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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
                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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

OK, it seems sure that at some point further items will surface. - Brya (talk) 12:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
OK, thanks, I will pass it on. - Brya (talk) 07:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Some discussion now at . Tony 1212 (talk) 05:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Yes, OK. I am just noting them here. Don't feel obliged to take action. - Brya (talk) 06:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Wow! I will leave you to it then. - Brya (talk) 06:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
That comes to something like one percent of your list? Long road ahead ... - Brya (talk) 11:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
OK, now set to synonym of Fuchsia Spuler in Hofmann-Spuler, 1910 following
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

13 Mar[edit]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yes, we do not have fudging in the land of IRMNG :) Tony 1212 (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15 Mar[edit]

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

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
That is good! - Brya (talk) 05:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Yes, that would compute. - Brya (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Correct of course. Thanks. Tony 1212 (talk) 10:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
        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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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...)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

28 August[edit]

Reached new name #1,700 from the ION batch, which is Parafurnishius Yang, Yuan, Henderson & Shen, 2014, a fossil conodont. Approx. 40 names to go to the end of 2014... Thinking further, I do not think I will commence the 2015 names (approx. 2,200 of these) or the 2016 names (approx. 1,700) because of the time they will require, going by the completion rate to date; I did make a start on the 2017 names and the small number of 2018 ones in the file earlier, but will probably not give these priority either. (I have some side efforts I would like to do before my proposed cutoff date of March 2020). More when I have finished the 2014 batch! Tony 1212 (talk) 03:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13 September[edit]

Finished the ION new names batch to end of 2014 (1,748 names added), going to stop at that point for a while and upgrade some other sectors which have not been looked at for a while (very long while in some cases) - prompted by an email from a user, I have just revised the higher taxonomy of Chilopoda, also Symphyla and Pauropoda from phylum down to family, synonymising various now non-current family and order names as required. (Not further checking the genera at this point owing to time constraints, although I have done minor upgrades to c.100 of the 500+ names involved).

Next port of call is the fungi, which have had quite a lot of external action in the new families/orders/even classes department since my last major overhaul in 2009 (with some genera additions in 2013 from Index Fungorum). I have downloaded a lot of new genera to add from Mycobank but first will go over the higher taxonomy using Ruggiero et al. in the first instance to see if anything much has changed, also subsequent new works with additional higher taxa, before working through the new and/or updated genera list. For example if you look just at the abstract of this paper "Fungal Planet description sheets: 716-784" (or even just the list of authors!), plus its predecessors/successors, you will get some idea of present taxonomic activity in the group. Large intake of breath required. Tony 1212 (talk) 06:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of authors does not seem uncommon in fungal papers ([1]). - Brya (talk) 09:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Useful links[edit]

Rhipidogorgia engelmanni[edit]

As for you last comment in the village pump "(I did not have the third one, WoRMS' Rhipidogorgia engelmanni, and probably will not add it since it is neither a basionym nor a currently accepted name)". This have also been fixed in WoRMS: Rhipidogorgia engelmanni is the original combination, and not Gorgonia engelmanni. I'm very fine if you don't create an entry for Rhipidogorgia engelmanni but you should fix the author citation from Gorgonia engelmanni Horn, 1860 to Gorgonia engelmanni (Horn, 1860) that is finally just a synonym. Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Christian Ferrer: OK, I have created a new IRMNG record for Rhipidogorgia engelmanni (as unaccepted name, accepted = Pacifigorgia engelmanni) here and adjusted the cited authority for Gorgonia engelmanni as per your notification, thanks. (Have not got into annotating species as basionyms etc. since that would be too big a diversion for me at this time). Thanks for the alert, happy to receive others (within reason!!). - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20 September[edit]

Spent the last week or so adding new Fungal higher taxa to IRMNG i.e. phyla, classes, orders and the odd family (since 2009/2013) - 53 already including 10 new phylum names, 23 classes and 14 orders (mix of "accepted" and "unaccepted" names, more to do); see here: live link - who would have thought that task would be so large... once that is done, or mostly done, I can add the new genera. At present I am taking the accepted/unaccepted status from Index Fungorum, although some of the "unaccepted" IF taxa are accepted elsewhere e.g. in recent publications by Tedersoo et al. and Wijayawardene et al., both 2018. At least if I follow IF (in the main) that is a standard, for now, until they decide that the newer treatments are indeed acceptable (affects Chytridiomycota and a number of basal clades in the main, the latter raised to many new phyla not yet accepted in IF). Tony 1212 (talk) 07:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Tony, Acanthacis austrea Deichmann, 1936 should be Acanthacis austera Deichmann, 1936. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Christian Ferrer:, now fixed. Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 06:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, an additional changes in WoRMS:
Junceella funiculina Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1864 (IRMNG WoRMS) is now quoted as to be the original combination of Ellisella funiculina (Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1864) (IRMNG WoRMS). Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Christian Ferrer:, now fixed, also adjusted the record for Junceella barbadensis (IRMNG) which would then also be a syn. of Ellisella funiculina (although WoRMS has not made this change explicitly). Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Upgrade of IRMNG Myriapoda (Diplopoda, Chilopoda, etc.)[edit]

Currently IRMNG has around 4,000 genus+subgenus names assigned to Myriapoda, of which around 650 are still awaiting allocation (not even known if they are Diplopoda or Chilopoda) since they were imported from Nomenclator Zoologicus, 12 years ago, with just taxonomic assignment "Myr". To address this I have done a cross check of all present IRMNG genus names either in Diplopoda or in "Myriapoda (awaiting allocation)" against both MilliBase and ChiloBase (neither of which were in existence, so far as I know, when these names were uploaded to IRMNG) and managed to track down more than 500 of them (437 have a match in MilliBase, a smaller number in ChiloBase) and am presently working through the remainder, with a view to upgrading the relevant IRMNG records within the next month or so, also (hopefully) checking famiy assignments and taxonomic statuses are up-to-date. So stay tuned for results in this area.

Meanwhile, I will note names below which I have not been able to trace (with some minimal investigation as yet) - I will add to the list as I encounter them as hard-to-trace names - any further info welcome: (original publication details are as given in Nomenclator Zoologicus online)

