Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 50

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.


J.M. Campbell[edit]

Who can help with the full names from J.M. Campbell. He is a Canadian entomologist (coleoptera). Published his work in the Canadian Entomologist. PeterR (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

John Milton Campbell. Cf. Klimaszewski, J. (2008). "under the leadership of Ales Smetana and John Milton Campbell (Biosystematics Research Institute, Ottawa)" Circeus (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks PeterR (talk) 13:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
There were some left-over dead links and broken redirects after PeterR moved J.M. Campbell to John Milton Campbell, including links to Category:J.M. Campbell taxa and other pages. All of those are now re-linked, and again working as intended. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 03:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC), 03:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC).
This come because the move don't work correkt. If you move J.M. Campbell taxa to John Milton Campbell taxa, the taxa are not moved. I have move first J.M. Campbell to John Milton Campbell. But it don't move the J.M. Campbell taxa to John Milton Campbell taxa. After this done you can't see the taxon names authored any more. If you use the move, you have to do a lot more work. PeterR (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@PeterR: I know that it is a lot of work, but if we move one page then all related links must be changed as well. Otherwise we will get a lot of double redirects, broken redirects, or worse. For example, say that we have a page named "J.M. Campbell" and redirects that page to "John M. Campbell". Sometime in the future we maybe redirect that page to "John Milton Campbell". Because of an error in the MediaWiki software, this may break the first redirect – then the link stops working.
In other words, if we move "J.M. Campbell" to "John Milton Campbell", then we must also move "Category:J.M. Campbell taxa" to "Category:John Milton Campbell taxa" and then correct all the category links on the taxon pages. Potentially, this can mean having to change several hundreds of links... That is why pages should be moved as seldom as possible, and only after careful consideration.
As I said, this is mainly because of an error/bug in the WikiMedia software, and hopefully it will be corrected in the future. You can find more (non-technical) information about this matter on Wikipedia, for example "Dubbele redirects" (in Dutch) and "Double redirects" (in English). Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC).
In the future I shall not move the wrong author taxa to the wright auto taxa. I shall made this by hand.PeterR (talk) 09:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Sometimes, these transfers are really necessary, even if rather formidable. Install cat-a-lot. This makes bulk category entry moving much easier, and allows to correct, delete and install category entries on mainpages without having to go to edit mode. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. For reference, Cat-a-lot can be installed from the user preference settings, here. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC).

Gender in Taxa authored 2[edit]

Can someone please make {{Taxa authored 2}} pick up gender from Wikidata (with that being overridden by a local value, if present)? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC).

You often know only the author, not the gender, masculine, feminine or neuterPeterR (talk) 17:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I've made an attempt, not sure if it works for all settings. Korg (talk) 08:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Kin Onn Chan herpetologist[edit]

What is the real name? Kin Onn Chan or Chan Kin Onn? herpetologistPeterR (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah, East Asian names strike again! I'm pretty sure "Kin Onn" is the given name and "Chan" the family name (Malaysian Chinese or Chinese Singaporean, probably?). It's Chan Kin Onn at LKCNHM but Kin Onn Chan at Kansas University. You could consider, y'know, contacting them to make sure (having a chinese spelling, if any, on record would be a nifty addition). Circeus (talk) 20:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC). Normal it is not a problem. But in this case there where 10 authors with their first name(s) and then back (family) name. Chan is published as Chan Kin Onn. After surging on google I find out that the name is Kin Onn Chan.PeterR (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Zoobank link not working[edit]

The Zoobank link at the Reference templates is not working. See Template:Arias et al., 2018 as example. Somebody to fix? --Hector Bottai (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The LSID you copypasted in there has non-ASCII hyphens (U+2010, generates a broken, URL-encoded link: ZooBank) instead of the ASCII, url-valid hyphen-minus that your keyboard generates (U+002D). Always make sure what your pasting in from (I assume) a fancy pdf uses the right characters. There seems to be an additional issue on Zoobank's side (It doesn't know anything about Ameivula apipensis), but in my experience I have never been able to find anything I needed on that thing anyway, so it's nothing new to me. Circeus (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
@Circeus:The problem with Ameivula apipensis was that nobody had updated the ZooBank record when it was published (I have now done so), so that it was still a hidden "in press" record. However, lack of public visibility doesn't affect the availability of any new names. The ZooBank record for the publication has been entered with only the first author, presumably because it was too onerous to add all authors, but that also does not affect anything important ... Betweenfootandshoe (talk) 05:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
So, the error must be in the Template {{subst:ReftempZt}}, because I did not type anything. Simplyfying, I am deleting this link from my editions.--Hector Bottai (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I suspect that the problem arises as an unintended side effect from the mass edit a few years ago of hyphens to dashes ... Betweenfootandshoe (talk) 05:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
A more serious issue is that I'm pretty sure that description of new taxa in an MS Word supplementary document is invalid according to the ICZN! ... Betweenfootandshoe (talk) 05:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
@Hector Bottai and Betweenfootandshoe: When using {{subst:ReftempZt}} please either insert the proper Zoobank link or else delete the * {{ZooBank|}} line when re-editing the template. Mariusm (talk) 13:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. All of our four different ZooBank templates are notoriously picky when it comes to matters like these. Also, it doesn't help much that the ZooBank database often seems unresponsive and/or slow. I always double-check all ZooBank links from within the preview before hitting the save button. Even though I use a 250 Mbit/s fiber connection it can sometimes take more than a minute before the ZooBank web page responds, and the waiting sometime makes me believe the link is dead. FishBase used to have the same problem for several years but seems to have got their act together now. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC).


Could an entomologist please have a look at the Lezininae page, particularly this edit. I only have access to online sources and they are inconclusive: some states Gryllacrididae as the correct family, others say Anostostomatidae. (Also, feel free to mark the aforementioned edit as patrolled, if it is correct.) Thanks! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC).

