Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 48

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This is an archive of closed discussions. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.

Contents

We may have our work cut out for us[edit]

https://aeon.co/ideas/there-are-more-microbial-species-on-earth-than-stars-in-the-skyJustin (koavf)TCM 18:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I guess that means that in a few years from now Wikispecies will consist of way more words than there are both microbial species on Earth and stars in the sky. Fascinating! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC).

Pseudoelaeota[edit]

Created by an IP. A fake? --Succu (talk) 06:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I believe you are right @Succu:, I can't find a trace on Itis, or with Google, while "Pseudoelaters" gets hits like To aid in spore dispersal, liverworts utilize elaters, whereas hornworts utilize pseudoelaters. Dan Koehl (talk) 12:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
This page is sheer rubbish. I deleted it. Mariusm (talk) 12:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Tableau Encyclopédique et Methodique[edit]

I've made some edits to make it explicit this is not solely a botanical work. It's complicated because the various sciences have separate volumations within it and are traditionally treated as completely separate works. Anyone with interest in bibliography can add details for other ares of biology? Circeus (talk) 15:23, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Mucilago crustacea and use of "ex" in (botanical) cited authorships[edit]

Please can someone check my work on Mucilago and Mucilago crustacea, a slime mould? I've not come across an "ex" authorship ("P. Micheli ex F.H. Wigg") before. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

means that the work was written by Wiggers but the particular section describing the taxa was written by Micheli. That is Micheli in Wiggers. Should be written as it is in the Mycological indexes. The way you have it is fine. Should list the original work as a reference though as this is where the description is found. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. What about the categories? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Are we SURE that should be replaced by in? 'cause ex is a common abbreviation too, and has a completely different meaning, namely that Wiggers published description and name, but acknowledge that Micheli spotted the species first and came up with the name (e.g. in a letter, in personal notes, on herbarium sheets...), without actually publishing a description. (For you zoologists, yes, the order is reversed between botany and zoology.) Circeus (talk) 02:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Got it. Micheli is prelinnean, the name Mucilago (and presumably M. crustacea) are not originaly binomials, and are seemingly from Nova plantarum genera (1729), which i assume is what the "Hall." abbreviations in Primitiae florae holsaticae (Somehow...) refers back to. Aither way, the proper publication place for the genus, is apparently Adanson's Familles des Plantes (1763, 2:7) according to Mycobank.
Worth noting that several names are linked to Pier'Antonio Micheli (IPNI P.Micheli, d. 1737) that rightfully ought to be linked to Marc Micheli (IPNI Micheli, 1844-1902), e.g. Oenothera glazioviana. Circeus (talk) 08:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Just confirming that User:Circeus 's explanation is correct. In botanical usage (but NOT zoological), a cited authorship such as "P. Micheli ex F.H. Wigg." means that P. Micheli made the initial description, but in a form that was not validly published; valid publication dates from the work of Wiggers, who (we presume) cited Micheli's invalid work. (If the citation were zoological, it would be Micheli who made the valid publication (available name in zoology), drawing on an unavailable description by Wiggers... there you go). Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 06:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Actually, this case is a bit more complicated: Wiggers was the first one to coin a binomial, referring to Haller (Historia stirpium indigenarum Helvetiae inchoata, Vol. 3, p. 110), who used a trinomial and once more was referring to Micheli (Nova plantarum genera, p. 216 and t. 96, fig. 2). So, in this case both description and name are by Micheli, but this had to be validated, because Micheli was prelinnean. In later times it often happened, that an earlier name on a herbarium label was used together with a later description and the name of the plant was ascribed to the earlier author by the author who actually described it, e.g. Geranium holosericeum Willd. ex Spreng. In the later case, obviousely Willd. had found out this would be a new species, but had died, before he could publish it. Sprengel honoured this fact by ascribing the name of the taxon to Willdenow. --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Other than following the bibliographic trail through Haller (kudos on that, btw), I'm not sure how this is supposed to be "a bit more complicated" than my statement that Micheli was Prelinnean. Here's the link to the 1763 publication of Mucilago by Adandon, btw. Circeus (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Anyway, Haller is important here, as he gave a rather long description of "Mucilago alba, crustacea & filamentosa" and synonymized some earlier (prelinnean) names by Micheli and others. Wiggers did nothing more, than citing this description and coining a binomial. --Franz Xaver (talk) 04:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
quote: "Wiggers did nothing more, than citing this description and coining a binomial." - yes, but this was sufficient to constitute the valid publication of the name (by coining the binomial, in a validly published work), which is why the authorship is cited as "... ex F.H. Wigg.". No disrespect intended, just reiterating the answer to the original question. Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 23:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
For reference, the relevant portions of the ICNafp are as follows (with a subset of stated examples only):

46.5. A name of a new taxon is attributed to the author(s) of the publication in which it appears when the name was ascribed to a different author or different authors but the validating description or diagnosis was neither ascribed to nor unequivocally associated with that author or those authors. A new combination, name at new rank, or replacement name is attributed to the author(s) of the publication in which it appears, although it was ascribed to a different author or different authors, when no separate statement was made that one or more of those authors contributed in some way to that publication. However, in both cases authorship as ascribed, followed by “ex”, may be inserted before the name(s) of the publishing author(s).

...Ex. 30. Lilium tianschanicum was described by Grubov (in Grubov & Egorova, Rast. Tsent. Azii, Mater. Bot. Inst. Komarova 7: 70. 1977) as a new species, with its name ascribed to Ivanova; because there is no indication that Ivanova provided the validating description, the name is cited as either L. tianschanicum N. A. Ivanova ex Grubov or L. tianschanicum Grubov.

46.7. When a name has been ascribed by its author to a pre-starting-point author, the latter may be included in the author citation, followed by “ex”. For groups with a starting-point later than 1753, when a taxon of a pre-starting-point author was changed in rank or taxonomic position upon valid publication of its name, that pre-starting-point author may be cited in parentheses, followed by “ex”.

...Ex. 40. Linnaeus (Gen. Pl., ed 5: 322. 1754) ascribed the name Lupinus to the pre-starting-point author Tournefort; the name is cited as either Lupinus Tourn. ex L. (Sp. Pl.: 751. 1753) or Lupinus L. (see Art. 13.4).

46.10. Authors publishing nomenclatural novelties and wishing other persons’ names followed by “ex” to precede theirs in author citation may adopt the “ex” citation in the protologue.

...Ex. 48. In validly publishing the name Nothotsuga, Page (in Notes Roy. Bot. Gard. Edinburgh 45: 390. 1989) ascribed it to “H.-H. Hu ex C. N. Page”, noting that in 1951 Hu had published it as a nomen nudum; the name is attributed to either Hu ex C. N. Page or C. N. Page.
Refer the relevant portion of the Code at https://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/pages/main/art_46.html for full discussion and additional examples. Tony 1212 (talk) 03:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Same author?[edit]

My guess is that Lima Temjen and Limatemjen refers to the same author and should be merged as "Lima Temjen". However I'm not 100% sure since "Limatemjen" or variations thereof is actually used for some works; e.g. compare doi: 10.3897/zookeys.643.10506 and doi: 10.11646/zootaxa.3925.2.3Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC).

@Tommy Kronkvist:, Zoobank file them under one name if you see the two publications mentioned respectively under the two, both those publications are filed under the same name, please see http://zoobank.org/Authors/CA25EF95-B9D4-48D9-B78D-53EBA3ED1C8A Dan Koehl (talk) 19:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Lets hear what the editor of the two articles, @Neferkheperre: thinks? Dan Koehl (talk) 08:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
@Neferkheperre:, can you please comment? Dan Koehl (talk) 12:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I did quite some research with Zootaxa, Zookeys and Google Scholar. In this case, it is correctly Limatemjen. This one of those people with only one name. There are many such in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, with lesser numbers in Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Thailand. Apparently this causes consternation among Zootaxa's editors. Seems they either double it, or break it in two. In this case, my 2015 entry was called LimaTEMJEN LimaTEMJEN. I interpreted this as Lima Temjen. In 2017 in Zookeys, citation used Limatemjen. Searching the redlink did not pick up any connections.
In Google Scholar, this person came up consistently as Limatemjen. Other Temjens turned up. Some were single-named people with other syllables attached. Others were two-named people with Temjen as family name. I shall fix. Neferkheperre (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
It's somewhat unusual in that when people have a single name, they tend to have an accompanying patronym of some sort (I dare say the majority do). Circeus (talk) 01:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Valid publication of family Trichoplacidae (Placozoa)?[edit]

There is a recent publication on Placozoa by Eitel et al. (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2005359) in which family Trichoplacidae (whose status I had previously believed to be informal) is attributed to "Bütschli and Hatschek 1905" with the reference "Bütschli O, Hatschek B. Zoologisches Zentralblatt. Schuberg A, editor. Verlag von Wilhelm Engelmann, Leipzig; 1905." I did a bit of checking in BHL; the name is in fact found in that work in the "genus and family register" (in German) on p. 904, with a reference to entry no. 292 which is a discussion of Trichoplax and related forms on pp. 221-231 by E. Korschelt, however the term Trichoplacidae does not appear there; thus (unless I have missed it) it appears that the name originates from the compilers (the relevant pages are in BHL at https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/1717106 (genus and family register) and https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/1716423 (p. 221 onwards)).

Of course this is just inclusion of the name in a list, without a diagnosis, so not sure if it counts as a valid name...