Name + authority Original publication Comment
FIXED... Allassodesmus Chamberlin, 1923 Occ. Pap. Mus. Zool. Univ. Mich., no. 133 Full reference is Chamberlin, R.V. (1923) Results of the Bryannt Walker Expeditions of the University of Michigan to Colombia, 1913, and British Guiana, 1914. Occ. Pap. Mus. Univ. Mich., 133, 1–143. *** A misspelling in Nomen. Zool., for Alassodesmus Chamberlin, 1923 (latter not previously in IRMNG)
Angolophilus Chamberlin, 1951 Publ. cult. Comp. Diamant. Angola, no. 10 (iii) Chilopoda. Full reference is "On Chilopoda collected in North-East Angola by Dr. A. de Barros Machado." Publicacoes Culturais da Companhia de Diamantes de Angola, No. 10(III) 1951: pp. 95-111; included species: Angolophilus solus Chamberlin 1951 [Zoological Record/ION]
FIXED... Armeniobrachiulus Lohmander, 1936 Göteborg. VetenskSamh. Handl., (B) 5 (1) Diplopoda; as "Ch. (Armeniobrachiulus) Lohmander 1936" [Zoological Record/ION]. Full reference is "Uber die Diplopoden des Kaukasusgebietes." Goteborgs Vetenskaps Samhalles Handlingar B, 5(1) 1936: Unpaginated *** A misspelling in Nomen. Zool., for Armeniobrachyiulus Lohmander, 1936 (latter not previously in IRMNG)
Cnizus Billberg, 1820 Enum. Insect. in Mus. Blbg. Chilopoda? original work/page here:
FIXED... Desmacanthus Meek & Worthen, 1868 Geol. Surv. Illinois, 3 fossil; non Desmacanthus Quenstedt, 1856 (fossil Pisces) ***Not a Myriapod: a fossil Polychaete, syn. of Paleocampa Meek & Worthen, 1865.
FIXED... Kanabius Chamberlin, 1920 Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Harvard, 64, 77 Chilopoda. "unknown Lithobiomorpha" according to ***A misspelling in Nomen. Zool., for Kauabius Chamberlin, 1920, (latter not previously in IRMNG), a syn. of Lithobius according to Eason, 1977 Original description (with correct spelling) here:
Metodesmus Silvestri, 1948 Boll. Lab. Ent. agr. Portici, 8 Diplopoda. Full reference: "Contribute alla conoscenza dei Diplopodi termitofili dell'America meridionale." Bollettino del Laboratorio di Entomologia Agraria Portici, 8 1948: pp. 1-32 [Zoological Record/ION]
FIXED... Ormithoëides Verhoeff, 1941 Mat. term. Ert. Budapest, 60, 228 Diplopoda. Full reference: "Zur Kenntnis nordungarischer Diplopoden." Mat. Természettud. Ért. 60: 226-242. ***A misspelling in Nomen, Zool., for Ornithoeides Verhoeff, 1941 (latter not previously in IRMNG)
FIXED... Palaeosphaerotherium Peach, 1914 Proc. Roy. Phys. Soc. Edinburgh, 19 Full reference: "On some carboniferous arthropods, with description of a new genus of myriopod." Edinburgh Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society, 19 1914: (142-148). [Zoological Record/ION]***For now, assigned to Sphaerotheriidae (inferred: as per "close to Sphaerotherium" in original description)
FIXED... Pauropoposis Remy, 1941 Bull. Mus. Hist. Nat. Paris, 2 (13) Pauropoda. Full reference: "Remarques sur quelques Pauropodes americains." Bull Mus Hist nat Paris (2), 13(3) 1941: pp. 166-174. [Zoological Record/ION] ***A misspelling in Nomen, Zool., for Pauropopsis Remy, 1941 (latter not previously in IRMNG)
FIXED... Phylaconmerium Verhoeff, 1951 Beitr. Fauna Perus, Jena, 2 Full reference: "Chilopoden und Diplopoden." Beitraege zur Fauna-Perus, 2 1951: pp. 1-68. [Zoological Record/ION] ***A misspelling in Nomen, Zool., for Phylacomerium Verhoeff, 1951 (latter not previously in IRMNG)

Also just found "Haplogonophora Brölemann, 1932", listed as a genus in Nomenclator Zoologicus, is actually an order name, see the original work at (also year is 1931); the same applies to "Progonophora" (thanks Carlos Alberto Martínez Muñoz for spotting that).

More to come, watch this space... Tony 1212 (talk) 22:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of digging into Desmacanthus, and it's apparently not even a Myriapoda, but an objective junior synonym of Paleocampa, which is listed as a Polychaete (I'm not clear whether that makes it unavailable or merely invalid... in botany I would call it illegitimate):
From these facts, it seems very improbable that Paleocampa is a Caterpillar, but that it is more probably a worm, as suggested by Professor Scudder. If farther examinations should confirm this view of its affinities, and the name Paleocampa should therefore be considered objectionable, it might be called Desmacanthus, in allusion to the fasciculatedcharacter of its delicate needle-like spines.
The full reference is "Paleontology of Illinois" Illinois Geological Survey 3:289-565. the name is on page 565, and the survey has been digitized. Circeus (talk) 01:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And "Phylaconmerium" should be "Phylacomerium". WoRMS has it as a Diplopoda. Here's the Snippet view of Beiträge zur Fauna Perus from Google Books. Circeus (talk) 01:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Ormithoëides, the periodical's title is "Matematikai és természettudományi értesítö" in Hungarian and "Mathematischer und naturwissenschaftlicher Anzeiger der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften" in German
Re: Alassodesmus, the paper is accessible here. Alssaodesmus is described as a diplopoda on p. 59. Circeus (talk) 02:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much @Circeus:, I have made adjustments to the table above and fixed the IRMNG entries for Desmacanthus, Alassodesmus (as a misspelling of Allassodesmus, latter now added), Ormithoëides (as a misspelling of Ornithoeides, latter now added), Phylaconmerium (misspelling for Phylacomerium, latter now added) and Pauropoposis (misspelling for Pauropopsis, latter now added). Good detective work :) Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 05:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Palaeosphaerotherium: described here as a fossil pill milliped "close to Sphaerotherium" (Sphaerotheriidae), so at least as described, it would appear to be a diplopod. There doesn't seem to be much, if any later uses of the name, so it's either somewhat forgotten or long-synonymized. Wesener 2016 doesn't mention it at all, so maybe it's not even a Sphaerotheriida?
OK, I have taken a punt and assigned to Sphaerotheriidae for now (inferred: as per "close to Sphaerotherium") Tony 1212 (talk) 03:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can't read the original (no HathiTrust account), sorry... Tony 1212 (talk) 04:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also fixed Kanabius Chamberlin, 1920 - a misspelling for Kauabius, a syn. of Lithobius.Tony 1212 (talk) 04:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Came across the following reference, in case you didn't know of it:

  • Jeekel C.A.W. 1971. Nomenclator generum et familiarum Diplopodorum: A list of the genus and family-group names in the class Diplopoda from the 10th edition of Linnaeus, 1758, to the end of 1957. Monografieën van de Nederlandse Entomologische Vereniging, 5. 412 pp.

Part II was published in 2000, and Part III (Arthropoda Selecta 24(1): 1–26) in 2015.

Thanks @Circeus:, yes I am aware of these although normally rely on Google Scholar to find names therein for me! Also MilliBase of course, though there are a few names they may have overlooked (also no fossils I think). Tony 1212 (talk) 06:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WoRMS update[edit]

Hi Tony, I notice to you one update in WoRMS

  • Lumbrineris latreilli Audouin & Milne Edwards, 1834 → date changed to 1833 IRMNG WoRMS

Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Christian Ferrer: Thanks Christian, I have made this change. Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Christian, I originally had the date as 1867, but WoRMS changed it to match their then system in 2016. Now changed back in both systems ...
Note also that Schistomeringos rudolphii (delle Chiaje, 1828) →IRMNG is not anymore accepted, but the original spelling rudolphi yes, see WoRMS. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! I did not notice that you have an entry too for the right name [2]... Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done - also the names previously listed as synonyms of rudolphii. Tony 1212 (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Christian Ferrer: Thanks Christian, I have made this change. The error was in WoRMS (2013) and has subsequently been corrected. Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 15:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know it have been subsequently corrected, in fact, almost all the updates that I quote here are the corrections made by WoRMS after I notice to them those errors, ...and this is why I'm aware of those updates... Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, thanks. Tony 1212 (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Christian Ferrer: Thanks Christian, now fixed. Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 18:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Christian Ferrer: Thanks Christian, now fixed (also added a missing extant flag). Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Christian Ferrer: Thanks Christian, I have fixed the IRMNG record. Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The homonym pages of IRMNG[edit]

I was trying to lookup some names, and I noticed the page for A abruptly cuts off at "Aphora". Is that normal?— The preceding unsigned comment was added by circeus (talkcontribs).

