) as being an unavailable name. It is not a taxon at all, of any sort. On the other hand, it does have a child, sort of: Veltae mesembrinus, another unavailable name.
        As a general point, it seems a good idea to try and find a way for IRMNG to explicitly note the status of names under the LAN ("unaccepted, an unavailable name per the LAN" or something like that). It is now only rotifers, but maybe other groups will be added.
        The genus-group list includes available names only, any name not mentioned is unavailable, so the list is all right. Since it has been accepted by the ICZN any errors that may remain in it are now cast in stone, and have become correct, by definition. It is an interesting question if this also applies to the omission of the monograph title, since this is on the B-list. The B-list is extra; as I understand it only the A-list is part of the LAN. On the other hand, later alterations in "final versions" are a touchy subject ... - Brya (talk) 03:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Brya, I took "taxon inquirendum" from the species LAN, however as you say, maybe a simple "unaccepted" with no accepted name, plus a note, might be better (IRMNG/VLIZ does not have a value "unavailable" in its pre-defined list of statuses). Via the web edit interface I use, I cannot do this directly, but I can make it "nomen nudum" with no accepted name for now, and get VLIZ to change to "unaccepted" in a while (with other similar cases as they accumulate). There are probably some more cases from the genera LAN which I set to taxa inquirenda as per the list, but might also need to be "unaccepted" according to the same logic - I will check in a while (week or so, probably). Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Actually there was just one, IRMNG 1165997 Cochleare Gosse in Hudson & Gosse, 1886, now set to "nomen nudum" with a note, eventually to say "unaccepted" with no accepted name. Tony 1212 (talk) 07:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
To be precise, the "taxon inquirendum" in the species-group list applies (applied) to Veltae mesembrinus, while Veltae is described as "(unavailable name!)". Before the inclusion in the LAN the species-group name was an awkward one, a problem case, but Veltae was unproblematic: it never made it as an "available name" (in zoology it is possible to publish species-group names under generic names that do not exist).
        After the inclusion in the LAN the species-group name stopped being a problem case, it has now been resolved: Veltae mesembrinus stopped being a "taxon inquirendum" and stopped being an available name.
        Yes, "nomen nudum" is a distinct improvement, although the definition is the colloquial one, not the Code-compliant one. But this is one of the reasons for my hesitation to report this case: it is awkward for a database to handle names that do not exist. Unfortunately, in practice it proves that users have problems reading such entries. Both CoL and the Plant List have read nomenclatural databases as if they were checklists, promoting many mere names into species. Enthusiastic Wikipedia users have then imported these database entries and promoted them into full species pages on several Wikipedias. Lots of fake species (probably thousands) in the WMF franchise. I have grown quite touchy on the subject. - Brya (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Brya :) :) :) First, please note that "nomen nudum" in these particular cases is just a placeholder for a week or two, the intention is that this should read "unaccepted" in a little while (but I have to get that status set by VLIZ, owing to a "characteristic" with the web edit interface that does not permit me to do this directly when there is no "accepted name" for the same taxon).

Unpacking Taxa inquirendae further[edit]

OK, back to taxon inquirendum, for which I obviously need to clarify my understanding. The ICZN glossary lists "species inquirenda (pl. species inquirendae), n. A Latin term meaning a species of doubtful identity needing further investigation". It has no entry for (e.g.) "genus inquirenda" or any other rank, so would appear to be intended only to apply to species-group names. However the Rotifer LAN (now copied in part into IRMNG as of the other week) uses the term "genus inquirendum" 37 times, for which I have now set the "status" the relevant IRMNG entries to "taxon inquirendum", being the present VLIZ (WoRMS) equivalent - however not an officially sanctioned term it seems. "Genus inquirendum" does occur in the literature, a little; Kottelat, 2013, The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology Supplement No. 27, provides the following definition: "A genus inquirendum (plural: genera inquirenda) is a generic name that can be placed in a family but whose description and associated species (usually species inquirendae or nomina dubia) do not allow a decision as to whether or not it is valid."

So let's take the first example on the genera list:

  • Amphibolidina, Schmarda 1850 ... type species, by original monotypy: Amphibolidina megalotrocha Schmarda, 1850 [genus inquirendum et incertae sedis; gender feminine]

(associated species entry: )

  • megalotrocha, Amphibolidina, Schmarda 1850 ... no deposited types known [type species of genus Amphibolidina Schmarda, 1850; species inquirenda et incertae sedis; name declinable]

A few thoughts here...