So is this sufficient to add Bütschli & Hatschek as authors for this name in Wikispecies? If so maybe someone might do this as I am not sure of the required actions in adding the references etc. If not, further comments would be appreciated. Thanks in advance - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Without looking at this, from what you say if a family name is created based on a previously described genus name it is common to recognise the authors of the old name in the new combination. Ie the authors of Trichoplax getting credit for the name Trichoplacidae. Also if the authors indicated this was a definable group though not naming it, later reviewers can put the name to the group giving credit to the original proposer. Either case could mean the diagnosis is not with the name, but the requirements of this is limited to species and genus group names anyway, so not needed. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 21:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Scott/all, I did some checking in the ICZN Code and found the following: "12.1. Requirements. To be available, every new name published before 1931 must satisfy the provisions of Article 11 and must be accompanied by a description or a definition of the taxon that it denotes, or by an indication." [my italics], and that for a family, an "indication" includes "12.2.4. the formation of a family-group name from an available generic name". So I am thinking that the lack of a diagnosis is not problem in this case (since Trichoplacidae is formed from Trichoplax). Therefore unless there is an earlier usage, I conclude that Eitel et al. are correct in attributing this family name to Bütschli & Hatschek, 1905. (I don't believe Scott's statement "the authors of Trichoplax getting credit for the name Trichoplacidae" is correct, since authorship of family names is independent of authorship of their type genera, and the principle of coordination only applies within groups i.e species-level group, genus-level group, family-level group, refer the Code for more details). Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Principal of Coordinaton refers to the gender formation of the names. Yes I know the code very well. I was meaning it may be what they were doing, I did not check so do not know. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Apologies if I misunderstood what you were suggesting. In any case, authorship of the genus Trichoplax is Schultze, 1883 so this is not being used as supposed authorship of the family name.
To recap: Trichoplax Schultze, 1883 is (or was until this year) the sole recognised genus in phylum Placozoa, thus a taxonomic oddity. Some sources e.g. URMO years back (then WoRMS) placed Trichoplax in a family ("Trichoplacidae") with no explanation; some sources e.g. ITIS suspected that in fact that name had never been published and thus "appears to be a nomen nudum" (see https://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=696103). However the recent paper of Eitel et al. ascribes the family name to Bütschli and Hatschek 1905, and this appears to hold up on further scrutiny as detailed above. So (unless I am mistaken with this conclusion), I would appreciate it if a WS editor could add relevant information to the page Trichoplacidae, in preferred WS formats, which I am not particularly familiar with. Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 23:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Also just noticed that Trichoplacidae is presently ascribed in wikispecies to Grell, 1971, which is incorrect so far as I can ascertain (no citations in Google scholar). Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
ok added refs and nomenclatural changes you recommended Trichoplacidae Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 01:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks @Faendalimas:... Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 06:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

File:صن رايز رويال مكادي أكوا 213.jpg[edit]

Hello.

  1. I think this picture is very useful for the project.You can use it here
  2. Please add (that need to Master English) the appropriate categories to the description page

Thanks --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 15:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: Thanks. I'm not sure what page would use this image. What do you have in mind? We generally only have one image of a species per page and those are usually proper photographs. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:53, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Justin (koavf). Additionally, the image doesn't really add much information in terms of taxonomy, which as a species directory is the main purpose of Wikispecies. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 01:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC).

Scaptodrosophila n. sp. nr fumida[edit]

Do your have any idea what this article is about? Created by User:Stho002. --Succu (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Is it Scaptodrosophila fumida? --Succu (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Strange, Scaptodrosophila fumida was created 2009-12-08, before Scaptodrosophila n. sp. nr fumida, which was created 2010-12-06... Dan Koehl (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
"n. sp. nr xxx" is not a formal taxonomic designation, just an informal semi-descriptive name for a presently unnamed taxon, so as such I would have thought an article of this type does not belong on Wikispecies at this time. Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 07:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
"sp. nov. nr." or "n. sp. nr." means "species near" a certain other known species. It indicates that the specimen is near yet it isn't identical to another known species. This implies that the specimen may consist a new species. Since WS doesn't handle such "probable" species, this page doesn't belong here and I deleted it. Mariusm (talk) 09:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Thx. --Succu (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Invalid name[edit]

How do you people treat nomenclaturally invalid (unavailable, in ICZN parlance) names?

I've run into a couple isonyms (multiple publication of a nomenclaturally identical name, usually based on a common basionym) recently, and personally I prefer removing them as they seem to me to only generate confusion (the ICBN literally says to treat them as the same name, pretty much like a correctable error). Circeus (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Speaking only for zoological entities, ie ICZN code and hence unavailable names, these should be ignored as under the ICZN code they do not exist and are not actually names for the purpose of nomenclature. They should never be used. In rare cases where they have been used as valid names for considerable time I can see reasons to list them on the relevant species page in the synonymy, with explanation and refs. But usually not and they should not ever have a mainspace page. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 04:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Speaking mainly for botany, I have to agree with Scott - they should never have their own taxon page, as this will give them unwarranted legitimacy and is confusing. Personally when I encounter the equivalent in plants I redirect and remove from appropriate associated lists, if required. OK they may appear on the accepted taxon page as [[nom. illeg.]] or similar tag. Likewise for comb. ined. and nom. ined. IMHO, although there could be a case for these appearing in a list on a taxon page, but retained as red links with a note of explanation, as this may be temporary. References are essential, of course. I appreciate that for zoology an invalid name is unavailable and so the rules are stricter. Best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 07:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Really I meant more with regards to synonym lists. Circeus (talk) 01:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Not always entirely related to the above, but occasionally some of the templates in Category:Name status templates can be useful. An overview showing how some of them are rendered can be seen in Category:Pictograms. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 01:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC).
Yes, Tommy, for zoology I use {{invalid}} for invalid species, {{Invalid genus}} for invalid genus and {{Invalid taxon}} for other ranks. But botany's "invalid" differs from zoology's "invalid". In botany it's a name that doesn't meet the requirements in the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants for valid publication, while in zoology it's an incorrect zoological name of a taxon i.e. a synonym, nomen nudum etc. Likewise a new template may be created, for example {{Invalid botanical name}} to serve Circeus' purposes. Mariusm (talk) 09:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support template suggested by @Mariusm: Dan Koehl (talk) 10:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I am not happy with this. In my opinion, there should not be created separate taxon pages for names, which better have to be included in the synonymy of an accepted taxon under its correct name. So, as far as I see, there is no real need for templates, which are only used to mark taxon pages, which actually should not even exist. If zoologists in WS are happy with creating taxon pages for invalid nominal taxa, so I will have to accept this, but I hope, this will never be common usage in botany. --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Is anybody happy with pages like Anthus longicaudatus? OK, A. longicaudatus seems to be a synonym now, but the WS taxon page does not give any information on this. A simple redirect to Anthus vaalensis certainly would better serve the needs of our users. --Franz Xaver (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I am not in agreement with the creation of pages for invalid (zoology) names. They can go in synonymy. I have no issue with them being made for the purposes of a redirect if they had been extensively used. But certainly not all of them. As to the example just above, yes make it a redirect if its now a synonym. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 21:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I too agree with Franz Xaver and Scott Thomson here. In my opinion a simple redirect is better than creating thousands upon thousands of complete taxon pages for taxon names in synonymy. In the mean time (i.e. until we've reached a formal decision) I've changed the name status template on the Anthus longicaudatus page.Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC).

I categorically disagree with the trend to dismiss invalid-name-pages and to be satisfied merely with redirects. This isn't what most of the directories and the catalogs out there are doing. (Botanists: see for example this page at the GRIN site - this is a dedicated separate page for a synonym). We're loosing too much valuable information this way. See for example the invalid-name-page Zyras alboterminalis. This information is too voluminous and too complicated to be incorporated in the valid-name page, and more so if there are not one but 10 such synonyms. I can't see a better way to display this relevant information other than in creating a dedicated page. I'm not proposing to make this sort of invalid-page-creating a mandatory practice, yet I strongly recommend to use this in cases where the information is asking for a better display paradigm. By the way, we have by now nearly 3.500 pages of invalid-names. This is a very important asset which makes WS more valuable and more useful. Mariusm (talk) 09:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I fully agree with Tommy Kronkvist, Franz Xaver, Scott Thomson and any others who do not see the need to create separate taxon pages for names accepted as part of a synonymy. The GRIN example above is a sideshow as most of the cited page appears on this page, where it belongs. It editors want to create these pages OK, but they might find a redirect created unless there is a very good reason for not doing so. The three combinations in Zyras could be accommodated on a single page, but I am no expert. The uniqueness is in holotype and type locality is this a justification for rewriting the basic premise of WS? In botany I have yet to find a good reason for not creating a redirect unless there is a dispute. Andyboorman (talk) 13:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Just to clarify things up: What I'm speaking about above are heterotypic synonyms and not homotypic synonyms which don't need separate pages but only redirects. Mariusm (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
It is no big problem to include all the relevant information also for several heterotypic synonyms in one taxon page – see e.g. Chaetolepis anisandra or Cespedesia spathulata. --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, Franz, if you consider the user's ease of use and the sources accessibility, particularly when you have at your disposal even more information to display such as mentions-references and synonym-authority-references, you can't beat the clarity and the convenience of a dedicated synonym page, expressly when the work involved in creating such a page does't exceed the one done on your combined taxon page. You can't also deny the fact that Cespedesia spathulata looks ratherish overcrammed. Mariusm (talk) 09:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I dunno, I think it's no less "overcrammed" than any random scientific material that would present the same information (although duplicating the publication places seems overdoing it, I prefer the zoological tradition, since I always track down the full reference anyway). Besides, Wikispecies can afford to use a more aired out format, since space isn't an issue, see e.g. Solanum americanum for an example with a lot more synonyms than C. spathulata. Circeus (talk) 11:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Circeus, thanks for your example of Solanum americanum. It illustrates just fine why my proposal is better than the current practice; I'll explain why: suppose a user searches for Solanum indecorum which is one of the heterotypic synonyms of your Solanum americanum and suppose he's redirected to this page (although you didn't redirect Solanum indecorum). Now this user faces the following drudgery to perform: (a) realize he was redirected to another species-name; (b) realize Solanum indecorum is a synonym; (c) search among the mass of information the relevant section he needs; (d) search among the mass of information for the relevant references; (e) try to form a coherent picture in his mind of what Solanum indecorum really is. On the other hand, if this user is directed to a dedicates page, where all the relevant information is grouped together, where he clearly can see it is a synonym of what; then I think he would get a far better, clear, scientific service out of WS. Mariusm (talk) 09:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Still have to disagree with Mariusm. Firstly, subsequent to a search finding the accepted page using a single click is what I would require. Secondly, finding the information supporting the synonymy on the same click is very convenient. Having to trawl through several pages to get this information is not just inconvenient, it is drudgery, very annoying and could be confusing. The information belongs to the taxon page associated with the accepted name, I just do not see a problem with this. Taxonomy can be complex, but to get it on a single printout at the end of one click is what I requires as a botanist and scientist. It is the KISS principle in operation. Andyboorman (talk) 12:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
In my experience, a typical database with separate synonyms is no less confusing that one that is strictly limited to accepted name. If anything, the severe lack of consistency across wikispecies is more of a problem than anything having to do with the amount of data (of which anyone who has ever dealt with taxonomical data should be used to, really.) on any given page. Wikispecies is not specifically aimed for the general public. If it were, it would not have been spun into its own separate project to begin with. Circeus (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes the inconsistency is a problem. However, it was always my assumption that pages on WS were for accepted taxa, if there are nearly 3,500 pages of separate invalid taxon pages, then that is a problem caused by contributors operating outside of consensus. OK, consensus can be changed but that will affect many more taxon pages and create much additional work. Hence this discussion and clearly there are differences of strongly held opinion. Bear in mind, Marsdenia macrophylla has 6 heterotypic synonyms yet to be created. There are over 130 species of this genus, so that is potentially several hundred invalid pages instead of the 130 or so, once somebody gets to reviewing the genus in order to produce to sort of exemplar pages created in Solanum above. Wait until you get to Astragalus! Andyboorman (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
And this sort of practicality is why I agree with you. I'm well aware how big some genera get (Solanum is amongst the largest too). When you get past a certain number of species, though (I believe Solanum is estimated around 1,500), the change in scale is really not that much, because it's still just a plain ginormous amount of data so doubling it... just makes it still ginormous. Circeus (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I deal with names all the time and for different reasons. I do so as a taxonomist and paleontologist, but I am also very heavily involved in conservation. That is an end user of names. So we really have two groups, producers of names and end users. The producers of names have an intricate need for all this data on each and every name, others with historical or just plain interest in it may too. The other group is the end user and I would include the general public in this. In may paper on this topic we mention the distinction between the producers, taxonomists, and the end users, everyone else. The end users want to know what to call something, that is all. By presenting all this information on one page as a synonymy we meet the needs of both, keeping it easy for those that want a name, and presenting the information for those that wish to take it further.

