Wikispecies:Requests for Comment

Welcome to Requests for Comment. This space is for any conversations that might require the opinions of the community to decide policy or the application of policy. Start a new conversation. For general conversation, see Wikispecies:Village Pump.

Post a comment

If you use the title box, you don't need to put a title in the message body.

Atinga Genus

Should Atinga be created as a page? WoRMS states the genus as having no valid species, IRMNG says something different, what do i do? (i have the page majority finished already) Remis4000 (talk) 08:42, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You could create the page using the {{Disputed}} tag and add a note explaining the differences between WORMS and IRMNG. Andyboorman (talk) 10:16, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Andyboorman @Remis4000 IRMNG's records for Atinga's species are likely outdated; they were created using WoRMS as a basis back in 2013. In any case, IMO it is better to use the actual scientific literature as sources rather than databases. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some databases are as definitive and even more reliable (mostly) compared to scientific literature, for example IPNI for plants. Andyboorman (talk) 21:30, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the scientific literature was also ambigious, so I went to databases to find a precedent that was agreed upon, but couldn't find one. Remis4000 (talk) 11:31, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Typical disputed taxon. Rare, but not unusual and WS can not take sides when the name of a taxon is disputed. Andyboorman (talk) 11:45, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Andyboorman @Remis4000: According to {{Leis, 2006}} (page 83) Atinga Le Danois 1954 is a synonym of Chilomycterus (or rather specifically, "Atlantic Chilomycterus"), giving the following reasoning:

"The species upon which Atinga Le Danois (1954, ref. 6451) is based is unclear. The type species, D. atringa Linnaeus (1758, ref. 2787), is not identifiable (see above under C. reticulatus). It is clear that Le Danoisʼ (1954, ref. 6451; 1959, ref. 12003; 1962, 21440) concept of atinga included a species of the “Atlantic Chilomycterus” group, although which species is unclear as her illustrations of Atinga atinga atinga in the 1954 paper are of C. antillarum (identified as male) and C. spinosus mauretanicus (identified as female). In view of this confusion about the identity of the type species, use of Atinga Le Danois (1954: ref. 6451) is not recommended. It has been little used since its description."

Looking at databases other than IRMNG and WoRMS, Atinga is treated as a synonym of Chilomycterus on ITIS since 2017 [1], and in Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes (you will have to search for Atinga to see for yourself), and in Fishbase all Atinga species are now placed in Chilomycterus or Cyclichthys.

So the way I see it, this isn't actually "disputed" at all: Atinga is a synonym of Chilomycterus, IRMNG is just lagging behind (its current focus is on generic names and not species anyway) and WoRMS is clearly in error not synonymizing Atinga under Chilomycterus even though Atinga's type species is now a synonym!!! I actually have permissions to fix IRMNG's record myself, meanwhile you or someone else will need to email the WoRMS contributors to get their error fixed. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is a possible catch, Leis, 2006 also says that "Atlantic Chilomycterus" could use the name Lyosphaera Evermann and Kendall (1898), but they recommend against the latter's use until a cladistic analysis of the species group has been undertaken. I haven't checked yet if such an analysis has been undertaken since this paper. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Monster Iestyn for making the required IRMNG change. Actually (second guessing from the audit trail there) it looks like that record was originally created in IRMNG as a synonym, then later "auto adjusted" to be an accepted name per the WoRMS record which was erroneous, now it is correct again... these things happen! In any case, I would normally take the Eschmeyer/Cat. of Fishes record as representing/capturing the best available "current expert opinion" (unless one can spot a clear error there of course), and if a database does not conform, normally it will be for latency reasons as stated above. WoRMS is, of course, pretty good in its stated area of operation, but the odd error can always be spotted and as needed, referred to the admins for passing on to a relevant editor for action.

In this case the relevant entry in Eschmeyer (my "bible" for extant fish taxa) reads:

Atinga Le Danois [Y.] 1954:2356 [Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Séances de l'Académie des Sciences v. 238 (no. 24); ref. 6451] Fem. Diodon atringa Linnaeus 1758. Type by monotypy; one species but four subspecies; type is the nominate subspecies. Le Danois apparently misspelled Linnaeus' species as atinga. See also Leis & Bauchot 1984:85 [ref. 12539]. Also Appendix A in Eschmeyer 1990 [ref. 20647]. •In the synonymy of a temporary category "Atlantic Chilomycterus" -- (Leis 2006:82-83 [ref. 28932]). Current status: Synonym of Chilomycterus Brisout de Barneville 1846. Diodontidae.

@Remis4000 per the above information in Eschmeyer, I would recommend either deleting the discrete WikiSpecies page for Atinga as not needed (do we create new pages for synonyms?) or alternatively turn it into a redirect. As stated above, the IRMNG pages for its previously assigned species are not maintained (since 2013) and not a reliable source in this instance (the history is explained above...). Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Poll about fossil, extinct, and extant taxa in taxon lists

Please note the poll at the Village Pump, to standardize the listing of fossil, recently extinct and extant taxa. You can read more and vote at: Wikispecies:Village Pump#"Paleospecies". Kind regards, Thiotrix (talk) 11:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]