Thanks for spotting this. It looks like there is a pre-set display limit which is being exceeded in this instance. I will contact the database support team and hopefully get it fixed - will let you know when that is done. Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice at first, but it does seem to affect most letters. Circeus (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working through our homonyms category. When I'm through, I'll notify you if any of the names are listed as valid in IRMNG and should have a different name given. Circeus (talk) 19:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Circeus:OK, fixed now thanks to the good folk at VLIZ :) I look forward to any info that you come across which can usefully be fed into IRMNG taxonomic status/synonym info as well. Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BTW if you are working through the list of IRMNG homonyms you will be busy - around 70,000 genus names affected at last count... although some of these will not be true homonyms (misspellings or nomina nuda/rejected names). Tony 1212 (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I do mean actual homonyms, and specifically category:homonyms (though possibly IRMNG can be used to populate it). The vast majority of the IRMNG ones are hemihomonyms of no concerns (they go on our List of valid homonyms), or homonyms with a documented valid name (which can be useful for resolving our own actual homonyms). If I find true homonyms in one that are not in the other, I'll investigate and see what I can dig.
One that I digged a little into is Abbreviata Schulz, 1927, which according to this, is merely responsible for emending the original spelling of Travassos', which would make it an objective synonym. If it qualifies as a new name under ICZN at all: I'm never clear if it's zoologists or the Code itself that have what seems to me a very broad definition of "synonym". Circeus (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
From my recollection, according to Code, incorrect original or subsequent spellings are not available names and do not enter synonymy or homonymy (although emendations do, whether justified or unjustifed), see , however many zoologists - and also IRMNG - do include unavailable names as in synonymy lists (I call them "synonyms sensu lato" when pressed), since they are useful for name reconciliation / query expansion etc. in the data retrieval world. Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say (as noted below), Abbreviata Schulz, 1927, as listed in Nomenclator Zoologicus, is not a new name, it has an incorrect cited authority, which is how I will annotate it in the IRMNG record - however I will keep the latter since it tells the user what to do with this Nomenclator Zoologicus "name". Tony 1212 (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd understood as much. Circeus (talk) 02:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Circeus:OK, I have looked at the literature and web sources and according to my reading of the Abbreviata example, we should have Abreviata Travassos, 1920 as an incorrect original spelling, Abbreviata Travassos, 1920 as a corrected original spelling (retains original authorship), and Abbreviata Schulz, 1927 should be noted as a later usage (incorrect authorship as cited in Nomenclator Zoologicus: Schulz merely corrected the spelling of Travassos' name). The citation "Abbreviata (Travassos, 1920) Schulz, 1927" as given in Morgan's 1945 work is intended to convey that Schulz emended the generic diagnosis but nomenclaturally this makes no difference, so that version is incorrect. I am happy to change the relevant IRMNG record/s when you have had a chance to read this (it is only the one for Abbreviata Schulz, 1927 that needs changing I think). Thanks for the info and alert - Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 05:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now fixed in IRMNG - Abbreviata Schulz, 1927 now pointed to Abbreviata Travassos, 1920 as the accepted name and noted to have an incorrect cited authority, plus revised note/s added to each of the three relevant pages (plus a reference and links created for the Morgan, 1945 reference). Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 18:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


You were interested in the results once I was done, so here they are (only names that were in the homonym category and not documented in IRMNG):

Homonym Current treatment Reference for name
Acaerus Loginova, 1976 Shaerqia Kemal & Koçak, 2009
non Sureaca Burckhardt & Ouvrard, 2012