I'm no entomologist, but... OSF (Orthoptera Species File, supplies data to Catalogue of Life) has it in Anostostomatidae at this time. Vandergrast et al., 2017 ( Tackling an intractable problem: Can greater taxon sampling help resolve relationships within the Stenopelmatoidea (Orthoptera: Ensifera)?) say: "The OSF (Cigliano et al., 2017) places Lezina in the subfamily Lezininae in the family Gryllacrididae. We support Lezina, within the Stenopelmatoidea, in Anostostomatidae (Clade C) sister to the tribe Glaphyrosomini. This position is supported by Gorochov and Cadena-Castañeda (2016)..." So it looks like OSF has changed its allocation from Gryllacrididae (in 2017) to Anostostomatidae (2019), in line with Vandergrast et al. I would therefore go with the latter. My database (IRMNG) presently has Lezina in Lezinidae, so I need to update it and will follow OSF :) Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 05:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
@Tommy Kronkvist: Lezininae belongs to the Anostostomatidae. See:
See comment in page 9: Comments: Subfamily Lezininae is back to the family Anostostomatidae, such as Gorochov (2001 a), proposed, as it has characters which associate it more to that family than with Gryllacrididae, such as the presence of tympani in the first pair of tibiae and the outer side of hind femora with only traces of chevron ridges. Chevrons are one of the synapomorphic characters that define anostostomatides and which is absent in gryllacridines, as are the tympani on fore tibiae.
See revised Anostostomatidae and Lezininae. Mariusm (talk) 12:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
@Tony 1212 and Mariusm: Thank you both for the information! I think all affected Wikispecies pages are checked and updated now, thanks to Mariusm, the IP, and me. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:18, 5 July 2019 (UTC).

Daniel B. Blake & Daniel Bryan Blake[edit]

Are Daniel B. Blake and Daniel Bryan Blake perhaps the same person? The former is listed as a U.S. palaeontologist on Wikispecies, and as a U.S palaeontologist + geologist at Wikidata (see Q21502551). The latter is listed as micropalaeontologist and ostracodologist on Wikispecies, but listed as a zoologist on Wikidata (Q22108473). In Wikimedia both are exclusive to Wikispecies: neither one of them have a page in any of the 303 different language versions of Wikipedia. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC).

The former is [1] which lists a conference paper titled "Toward a History of the Paleozoic Asteroidea (Echinodermata)" and says he works (or worked) at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign and thus leads us to [2]
The latter name is used for the author of "Toward a History of the Paleozoic Asteroidea (echinodermata)" in Issue 394 of Bulletins of American Paleontology, (2018) [3] whose PDF [4] credits "Daniel B. Blake Department of Geology, University of Illinois", so I think we have a match. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Confirmed by [5] and [6]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:23, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I've merged the two Wikispecies pages into Daniel Bryan Blake and edited all "Daniel B. Blake" links accordingly. I've also merged the two Wikidata items. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 01:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC).



Can someone merge Tan Heok Hui and Heok Hui Tan?

Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 12:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Which is the correct name? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: both are technically correct depending if you want to put the last name first or last. English Wikipedia use en:Heok Hui Tan (with the western name order). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
@VIGNERON: Done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


Hello, is it that way that we quote a type species? I mean is it the good formating? and how is the good way to quote it in the species page? Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

It's one of several formats people are using, nothing to complain about! It's good form to cite the publication where it was designated as type, if you know it. Circeus (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
On species pages, types can be cited like on Promalactis petasumella (example for animals), or like Nelsia quadrangula (example for plants). Kind regards ,--Thiotrix (talk) 11:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Please see Cubanotyphlus for example. Note the type fixation info. Mariusm (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Aloe squarrosa / Aloe juvenna[edit]

Are the following edits correct? [7], [8] (image). Korg (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I would say that the image is A. juvenna or possibly a young A. sguarrosa. The later has leaves that distinctly arch backwards, but otherwise the two species are similar in their markings on the leaves. I have replaced the Aloe squarrosa previous image with a botanical drawing, which is much more diagnostic and less confusing. Andyboorman (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! Korg (talk) 21:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


Bonjour, si un admin passait par là pour bloquer ce vandale [9] ce sera que du bonheur - merci et Bonne soirée Lomita (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Already blocked. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Translations of template:Inc[edit]

The translations of template {{Inc}} are missing, since User:Fagus edited the template. On 24 April 2019, I asked him to repair the template, but he did not answer and left the template without localization. Could someone else please make the necessary corrections? Thanks, --Thiotrix (talk) 12:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Done. Fagus' edits are very often questionable. Mariusm (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't like your attitude. --Fagus (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
@Fagus: It's your attitude which needs readjustment. You fiddled with a widely-used template employed in virtually every author page, and failed to respond to a request posed to you in this regard on your talk page. Can you explain what was the purpose of your modification of this template? Mariusm (talk) 15:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
No need for discussion. I'm not interfering. --Fagus (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


So, I stumblred across another @Fagus: creation. This is used only on authorities and is an autotranslate... for the word "Turkish". Why that word specifically when the rest of the page is in English, I do not know, but I'm also seriously doubting we want this to be how we proceed (assuming we decide the author pages must be autotranslated to begin with).