Paper is above, Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Please look at how Eschmeyer et. al. handle it in the Catalog of Fishes. Note the ICZN is not always "right" and some authors of some note will not follow changes they make made without argument. CoF handles this non-problem with invalid names nicely. RS79 — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.141.187.207 (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2018‎ (UTC)

Aves[edit]

Hello, A massive edit on the page Aves was pretty dramatic, and I would kindly like to ask the community what you think, and if such a change is supported by discussions, consensus, or likewise? I haven't looked into the actual details, just noticed it was a large change, and wanted to bring this to your attention. Dan Koehl (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Not an avian expert, but it would have been better if the editor has provided references rather than just a message and a promise. How consensual are the recently added taxa? Andyboorman (talk) 17:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty to revert. As far as I can tell, there is no "recent classification" of any sort that comes close to accepting any of the groups being restored there. There will be a need for a VERY good sources for those changes to be implemented, and maybe having a few people from en.wiki's WikiProject Birds to come over and keep an eye on that page would be a good idea. Circeus (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Both Dan Koehl and myself made a note about this matter on the user's talk page several hours prior to Dan bringing up the issue here, so in any case the user has been properly noted. He is registered as @Linkoln7: and has made a total of three edits to Wikispecies: one to Aves(diff.) and two when creating Threskiornithiformes.(diff.)Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC).
Well, it looks we have a very outdated Aves page. Clements/EBird 2018 lists a total of 41 orders; IOC version 8.2 a total of 39, the only differences being Galbuliformes included by IOC in Piciformes and Cathartiformes included by IOC in Accipitriformes. WS page lists only 33 extant orders, but in reality 30, because Apodiformes and Trochiliformes are included by both IOC and Clements in Caprimulgiformes and Turniciformes included by both in Charadriiformes. The edition done goes beyond including new "elevated" orders, e.g. Steatornithiformes and Threskiornithiformes not yet listed by the two cited classifications. I don't know which classification the user was based on. So, what we do? If we follow IOC as stated, we should promote a massive edition not only at Aves page but al the subsequent families templates.--Hector Bottai (talk) 03:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
On time. Took a look at en.wiki project. They are in line with Clements, except: Galbuliformes is not listed and Apodiformes is. Definitely, we are well behind.--Hector Bottai (talk) 03:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
I Agree that theres a need to update the article. Dan Koehl (talk) 08:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
By the way, when trying to add the references which I created today, related to the updated taxonomy of Aves, it is my perception that many of the two dozens of references there have nothing to do with the taxonomic history of Aves. Please take a look. I don't want to give any particular example.--Hector Bottai (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Bottai regarding references being added to pages where they are not really needed. Some users will add any reference containing "bird" or "Aves" to the Aves page, for example The collection and database of birds of Angola hosted at IICT. The page Aves and its references are in urgent need of revision. Mariusm (talk) 08:42, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Snaursaurus[edit]

Looks like this genus was never described. Same with Snaurtitan bobicae and/or Snaursaurus bobicae. Should be probably deleted here an at Wikidata. Regards. --Succu (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Burmeister (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Snore-saurus, people? Puton. We must watch for these, from time to time. I frequently check strange-sounding names when I see them. Occasional ones are valid, but most are some type of joke. Neferkheperre (talk) 01:12, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I've deleted the Snaursaurus page from Wikispecies and requested the deletion of its equivalent Wikidata item (Q47057215). Our page was created by an IP user who hasn't contributed with any more edits than this single page creation. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC).
Thx. --Succu (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Requests for Comment: Interface administrators[edit]

It seems the discussion at Wikispecies:Requests_for_Comment regarding the new user right Interface administrator never resulted in a clear direction in regard to some sort of community consensus and similar. While this discussion may be actualized, I boldly created the page Wikispecies:Interface administrators, a user box, and would like to suggest that we elect at least one Interface admin. Please have a look at the discussion at Wikispecies:Requests_for_Comment and consider take a part in the discussions. See also metapage about this topic. Dan Koehl (talk) 11:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

HOT HET etc.[edit]

Why have these templates suddenly acquired silly looking brackets? Is there a purpose for these accoutrements? Are they wanted by the community? Are there other examples? Am I the only one to find them pointless? Here is an example. Incidentally, there are other ways of creating the tags and this changes will not affect these, so we will end up with more inconsistency, once again. I do wish editors would not make such far reaching changes without first taking them here and explaining their reasons and seek consensus. Regards. Andyboorman (talk) 07:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@Andyboorman:, is it possible they started to appear with this edit ({{int:Homotypic}}) by @Rosičák:? Dan Koehl (talk) 08:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
That is the problem, for some reason the int has added the spurious brackets, so edit was well meaning but caused an error. I will revert. Andyboorman (talk) 08:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
These brackets appear, if int: is used for words, that are not yet included in the Wikispecies:Localization table. --Thiotrix (talk) 09:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Ok, příště budu postupovat obráceně, nejdříve vytvořím šablony./
Ok, next time I'll go backwards, I'll first create templates.
--Rosičák (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@Andyboorman: I've created the two necessary MediaWiki pages for both "Heterotypic" and "Homotypic" and thereafter added the words to the Wikispecies:Localization table(diff.) so those lemmas should now work together with the int: localization magic word. Are there any other synonymy related "…typic" words that needs to be listed, for example any other templates like {{HET}} and {{HOT}}? I never use any of those synonymy templates myself, so I need to ask... :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC).

@Tommy Kronkvist: The only other one I can think of is {{moty}} for monotypic. A perennial problem is the cluster {{TS}}, {{TG}} and {{tysp}} - mind you I have been editing these out because I have been told they cause wider problems. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 18:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
@Andyboorman: I've added the "Monotypic", "Type genus", "Type species" and "Typus" phrases to the list. I agree that all of the templates you mention should be used as sparsely as possible, and I too normally replace them with plain text and non-templated wiki code. However in this particular case (i.e. the "silly looking brackets inconsistency") it's not really a question of erroneous templates, but the much more straight-forward task of auto-translating words. That function is taken care of by the servers and is more or less bug-free, but first the (English) words needs to be manually added to the Wikispecies:Localization table for it to work. Otherwise those weird and yes very ⧼quirky⧽ looking brackets show up. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk)‚ 18:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC).
The template REP for "replaced synonym" should be translated, too. --Thiotrix (talk) 11:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Undescribed species[edit]

Are undescribed species within the scope of Wikispecies? I found:

BTW: en:Undescribed taxon. --Succu (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Personally I would say no: since they're not part of the taxonomy and doesn't have a formal place within the nomenclature, they're not (yet) within the scope of Wikispecies. They might as well be treated as Superimperium incertae sedis 🙄. I guess we could create some sort of "waiting list" page or category for them, but as far as I can see they have no value from a taxonomical viewpoint. When deleting pages from Wikispecies one of the options in the delete-dropdown menu reads "Incorrectly named or no such taxon", and there is a good reason for that. Better let Wikipedia handle those "taxa", if at all.
Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC).
I agree, although in some areas (Australian botanists are quite fond of them too) they can be common and indeed a species may be referred to by such a name for decades (as Solanum ossicruentum and Solanum watneyi were). Circeus (talk) 00:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Same applies to comb. ined. there are a number of these as genera get re-organised with just a few species missed out of the new circumscription. Andyboorman (talk) 06:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Comb. ineditum are a different issue IMO. It's easier to just note on the species page that it's confirmed as belonging to a different genus and that the combination is not yet publiahed. At least, they have a published name of some sort that can be used, even if it's not phylogenetically (and sometimes nomenclaturally) correct at the time. Circeus (talk) 07:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
These three undescribed species were mentioned in this paper published in 2002 and they were not described ever since. The genus Delos officially contains only 4 species. The 3 undescribed species are not within WS scope, which includes only "official" described species, hence I deleted them. Mariusm (talk) 08:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
The problem with a comb. ined. is that under ICBN Art 49-50 the name does not exist, as it is not been validly or effectively published. They sit in a sort of holding area or no man's land awaiting analysis and confirmation. In WS they still are "Incorrectly named or no such taxon". In addition, these names really belong under the "old" genus not the "new" one. For example, Epilobium bondarenkoi (Tzvel.) comb. ined. is still Chamaenerion bondarenkoi Tzvel. Novosti Sist. Vyssh. Rast. 45: 49. (2014). Comb. ined. can not have their own taxon page unless there is a shift in WS policy - IMO, so there is similarity with Delos above. Andyboorman (talk) 12:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
The problem with creating pages for undescribed species is highlighted by the point @Mariusm: made. They were defined as species in 2002 and are still not described. These are beyond our scope I believe and its safer to ignore them, if and when they are described we can add them. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 02:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Indeed, Scott. The specific Delos names above are very good examples. Not only are they still not described: they have hardly even been mentioned in any other paper than the original 2002 one. Case closed, I guess. Tommy Kronkvist (talk),04:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC).

Synonym drop down box[edit]

Hello. This synonymy format has come back into the frame. See here for an example Tripleurospermum_parviflorum. I am sure we discussed it before and decided that it was not a good idea, maybe I am wrong? I can see a number of disadvantages, the main one, IMHO, being that taxonomically it gives an undue prominence to the synonyms with its atypical format. However, I can see that where there is a long list then this compacts it somewhat. By the way the Redirect Tool does not work with this format - a major problem as far as I am concerned. Open for discussion. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC) Apologies - here is the template {{SN}} Andyboorman (talk) 20:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Synonymy and Nomenclature drop down boxes have been basically rejected, although I am sure some are still found on taxon pages. Likewise, {{Spage}} is no longer advised. Neferkheperre (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Quiscalus purpureus[edit]

What is the modern name for Quiscalus purpureus? (See c:Category:Quiscalus purpureus.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:22, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Quiscalus purpureus is a synonym of Quiscalus quiscula. For more information see Oberholser (1919) JSTOR. Burmeister (talk) 12:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I have made a synonym taxon redirect for the commons category. --Thiotrix (talk) 13:07, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

A tool when you need to type something very often[edit]

For those who never used programs like AutoHotkey, and often have to type and repeat words or sentences over and over again, I just want to bring your attention to a small nice program called AutoHotkey (available to download at https://autohotkey.com) Description: Define hotkeys for the mouse and keyboard, remap keys or buttons and ... It unites hotkey and text macros and offers a scripting language = Imagine you just press Ctrl+R instead of typing text and inserting templates etc. It saves a lot of time and frustration and makes everything faster. Remember, if you use templates, that instead of using the Send, you must use the SendRaw. Dan Koehl (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I use that a lot in my editing, and elsewhere, and wrote a blog post explaining how I set it up. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Richard Crawshay[edit]

Is our Richard Crawshay, botanist mycologist, the Captain Richard Crawshay who authored 'The birds of Tierra del Fuego' (London, 1907)? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:55, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I can't find anything online to confirm. TL-2 gives the following sources for bio informations (also cites some manuscript materials at Kew and Smithsonian):
  • John Hendley Barnhart (1965) Biographical notes upon Botanists. 1:394.
  • Linday & Sydow. Thesaurus litteraturae mycologicae et lichenologicae. Supplement:5822.
  • Harold Fletcher (1965) The story of the Royal Horticultural Society, 1804-1968:205
Circeus (talk) 21:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
From The Eponym Dictionary of Birds [1], it seems that at least the years of birth and death (1862–1958) are the same for the hunter and collector Captain Richard Crawshay as for the mycologist in IPNI. He collected birds and insects for the British Museum. For the mycologist, there are no plant names in IPNI authored by him. Index Fungorum lists just one fungus species, Mycobank lists three names with his authorship, all from 1930. --Thiotrix (talk) 07:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Interesting, thank you. Do IPNI, or any other source, or any of the non-bird species he documented, link him to Tierra del Fuego, or elsewhere in South America? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I have just found:

Crawshay, Richard (f1 1901/2). He was a military Captain during the Anglo-Boer war and spent ten months in 1901/2 purchasing Basotho ponies in the lowlands of Lesotho as remounts for the British army. It is likely that he is the same Richard Crawshay who was a magistrate in Nyasaland in 1894, and who before that collected butterflies around Lake Mweru, Zambia between June 1892 and January 1893.

Publication: Author of Basutoland and the Basutos. Geographical Journal 21(6):645.655, 1903.

Collections: During his time in Lesotho, he climbed Machache, one of the highest mountains in Lesotho, where he collected a many-spotted snake, one of the only two records of this snake for Lesotho. There are also ants in the Iziko South African Museum, Cape Town, collected by him at Mafeten & Lesotho in 1902. Crawshay, the magistrate, sent a collection of Nyasa butterflies, via Sclater (q.v.), to the British Museum in 1894. Five of these were new species and described by A.G. Butler in Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London in 1895.

Sources: Ambrose, David. 2008; lziko South African Museum, Cape Town database; archive.org/stream/.../cu31924028745861_djvu.txt .

in 'A Biographical Dictionary of Contributors to the Natural History of the Free State and Lesotho', Rodney Moffett (2008). Sadly the URL dos not resolve. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

See here. Epon. Dict. Mamm. (Beolens & al, 2009:89-90) again focuses on his time in Africa (he collected an important type specimen of zebra), Gilllet (Kew Bull., 13(3):369. 1958) and Smith (J. Moll. Stud., 6(6):333. 1965) discuss him for African plants and Fuegoan molluscs, respectively. The Narrow Edge (Cramer, 2015:11) only has the briefest of mention (his stay in Tierra del Fuego was in 1904). Even the British Museum doesn't seem to know whether the mycologist and the Tierra del Fuego explorer (letters with summary are accessible) are the same! At least this confirms Crawshay definitely collected plants. More letters here, with full transcriptions.
I think Fletcher's book is the only way we can might possibly (no guarantee) bridge the period between 1907/1910 (return from Tierra and writing of his book) and 1930. Circeus (talk) 14:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
An intriguing puzzle,. I've read all the transcribed letters on the RCVS site, and there are no clues there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

This paper shows one Crawshay having an interest in fish, plants, molluscs, and rocks, and even a glass arrow, from Tierra del Fuego; while this report has him donating TdF bird skins to Norwich Castle Museum. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I suppose the next question is: does anyone have access to a copy of (mycologist) Crawshay's The Spore Ornamentation of Russulas (Baillière, Tindall & Cox, 1930)? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't track down a copy of The Spore Ornamentation of Russulas, but I have found two reviews on the book 1 2. They suggest that this Crawshay spent a considerable amount of time examining spores under a microscope and developing techniques for staining and imaging. The preface of the book was written by French mycologist Frédéric Bataille, and some of his species descriptions are of specimens from France, suggesting he may have spent time there. Voganaa (talk) 08:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Table cell templates[edit]

I was muckign around Wanted pages and... do we actually have any use (or even use at all) those table cell templates? 'cause they are a huge set (sixty!) of templates seemingly without use outside their own documentation, and they are generating redlinks that pollute Special:WantedPages. Circeus (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

No use to me at all. Delete. Cheers. Andyboorman (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I got all the pretties. And their little category too! Circeus (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Sylvilagus[edit]

{{Ruedas et al., 2017}} includes " restoration of S. andinus (Thomas, 1897) and S. tapetillus (Thomas, 1897)". I have created pages on those species; please can someone check them? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Good start. If you have the whole paper available, might be worth adding type localities and repositories of type specimens for new taxa. Accassidy (talk) 10:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Compromised account[edit]

Just a heads-up that User:Koavf's account was compromised and granted admin rights to 3 users at another WMF wiki. I went through his edit history and action log and did not notice anything. But it's possible that the hacker used his Checkuser rights.

@Dan Koehl: and @Faendalimas:, as the remaining 2 CheckUsers on this wiki, please check the CheckUser log and ensure Koavf's account did not run any Checkuser actions over the past few days. CheckUser logs are not available for other admins/bureaucrats/users to view except by other CheckUsers.