CESA Misc. Papers 149:7; Zootaxa 3509:16

Acarellus Tatem, 1872 A case of conflicting attributions of the same genus. While Tatem, 1872 refers very clearly to Westwood as having described the genus in 1870, the paper in question seems to not be exist in a published form (later authors do not even mention Westwood, despite how prominent he is in Tatem's paper). I believe Tatem, 1872 is the correct authorship. These two species seem to be (Bull. Inst. Royal Sci. Nat. Belgique 63:78) earlier life stages of Acarus species (or at least something in Acaridae).
Acaroceras Chen, Qi & Chen, 1979 Novacaroceras Özdikmen, 2013[1] Munis Ent. Zool. 8:220
Acrocarpus Kützing Gelidiella Feldmann & Hamel Blumea 35:353, 1991 (undocumented typification)
Afroptilum Darge, 2003 Adafroptilum Darge, 2004 Bull. Soc. Entomol. Mulhouse 60:12
Agasthenes Bates, 1873 Batessia Ponting, 2018 Rec. W. Austral. Mus. 33(1):131
Alaria Zhao & Li, 2012 Sinoalaria Zhao & Li, 2014 Acta Arachnol. Sinica 23(1):41
Aotearoa Holleman, 2007 Okakarus Holleman, 2007 Zootaxa 1607:68
Batia Walker, 1867 Paridnea Ragonot, 1892 Butt. Moths World
Cerasina Copper, 1995 Cerasinella Copper, 2015 J. Paleont. 89:894
Chelonia Oberthür, 1883 Euleechia Dyar, 1900 Butt. Moths World
Clypeorhynchus Yunakov & Arzanov, 2001 Clypeotiorhynchus Yunakov, 2013[2] Cat. Palaearct. Coleopt. 8:71
Collaria Dotsenko, 1989
Subgenus under Eirenis
Pediophis Fitzinger, 1843 Salamandra 39:161; 2003
Collaria Porat, 1878[3] Nurettiniella Özdikmen, 2007 Mun. Ent. Zool. 2(2): 434
Copriodes Turner, 1916 Piloprepes Meyrick, 1883 Austral. Faunal Direct.
Diazoma Dürkoop, 1970 Kelusia Mamedov, 1978 Geol. Belg. 22:71, 2019
Euryomma Tan, Ren, Shih & Ge, 2006 † Either Pareuryomma Tan, Ren, Shih & Ge (substitute)
or Notocupes Ponomarenko, 1964 (synonym0)
BMC Evol. Biol. 12:e113, 2012 (Pareuryomma), Acta Geol. Sinica 84:788,2010 (Notocupes)
Falklandia (both de Broyer, 1985 and Chadwick, Coxill & Toy, 1987) I have reported this name and the WoRMS amphipod editor got back saying she'd push something out ASAP.
Gippslandia L.E. Stover & G.L. Williams, 1987 Neogippslandia Özdikmen, 2009[4] Mun. Ent. Zool. 4(1):235
Gomphiocephalus Verhoeff, 1943 Nopoiulus Menge, 1851[5] Millibase
Holcoceroides Sinev, 1986 Tecmerium Walsingham, 1907[6] Lepidoptera and some other life forms
Indiella Sautya, Tabachnick & Ingole, 2011 Carlsbergia, Gaudin, 2019 Zootaxa 4571(1):145
Kakamasia Ueckermann & Grout, 2007 Ueckermanniella, Beron, 2012 Hist. Nat. Bulg. 20:67
Kuatunia Gressitt, 1951 Kuatuniana, Hua, 2002 List Chin. Ins. 2:212 ISBN 7-306-01701-2
Lacertina Remes Lenicov & Rossi Batiz, 2011 Lacertinella Rossi Batiz & Remes Lenicov, 2012 Rev. Soc. Entomol. Argent. 71(3-4):307
Liuella Georgescu, 2008 Liuenella Georgescu, 2010 J. Foramin. Res. 40(2):206
Maricaona Razowski & Becker, 2007 Manacoria Razowski, 2016 Acta Zool. Cracov. 59(2):146
Meruana Delucchi, 1962 Meruacesa Koçak & Kemal, 2009 CESA Misc. Pap. 150:6
Meyerella Baker, 1968 Edbakerella André, 2004 Int. j. acarol. 30(3):279–280
Meyerellidae André, 1980 See Triophtydeidae and references
Natalina Romanenko, 1978 Limbadiscus Korobov, 1980 Mun. Ent. Zool. 1:180
Omania Popov, 1980 Dhofaria Popov, 1985 J. Oman Studies 8(1):73
Palaua Faubel, 1983 Nephtheaplana Prudhoe, 1985[7]
Perophora Harris, 1841 Cicinnus Blanchard, 1852 Zookeys 566:121;2016
Philophlaeus Loberoschema Reitter, 1896 Annales Zoologici 48:231, 1998
Pleurodiscus Barker & Meakin, 1944 Pleurodiscina Silva, 1970 Taxon 19(6):941-945
Pteridium J.Agardh Membranoptera Stackhouse Index Nominum Genericorum
Satsuma Murray, 1874 Some sources date Ginzia to 1947, if so, then Ahlbergia Bryk, 1946 (Ark. Zool. 38:50) is valid
Schwartzia Blandin, 1988 Laurschwartzia Blandin, 2007 Bull. Soc. entomol. France 112(4): 510
Sciades Pascoe, 1864 Miaenia Pascoe, 1864 Le Coléoptériste 15(3):153
Sinobdella Nesemann, 1995 Sinodontobdella Neesemann, 2007 Neesemann et al., Aquatic invert. Ganga river system, 1:196 ISBN 978-99946-2-674-8
Sinoniscus Schultz, 1995 Guiliniscus Dixon, 2013[8] Crustaceana 86(3):377
Suttonia Lunaschi, 2002 Gymnoacetabulum Lunasci & Drago, 2007 Zootaxa, 1580:35–50
Taenia Stebnicka, 2003 Tanyana Stebnicka, 2006 Acta Zool. Cracov. 49B:183
Venilia Kuznetsov, 1979 Kuznetsovia Kammerer, 2006 Acta Zootax. Sinica 31:269–271
Verticia Vandamme et al., 2015 Verticiella Vandamme, 2016 Int. J. Sys. Evol. Microbiol. 66:5099
Vitta Burt, 1938 Vittaburtia Sałamatin, 2019 Bionomina 15(1):55
  1. And also Novacaroceratidae, replacing Acaroceratidae Chen et al, 1979, based off the same genus.
  2. This is just the replacement name. I mane no claim regarding the validity of IRMNG's synonymy with Otiorhynchus Germar, 1824
  3. This name might be out of use
  4. Only if ICZN is the code to be apprlied to Chromista (Blackwell Phytologia 91(2):191-225; 2009)
  5. Gomphiulus Mauriès, 1970 remains the valid substitute name
  6. Replacement name: Sinevina Koçak & Kemal, 2007; CESA Misc. Papers 105:6
  7. Homonymy has not been reported, but this would be the correct name.
  8. Superfluous replacement name.
@Circeus:Thanks a lot. I will get to them in a while - first trying to finish new fungal genus names 2012 (50% done) and 2013 (around another 200 or so) - will probably get to your list after that, however will be very useful then... Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 06:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I would be delighted to be able to contribute more directly. Not that I don't value my work on wikispecies, but sometimes one cannot deny a yearning to enter data in a more... erm, valued resource. Circeus (talk)
@Circeus:If you would like me to make a request to VLIZ for you to have editor privileges on IRMNG, I would be delighted to do so - drop me a line on Tony.Rees (at) timing would be good since I am hoping to take more of a back seat from around Mar 2020, having been IRMNG editor-in-charge since 2006 (yes 2006 not 2016 - it seemed like a good/tractable idea at the time, and I envisaged it as approximately a 6-month project...). I think there would be definite advantages in you being able to edit relevant IRMNG records directly rather than the present double handling, which also requires me to prioritise when I can make the changes versus other concurrent tasks. Let me know... Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 02:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I'm adding families when the genus is unassigned. I should point out that I'm only looking at the later names, but obviously many of the senior names are considered invalid/incorrect in their own right!

Homonym Current treatment Reference, comments etc.
Abella Walker, 1862 Porella Walker, 1855 Previously placed as Clathe Walker 1855, before that was synonymized in turn
Aberdaria Blume, 1965 Primigulella Pilsbry, 1919 (Streptaxidae) Per WoRMS
Abia Giebel, 1856 Osmylopsis Handlirsch 1906 (Osmylidae) Fossilworks.[1]
Abia Poletaeva, 1972 Labiostrina Poletaeva, 1972 (Olenida, Pterocephaliidae) Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 48(2): 336 (first reviser), Zootaxa 3148:107 (Olenida)
Ablabera Erichson, 1847 This is the same as Ablabera Dejean, 1833 but I can't tell which is the proper author under ICZN (Dej., Er.).
Abrodiaeta Péringuey, 1896 Abrodiella Bousquet, 2002 Folia Heyrovskyana Suppl. 9:?? "The following new replacement names are proposed: Abrodiella (for Abrodiaeta Péringuey, 1896) [...]"
Absentia Huang, 2001 Tumoris Huang, 2001 ZooKeys 102: 1-11.
Absyrtus Rafinesque, 1815 This name is a nomen nudum and should probably be marked as unaccepted.
Acalanthe Bonaparte, 1850 Erythrura Swainson, 1837 Not available[2]
Acalanthis Gistel, 1847 Zygiella Cambridge, 1902 (Theridiidae) WSC says this is a synonym of Steatoda Sundevall, 1833. [3]
Acanthaphis Matsumura, 1918 Matsumuraja Schumacher, 1921 Zool. Anz. 53:186-7 (substitute), J. Asia-Pac. Entom. 5(1):19-27 (use)
Acanthascus Schulze, 1885 This "senior" homonym is noted as a nomen nudum and should prob. be marked as unaccepted.
Acanthaspis Newberry, 1875 Affinities of A. armatus are unclear, genus seems to not be recognized in general. Definitely not a synonym of Kujdanowiaspis Stensiö, 1942 as asserted by Dupret (Geodiversitas 35(1):9), unless he actually places A. armatus in that genus, which doesn't to be the case.
Acanthicus Laporte, 1832 Acanthicoides Metcalf, 1952 TREEHOPPERS
Acanthidium Michener & Griswold, 1994 Acedanthidium Michener, 2000
Acanthina Siebold, 1845 This seems very likely to be a nom. nud. See footnote 2 here.
Axia Eschscholtz, 1825 Axiotima Eschscholtz, 1829 WoRMS
Axia Ferguson, 1954 Macrostomum Schmidt, 1848 PNAS 108(4): 1490-1495, 2011. [4]
Axia Loureiro, 1790 Boerhavia Linnaeus, 1753
Axia Hübner, 1825 Nycteola Hübner, 1822
Chandleria Yamaguti, 1959 Mathevotaenia Akhumyan, 1946 (Anoplocephalidae)
  1. This technically depends on the (apparently undesignated) type of Abia. The other species Giebel placed there is a †Sialum (Nymphidae).
  2. This is either a name in synonymy not treated as valid later, or Acalanthe Vieillot, 1805, which might be no more available than Bonaparte's citation.
  3. Gistel is clearly renaming Eucharia Koch, but without making any specific combination. WSC takes this as creating a name "Acalanthis hera" based off Koch's Eucharia hera (a dubious conclusion to me), which they synonymize to Steatoda castanea. Ultimately, this is dependent on where one synonymizes Eucharia, which doesn't seem all that clear.
  4. Suppl:3 They tucked that in the frickin' supplementary material...