SO I'm bringing this up for discussion as to whether this sort of things should be kept. Circeus (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I think translation of these descriptive elements has low priority for the project. Extended to all nationalities and to all grammatical properties of the different languages it will get complicated and time-consuming. Maybe taking the language-specific description from Wikidata could be a solution eaiser to achieve. --RLJ (talk) 11:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Ask @Fagus: to delete and remove or justify in relation to a major project aimed at wider the development of language specific templates? Andyboorman (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC):
you can delete.. --Fagus (talk) 17:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Done. All instances were replaced. Circeus (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The code decoded[edit]

For the botanists among us, just published: the second edition of The code decoded by Nick Turland: . Open access, as PDF document or online. Recommended. --RLJ (talk) 11:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll have to take a look. Wonder if it deals with my biggest code-related bugbear (unlikely). Circeus (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Which is? Intrigued! Andyboorman (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
The code allows for lectotypification of a generic or infrageneric rank by merely naming a species (art. 10 Note 2, which should really be placed after 10.2, not 10.4...). Because there is no requirement whatsoever as to the typification of that specific name, doing so does not actually designates a specimen as type of that supraspecific name (art. 10.1), it merely asserts that whatever the eventual type of the designated species is or will be the type of the higher division.
It is sloppy and flies in the face of every other rules rlated to types in the code. As such, in my opinion, any such designation made without full and direct reference to an effective typification of the asserted type species should not be itself effective. Circeus (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I see where you are coming from, but I assumed it was down to pragmatism, as one would think that a legitimate species used to define the type of a genus has already been typified under the earlier articles. Indeed types of genera can change over time and to require a completely new typification when there is a change in synonymy seems superfluous. What do I know! Andyboorman (talk) 18:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
It's not about asking for a new typification so much as making sure the type you are designating exists in the first place. It's entirely possible to designate as type species a species for which all material is lost and no neotype has been designated so that you are really not designating anything at all as the type of the genus, which is what I assert flies in the face of every other type-related requirement in the code. Circeus (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Wow, can't believe no one uploaded it to c:. It's there now: c:File:The Code Decoded (2nd Edition).pdf. Nice find! —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Small change to Help:Vernacular names section[edit]

I don't think it's very radical but I wanted to bring attention to it: (koavf)TCM 21:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

It would be better to just eliminate the guidance "only include one name per language". It's pretty rare (across all taxa) for one single vernacular name to be so widely used in a particular language to make it unnecessary to mention any other vernacular names. That doesn't mean dozens of obscure vernacular names should be listed. But if there are a few vernacular names that are quite frequently used, they should be mentioned.
The one name per language bit was added (see this diff) by a editor who has some peculiar ideas about vernacular names, and it is only one part of the undiscussed radical changes they made to push their agenda. Wikispecies should not be in the business of promoting a single vernacular name as "THE OFFICIAL" common name. Plantdrew (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I think you are right, just on the grounds of the English language, where they could be a VN for the UK and differing ones for US, Australia, New Zealand and so on. Andyboorman (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
The same is true for de vernacular names, which are often different in German, Austrian and Swiss official Flora works. --Thiotrix (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Editing News #1—July 2019[edit]

18:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Difference between certain templates[edit]

So, I'm working on a documentation template that will cover everything in Category:Templates for linking taxa and it's come to my attention that for some reason the templates {{Ordolast}}, {{Infraordolast}} , {{Famlast}} and {{Subfamlast}} include an extra hardcoded linebreak that other -last templates do not.

At first blush, this line break seems superfluous, but obviously I am not about to casually edit some of the most widely-used templates on the site! Is this linebreak necessary for some aspect of display? It seems odd that most -last templates can be freely used in running text, except these four... Especially when there is a separate {{Gbr}}. Circeus (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Just a quick note, since I'm about to log out for the night. The {{Gbr}} template can't be used for higher taxon ranks than genus, since it also adds italics. However when needed it can be substituted by the {{Fbr}} template. It works in the same way except without adding italics, hence can be used for family rank and higher. (That's also the reasoning behind the names of the templates: {{gbr}} for genera and subgenera, and {{fbr}} for familia, subfamilia, and superfamilia.) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 01:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC).
I'd gotten that XD (though I admittedly failed to notice the fbr template. Moved it into the category), all code-compliant ranks below family have templates for them (as far as I can tell) and gbr is not part of the higher-level set that are actually interchangeable, so no issue there. What I still can't quite puzzle out is what purpose the linebreak in the four templates in question is supposed to serve. Circeus (talk) 01:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
1. The different {{'Taxonrank'}} and {{'Taxonranklast'}} templates are more or less exclusively used within lists in the Taxonavigation sections on Taxon pages. The reason for adding a trailing linebreak to the {{…last}} templates is pretty straightforward. Without it you would have to add a <br/> linebreak after the last taxon (per rank) in each and every Taxonavigation section. In my opinion it's a lot neater to instead include the linebreaks in the templates. This keeps the wiki code in the Taxonavigation sections free of HTML, making them a lot cleaner and more legible. I don't think the linebreaks within these templates pose a problem, since the templates are more or less never used in running text outside of the Taxonavigation sections.
The point is more why is it so crucial only for those two taxa levels? If we're going to have a huge family of templates that are crucial to taxonavigation, I think it's sensible to expect them all to behave in the same frickin' basic way! Circeus (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree. The point is that the different templates were created by different authors. All of the above mentioned templates were created by me, with the exception of {{Subfamlast}}. Changing them afterwards (and/or the other similar Taxonav templates) will require us to add or remove linebreaks to/from all of the taxon pages. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC).
2. Please also take {{Infraclass}} and {{Infraclasslast}} into consideration, which for some reason aren't listed in Category:Formatting templates (nor in Category:Templates for linking taxa). Also, there may be more like them. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 01:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC).
Thanks for that. I'll be honest: I can't be bothered to check every single damn rank @.@ so my list was entirely based off what was in Category:Templates for linking taxa. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Circeus (talkcontribs) 13:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC).
I fully understand that. It's still odd that those templates doesn't show up in the categories though. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC).
If that's what you mean, {{Infraclass}} and the whole lot are not in Category:Formatting templates because I filtered them down in Category:Templates for linking taxa. I may yet create a "Category: Templates to generate taxonavigation". Circeus (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Consensus vote[edit]

Because those conversation have a tendency to peter out and nothing happening:

Is there consensus to regularize the templates {{Ordolast}}, {{Infraordolast}}, {{Famlast}}, and {{Subfamlast}} by removing the hardcoded linebreak and using a bot to add it in articles and template where needed?