For other admins and users, I know that feeling when my account was compromised and temporarily locked 3 years ago. But unlike this time, the hacker didn't do anything malice to my account and only posted a message saying that they managed to log into my account. It's a good time to make sure that your password is not shared with any other accounts to avoid being compromised. OhanaUnitedTalk page 22:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks fpr the headsup @OhanaUnited:, and I have noticed todays intensive debate on securing accounts, and will wait for further recommendations. On behalf of the account of @Koavf: a total of 5 CUs were made, 4 user names and 1 IP, just after noon, during apr 4 minutes, on 2018-10-20. No further CUs since then... Dan Koehl (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Ok, thank you for that info. That sounds like whoever gained his account ran 5 CheckUser requests. I'll notify the Ombudsman for the privacy breach. OhanaUnitedTalk page 23:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, 5 different CheckUser requests. Dan Koehl (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hm. Thanks all. Account has been reset. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:19, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Even though your account has been restored, I'm uncomfortable with your access to CU until it's established that the attack-vector has been eliminated and you continue to have the confidence of the community. There's a lot of questions lingering (for better or for worse). Someone used your account and ran 5 CU checks. That's totally not ok especially when we don't know which 5 users were looked up. We also don't know how long the hacker had access to your account. Even though you used unique password (and I don't blame you because it sounded like a sophisticated attack), there are other tools like email notification for "login from an unfamiliar device" option that could have flagged this problem quicker. OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
This episode is worrying but please no victim blaming. Andyboorman (talk) 10:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Garrinae + Bagarius[edit]

Please could an ichthyologist check Talk:Garrinae#Validity? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

And Talk:Glyptosterninae#Bagarius. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
I have made a start fixing this. The taxon appears in Fishbase here. They are correct Garrinae is not valid, but we can rename the page to fill the currently not created tribe of a similar name. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 00:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
(a) Garrinae is in fact CyprinidaeLabeoninaeGarrini.
(b) Bagarius belongs to: SisoridaeSisorinaeBagariini and not as presently stated.
I don't have the time to make the changes, I hope someone here will take on the corrections. Mariusm (talk) 10:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Potentially useful article? Circeus (talk) 10:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes it is, for (a). Mariusm (talk) 13:52, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Vernacular Names[edit]

Can anybody tell me how to edit the VN section when this procedure is being used. {{#invoke:VN|main}}{{VN}}. Most opaque and not helpful for a mere editor not a coder. Can the author tell us the rationale and why it was not bought to the pump before now? Andyboorman (talk) 09:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Got it now go to WD. Still think it is a bit of tail wagging dog. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 13:31, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
First: This link automatically gets old and new vernacular names of Wikidata.
Second: Here automatically connection with the hidden Category:Pages with vernacular names. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 16:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

600,000 pages[edit]

We've now reached the 600,000 article-mark! The 500,000 mark was reached on 7/January/2017 – we've done 100,000 pages in one year and 10 months. Mariusm (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Congrats to all of us!--Hector Bottai (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
If my number is right, the 600,000th article is Duangchai Sookchaloem, written by MILEPRI. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Editing News #2—2018[edit]

14:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Bull. Soc. Fouad I. Entom.[edit]

Wikidata has an item labelled "Bull. Soc. Fouad I. Entom.". Does anyone know the full title, ISSN, URL, etc? Do we have a corresponding page? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Bulletin de la Societe Fouad 1er d'entomologie ISSN 0373-3289 Voganaa (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Lots of †††'s to come[edit]

Human activity has reduced species counts by 60% in the last 40 years according to the new WWF report, overexploitation and agriculture being the main causes. Get ready to use up lots of †'s in the future edits ... Mariusm (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Mariusm:, agree on this, but just want to suggest that IUCNs report are maybe more valid than WWFs? And according to IUCN, I think a species is declared offically extinct after noone has seen an individual, during the last 50 years? Im not sure how we shall inform about this in the most correct way, but at least I vote for IUCN as a better source for extinction, than WWF? Dan Koehl (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
The Living Planet Report is not focused especially on species extinction, but rather is dealing with species decline, i.e. with species getting rare because of human pressure. In my opinion, that's the even bigger problem. Decades or even centuries before a species is going extinct, it has ceased to play its role in its former ecosystems. --Franz Xaver (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't think 60% is accurate count. I agree with IUCN, and some species thought extinct are being found. Tasmanian tiger, thought to be extinct almost 100 years, is still being argued over. I could not bring up WWF, so I could not assess their reasoning. Many times such figures include only tetrapods, and gloss over invertebrates. I do know frogs are in serious decline, and many bird species. They are more visible than insects and spiders, and more photogenic. Neferkheperre (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Some days ago, I read that this was claim is not true, they have mixed a mean number with total number in order to present sensational sumbers, in order to scare people to donate money? Thre is still atragical decline, but WWFs number and claims are not true? Dan Koehl (talk) 09:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
As far as I see, people just don't read the WWF report and simply reproduce their own views, claiming that WWF would have told this or that. If you have a look into the summary of the report (linked above), you can read: "Populations ... have, on average, declined in size by 60 percent in just over 40 years". However, an overall decline of population sizes does not mean, that a single species would have gone extinct. Anyway, misrepresentation is going on, and it seems, that everybody is only seeking confirmation of own views. By the way, decline of population sizes for a majority of species, is just, what can be observed, when you have open eyes. Of course, there exist also species, which have increased their populations during the last 40 years, but the recent recovery of Ciconia ciconia would not outweight a decline in population sizes of dozens of species inhabiting extensivly used grasslands, e.g. Alauda arvensis, Perdix perdix, Anthus pratensis, Vanellus vanellus etc. --Franz Xaver (talk) 14:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Systematikdagarna 2018 in Lund University, Sweden, November 26-27[edit]

Systematikdagarna is a yearly conference on systematic biology, arranged by the Swedish Systematists Association. The meeting is open for anyone interested in systematics; amateurs, working systematists, and users of systematics in any form. Read more Dan Koehl (talk) 08:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Hilda Flores Olvera[edit]

Are María Hilda Flores Olvera (d:Q21513245) and Hilda Flores Olvera (d:Q33687235) the same or different? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:37, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

The IPNI entry is faulty: According to Plant Names search, there is only one taxon described by an author with the standard form Olvera: Utricularia regia. If you check the respective paper, you will find the author to be Martha Olvera. Atriplex valdesii given as example for Olvera authorship, now is given as "Atriplex valdesii Flores Olv." So, two persons, both from Mexico and working with Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, are involved and only one of both is Hilda Flores Olvera, but IPNI entry 20008565-2 is a mix. --Franz Xaver (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
I've submitted a correction to IPNI for the Martha Olvera entry (full name:Martha Virginia Olvera García). The really funny thing is that these two have collaborated together on some projects. Circeus (talk) 03:07, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:Name taxa[edit]

Category:Name taxa does not exist, but has 80 entries which seem - from a small sample - to have all been added to it manually. Does anyone know what it is supposed to be for? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:04, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

All of them were added by @Abyssal: whom I hereby ping hoping for an answer. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC).
@Pigsonthewing:@Tommy Kronkvist: Oops. I started a personal initiative to make sure every plesiosaur had a listing here and was categorized by describer. Those were placeholder categories so I could just paste the name of the author over "Name". I completely forgot about this. I'll start polishing these up this week. I have a day or two's worth of work I want to do back on the 'Pedia and I'll get right back on this. Abyssal (talk) 02:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg Thank you.Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC).

Taxon Frameworks[edit]

Copying User:DarTar's post from Wikidata's village pump:

Hey all, iNaturalist just announced the introduction of Taxon Frameworks based on a number of external secondary authorities, in an effort to "track and communicate what we mean by a particular branch of the tree of life and thus what we're all agreeing to reference and curate towards." Worth reading as it has potential implications for data modeling and referencing in Wikidata.DarTar (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

because this is relevant for Wikispecies, also. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Native distribution areas[edit]

Since the "Native distribution areas" section is being added to lots of botanical species, I decided to start adding it also to my own zoology edits. At any rate, I think that the hidden format the botanists use, utilizing the template {{nadi}} is not adequate (see for example Vaccinium laurifolium). I'm using the more straightforward format (see for example Stenus cicindeloides).

I think that the "Native distribution areas" is indeed a very important piece of information and I wish we reach a consensus on the format we should employ. I wish to hear your comments on the best format to employ, eventually to be followed with a ballot. Mariusm (talk) 10:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Template {{nadi}} uses an accepted hierarchical format, rather than a straight forward list. To do away with nadi would result in numerous re-edits, probably a case of bolting the stable door, as it is now so well used in botanical pages. However, as a botanical database WS is more or less unique using this particular format. See these other examples
Modifying the {{nadi}} template will suffice to do away with the hidden mode. No need for "numerous re-edits". Mariusm (talk) 11:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
OK, the template {{nadi}} could easily be changed, but in some cases this would give rather bulky results, e.g. in Thespesia populnea. So I am content with it, this it is a collapsible box. Anyway, for wide-spread species I feel the need, that distribution data need to be given some structure. This here certainly is no good solution presenting distribution data. So, the existing TDGW scheme, which also is used by WCSP using different format, see e.g. Arum, and similarly by GRIN (e.g. [3], seems to be useful. However, it hardly can be used as a general way to present distribution data for animals, as it is not applicable to marine organisms. (Plants are mostly terrestrial. The few marine species are coastal.) Moreover, it also would not work very well for migratory species. So, probably for animals a different scheme needs to be developed. Which format to use, seems to be the least important problem. --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
On Cirripedia, I have been using Distribution:, using information based on original descriptions and reviewers/checklists. Unfortunately, many species are reported only from type localities. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Franz Xaver: The TDGW scheme is broadly used by botanists, so template:nadi is very useful for plant taxa. Additionally a map can be added, e.g. for Chenopodium spinescens. Animals or non-benthic marine organisms would need a different scheme to show their native distribution. --Thiotrix (talk) 13:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Another important consideration: the possibility of using [[China]] and [[Category: China]] for countries the same way we use [[DBSNU]] and [[Category:DBSNU]] for repositories. This way we can facilitate the production of lists of species per country. Mariusm (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Is there consensus to add this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Do you mean "Native distribution areas" as a discrete section in the same way as Name or Synonym? Andyboorman (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Good question @Pigsonthewing: Soon we will be adding description, behaviour..etc. There are several qualifications for a native zoological species: breeding? vagrant? accidental? introduced? extint in the territory? Which would be the reliable and approved source for the information? Working only with neotropical birds, I find so many taxonomic outdates to work on...why adding new features when the basic is not yet well done. Not in favour, to me not a good idea.--Hector Bottai (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Distribution is different from description, diagnosis, material etc. It appears in the most terse species-catalogues and is one of the most important features of a species. Many papers are being written just to report a record of a certain species in a country where it wasn't seen before. The botanists here have decided long ago to incorporate it in WS without getting an approval from the community, so this became a de-facto section. I don't see a sweeping objection here to adding the distribution section but it would be appropriate to cast a vote on this. Mariusm (talk) 09:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Agree with a vote for zoological species given botanist have widely accepted. Good explanation @Mariusm:, thanks.--Hector Bottai (talk) 11:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