Two names[edit]

Found this in unused templates and it does bring to light issues with these names: [ Cryxus] is a good, monotypic genus, while Zephronia should be in Zephroniidae—on account of, y'know, being the type genus—, not Sphaerotheriidae, but it's not clear how many species belong in it (see p. 283 for a discussion of this specific issue). Circeus (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Circeus, I'll take a look. The issue with type genera not being in relevant accepted families arises when the genera concerned come from one source (which may or may not mention the family assignment, or as in this case may give an outdated or otherwise disputed one) and the list of accepted families from another (imported without included genera being available in any readily accessible form), so a manual link-up/additional investigation is required which is a continuing but slow/intermittent task (and can get shunted down the priority list by other activities...) - so little time, so much to do... but I will fix that one later today. Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not faulting you on that, just pointing out that the placement is hard to dispute. The article noted that Zephronia has been treated as a synonym of Sphaerotherium (hence the misplacement, I assume), and noticing it would requires knowledge to begin with that the family exists and is valid in the tree, neither of which I can assume of you. And not as a competence thing, just that the group is remote from your specialty.
...Out of curiosity, is your field just bioinformatics or do you have any groups that you have specific familiarity with? Circeus (talk) 21:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Circeus, I have fixed those 2 names ... actually it is my intention to address all the Diplopoda before too long (harmonize the treatment with MilliBase of which I have a recent dump) so they would have been picked up via that method as well. The previous placement of Zephronia would have come in from some other system (possibly Australian Faunal Directory, not sure) and most likely never subsequently checked by myself, although as you would see from the above I do attempt to revise whole groups on ad-hoc basis as time, enthusiasm and priorities are available (!!) - the Diplopoda never got done that well in the first instance because that group was not among those treated by CoL in my original 2006 upload.
Regarding my particular expertise - well originally I worked with general botany, algae/fungi through angiosperms (undergraduate level) and freshwater phytoplankton (postgraduate level) so I know at least the small algal groups reasonably well, and have some knowledge of botanical classification etc. After that I worked in microplaeontology including fossil algae and other things (conodonts, radiolaria, pollen + spores, ostracods...), then with marine phytoplankton and marine biology generally (fishes and some invertebrates), then the broader marine data world (OBIS) and national species lists (Atlas of Living Australia). Meanwhile my OBIS and IRMNG work has led to interactions with specialists on other groups e.g. Paul Kirk (Index/Species Fungorum), David Patterson (protists), Geoff Read (annelids), Carlos Munoz (Chilopoda) etc. etc. so often I have a feel for what is going on in some other groups - or at least know whom to ask if I get stuck! Plus sometimes I may send a message to Taxacom to see what other folk may say in the case of curly issues. So I consider myself generally a biologist who has moved sideways into the informatics world, rather than a data person in the first instance, and try to keep a watching brief on developments in the general taxonomic sphere. In case that helps! Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Publication list (for what it's worth) at ...
">just that the group is remote from your specialty" ... yes, that is a fair call, there are lots of things I have not worked with myself (including all insects!) Tony 1212 (talk) 00:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Had to clear out an invalid name page of Stephen, and that prompted me to clear up some names relevant to IRMNG:

Circeus (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Circeus:Thanks, I have updated those records now. New listing here for some reason the family for Larunda Hübner is still saying Uraniidae although I have updated it to Sematuridae in the record, probably there is some refresh period needed for that item of functionality. Thanks again for the new info, Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 02:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By the way we are revamping the IRMNG "Statistics" page to show genera rather than species (which is the case with all the other systems running out of VLIZ), first try here: . Gives us / myself an idea of the scale of the task ("uncertain" totals will be inserted soon, which is where the main work lies, in addition to keeping up with newly published names...) Tony 1212 (talk) 02:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of, I was recently wondering if there is an update feed for IRMNG? At least for added taxon? Circeus (talk) 04:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The top right link (or others) on gives the last 50 names added I think - however made for machine ingestion really unless you are good at reading RSS.
Another, more flexible/customizable way (giving you a human readable result, however you have to click the links to see the tax. placement) is to use the IRMNG "advanced search" and put in your own start date for "action = created" (after), like this one - for rank=genus, since 2019-11-14: search result. You can tailor the advanced search further, e.g. to look for ranks above genus, or just search within a particular group, or just "accepted" names, etc. etc. Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 04:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

3 family-level homonymies cleared or clearable[edit]

OK fixed now (by changing status from "nomen nudum" to "unaccepted")
  • Under Lithotryidae, both names are clearly based off the same generic ( Lithotrya Sowerby, 1822), so either Gruvel's name (I think that's from Gruvel, A., 1905. Monographie des Cirrhipèdes ou Thecostracés. Masson et Cie, Paris, Pp 472. protologue) is not actually available somehow, or Zevina's name (Zevina, G.B. (1978a) [A new classification of the family Scalpellidae Pilsbry (Cirripedia, Thoracica). Part 1. Subfamilies Lithotryinae, Calanticinae, Pollicipinae, Scalpellinae, Brochiinae and Scalpellopsinae]. Zoologicheskii Zhurnal, 57 (7), 998–1006. [in Russian]) should be listed as "accepted as Lithotryidae Gruvel"
I may have created "Lithotryidae Zevina" as a data entry error - in the relevant page of Martin & Davis, 2001, the entries for the relevant portion read:
Calanticidae Zevina, 1978
Lithotryidae Gruvel, 1905
so I may have added the wrong author; subsequently, a new record has been created with the correct author based on WoRMS. Accordingly, I have kept the one with the correct authority and deprecated the other, moving its children to the correct place.