I write "where needed" because it is only needed in some of the taxonavigation uses, i.e. those where the template/list doesn't end at that level (because if that rank is the last item, it is followed by a header anyway). Circeus (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose In general they are the mid point of a list of taxa. I would like to see the line break in all such templates not just a selected few. Andyboorman (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
@Andyboorman: After each and every last-list-template there must be the ==Name== section which automatically adds a line brake. So why do you need two line breaks??Mariusm (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Also {{Taxonav}} (which really ought to be used more) usually breaks off right before family/superfamily, so a break after whichever rank is right before is again not useful. Also, note that there is a separate {{Fbr}} already. Circeus (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
How about this one Dodonaeoideae there are many like this. Andyboorman (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
@Andyboorman: What about Dodonaeoideae??? It has the ==Name== after {{Glast}}. On top of that it has an empty line after {{Glast}}. This together amounts to 2 line breaks. The empty line is present for wiki-code clarity only and isn't necessary at all. There's absolutely no need to add another line break into the code of {{Glast}}. Mariusm (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I was trying to highlight {{Triblast}} which has no break, but is followed by the list of genera on this and many more taxon pages, therefore requiring an added line break. This could be the case for family, subfamily subgenera, section and.... as well. What is the point of this discussion and vote? Andyboorman (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
@Andyboorman: Well, in the case of two ranks being listed on the same page, the proper way to achieve it is by a separator between the ranks and an "overview" indication. See my modification of Dodonaeoideae. Mariusm (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
@Mariusm: That is not the proper way it is your way and I am not prepared to re-edit thousands of pages to conform to your version of taxon page formats without a full discussion and consensus here on the pump. Sorry I have reverted your edit on Dodonaeoideae, please do not make this an edit war between two admins, we know where that leads. Andyboorman (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Very well, I'm dropping out of this discussion. Mariusm (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


After changes at KEW the {{IPNI}} is no longer in correct function.
Could an expert install and integrate from Wikidata: #property:P961. (Like {{IPNI standard form}})
What I mean: as test here: Bobartia Orchi (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

P.S....or of course another way.
Not sure what is expected, as the template works by correctly producing the search result in the new site format and also displays on the WS taxon page as expected. The new IPNI site is a lot less clunky than the old IMHO. Andyboorman (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
...second test. Orchi (talk) 14:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Genus (subgenus) species[edit]

I remember the topic coming up a few times, but as I mostly deal in botanical names, I have not paid attention to it all that much. Was there any consensus determined regarding pagenames of the form Genus (subgenus) species and Genus (subgenus) species subspecies? this is again related to my work on Template:Taxon linking templates. If these pagenames are formally disapproved, I won't list the templates used to link to them there. Circeus (talk) 01:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

The (subgenus) part should not to be included in the species/subspecies page-name. Mariusm (talk) 07:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Link to discussion. Burmeister (talk) 12:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Panicum maximum Jacq.[edit]


I was searching for Panicum maximum Jacq. but didn’t find anything here. The English wikipedia (and also the wikidata page) suggests that it’s a synonym of Megathyrsus maximus. Is this correct?. Sommerluk (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@Sommerluk: Uncertain. Urochloa maxima (Jacq.) R.D.Webster, Austral. Paniceae: 241 (1987) could be the correct combination (WCSP) or indeed Panicum maximum Jacq. (Hassler) and there again the Australians prefer Megathyrsus maximus (APC). Then there is Tropicos, which is messy when it comes to accepted combinations. Google scholar hits for 2018 onwards show all three combinations in use. One plant-one name indeed! WS can not be much of a help as we can not make a judgement which secondary source is to be used and the scientific literature is ambiguous! Good luck (add laughter emojis)! Andyboorman (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I would have no qualms having three cross-referenced entries noting that the literature current disagrees on the species' placement. Much better than to not have a page at all just because it would force us to make an editorial choice. Circeus (talk) 03:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree totally and this always has been my approach. Andyboorman (talk) 06:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Isn't this what the "disputed" template is for, or have we forgotten that? ... Betweenfootandshoe (talk) 06:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes and no. Andyboorman (talk) 06:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
To clarify (at least as I understand it): the template was (at least originally) intended for cases of editorial disagreement (i.e. if you argued it should be listed at the family level with the pagename "Megathyrsus" maximus and I was arguing for Panicum maximum), and if we have template specifically dedicated to the case where a species' placement is unclear in the literature itself, I don't know of it offhand. Supraspecific ranks are easier as they can be listed as incertae sedis on the appropriate higher taxon page (or with two alternate classification in its taxonavigation), but for species, this problem affects the pagename itself. Circeus (talk) 01:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Plants of the World Online ( which follows WCSP uses Urochloa maxima as the current name for this species. Wikispecies could elect to follow POWO, while noting the alternative usages, or maybe it has another policy which would override this?? I know POWO may sometimes be one opinion among several, and in some groups is lacking content, but in general I try to follow it for my own work, unless I think there is an issue with POWO being out-of-date or otherwise incorrect. Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 22:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)


Can anyone help me to check validity of scientific names from Government Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia No.7/1999 On Preserving Flora And Fauna? This the list:

The list not yet complete. (Finished for mammals and birds) Rex Aurorum (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Rex Aurorum: See my assessment of your Birds list, following IOC current taxonomy.--Hector Bottai (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
@Hector Bottai: Thanks. I mean scientific names on that list valid as synonym or not. Probably there are few mistake as such typo and overcorrecting. Sorry, if my English difficult to understand. Rex Aurorum (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
@Rex Aurorum: For this service I would suggest you check names against the Catalogue of Life (if you have not already done so of course), which is a more "authoritative" source than Wikispecies in that the content comes from a number of controlled partner databases that claim complete coverage of their included taxa in the taxonomic world, also overall will be more complete than Wikispecies. You can check single names here: . There is also a facility to upload a list of names and get a response of valid names vs. synonyms, etc. although I have no experience with this. However if names are misspelled they probably will not get a match. For this you could try my own database "IRMNG" via e.g. (remember to uncheck the "genera" [only] box if you are searching for a species name), which also includes near matching, however the species component of IRMNG is less complete than Cat. of Life and also not necessarily up-to-date so far as valid names vs. synonyms is concerned. Nevertheless it may help you to get the correct spelling for some names which you could then re-test against Cat. of Life. Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
OK, I tried your first name "Anoa depressicornis" on both Cat. of Life and IRMNG and immediately ran into a problem: the name does not appear on either list in that form. It turns out that Anoa is accepted only as a subgenus name (see so you would have to search under the current generic name (without subgenus) which is Bubalus depressicornis and is held on both systems. Note also that if there was a minor misspelling in the specific epithet (e.g. depressicornus instead of depressicornis) you would get a result on IRMNG (as a near match), but not on Cat. of Life. That's the present situation in the world of name searching (also, if all else fails, Google is your friend...) Tony 1212 (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Out of interest, I searched for just genus = Anoa on Cat. of Life (no results) and on IRMNG, which says: Anoa Smith, 1827 accepted as Bubalus Smith, 1827, which is better than nothing. The cited synonymy comes from a list extracted from Mammal Species of the World 3, which does not explicitly deal with subgenera in this instance (if ever). Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 23:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't mind checking the mammals for you - here goes. [CoL] indicates my source for the current/valid name [Cat. of Life].
  • (Mammals)
  • Anoa depressicornis - valid name Bubalus depressicornis (C. H. Smith, 1827) [CoL] (different combination, synonymy from other sources)
  • Anoa quarlesi - valid name Bubalus quarlesi (Ouwens, 1910) [CoL] (different combination, synonymy from other sources)
  • Bos sondaicus - valid name Bos javanicus d'Alton, 1823 [CoL] (synonymy from other sources)
  • Capricornis sumatrensis - valid name Capricornis sumatraensis (Bechstein, 1799) [CoL] (epithet misspelling)
  • Cervus kuhli - valid name Axis kuhlii (Temminck, 1836) [CoL] (epithet misspelling plus different combination)
    • Note: this taxon is currently listed in Wikispecies as Hyelaphus kuhlii with a reference to MSW3 (no discussion), however in MSW3 the genus name is given as Axis and it is mentioned in passing that Hyelaphus is considered a valid subgenus. Hyelaphus was elevated to a full genus by subsequent work e.g. Pitraabut et al., 2004, see, but this is not presently used in Catalogue of Life (which gets its mammal taxonomy from ITIS). So you can make a choice as to which name to use, I guess...
  • Dolphinidae - valid name Delphinidae [CoL] (misspelling)
  • Elephas indicus - valid name Elephas maximus indicus Cuvier, 1798 [Col] (different rank)
  • Felis marmorota - valid name Pardofelis marmorata (Martin, 1837) [CoL] (different combination, synonymy from other sources)
  • Felis planiceps - valid name Prionailurus planiceps (Vigors and Horsfield, 1827) [CoL] (different combination, synonymy from other sources)
  • Felis viverrinus - valid name Prionailurus viverrinus (Bennett, 1833) [CoL] (different combination, synonymy from other sources)
  • Macaca brunnescens - valid name Macaca ochreata brunnescens (Matschie, 1901) [Col] (different rankHyelaphu
  • Macrogalidea musschenbroeki - valid name Macrogalidia musschenbroekii (Schlegel, 1877) [CoL] (epithet misspelling)
  • Neofelis nebulusa - valid name Neofelis nebulosa (Griffith, 1821) [CoL] (epithet misspelling)
  • Presbitys frontata - valid name Presbytis frontata (Müller, 1838) [CoL] (genus misspelling)
  • Presbitys rubicunda - valid name Presbytis rubicunda (Müller, 1838) [CoL] (genus misspelling)
  • Presbitys aygula - valid name apparently Presbytis comata (Desmarest, 1822) [CoL] - MSW3 has P. aygula "of various authors" in the synonymy of P. comata; Nijman, 1997 says comata is "formerly aygula".
  • Presbitys potenziani - valid name Presbytis potenziani (Bonaparte, 1856) [CoL] (genus misspelling)
  • Presbitys thomasi - valid name Presbytis thomasi (Collett, 1893) [CoL] (genus misspelling)
  • Prochidna bruijni - misspelling for Proechidna, valid name Zaglossus bruijni (Peters and Doria, 1876) [CoL] (different combination, synonymy from other sources) although according to, correct spelling of the epithet is bruijnii.

Regards - Tony Rees Tony 1212 (talk) 08:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:Authority control for species?[edit]

I just separated three database links away from the references on a page. Mostly, while such links (CoL, WoRMS, Tropicos, IPNI, GRIN etc. etc.) are relevant, we do not typically use them as sources. Not when the actual relevant source is the literature material where the names are, y'know, coined and discussed. As such the databases are "sources" only in so far as they need to be discussed on the page (e.g. to point out errors or confusions), and I don't usually list them at all in pages I create.

Would it be more useful to have a version of {{Authority control}} tailored specifically for species that generates a table of the relevant external links and removes even the need to figure out a name for such a section? "External links" does not really feel appropriate to me. Circeus (talk) 21:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