[undent] As to adding general distribution information, I am firmly against. No matter how you look at them, distributions are not taxonomical information. They do not belong on Wikispecies, period. I could buy maybe sorting for type location only, but that's not all that useful when for many older species, the original location is from cultivation. Circeus (talk) 23:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Of course, distribution is relevant for taxonomy. Certainly you know these theories of en:Allopatric speciation and en:Sympatric speciation. Moreover, species receive their ecological significance by the fact, that they occur somewhere. --Franz Xaver (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Franz. Distributions are useful, but not essential, to taxonomy and therefor can belong here. They can be part of the why in the same way as a reference. In conclusion, adding distributions is a case of desirable, but not essential data in the same way as VN and images. Just my opinion of course. Andyboorman (talk) 08:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@Circeus: WS is defined as a "species guide" (see the Charter) or a "species directory" (see the main page). As such, the distribution is an integral, essential and important part of this directory. The ideal of "pure taxonomy" is an unattainable one. Mariusm (talk) 09:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Historical distributions[edit]

Are we talking about broadly accepting this? I forsee a potential problem in that some species have changed their distributions as a result of glaciation events or even extinction. Extinct species have no distribution at present. That is, are we talking about giving "present distribution" with a specific date, or will we be able to give information about native distributions for species now extinct? Even living species may have had enormous changes over time as a result of major climatic changes during the Pleistocene.

We need to consider not only the spatial aspect of distributions but the temporal aspect as well. The current model doesn't even come close to addressing that. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

The usual way for showing extinctions is the dagger symbol, as for example is practised by WCSP in the case of Betula nana in Italy. --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Of course. Surely no problems, except for the species/genera no longer extant in once accepted locations! Andyboorman (talk) 20:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
So, does that mean that fossil species have no distribution information? Surely knowing the distribution of fossil taxa is relevant? And how do we coordinate distributions where the taxon is there now but also known there as fossils? How do we indicate in which stratigraphic layers the fossils have been found? --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: For extant species the "distribution" is to include only living specimens. For extinct species, the distribution section is not applicable, "Type locality" subsection being adequate enough. Mariusm (talk) 09:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
That's where I disagree, and so do some of the comments above from others. If we can't determine a simple question such as applicability, then there is no way we'll be able to make use of this section. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Fossile are generally given both location and horizon, for the type, anything else is descriptive. Horizon is its stratigraphic position. Personally I am not keen on all this as it is a detraction of what we are about. However, as I said below I tentatively support this, but we need to get it to work. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

List of native countries[edit]

Would be this example list at IUCN the model? Tachybaptus ruficollis Are we going to use "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" or just "Macedonia" as an example of many others. Borders were created by man sometimes yesterday, species exists millions of years. Everybody knows about species showing in some country list just because a dead specimen was found decades ago in some beach, how we are going to lead with that. This have no sense. We are getting into a swamp.--Hector Bottai (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hector Bottai: in the case of a widespread species, there's no sense in specifying each and every country of occurrence. It would be more sensible to specify for your example of Tachybaptus ruficollis: "Widespread across Europe, much of Asia down to New Guinea, and most of Africa". However this isn't the case with the majority of species which are restricted to a very specific area (with birds being an exception, I suppose); for example Tachybaptus pelzelnii is restricted only to Madagascar. Mariusm (talk) 09:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
For recording plant distributions, the International Working Group on Taxonomic Databases For Plant Sciences has made up a system of "botanical regions" and "botanical countries" (see en:World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions), which are somewhat independent from actual political borders. Maybe zoologists have similar approaches for distributions of animals? --Thiotrix (talk) 10:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Depends on the group of species, largely animals are listed either with maps or with political distributions. For example it may say Brasil: Amazonas, ie country and state. In descriptions they only list the type locality specifically with a geo-coord the rest is done as descriptive distribution. I remember looking at the Botanical system once before it would be difficult to adapt it to animals. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Poll[edit]

This is a preliminary poll, to gauge the acceptance of the "distribution" information among WS users. In case it is accepted, another poll will follow to determine the format of the information. Mariusm (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Do you support the inclusion of "Native distribution areas" section in WS?

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Mariusm (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Dan Koehl (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Andyboorman (talk) 19:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Franz Xaver (talk) 19:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support RLJ (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thiotrix (talk) 21:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Neferkheperre (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Orchi (talk) 08:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose unless a sensible way to tackle historical distributions can be enacted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Hector Bottai (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- tentative-- I support this in principal, however a good way needs to be formed for the how. I will also comment that distribution is not nomenclatural data as was stated earlier. However, I do feel it is useful information if presented well. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 03:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Outside the scope of Wikispecies, and better recorded in Wikipedia/ Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:49, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Circeus (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Frequently impossible to know, difficult to make language-agnostic, and contradicts the charter: this is information for an encyclopedia. I am not opposed to a language-neutral map. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:18, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Native distribution areas — poll results and options[edit]

The poll's results for adding a "Native distribution areas" section are:

  • 9 support.
  • 5 oppose.

Consequently, the distribution feature is accepted and can be incorporated (optional not mandatory) in any species page.

We still have to decide on the exact format to be employed in this section. Take into account that we have 17,193 pages which already incorporate the distribution section and that they all employ the {{nadi}} template format. However this template is used only with botanical species. I suggest the following parameters to be considered:

  1. A "==" section placed just before the references section or a "===" section following the synonym section.
  2. Hidden versus standard section. In the hidden option, used by the {{nadi}} template, an "Expend" button must be pressed to display the contents. Since most species have only a few distribution areas I see no benefit in this mode.
  3. Countries organized under regions, for example "Malesia" under the "Asia-Tropical" region (see the Vaccinium laurifolium page). This surely makes editing more difficult.
  4. Use linked countries and country-categories. For example [[China]] and [[Category: China]] the same way we use [[DBSNU]] and [[Category:DBSNU]] for repositories. This way we can facilitate the production of lists of species per country.
  5. When a species is widespread over large areas, it is preferred to generalize. For example "widespread in Europe and south east Asia" instead of specifying each and every country of occurrence.

I would like to have your comments on your desirable format. Mariusm (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Re #4: I think this will just be a disastrous headache with very little benefit, honestly. Plus, it's very difficult to make it language-agnostic (if we do decide to do this, we should use ISO country codes). —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I cannot agree more with Justin. Don't matter the votation result, we are still on time to stop this, as you can see it was voted with no idea on how to do it. Please think about just a matter of priorities. One simple example: the very important family Anatidae, the popular ducks, is well behind other wikis taxonomically wise. Our main focus should be the leadership in taxonomic update, never the followers. And now, valuable editors will burn their brains trying to put a range on ducks that fly all over the word. Come on! --Hector Bottai (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
@Hector Bottai: Keep in mind that: (1) this section is optional and not mandatory (2) there are already more than 17,000 species-pages which include this section. Mariusm (talk) 09:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
@Mariusm: This is only 2,8% of today's total pages. If I remember our main target was getting to 1 million pages. We have so many red species links to worry on...why to disperse our focus, even being optional.--Hector Bottai (talk) 10:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Botany is simpler than zoology, as it uses a well accepted and easily translatable system. This has already been pointed out and botany is the main culprit for the existing usage. I agree about optionality, but it does seem to be the one of the concerns for those editors who tend to "improve" taxon pages along with VN, format, syntax and images. All in all I am happy for the current usage in botany to continue, as per the vote, rather than a blanket ban. The botanical horse has bolted has it not? Indeed it also does have relevance to the taxonomy of plants. Andyboorman (talk) 10:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
9 vs. 5 is hardly a measure of consensus; and you really shouldn't be closing a discussion which you yourself opened. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:09, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Most wanted author pages[edit]

The following are, at the time of writing, our "most wanted" (i.e. most inbound links to pages that do not yet exist) author pages:

If you can, please join me in working to create and populate them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:14, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for this, Andy. Great job on the basic maintenance here. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Two more:

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

UMS[edit]

UMS and Category:UMS do not exist, but are used on four pages. Where is it? I note that Wikidata has a "University of Modern Sciences" (d:Q12204437), in Yemen. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I found a PDF of the article. The relevant paragraph:
"Holotypen und Para-typen der neubeschriebenen Taxa (außer denen von Euthalia aconthea abangaen. ssp., die im Museum der Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Kota Samarahan, verbleiben) sind in der coll. C. G. Treadaway deponiert. Sie werden später in die Sammlung des Senckenberg-Museums, Frankfurt am Main, gelangen."
Translation: "Holotypes and paratypes of the newly described taxa (except those of Euthalia aconthea abangae ssp., which remain in the Museum of the Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Kota Samarahan) are deposited in C. G. Treadaway's collection. They will later depisited in the collection of the Senckenberg Museum, Frankfurt am Main."
So, three things:
  1. Only one taxon (Euthalia aconthea abangae) should be marked as deposited in "UMS", the otehrs are in Treadaway's personal collection
  2. UMS stands for the "Museum of the Universiti Malaysia Sarawak", but is not a usual abbreviation for that institution: it seems to be usually for Universiti Malaysia Sabah
  3. We do have a page and category for Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, I believe: UNIMAS (there's also UMSM and NHMUM listed on the repositories page). Circeus (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Using wikispecies for a public agronomical project[edit]

Hello everyone,

I work at INRA in the SYSTEM UMR (based at Montpellier, France), and my current project is the creation of an informatic tool to browse, share and use knowledge about systemic agriculture (understand a lot of ecosystem with a lot of specialist). First of all, I don't know if I am at the right place to discuss this, but I couldn't find better so feel free to send me a PM to redirect me at the right direrction. I would like to use the wikispecies data as a thesaurus ontology directly on the tool, so agronoms whom describe new processus have a structured vocabulary (ontology/thesaurus) whith semantics in it, while having rich description and documentation, images, and "partiality". For whom can/want understand, we are currently using the NALT ontology for the species taxonomy (https://agclass.nal.usda.gov/dne/search_sc.shtml) The aim of the project is to build a platform to share agronomical knowledge, to help conception of new agronomical culture plans : the more connectivity we got, the better it is, and wikimedia seems a very good entity to work with.

