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 ID error[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...)