Xylophagidae Purchon, 1941 into Xylophagaidae Circeus (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the alert, I have made a new entry for Xylophagaidae and made Xylophagidae Purchon, 1941 a synonym of that.
Should be good now for those 3 names (Lithotryidae should now have disappeared from the list as it is no longer a duplicate name). Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Circeus: BTW earlier this year (February 2019) I contacted the ICZN to try and get some renewed action on Case 3555 (2011) - Removal of homonymy in Chilodontidae in Ciliophora, Pisces + Mollusca. They said they would get onto it and try to vote on it this June now passed, but it does not seem to have happened as yet - however it has disappeared from the list of "open cases" on the ICZN site, but not appeared under "opinion issued", so who knows... Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

asdfghjkl. I swear I can't comprehend how the ICZN operate (see also: generally incoherent numbering of cases relative to their actual order of publication). I must have been seriously spoiled with how smoothly things usually go for ICBN cases. I was considering taking the list of family-group homonymies we have documented here (but which are not recorded in the literature) and shooting a small article to the bulletin to get more attention to them, but now I'm not so sure about this idea XD (not that Zootaxa is that much tempting. Our Phytotaxa article has been languishing in apparent limbo for two months now). Circeus (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that IRMNG homonyms are "interim" i.e. duplicated names on the list (also may span multiple Codes) - they may turn out not to be genuine homonyms upon further research, but some are (like the Chilodontidae case which is already known but not resolved). Tony 1212 (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's more the part where the original case was published 8 years ago that gets me. Generally, the way that the code INSISTs on this process being the only sensible resolution option for homonymous family-level names makes no sense to me. I mean, can't you just let people publish a normal emendation notice in the BZN? Noooo! That will never do! Gah. Sorry. I guess everything to do with the principle of coordination seem slike it's asking for trouble to me. Circeus (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was told that some cases "got lost" during the transition of ICZN from London to Singapore (?) and this was one of them - if no action by Feb 2020 I will chase them again... Tony 1212 (talk) 00:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When you do so, maybe you can enquire about Adeliinae Viereck, 1918? According to Bouchard et al., the homonymy with Adeliidae Kirby, 1828 was "to be referred to the Commission to remove the homonymy", and that seems to have been around the time of the problematic move. I have not found any indication of such a case. However (just to complictae things...) the classification of Vespoidea seems to have significantly changed in the last ten years, and maybe Viereck's name fell into synonymy, but I have not found a recent synoptic classification to verify that. Circeus (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Circeus: Presumably based on Adelium Kirby, 1819 (in Coleoptera, Tenebrionidae in IRMNG) vs. Adelius Haliday, 1833 (Hymenoptera, Braconidae) - the text in the cited ref reads:

Tribe Adeliini Kirby, 1828

Adeliadae Kirby, 1828: 525 [stem: Adeli-]. Type genus: Adelium Kirby, 1819.

Comment: family-group name attributed to Hope (1840a: 188) in recent literature; this is a senior homonym of Adeliini Viereck, 1918 (type genus Adelius Haliday, 1833) which is considered a valid tribe in the Hymenoptera: Braconidae: Cheloninae; this case is to be referred to the Commission to remove the homonymy (Art. 55.3.1).

I can find no evidence that such a case was ever submitted, in which case it is not surprising that there is no ICZN decision... If the Coleoptera family-group name has priority (which it does), then it is up to the Hymenoptera guys to make the case for changing one of the stems if they wish to continue using the other one, and I guess they have not done so, just continued to use it although the name is preoccupied... Just my take on that situation (I guess someone should alert them :) ). Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some indirect evidence points in the direction of the Hymenopteran name not being in use, but it's all fuzzy stuff and I'd like to see a firm statement before I commit one way or the other (like how I've found definite evidence that Colotini is no longer in use in Pieridae, though in that case they revived a name that was no longer in use). I'll see in January if about finding a specialist I can poke about this. Circeus (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Adeliini does seem to be in use in some recent papers:,5 Tony 1212 (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

duplicate entries?[edit]

I think this and this are likely to be the same name entered twice rather than actual homonyms. Circeus (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Circeus:Thanks for spotting that, I have deprecated the later created entry and moved its links etc. to the earlier one. Normally when I am adding new content I do exact then approximate matching on authorities to screen out names that already have an entry, this one must have slipped through :( I do have a list of other possible duplicates for checking, but have only checked the most recently published ones thus far (another item on the to-do list...) Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some IRMNG errors for Chrysomelidae[edit]

Okay, here's something that might be simple to deal with (or not?):

Two supposed names for genera in the family Chrysomelidae, "Ebooina" and its synonym "Tomyrina", are not names of genera at all. They are in fact two names for a "subtribe" in Eumolpinae, a subfamily within Chrysomelidae, according to this article:

More specifically, the name "Ebooina" was created because the name "Tomyrina" (usually known as the informal group "Tomyrites", since Eumolpinae's tribal division turns out to be rather problematic) was based on the preoccupied genus-group name Tomyris Chapuis, 1874, which was replaced in the above article by Eboo Reid, 1993. Following ICZN's rules, the family-group name "Tomyrina" therefore had to be replaced as well, resulting in "Ebooina".

Meanwhile, IRMNG's recorded source of the names "Ebooina" and "Tomyrina" (Hallan's Biology Catalog) seems to have misinterpreted them as generic names instead of subtribe names for some reason. I can't access any relevant pages from the page linked, but I have found an alternative archive page here for the subfamily Eumolpinae, where you can see for yourself the bizarre confusion. Maybe Hallan didn't recognise Ebooina/Tomyrina as another name for Tomyrites?

So, I'm not sure what should be done exactly with "Ebooina" and "Tomyrina", just delete the two names explaining they were mistakes? Ebooina and Tomyrina of course are not to be confused with Eboo Reid, 1993 or Tomyris Chapuis, 1874 which are definitely genus-group names and should be left be.

Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Monster Iestyn:Thanks for that alert... Yes, Joel Hallan's massive compilation seems to have gone offline - the fate of many such - which on the one hand makes me glad I grabbed everything (errors included, in some cases) back in 2012 for upload into IRMNG, on the other makes it hard to track back that I have represented his data correctly...
In a case like this (errors in source database only, not appearing in the external literature) I generally just delete (deprecate) them, with a note left on the system as to why. (They can always be reactivated later by another editor if there is new information or they were deprecated in error). So I will do that and report back here in a very short while... Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now done, records redirected to Chrysomelidae. So if anyone has the old IRMNG IDs stored and tries to resolve them via the system, they get a message of the form:

IRMNG_ID: 1459861 has been DELETED - reason: imported as a genus name, actually a subtribe

Please replace it by IRMNG_ID: 101545 (Chrysomelidae Latreille, 1802)
(The reason that they are redirected is because the IRMNG/WoRMS software requires a "current name", except in the case of nomina nuda, which these are not). An alternative would be to re-designate these names as of subtribe rank and then hide (quarantine) them since IRMNG does not deal in subtribes at this time, but since they were included in previous downloads as genera I think keeping them as erroneous (deprecated) genus records is a better solution in this case... Let me know if that sounds like the correct resolution. Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 06:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine to me. Either way they're dealt with now, which is good to know. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IRMNG and genera from Dejean's Coleoptera catalogues[edit]

So, just a heads up, I've started →this page← in an attempt to correct a bit of a mess with a lot of Coleoptera genus records on IRMNG I've discovered recently, including some duplicates! This will take a while to correct entirely, but I've already put in the first batch of records to be fixed.