Best regards, Guilhem HEINRICH

email : guilhem.heinrich@inra.fr — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.99.7.96 (talkcontribs) 13:48, 30 November 2018‎.

You might also like to consider using Wikidata, which is available as linked- open- data. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Gerald R. Baum[edit]

It seems likely that Gerald R. Baum, a paleo-cirripedologist, is the same person as the geologist of the same name, described at http://viaf.org/viaf/33495676/ - the author of 'The Mattassee Lake sites' (1982). Can anyone confirm? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Baum is indeed geologist, usually working sequence stratigraphy on US East Coastal Plain. How he got to be taxon authority is by being second author in two publications with Victor A. Zullo, with 2-3 cirripede species. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Category:Taxa by author, sort[edit]

I see that the Category:Taxa by author is partially sorted by surname (where there is an index used), partially sorted by given name (where there is not). Which sort is preferred in Wikispecies and is there any action of standardization planned? Which one should I use, if I use the category? Thanks for your attention and sorry for my clumsy writing. — Daniel FR (talk) 11:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Sort by surname is preferred; by using {{DEFAULTSORT:}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
You can try the template: {{Taxa by author|Name surname|surname, name}}. Burmeister (talk) 12:26, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, That's a better solution. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:55, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Syntax highlighting[edit]

A recent change to this wiki's software has, it seems, enabled syntax highlighting.

Coincidentally, the spelchecker in my brower, Firefox, no longer highlights mistyped words (the highlighting is still present on mistyped worsds in the subject field of ths page, for example, so the spelchck plugin is active).

Does anyone know more about this? Are other wikis affected (Commons and Wikidata are not; I have a spearte highlighting script in Wikipedia)? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Ti[edit]

What is the point of {{Ti}}? It renders text like this:

Example

by applying a span with this styling: style="color: black; background-color: #e8e8e8; font-family: verdana; font-size: 90%; font-weight: bold;" and has no other effect.

Why is it used on some pages, and not others? Do we need it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:03, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Delete wrongly named item[edit]

Hi, Folks! What can I do to have a wrongly named item deleted? (Here: "Cartegory:John Hewitt taxa", it's not by me.) I tried to move it to "Category:John Hewitt taxa", but this category already exists. — Daniel FR (talk) 12:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I have deleted it for you. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 12:53, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
I got in just after you and found it redlinked. I did correct two transcluded pages, so all is swell. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you! <3 — Daniel FR (talk) 13:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC) (But how'd you do it, Andy?)

Missing repositories[edit]

We have red links for the following repository abbreviations:

I have been unable to identifty the repositires to which they refer. Can anyone assist, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:56, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

There are a few here and here. Hope this helps Andyboorman (talk) 15:39, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • CMA: Personal (ichthyological) collection of Muthukumarasamy Arunachalam
  • FHS: Personal herbarium of Hans Peter Fuchs
  • FSL: Centre des Sciences de la Terre, Université Claude Bernard (i.e. Collection de Géologie[?], Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1). FSL stands for "Faculté des Sciences de Lyons".
  • GZU: Index Herbariorium for Graz University Herbarium
  • IEUP: Istituto di Entomologia, Università degli Studi, Pavia, Italy
  • IRET: Probably Institut de Recherche en Écologie Tropicale, Gabon
  • JLA: Personal collection of Jean-Louis Amiet (now deposited at MHNG, JLA should not be linked at all)
  • MEC: Medical Entomological Collection, Institute of Microbiology and Epidemiology, Beijing (We have this as CME, MEIM on the repositories list and IMEAMMS)
  • MMU: Museum of Manchester, The University, Manchester, England (i.e. MMUE)
  • MNW: this is a typo for NMW
  • MPA: ???
  • MZN: Probably Muséum-aquarium de Nancy, nowadays referred to as MAN
  • NR: Probably Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet, SMNH
  • PRA: Index Herbariorium for Institute of Botany, Czech Academy of Sciences
  • PUM: maybe Universitá di Pisa (MSNUP)? Abbreviation is from here, but PUM not listed in their museum abbreviation.
  • UA:
    • Libotonius/Albanerpeton: "Department of Geology, University of Alberta" (UALVP?)
    • Triaenops: Université d'Antananarivo (UADBA?)
  • UI: University of illinois Museum of natural history (UIMNH), now part of INHS
  • UMS: I answered this after you asked yesterday.
  • ZI: Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, St. Peterburg, i.e. ZIN or ZISP
  • ZJUC: Hymenoptera collection of Zhejiang University, ZJUH
  • ZMUT: Department of Zoology, University Museum, University of Tokyo, i.e. TUM
Most of those are listed in the linked publications. Some are stated on the taxon pages. Circeus (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I've made pages and categories (or, in a couple of cases, redirects) for those that are unabiguous. Happy for others to check them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:26, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Bembidion m[edit]

This bot generated "article" is probably a duplicate of Bembidion m-signatum. @User:Mariusm, could you please check this. --Succu (talk) 06:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Of course you're right, my bot isn't used to handling x-y species-name-format. I deleted it, thanks for your alertness. Mariusm (talk) 07:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
@Mariusm: From the same batch: Is it Aplothorax burchellii (created by you) or Aplothorax burchelli? --Succu (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
@Succu: This is a tricky one. The question is whether the name is based "Burchell" or on "Burchelli"? In fact it's after William John Burchell (1781–1863), therefore it should be "Aplothorax burchelli". Mariusm (talk) 10:09, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
In the original description Waterhouse used the spelling Aplothorax burchellii... --Succu (talk) 10:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
@Succu: No, the original description is here and Waterhouse mentions there specifically "Burchell" as the person after which the species is called. Therefore "burchellii" is a lapsus calami of Waterhouse. Mariusm (talk) 11:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
@Mariusm, Succu: Having read ICZN Art. 31.1, from the examples given there, it depends, whether the genitive is constructed form the modern name Burchell or according to Art. 31.1.1. from the latinized form Burchellius. The last sentence of Art. 31.1.2 tells: "the stem of such a name is determined by the action of the original author when forming the genitive." By using the form Burchellii, Waterhouse derived the genitive from the latinized form Burchellius in accordance with Art. 31.1.1. So, Aplothorax burchellii should be the correct name. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
@Succu: @Franz Xaver: There is indeed a mixing of "burchelli" and "burchellii" regarding patronymic names of William John Burchell: Eciton burchellii, Pedioplanis burchelli, Equus quagga burchellii etc. In the case of modern/Latinized name versions or possibilities, it ultimately depends on the author as Franz Xaver rightly says. Burchellius being a form rarely used, I wasn't aware of it. I will make Aplothorax burchellii the species name and Aplothorax burchelli a synonym. Mariusm (talk) 10:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Misspelled Sabine Von Mering redirect[edit]

I would kindly ask for input from the WS community to a developing discussion regarding delete of misspelled Sabine Von Mering redirect to Sabine von Mering, which has been deleted and restored several times the past week. Dan Koehl (talk) 10:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Mysterious category[edit]

Does anybody know, why Tenuipalpus caudatus is sorted in Category:Taxon authorities? I wanted to delete the category, but I do not find the code for this. --Thiotrix (talk) 22:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The category was hidden among the references. I removed it. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Should we really pop illustrations of scientists on organism pages? Circeus (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Nope, most certainly not. The page suffered from several shortcomings, such as using BASEPAGENAME and lacking a lot of author- and journal links as well as {{Repository link}} templates. Thanks for the heads-up: it's all sorted now! Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC).
Thank you all! --Thiotrix (talk) 09:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

A word of encouragement[edit]

In the recent couple of years I concentrate in updating the Staphylinidae familia which is an exceptionally diverse beetle family. I've contacted one of the world leading experts on this group Alfred Francis Newton to ask for information and pointed to him the WS resource. Here is an extract from his reply:

"I had not looked as [at] Wikispecies for a while, and was impressed at what is there, including the complete bibliography for me and the data on some south temperate staphs from our PEET site. It is a useful resource, and worth supporting.

For that reason, I attach a copy of the same Excel file extract for Staphyliniformia that I recently made and sent to Catalogue of Life, and also to the Field Museum IT team, with permission to use data from it for those web resources, and now likewise for Wikispecies."