- Are species inquirendae by default now unavailable names? (I do not see a statement to this effect; simply not considered valid at this time)

- Could a historic species inquirenda have (e.g.) a neotype designated subsequent to a LAN, which could move its status to valid, or does the action of the list set it in stone (perhaps the latter is the case, not sure)

- Do the authors of the list mean, by stating that a genus is inquirendum, mean that it is based on a species inquirenda and automatically unavailable, or again, awaiting further study?

Maybe I need to study further the notion behind LANs, but I am still a little confused. Further thoughts welcome, with supporting statements sanctioned by the ICZN if at all possible... Tony 1212 (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, I have pondered this further now - the majority of the taxa inquirendae on both lists are in the in the "available names" portion so the two states cannot be mutually exclusive. In fact, available/unavailable relates to the nomenclatural status, and taxa inquirendae to the taxonomic status i.e. valid, invalid or in-between (presumably the latter for these). So, no problem for the majority of examples which can stay as "taxon inquirendum" in IRMNG, I think. Which just leaves Veltae as an oddity - noted as unavailable in the species LAN, but with no stated reason. Thoughts? Tony 1212 (talk) 22:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Solved it: from the Rotifer database at : "The name Veltae is a plural nominative and thus is nomenclaturally unavailable (Art. 11.8: must be, or be treated as, a noun in the nominative singular)." So, I can add that to the IRMNG note. All good! Tony 1212 (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the only question in my mind is why they did not eliminate the taxa inquirenda while they were about it: that would have been neater. Taxon inquirendum (plural taxa inquirenda) seems a logical enough term, given the presence of species inquirenda and genus inquirendum. - Brya (talk) 05:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
The IRMNG entry now has a note: "... Rotifera List of Accepted Names (LAN) for genera. Sole included species Veltae mesembrinus is listed as a species inquirendum in List of Accepted Names (LAN) for species." Some further nitpicking:
  • it is the List of Available Names
  • there is only the one LAN for the whole animal kingdom, the separate lists submitted will each become a "Part of the List of Available Names in Zoology". So there is no "Rotifera LAN" (although the whole LAN now contains only rotifers).
  • when Opinion 2340 came into effect, the status of Veltae mesembrinus became that of "unavailable name".
- Brya (talk) 05:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Happy to be nitpicked when there are errors to be fixed or my understanding is imperfect! OK, I have adjusted the note for the genus Veltae, currently reads: "Unavailable name: not a singular noun, contravenes Art. 11.8, thus not included in the List of Available Names (LAN) (Rotifera genera portion). Sole included species Veltae mesembrinus is excluded from the List of Available Names (LAN) (Rotifera species portion), therefore an unavailable name (it is a species inquirendum described in an unavailable genus)." If you have a better suggested form of words, feel free - still learning about the world of the LAN and how it operates in practice. :) Tony 1212 (talk) 06:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, I am uneasy about the "thus not included"; it seems to imply/suggest that if it had not contravened Art. 11.8 it would have been included in the LAN. We just don't know if that would have been the case. A "... Art. 11.8; not included ..." would be more neutral. This also raises the question of what would have happened if it had been included in the LAN. It looks to me as if the LAN overrides Art. 11.8, but it would be awkward. An academic point, to be sure.
        Also I am not comfortable with the "(it is a species inquirendum described in an unavailable genus)"; the compilers of the list judged this to be a "species inquirendum" (at the time), and this is perfectly fine, but it is their judgement. Quite possibly other people would arrive at a different conclusion, so the "it is" seems overly definitive. A "(listed as a species inquirendum described in an unavailable genus by ...)." or even "(otherwise, a species inquirendum described in an unavailable genus)." seem better. - Brya (talk) 03:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Brya, once again, your input is appreciated. OK, new iteration of the note, now reads:
Unavailable name: not a singular noun, contravenes Art. 11.8; not included in the List of Available Names (LAN) (Rotifera genera portion). Sole included species Veltae mesembrinus is excluded from the List of Available Names (LAN) (Rotifera species portion), therefore an unavailable name (it is characterised there, in Part B, as a species inquirendum in an unavailable genus).
Good enough to pass muster? Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 06:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC) (Maybe I should just give you edit privileges on IRMNG...)
No doubt I can keep coming up with further suggestions, but this will probably not lead to real improvement. (Probably giving other people edit privileges on IRMNG will pose risks for the unity of style, at the very least) - Brya (talk) 05:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