That exists on en.Wikipedia, as en:Template:Taxonbar, "used on approximately 390,000 pages". I can import it if there is consensus to do so.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm all for this. Ideally it would also include CoF (i.e. the online database of Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes) but unfortunately I can't even find a Wikidata property for that. CoF is comparable to the much more frequently cited FishBase database (P938) however it's often a lot better updated, plus contrary to most FishBase records include information about type localities, holotypes, type repositories, links to protologues etc. Here at Wikispecies we currently use the {{CoF}} template instead; please see the "Links" section on the Devario leptos page for an example. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC).
A "taxonbar" with an overview of some relevant databases could be useful here, but I think the taxonbar of en-wiki is highly "overloaded" with its multiple links, even growing with each regional database that will be linked to Wikidata (see [10] for an example). By the way, in some cases, Tropicos and IPNI can really be used as sources for type material of genera or species. The CoL has different versions for each year that differ considerably, and it is mostly not linked on Wikidata (at least for those plant groups I am editing). --Thiotrix (talk) 07:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
en-wiki taxonbar is getting "overloaded" in some cases, but WikiSpecies can just remove support for the less relevant databases. The en-wiki taxonbar doesn't show every taxon ID that's on Wikidata (national taxon databases from non-English speaking countries aren't included at en-wiki). Catalog of Fishes doesn't have a property on Wikidata yet; it just needs to be proposed (as {{CoF}} states, "the id number for an individual record does not seem to be easily available using just the Catalog of Fishes..." which may be reason why a CoF Wikidata property doesn't exist yet). Catalog of Life identifiers can change between releases, which makes it difficult to have a Wikidata property. Also, Wikidata inherited a large number of garbage taxon records from CoL via the Waray/Cebuano/Swedish Wikipedias, and the active taxonomy editors on Wikidata have a rather dim view of CoL. Plantdrew (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
On the same topic, you will be happy to know that GBIF import the external identifiers for taxa from Wikidata, see at bottom of a taxon page. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps we should draft a list of which databases are the most useful / relevant for our purposes (e.g. IPNI, AlgaeBase), and decide whether that list is of adequate length? Then provide a Wikidata link for access to any additional databases. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Good idea. See also {{Global}} which is transcluded on more than 17,600 pages but rather crude. Replacing it with an "Authority control"-type template linked to Wikidata would probably be a good thing. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC).

How many animal species are on Wikispecies?[edit]

Are there any available estimates of the number of animal species included in the Wikispecies project? Thank you! Scientific29 (talk) 04:44, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

My estimation is that 70% of WS pages are valid species (the rest are other ranks, authors, repositories etc.). This means 683,441 X 70% = 478,000 species. If we make a rough assumption that Animalia/(Plants + Fungi) = 4/1 then the number of Animalia on WS is 478,000 X 4/5 = 383,000 Mariusm (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you and great idea on estimating this! I used the random page feature to check 30 pages and found 20 species pages, so your estimate of 70% is pretty close. I didn't actually count animal species, but that number seems like a reasonable estimate. Scientific29 (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
This is really a good reason for valid and accepted species categories. That answer could be derived in seconds, and constantly automatically updated. Neferkheperre (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
It's almost certainly possible to answer that with a Wikidata query; ask on d:WD:RAQ. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

IOC 9.2 is in the air[edit]

Attention bird editors, the changes of 9.2 updates are published. I already took care of all the neotropical related changes. There are a lot out of there and I have no time (neither knowledge) to edit. Good luck! --Hector Bottai (talk) 21:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Panorpodes paradoxus or paradoxa?[edit]

We currently have a taxon page named Panorpodes paradoxa and another one called Panorpodes paradoxus. I guess one of them should be merged into the other, but which one? Wikidata lists them both: Q5407361 (P. paradoxa) and Q10616384 (P. paradoxus). –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC).

  • If you look at the WP links, most of the Panorpodes paradoxa (Q5407361) link to Panorpodes apicalis. From that, I gather these should not be merged, as P. paradoxa is presumably a later homonym of P. paradoxus and had its name changed. It's not a good idea to guess when merging. But note that entomology is not my field, so I don't know for certain either, but I do see that an anon made changes to one of the entries post-creation, and would recommend a bit of poking around from someone who knows where to look. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
The original publication of Panorpodes is here:, and contains only the (new) species P. paradoxa [clearly the original spelling]. The only reason I can see that someone might later use the spelling paradoxus would be if they decided the original genus was masculine, not feminine, and M'Lachlan's original spelling was in need of correction (if you look at the ITIS record for Panorpodes,, most of the terminations are masculine - but these could be in error as well). Need a better expert than me (on Mecoptera) in this case... Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
ICZN Code, Article, states: "A compound genus-group name ending in the suffix -ites, -oides, -ides, -odes, or -istes is to be treated as masculine unless its author, when establishing the name, stated that it had another gender or treated it as such by combining it with an adjectival species-group name in another gender form." From this it would seem that Panorpodes is feminine since its type species (by monotypy) was given a feminine ending... Again, just my impression from a quick initial look. Tony 1212 (talk) 22:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, in this publication Miyamoto seems to treat P. paradoxa as a synonym of P. paradoxus: [11]. Korg (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Noted, Korg, although if it is the same "name" with just the termination changed it is not "really" a synonym - just an alternative orthography... Anyway: I checked Penney & Byers, Check-List of the Mecoptera of the World (1979), available at, and they use paradoxa as well as other feminine endings (decorata, pulchra) so it seems certain that in their mind at least, the genus is feminine. Thus, the masculine terminations shown in ITIS and used by a subset of recent workers e.g. paradoxus for paradoxa look incorrect to me.
Just to reiterate: paradoxa and paradoxus are the same taxon (same author, year, work) and the WS pages for them should indeed be combined - in my view under paradoxa, the original spelling and consistent with the genus being feminine under ICZN Code, Article as cited above. Panorpodes apicalis is listed separately as a good species in Penney & Byers, it dates from Miyake, 1910 so there is no (normal) way it could take precedence over Panorpodes paradoxa (/-um) which is the type species of the genus and dates from 1875, even if apicalis was subsequently synonymized with paradoxa (which does not seem to be the case). Tony 1212 (talk) 05:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

As Tony 1212 correctly states, the -odes termination is usually masculine — unless the author treated it as feminine in the original publication — as is in the present case. See also Nakamura, Takeyuki, Wesley Bicha & Toyohei Saigusa. 2019. Systematic Study of the Short-faced Scorpionfly Genus Panorpodes M‘Lachlan with Descriptions of Seven New Species (Mecoptera: Panorpodidae). Japanese Journal of Systematic Entomology 25(1): 19–38. who recently described Panorpodes dimorpha, Panorpodes fasciata, Panorpodes gilva and Panorpodes subtropica - all feminine (see here). Therefore Panorpodes paradoxa is the valid name and Panorpodes paradoxus is a synonym. Mariusm (talk) 07:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