This time you can mostly blame Nomenclator Zoologicus for much of the incorrect information (mostly about name validity), while Joel Hallan's Biology catalog as far as I'm aware does better, but years and other information need updating.

Monster Iestyn (talk) 05:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Monster Iestyn:Thanks a lot, this will be very useful... I or someone will attend to this, hopefully over the next few weeks, as your list grows and I finish some other tasks. All good data cleaning - necessary but very tedious! Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 05:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tedious it is, the more I dig in the more tangled I find this web of names actually is! Glad to help either way though. If any of my notes are confusing (to you or whoever tackles them on IRMNG itself), please let me know, I don't know how good I am at explaining things sometimes. Monster Iestyn (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what happens if there are records of later descriptions of the same genus? Are they supposed to be treated as synonyms (which seems to be done a lot already), or should their authorities be adjusted, etc? At the moment I seem to be finding a lot of these kind of records while making this list. Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there is internal evidence that the name can be attributed to the first-publishing author, I believe (Both Tony and myself are better acquainted with the Botanical than the Zoological Code) the later name is usually considered a junior homonym. Unfortunately, the ICZN does not (far as I know) have anything like the "isonym" mentioned in Article 6.3 (which is technically, not even a formal designation, ironically enough).
Also I must thank you for tackling this. You are clearly doing so with a lot more thoroughness than I probably would have. Circeus (talk) 02:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Monster Iestyn:> "what happens if there are records of later descriptions of the same genus?"
In IRMNG I reproduce them as listed e.g. in Neave, and point them to the name instance now considered the accepted one, with the status set to "unaccepted" (later usage). I may or may not also add a note e.g. "cited as the valid instance in Neave, however treated as a later usage cf. xxxxx yyyyy, 18xx. Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 05:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I've just been informed by an echinodermist author of some consequent changes. And it's also an opportunity to correct some other records that were not up to date in IRMNG. I give you the genera that are concerned, not the complete list of species that are affected (too much).

Ophiosphalma, H.L. Clark, 1941in WoRMS
[3][4] (note also the authorship for this one)
Glaciacantha Fell, 1961in WoRMS
Ophiomusa Fell, 1927in WoRMS
Ophiomusium Lyman, 1869in WoRMS
Ophioderma Müller & Troschel, 1840in WoRMS

Some of these changes are very recent and it may well be that some small updates will still take place. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Christian Ferrer:, I have made some changes, possibly not all that are needed... in general changes to species (in particular falling in and out of synonymy) are happening at a rate faster than IRMNG can keep track of so many of these may be out of date - one reason why we no longer include species in the formal IRMNG data dumps any more (though they remain accessible via the web interface). At some point "someone" should do a large reconciliation with both CoL and WoRMS in order to update the many hundreds (or more likely thousands or more) that have slipped behind the times; also no doubt there are hundreds of thousands which can also be added via such a process, especially from CoL which has got a lot bigger since my initial 2006 upload!! That said, if there are errors in particular (e.g. spellings, cited authorities) it is good to correct them as they come to hand.
Here are the changes I have made in response to your note:
Ophiosphalma, H.L. Clark, 1941in WoRMS ** Moved to new family Ophiosphalmidae
[5][6] (note also the authorship for this one) ** updated authorship
Glaciacantha Fell, 1961in WoRMS ** removed from synonymy, same for 2 included species, pointed the previously listed accepted equivalents in another genus to here
Ophiomusa Fell, 1927in WoRMS ** moved to new family Ophiomusaidae, removed from synonymy, reinstated 4 species from synonymy
Ophiomusium Lyman, 1869in WoRMS ** moved to new family Ophiosphalmidae, along with its synonym/misspelling Orphiomusium Clark, 1915
Ophioderma Müller & Troschel, 1840in WoRMS ** the only change I can see is there are more species (90) in the WoRMS record than the present IRMNG one (52) - unless I have missed something. Updating/adding missing species on this scale will have to wait for a bulk comparison, which would no doubt reveal many more to be done, and is out of scope for now...
Also moved Ophiolipus Lyman, 1878 to fam. Ophiosphalmidae as per WoRMS, along with its synonym/misspelling Ophiolypus Lyman, 1878
Let me know if I have missed anything... Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks you dear Tony. Let's wait for a bulk comparison for the the genus change of all these species. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020 IRMNG version released[edit]

Hi all, I've finished my season 2019-2020 updates in order to get the March 2020 release out - now available via . I finished the ION names (zoology) to end 2014 and the MycoBank ones to end 2013 (fungi). More to do but we will see how 2020 goes - I do not plan to work as hard on it from now on, unfortunately, but will still fix errors as advised or maybe do some major realignments to higher taxa as needed.

In addition to the new(ish) animal and fungal names as given above, I also revisited some other areas and updated Jurassic bony fishes (thanks to Martin Ebert for data), various early fossil Problematica, Precambrian stromatolites, and more. I also downgraded former phylum (in IRMNG) Archaeocyatha to a class of Porifera since that seems to be their accepted place these days.

Ah yes, and I (assisted by my VLIZ colleagues) contributed an invited article to the new journal "Megataxa" - sister to Zootaxa and Phytotaxa - on the subject of "All genera of the World", published here as of yesterday (Rees et al. 2020):

The article contains phylum-level summaries for numbers of accepted genera, etc. in all groups, also has a copy of the March 2020 data file as "supplementary data" on the Megataxa site.

Since this release I shall continue to work through a file of corrections (450 or so apparently duplicated names) I did not get to in time for the official release, plus others may assist me in entering more taxa, although I do not plan to do too much new work in that area for now. Happy to receive any more ad-hoc requests or error reports, though, which I will attend to if not too onerous.... Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 05:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Tony, can you fix the spelling name within the following record (it should be "Triphora incolumis":

This was a spelling error likely introduced by WoRMS but since have been corrected, see:

Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Christian Ferrer: OK, fixed now - apologies for the delay (only just noticed your comment, for some reason I missed the alert). Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 03:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IRMNG "search taxa"[edit]

Hello, just for info there may be a kind of bug with the search tool "Search taxa". I just searched for "Eupatagus dyscritus" and I had for result: "No records found..." while there is a record [7]. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Christian Ferrer: It does work, only it is set to check "genera only" by default, not species (or higher ranks). Uncheck the box [limit to] "genera" and it should work for you, with luck :) "Advanced search" is similarly set to genera only by default, but also gives you a few more options regarding ranks etc. e.g. genera and below, genera and above, more... Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks you :) Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional IRMNG releases[edit]

For some reason I have neglected to note here additional IRMNG releases for May 2021, May 2022 and May 2023, details available at; in the May 2023 release we exceed 500,000 included genera for the first time (actual: 500,077), of which an estimated 300k or so are likely to be current taxonomically (corresponding to 240,622 currently flagged "accepted", plus a notional 50% of 123,552 "uncertain/unassessed" names, the latter likely to be a mix of valid taxa and synonyms). At time of writing (Feb 2024) we are around 70% through a major update of zoological genera being added to IRMNG covering the interval 2015-2022 in the main, plus other fixes and adjustments of course; more will be apparent when the next release is available, hopefully before end June 2024. Tony 1212 (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IRMNG corrections[edit]