20 June: Neolindia[edit]

Just found another discrepancy in the Rotifera LAN - Neolindia Segers, 2002 (proposed as a subgenus according to Nomen. Zool.) is mentioned in passing in the species-group list, but does not appear on the genus-group list... I have sent an email to the list compiler so will see what response I get... Tony 1212 (talk) 07:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

My oversight - that subgenus name dates from 2002, the LAN list only goes up to 2000. Mystery solved! Tony 1212 (talk) 08:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
For a moment I thought it might be in the B-list, in which case the typification would become void (retroactively), but it is in the A-list. No worries. - Brya (talk) 05:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Actually even 2000 is out of scope: the Rotifera lists cover names up to 31 Dec 1999 ("before 1 January 2000") :) Tony 1212 (talk) 06:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Just the year can be accurate enough: "before 1 January 2000" and "before 2000" are interchangeable. Just like "after 31 Dec 1999" and "after 1999". "Up to 2000" could be ambiguous, and could be disambiguated as "up to 2000 (exclusive)" or "up to 2000 (inclusive)". Given that 1 January 2000 is such an important date, "up to 2000" is safe enough in this context. - Brya (talk) 05:35, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

25 June[edit]

Just passed the "1,100 new names added from the current ION batch" mini-milestone... new name #1104 is Litoparca Bartlett, 2014, a planthopper (Delphacidae), a subgenus of Parkana - . Have been in discussion with Geoff Read, NIWA, regarding the present IRMNG treatment of subgenus names - they are available names at genus level, but presently marked "unaccepted" in IRMNG, since to date, IRMNG has not treated the taxon rank of subgenus in its data structure. However with the 2016 move to VLIZ (and to the Aphia/WoRMS data model) this is now available as an option; Geoff would like to see all known valid subgenera moved from the status of unaccepted genus to accepted subgenus, and I am inclined to agree... thoughts, anyone? Tony 1212 (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

This is somewhat tricky. As I understand it, under the zoological Code a generic name and a subgeneric name are two separate names, but with the same spelling, the same authorship, and the same date. Establishing the one (in one rank) automatically establishes the other (in the other rank). As these are separate, they should not be mixed up. So to me it would be confusing to have something that is not accepted as a generic name being marked as "accepted" by an Interim Register of Marine and Nonmarine Genera.
        It may help to add valid subgenera in such cases (if possible): "Accepted Name: Parkana Beamer, 1950, subgenus Litoparca Bartlett, 2014". The line "Status: unaccepted (currently treated as subgenus)" is all right but could be tweaked to "Status: unaccepted (valid as a subgenus)".
        Another option would be to add a whole new layer for subgenera (as in the Aphia/WoRMS data model), but this would be a pretty big step. At least, that is how I see it. - Brya (talk) 02:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
OK, coincidentally, the VLIZ team have just acted on a request of mine from a while back to make "search genera only" the default (switchable off of course) on IRMNG; previously the default search was at all ranks, leading in some cases to a mass of species overwhelming the (presumably desired) genus-only hits, now by default not shown unless the user wants them. Good so far. However, this means that if I move all the present known valid subgenus names to rank = subgenus, status = accepted, they will not show by default (less good for e.g. homonym searches, also genus counts etc.) So now I am inclined to go back to my original view and maintain the current situation: valid subgenera (only at that rank) are listed in IRMNG as unaccepted genera (since as already established, they are available names at that rank). I will continue to ponder but think for now it is best to keep things as they are, Geoff's comments (from a series of offline emails, not reproduced here) not withstanding... Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 06:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, another consideration might be that the 'same name' can be valid as a genus and as a subgenus, at the same time, which may be awkward to model. - Brya (talk) 05:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

1 July[edit]

Another 100 new genus names entered, +/- ... new name #1,201 is Kronocharon Engel & Grimaldi, 2014, a fossil whipspider . Working through the new batch of ION names chronologically then alphabetically by authority, hence am part way through authors "E..." of year 2014. This is one way to track progress, at least :)

7 July: some "overview" information on new "sandbox" page[edit]

I've added some more general info on the present round of IRMNG additions and relevant methodology at . Not sure if this is the best location for this content so any other suggestions are welcome! Tony 1212 (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

9 July[edit]

Reached newly added ION name #1,300 today - it is Miragemma Hołyński, 2014, a subgenus of Paracupta Deyrolle, 1864 (Buprestidae), Also in passing, noted that 3 genera of lizards, Celestus Gray, 1838, Diploglossus Wiegmann, 1834 and Ophiodes Wagler, 1830 are now in their own family Diploglossidae (previously Anguidae: Diploglossinae) according to the most recent edition of the Reptile Database, based on info in Zheng & Weins, 2016, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 94B, 537-547 (doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2015.10.009) (new family record added in IRMNG and relevant genera and their synonyms moved into it).