A synonym or an orth. var.? --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Or nom. illeg.? Andyboorman (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
It's not a relevant distinction under either codes, as orthographic variants as a concept are nonexistent (validating it kinda goes against the idea that every taxon has only the one valid/correct name, after all!). If it's an orthographic variant, then under ICZN, it's a "subsequent spelling" and not even an available name so technically can't even qualify as a synonym. I can't tell from the code whether a wrongly-gendered name is considered a subsequent spelling or a subsequent grammatical error (both, by the rules of nomenclature, are to be ignored anyway). Circeus (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
This is not entirely true under the current botanical Code, as Art. 60.7 permits optional use of the diaresis. This allows for variations in orthography which are sanctioned by the Code. There are variations described in the Code that are not described as errors or things "to be corrected". --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
It's an incorrectly formed name (I would just call it a subsequent misspelling) which is, however, prevalent in the literature; so even if it has no standing in nomenclature it is worth an entry/cross reference for indexing/name resolving purposes (in my view...) Tony 1212 (talk) 04:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
See my modification of Panorpodes paradoxa Mariusm (talk) 16:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Looks fine to me, BTW, no source is cited for the claimed synonomy of the other species names listed - would be useful I think - my recollection is that most/all of them are treated as valid in Penney & Byers, Check-List of the Mecoptera of the World, but maybe there is a more recent source... Tony 1212 (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks (AndyboormanCirceusEncycloPeteyKorgMariusmTony 1212) for all of your comments and edits! Lastly, do you happen to know which ones of the many Navases and Miyakes that are authors of the synonyms? At the moment all of the links point to author disambiguation pages. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC).
Longinos Navás Ferrer (we have him as Longinos Navás, but I've also seen him referred to as "Longin Navas") and Tsunekata Miyake (I had to double check that spelling: it is not "Tsunetaka"). Byers, J. Kansas Entomol. Soc. 40(4):576. JSTOR. Circeus (talk) 19:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
@Circeus: Thank you very much. I've created the Tsunekata Miyake author page and updated the Panorpodes paradoxa taxon page according to your new information. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC).

ItWikiCon 2019 - Call for submissions[edit]

Hi, I would like to point out that the submissions are open for the sessions of the ItWikiCon 2019 that will take place in Rome from 15 to 17 November. The reference page is as usual the one of the proposals, in which you can either add ideas on what you would like to see in this edition, or make a proposal of a presentation/workshop/seminar/working group/etc. that you want to make, following the procedure through the inputbox or using directly the proposal model that we have prepared.

The deadline is 13 October 2019, the date from which the program committee will evaluate all proposals received, defining, in the days immediately following, the official program of ItWikiCon 2019.

For any clarification or suggestion please write in the proposal talk page or send an email to and if you plan to participate, don't forget to sign in the participants page.

On behalf of the programme committee, I would like to thank all those who would like to contribute to making ItWikiCon 2019 rich and diversified.--Ferdi2005 (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


Entomologists, please have a look here: Talk:Epilachnini#Subfamily Epilachninae. Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC).

This is yet another exemplar of the controversy between "standard classification" and "molecular classification". Coccinellidae harbors the standard coterie (Sasaji, 1968 and Kovár, 1996) against the molecular coterie (Ślipiński 2007). What WS lists in the Coccinellidae page is the molecular while Coccinellinae has 3 classification-options. Currently there's no "correct" Coccinellidae higher classification, and I propose modifying Coccinellidae and Epilachninae in the spirit of Coccinellinae. Mariusm (talk) 09:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Distributions and nadi template[edit]

There's a number of species which have {{nadi}} template distribution lists, where the format of the template (occupying the full with of the page) conflicts with images, leaving a blank whitespace gap until the bottom of the image is reached. Can the format of the {{nadi}} template be adjusted so it can coexist with images to its right, please? I don't know how to do this. - MPF (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

There's also number of species which have {{nadi}} template distribution lists, which also have distribution maps available on Commons. Maps are far better visually for humans and are far more accurate (not limited by political boundaries), but may have a potential future problem of not being machine-readable. If I wish to add a map to a species page, should I (a) delete the nadi data, or (b) <!-- hide it -->, or (c) retain it visible? With (a) I realise it would be annoying for contributors who have put work in on them, but (c) may leave pages too cluttered. Thoughts, please! - MPF (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

If a distribution map is available, I include it in the nadi section, so that both text and image are there. See Maireana aphylla for an example. --Thiotrix (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Hadn't thought of putting it in the nadi section (didn't know it was possible) - 19:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Reference citations - abbreviate, or in full?[edit]

When citing botanical references, many are abbreviated (e.g. Diagn. Pl. Orient.), following Brummit's standard abbreviations. However, google, BHL, and other sources for e-versions of these references often do not recognise the Brummit abbreviations; searches frequently only work with the full titles (e.g. Diagnoses Plantarum Orientalium) - particularly so with Biblioteca Digital del Real Jardin Botanico de Madrid where only the exact title (including any diacritics) gets a result. Getting the exact full title from the abbreviation can be surprisingly difficult, often needing a lot of guesswork or trial and error. Would it be a good idea to have a policy of giving citations in full? - MPF (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I often abbreviate a reference used as an example (i.e. in running text) and periodical titles that I link to ISSN/sources page. Although I disagree with editors as to the extant of the full title we ought to use, anything in the reference section should have complete bibliographical info.
I remember a statement published (I could swear) in Phytokeys and/or phytotaxa years ago about how they intended to encourage people to always fully cite the place of publications of names being discussed. In my experience they have completely failed in this regard, but I think it is important we should fully cite these places of publications, if only to make sure the citations are correct. We certainly can't just copy-paste them: I'm regularly having to make bibliographic corrections vs. the article I take the taxonomy from! Circeus (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
IPNI uses the accepted journal and author abbreviations in the name of a plant, as should WS. This site also allows a user to obtain the full name of these abbreviations, thus is a standard botanical resource and should be cited in the references. Our Reference Section must use the full names of both the authors, including initials for given names, and journals. I believe the Help Section is explicit on this matter. What is the problem? OK many older pages need updating, of course. Andyboorman (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