This ought to provide us with encouragement to keep on improving WS and making it a sought-after resource. Mariusm (talk) 09:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Wonderful news! Thank you for sharing. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC).
Agree, well done @Mariusm: good news! Is it possible that WS has now reached a level, where it is relevant to more actively invite people to join the project? Dan Koehl (talk) 13:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Dan, I do sometimes contact authors asking for more information and pointing to problems I've found in their articles, and in the process I mention WS. But those are busy scientists and I don't suppose they'll be contributing directly. However when we overcome a certain popularity threshold I think some editors will migrate from WP to us. Right now too many pages are way too much deficient and the amount of work needed to remedy that is way too much to be handled by the quantity of editors active right now. This is vicious cycle which needs to be broken somehow. This is why I use MariusBot to add thousands of new species pages, albeit in a reduced form. Mariusm (talk) 14:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Prymnesiophyceae (algae/Chromista) not a current name?[edit]

Prymnesiophyceae (algae) has been replaced by the earlier published name Coccolithophyceae in a number of recent online and print sources. I have added some comments at https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prymnesiophyceae which others may care to follow up... Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Modify a Template[edit]

Can anybody with more knowledge of template procedures help me out. I have made a template BRBA, which I hoped and thought linked directly to a taxon page via the template's and Brassibase search procedures. I based it on the well known and well used template WCSP. Unfortunately it does not work correctly, although I thought it did! Brassibase has now become the most respected and well known site for Brassiaceae, as can be seen, so I feel it would be good to get it working correctly. Best regards and fingers crossed. Andyboorman (talk) 10:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I think it works now. I replaced the http by https and added the PATH parameter to the urlencode function in order to transform the spaces into %20. -RLJ (talk) 12:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks it certainly seems to work on all fronts. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 12:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Homonyms Mabokiana[edit]

Hello zoology editors, please have a look at Mabokiana (disambiguation), as both names cannot be valid. Thanks, --Thiotrix (talk) 13:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Seems to me a clear case of junior homonymy. Mabokiana Leraut, 2015 appears to be invalid. You can contact the author Patrice Leraut at pleraut@mnhn.fr and ask... Mariusm (talk) 13:56, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Mabokiana Boulard, 1976 is a currently accepted name according to the Membracoidea of the World Database, as referenced in the current Catalogue of Life. Interestingly the name seems to be obscure in both its published versions, neither appearing in a current Google Scholar search. They are, nonetheless, indexed in the ION database, see http://www.organismnames.com/query.htm?q=Mabokiana&Submit.x=17&Submit.y=9&searchType=simple&so=a0&pp=10 (with some uncertainty about the publication year of the Boulard name). Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Redundant disambiguation pages and categories Template:Disambig and Template:Disambiguation[edit]

We currently have two different but redundant templates: Template:Disambig and Template:Disambiguation. The former has well over 1,000 incoming links, is connected to other similar templates through Wikidata, and automatically places entries in Category:Disambiguation pages while the later is used on less than 500 pages, and places pages in additional, and apparently redundant category trees: Category:All disambiguation pages and Category:All article disambiguation pages. I think {{Disambiguation}} should be merged into {{Disambig}}, although I am not certain if it's as easy as creating a redirect. And is there a reason to have three different disambiguation pages with little or no distinction? I think it would be useful to separate taxonomic disambiguation pages (e.g. Agarista) from authority pages (e.g. Smith), but the current category tree should be clarified before the mess gets any messier. Thoughts? -Animalparty (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

And for context, I note former discussions dating back years regarding disambiguation (e.g. here, here, and here). Seems like lots of discussion, little meaningful action. -Animalparty (talk) 20:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Animalparty: to give the correct numbers: {{Disambig}} has 5851 occurrences while {{Disambiguation}} has only 52 occurrences. I can replace {{Disambiguation}} with {{Disambig}} using AWB bot. Does anyone have any objections to this? Mariusm (talk) 10:11, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Go for it! Andyboorman (talk) 11:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
No objections here. I always use {{Disambig}}. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:24, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
The template we keep should, eventually, be named Template:Disambiguation, with Template:Disambig being a redirect to it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Why? What is the big deal about Template:Disambiguation? Andyboorman (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
"Disambiguation" is a word; "Disambig" is jargon. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:05, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree that Template:Disambiguation should be the preferred name, with other variants as redirects to increase convenience for users. The equivalent template in English Wikipedia has redirects "Dab", "Disambig", "Disamb", among others. Rather than forcing users to memorize a plethora of arcane templates, we should be bending over backwards to make templates as user-friendly and intuitive as possible, if we ever expect more than a handful of users to contribute at any given time. Animalparty (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
...so, no more discussion, no action? Typical. Animalparty (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
@Animalparty: since the discussion was clearly in favor of getting rid of the current implementation of {{disambiguation}}, you could have done this yourself easily enough. Following Andy's suggestion, I have solved the issue by moving {{disambig}} over {{disambiguation}}, leaving a redirect as recommended, and deleted the categories. Circeus (talk) 02:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
@Circeus: Thanks for that. I am a bit hesitant to unilaterally modify/redirect templates, although it appears they work just like article redirects. Cheers, Animalparty (talk) 03:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Species names determined in public auction?![edit]

Apparently several groups are staging public auctions to sell newly discovered species' names (see here). The winners can name the won species after themselves, their mother, their pet dog - just about anything they wish. The minimum bid for each species name is $10,000 and the auctions are conducted in a conventional auction house. This is a strange way to eke money out of taxonomy. Anyone here interested in bidding? Mariusm (talk) 12:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Nothing new there. Callicebus aureipalatii (seems it needs to be updated?) got its name that way thirteen years ago. Circeus (talk) 12:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
More sensible than taxonomic vandalism by "scientists". Money for conservation doesn't just fall out of the sky. Animalparty (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Rubiaceae[edit]

Advice and comments please, particularly from botanists. Rubiaceae is the largest family here on WS still with numerous redlink genera and indeed tribes. It has had a lot of work on it by the scientific community and I have added some of the most important to the taxon page Reference Section. However, the biggest postulated change is a move to two rather than three tribes (Robbrecht & Manen, 2006 and Rydin, 2017) this has recently been taken up by Stevens on the APW site. This change will involve the merging of Cinchonoideae and Ixoroideae, under an expanded Cinchonoideae, leaving Rubioideae largely intact. Do we think that WS should adopt this approach? I would like to begin to get rid of redlinks, but need some advice before starting, so over to the community. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 09:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, subfamilies and tribes are not the most urgent issues within Rubiaceae. Still Rydin et al. (2017) are writing about "conflicting results". So, it is not very likely, that dust already has settled. Anyway, many genera are missing in WS, also rather large ones as e.g. Faramea. Adding these, would be independent from infrafamiliar systematics. On the other hand, some genera have been re-circumscribed during the last years. For example, the change concerning Psychotria versus Palicourea seems to be settled already and WCSP has followed, but some species in WS still are in their old genus, e.g. Psychotria poeppigiana, which now should be Palicourea tomentosa. --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
I am reluctant to just place genera at the family level ignoring classification completely, but I do agree that WS is a complete mess, which ever way you look at it. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 12:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
@Andyboorman: Placing genera at family level ignoring infrafamiliar classification, is not exactly, what I wanted to propose. As far as I see, adding a genus makes sense also, if its present placement is not final, as a reclassification within the infrafamiliar systematics does only require to update one single taxonavigation template. However, a missing taxon page for a genus is likely to prevent, that someone would add species pages on occasion. So, it would be nice to have taxon pages at least for all large genera of Rubiaceae. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
@Franz Xaver: I am in agreement with your last statement and general thoughts. It does look like that most tribes are settled for now, as are most of the major and important genera. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
@Franz Xaver: I have had a look in the last few days and made some changes, added papers and resources - see Palicoureeae. I will not do any more work until I have contacted Govaerts, for example asking why they have not accepted the full synonymy of Psychotria put forward by Razafimandimbison et al. (2014), which will render Psychotrieae monotypic. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
@Andyboorman: I personally prefer to call it "monogeneric" instead of "monotypic", as also subgenera and sections within Psychotria are required to have types. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 15:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I have heard back from Rafael Govaerts and WCSP is as up to date to as possible for Rubiaceae. The biggest problem is where the scientific literature has not resulted in valid species combinations for changes at the generic level, for example in Psychotria, where Razafimandimbison et al. were a triffle lax in dealing with their synonymy leaving numerous loose ends. It was also pointed out to me that there are some 45000 outstanding combinations needed across the whole of the flora. Therefore I can recommend that editors be confident in using WCSP, but also be careful when interpreting the scientific literature and make a check for formal publication of changes. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 13:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@Andyboorman: Thanks for letting me know. That's one of the possible explanations I was thinking of, that not all of the required combinations are available yet, which would be necessary, when a genus is to be synonymised under Psychotria. There was a similar delay with transfer of the former Psychotria subg. Heteropsychtria to Palicourea. It seems, that in the latter case now all the required combinations have been published. So, WCSP meanwhile has implemented this move. An other reason I was thinking of, was that possibly they might still be hesitant to synonymize the genera of the "Pacific Psychotria clade", as there an alternative solution seems to be possible, where genera as Hydnophytum, Calycosia, or Amaracarpus could be saved by removing some few species of Psychotria into segregate genera.
"45000 outstanding combinations needed" seems to be a high end estimation, as Rubiaceae altogether is thought to have about 13500 species. However, the number of 45000 possibly refers to the total content of WCSP? Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 15:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
You are correct the 45000 refers to all extant vascular plants that will comprise Global Flora Vol 4. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Advice on Hemimastix kukwesjijk[edit]

It appears that classification is very much up in the air. Does anyone here have a perspective on how this microorganism is being discussed taxonomically? —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know, Hemimastix and Spironema are placed in Hemimastigophora. Hemimastigophora is technically a phylum, but the researchers argue that it should be considered its own supra-kingdom. Personally, I think WS needs to overhaul its higher eukaryotic classifications. I don't think that the four kingdom groupings presented at the main page reflect current opinions very well. Voganaa (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Higher level classification of Kingdom Protista is very seriously in chaos. It is now several kingdoms, but nobody is in agreement as to their arrangement or names. I have no idea how long this shall continue. At LSU, workers are using classifications lower than Foraminifera, and leaving higher level arrangements alone until they become stable. Neferkheperre (talk) 00:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
In IRMNG (see www.irmng.org if unfamiliar) I try to follow the Ruggiero et al. (2015) higher classification, also used by Catalogue of Life (CoL), for protists for pragmatic reasons (maximum compatibility with other systems that also follow this reasoning), except where it seems to be in error, is already out-of-date, or some other reason. Phylum Hemimastigophora does not appear in Ruggiero et al. but is a good phylum according to Lax et al., 2018: "Hemimastigophora is a novel supra-kingdom-level lineage of eukaryotes. Nature." , available online at https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0708-8, so I have re-instated it in IRMNG as of last month, see http://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1345612 . This is the version of record that will appear in my next export to CoL (approx. March 2019), unless anything happens in the mean time to revise this opinion. (CoL currently uses IRMNG for its protist coverage, with exceptions where other good sources exist already e.g. for Foraminifera). Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)