26 July[edit]

Got a bit sidetracked for the last week or more - checking that a newly introduced IRMNG feature to expose taxon pages to search engines was working (good! - around 14,000 names indexed so far, see this link), I clicked on a name at random and discovered a discrepancy introduced during a particular VLIZ update in 2016 (harmonization with WoRMS), namely that a name (taxon) flagged "unavailable" in the pre-2016 version of IRMNG was now appearing as "accepted". Further checking showed that there were 41 similar cases (hopefully this is all but more checks to do), so chasing down the reasons for these discrepancies has proved a bit time consuming. Almost every case is (was) different - sometimes a bad record in WoRMS e.g. invalid name instance being shown as valid, often confusion between a nomen nudum and an associated validly published name, sometimes a missing taxon in IRMNG, all requiring additional research plus a range of fixes, now done, hopefully. A few final checks and I can then get back to the ION names upload...

OK, reached new ION name #1,400 as well today: Pyraustomorpha Maes, 2014, a genus of Crambidae (Lepidoptera)

More about the present upload process:

It is very good that you are checking for database artifacts. "Dead names" being promoted by careless databasing to become real taxa is a very real and (unfortunately) not infrequent problem. At the moment Wikidata is about to commit to a policy of "any scientific name means that there is a taxon" which to me is incomprehensible and which will mean the end of my involvement there. But congratulations on the milestone! - Brya (talk) 10:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Brya... Now and again I try and do a reality check to think, why am I spending time doing this, when there are plenty of other things to do... answer seems to be (1) I like to keep IRMNG more or less "complete" (obviously some latency at present) so that it can provide a taxonomic name resolving service on "any" name (read: most names) to anyone who wants that (who?), and (2), once names are entered into IRMNG, they enter something of an ecosystem of linked databases and can then be harvested by machine protocols into other systems without additional manual effort (in principle at least). So that's my justification for now - although at present I am thinking that the March 2020 release will be the last under my editorship and after that, we will see whether the system just sits for a while unattended (but still accessible and supported from an IT perspective), or whether others are interested in taking some or all parts of it further. Tony 1212 (talk) 06:48, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, any database (or www project), no matter how useful (and yours is very useful indeed), will at some point face the question of what will happen if the creator can no longer keep up maintenance. It is best if somebody else will take over, but even then there will be a risk of a drop in quality. But even if maintenance is discontinued, a database can still be useful, if it continues to be accessible on the www.
        And in a sense, it is a luxury problem. Any author writing a book has to finalize things at some point, and send it off to the printer. After that it is out of his hands. So, in that sense, it is normal to work towards completion and then put an end to active involvement. And then to leave it as it is ... - Brya (talk) 05:50, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, porting the whole system to VLIZ (home of WoRMS etc.) over the period 2014-2016 lays the ground work for me to have an "exit strategy" at whatever point is appropriate. The only question is how to decide when enough is enough! Other activities call, however there always seems to be the urge to scratch the "taxonomic itch"... Tony 1212 (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

11 August[edit]

Reached new ION name #1,506 today: it is Aptenoperissus Rasnitsyn & Poinar in Rasnitsyn, Poinar & Brown, 2017, a fossil wasp, I have jumped forward from my chronological sequence (which is still sitting at around the middle of 2014, authors starting with "M") in order to fill a couple of forward-looking gaps - first, new names which are replacements for preoccupied older names (helps to sort out otherwise unresolved homonyms), and second, type genera for newly established families which I entered earlier - e.g. Aptenoperissus is the type genus for the family Aptenoperissidae Rasnitsyn & Poinar in Rasnitsyn, Poinar & Brown, 2017 which I entered earlier (4 April), but was sitting there with no children for the last few months. OK, those are done, back to the chronological sequence! Tony 1212 (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

18 August[edit]

Another c.100 genus names added; new ION name #1,600 is Neobathyclupea Prokofiev, 2014, an extant genus of deepsea herring, Some of the pre-2016 new marine genus names (where I am currently working) are already in IRMNG, having been added in Oct 2016 from WoRMS by the VLIZ team (for example, so these ones get skipped in the ION file (although sometimes they require e.g. an extant/fossil flag to be added). Onwards and upwards. Tony 1212 (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)