Hi Tony, it's been a while! Just wanted to ask: if I wanted to contact IRMNG by email in order to point out corrections that are needed (rather than do so here on Wikispecies as I've done in the past), is the Contact email given at where I should send corrections to? Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Monster Iestyn, the official channel for advising corrections etc. is, which is seen by multiple persons (and will continue whether or not I remain the principal IRMNG coordinator). Or as you have just done, you can address more casual / informal remarks to just me via this page, so long as Covid or other does not carry me off! Tony 1212 (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks! Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, Tony (with a shout to @Monster Iestyn). Good news, everyone! The ciliophoran family-rank name Gonostomatidae Small & Lynn, 1985 is an invalid junior homonym of the fish family Gonostomatidae Cocco, 1838 - but someone either here in Wikispecies or at WoRMS has erroneously concluded that they are not homonyms. However, both names are governed under the ICZN, and the ciliophoran name was properly replaced by Gonostomidae Culberson, 1986 - but someone has incorrectly treated Culberson's name as "unaccepted". This error has propagated to GBIF, where nearly all the genera in the ciliate family appear as both ciliates AND as fish. I don't know who is responsible, or where corrections need to be made to prevent this from being a constant problem, but getting the names and templates fixed here in Wikispecies and IRMNG would be a great start. I just don't have the time to deal with this, as it's a fair mess trying to clean it up. Mercifully the ciliophorans are entirely missing from Wikipedia, as far as I can see. Thanks. Dyanega (talk) 23:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually to my (possibly ill educated) mind, it is not that clear... I view both "Gonostomidae" and "Gonostomatidae" as alternative orthographies based on the same stem (Gonostom-), not one being a replacement for the other (could be wrong here of course). Note, Berger, 2011 discussing the ciliate family states: "Gonostomum Sterki, 1878 is the name-bearing type genus of the Gonostomatidae Small & Lynn, 1985 and Gonostomidae Culberson, 1986, but not of the Gonostomidae Goode & Bean, 1895 which is based on the fish genus Gonostoma Rafinesque, 1810." Berger goes on to use Gonostomatidae as accepted in Ciliophora, cf. Gonostomidae for the fish family. I have looked elsewhere for any more recent discussion of this homonymy / near homonymy but not found it anywhere. Noting however that in Van Der Laan, R.; Eschmeyer, W. N.; Fricke, R. (2014). Family-group names of Recent fishes. Zootaxa. 3882(1): 1-230 the authors state on p.60:
"Family Gonostomatidae Cocco 1838. Gonostomini Cocco 1838:162 [ref. 865] (subfamily) Gonostoma [genus inferred from the stem, Article; stem corrected to Gonostomat- by Boulenger 1904b:571 [ref. 31880], confirmed by Whitley 1935a:215 [ref. 4683] and by Nelson 1976:108 [ref. 32838]]" However it does seem to me that if the type of the ciliate genus is Gonostomum not Gonostoma, one could not legitimately derive "Gonostomatidae" from it ??? Further comments welcome of course. Tony 1212 (talk) 06:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Code does not recognize "alternative orthographies" under any of the relevant rules; the Code uses different rules for different variants. Gonostoma is a Greek word based on "stoma", with "-stomat-" as its stem falling under Article 29.3.1, but Gonostomum is a Latinized Greek word; its stem is just "-stom-", under Article 29.3.2. Different names, different rules. The fish family name is correctly spelled as Gonostomatidae, while the ciliophoran name is correctly spelled Gonostomidae, and those two names are not homonyms. There is no family "Gonostomidae Goode & Bean, 1895" - the family is Gonostomatidae Cocco, 1838. Berger is fundamentally wrong, and his interpretations run exactly opposite to the Code. Dyanega (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Doug, your explanation makes sense, and I had already (previously) decided for IRMNG not to follow Berger, although in theory his work title sounds authoritative, namely "Berger, Helmut. Monograph of the Gonostomatidae and Kahliellidae (Ciliophora, Hypotricha). Vol. 90. Springer Science & Business Media, 2011." ...
Basically then, Gonostomidae when used for the fish family is incorrect, however that name is around in the literature, e.g. via BHL - 72 results, most of these are in fishes (probably excludes more recent works as well); on that basis it deserves an entry in IRMNG, noted as an incorrect spelling, and pointed to Gonostomatidae Cocco, 1838. Similarly, Gonostomatidae Small & Lynn, 1985, which again exists quite widely in recent literature, would be noted as an incorrectly formed name, the correct form being either "Gonostomidae Small & Lynn, 1985" - name corrected without change of authorship, however not found in the literature in this form - or "Gonostomidae Culberson, 1986" - newly created name by Culberson. Which of those latter alternatives would be correct? Noting also that according to Berger, Culberton "did not assign any genera to the "Gonostomidae" ", merely listing it as one of three families in the suborder Oxytrichina; not sure if that name would therefore be available without further information... Tony 1212 (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had to refresh my memory just now concerning the cutoff for mandatory corrections to family names in the Code, and the cutoff is 1999/2000. Accordingly, the dates and authors responsible for mandatory corrections are ignored if done prior to 2000. So, the correct names and spellings and authorships would be Gonostomatidae Cocco 1838 (despite the change being done in 1904 by Boulenger) under Article 29.3.1, and Gonostomidae Small & Lynn, 1985 (despite the change being done in 1986 by Culberson) under Article 29.3.2. The retention of original authorship is a little confusing, but the necessity of determining priority is a good justification. Here's some more good news: just this morning I noticed that GBIF has also combined a nemertean family name and a sponge family name, spelling them both as "Amphiporidae". The former is based on the genus Amphiporus Ehrenberg, 1831, the latter on the genus Amphipora Schulz, 1883. WoRMS and Wikispecies do not appear to have entries for any of the sponges, but does have the family listed, as Amphiporaidae Rukhin, 1938. So, another mess but not quite as bad. The nemertean name is Amphiporidae Oersted, 1844, so very clearly both correctly formed and with nomenclatural precedence, and it was a 2013 ICZN Opinion (which I now vaguely recall) emending the sponge family name. Dyanega (talk) 20:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fixed now in IRMNG as follows (I did have the accepted vs. unaccepted names correct, but incorrect authority for Gonostomidae in Ciliophora):
I have added improved taxonomic notes in each case making the situation clear, hopefully... Tony 1212 (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I checked Culberson's 1986 publication (which is a dissertation abstract, based on his 1985 thesis) and it is apparent that he was erecting a new name independent of the near-simultaneous work by Small & Lynn, 1985; therefore his name becomes a homonymous junior synonym of Gonostomidae Small & Lynn, 1985 (corrected spelling). So while in the note above, I merely changed the authorship of IRMNG 119604 (for Gonostomidae in Ciliophora) from Culberson 1986 to Small & Lynn 1985, I should probably reverse this, create a new entry for Gonostomidae Small & Lynn, 1985, and move the contained genera to that one. Stay tuned... Tony 1212 (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now done... new IRMNG record: Gonostomidae Small & Lynn, 1985, - allows retention of the name Gonostomidae Culberson, 1986 as a junior synonym and homonym (IRMNG 119604, with original authority restored...); all child genera moved to the new record (ID 11935690). Tony 1212 (talk) 18:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]