Template:Gill, 1884 is a red link, on Lycenchelys. Does anyone have details? A Google search finds lots of hits for "Lycenchelys Gill 1884", but I have found none that give details of the paper. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Google Scholar is your fiend. I plugged in "Gill, 1884", and the citation is on JSTOR. JSTOR will no longer pull up on my desktop, but it is possible to find it. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Nefer, it would be good if you could remember that google tailors its result to the user and there is no guarantee whatsoever other users will have anything like the same result (it certainly didn't give me any JSTOR results). Lycenchelys and Lycocara (substituting for Uronectes Günther, 1862 = Liparis Scopoli, 1777) are on page 180.

The exact citation is:

I updated the template {{Gill, 1884}}. Mariusm (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Just noting that since this is a genus of extant fishes, you will find more information than you can possibly desire in Eschmeyer's Online Catalog of the Fishes:
(quote) Lycenchelys Gill [T. N.] 1884:180 [Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia v. 36; ref. 1725] Fem. Lycodes muraena Collett 1878. Type by subsequent designation. Proposed for "... Collett's second group which have the body elongate ..." but with no species mentioned. Type designated by Jordan 1885:124 [ref. 2385] (given as same in Jordan & Evermann 1898:2470 [ref. 2445]). Misspelled Lycenchelis in Zoological Record for 1923. •Valid as Lycenchelys Gill 1884 -- (Andriashev 1973:541 [ref. 7214], Lindberg & Krasyukova 1975:164 [ref. 7348], Gosztonyi 1977:217 [ref. 6103], Anderson 1984:578 [ref. 13634], Toyoshima in Masuda et al. 1984:306 [ref. 6441], Toyoshima 1985:145 [ref. 5722], Anderson 1988:86 [ref. 7304], Anderson 1990:258 [ref. 21695], Miller 1993:659 [ref. 21297], Anderson 1994:64 [ref. 21438], Anderson 1995:55 [ref. 21928], Fedorov 1995:126 [ref. 21957], Fedorov 1995:130 [ref. 21958], Mecklenburg et al. 2002:679 [ref. 25968], Anderson 2003:1741 [ref. 27106], Anderson & Fedorov 2004:14 [ref. 27603], Imamura et al. 2005:2 [ref. 28190], Shinohara & Anderson 2007:59 [ref. 29111], Møller & King 2007:586 [ref. 29259], Anderson & Møller 2007:175 [ref. 29401], Mecklenburg et al. 2011:129 [ref. 31212], Balushkin et al. 2011:978 [ref. 32449], Parin et al. 2014:397 [ref. 33547], Møller & Anderson 2015:1426 [ref. 34289], Mecklenburg et al. 2016:158 [ref. 34440], Robertson et al. 2017:93 [ref. 35676], Thiel et al. 2018:45 [ref. 35743]). Current status: Valid as Lycenchelys Gill 1884. Zoarcidae: Lycodinae.(/quote)
Searching IRMNG will also retrieve a microcitation for any/most animal genus name(s), not just fishes, namely: Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 06:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I updated the Lycenchelys page including the species list and the type species. Mariusm (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


Hello, does anyone know if the author of this 1835 article, and signed "Jos. G. Totten" is the same person as Q14624955? the dates correspond but the bibliographies available online do not mention any naturalistic activities. Otherwise does anyone know a bit more about this author? Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Part 1 of the article was published in 1834: [12]. Sadly it doesn't help with the author's ID. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it is Joseph Gilbert Totten. Some links: Biographical Etymology of Marine Organism Names (BEMON), 2400 Years of Malacology (PDF, see p. 1493), National Academy of Sciences, Biographical Memoirs (PDF, see p. 88). Korg (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
See [13] and [14]; both refer to an interest in conchology; [15] connects him to the conchology of Newport, USA. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Excellent work, thanks you dear colleagues! Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Axel Adolph Olsson vs Axel A. Olsson[edit]

I think they are the same person, aren't they? Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Some hard digging, but this seems to solve it: PDF. Alex Adolf Olsson. Wikidata was almost no help either. What is listed on both pages seems to be congruent. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Great, thanks you, I merged the both items in Wikidata, and created a redirect from one to another here. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

New tools and IP masking[edit]

14:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Old taxonomists, listed here, but missing from Wikisource[edit]

This Wikidata query may be of interest:

It shows people, who died before 1949 (so whose works are out of copyright, by the lifetime + 70 years rule), with a Wikispecies entry, but no entry in any Wikisource.

There are currently 4,413 results.

Caveats and discussion: on en.Wikisource. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hylotelephium telephium or Sedum telephium?[edit]

Please see this discussion regarding the synonymy of Hylotelephium telephium and Sedum telephium. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC).

@Michael Goodyear: is correct, if he is citing Plants of the World, but COL holds to the opposite view. Both secondary sources are reputable, so it is a judgement to hold one over the other. Sedum is highly paraphyletic and the solution is to either lump two thirds of the family into the expanded genus or dismantle it into a monotypic unit. Kadereit et al. 2016. Which changes are needed to render all genera of the German flora monophyletic?. Willdenowia 46(1): 39-92 PDF, favours the later approach and in this publication Sedum s.s. is preferred, but Hylotelephium would need expanding. Based upon secondary sources we have a taxonomic opinion not a definitive answer and science is not much of help and indeed has not made all the necessary taxonomic transfers one way or another! I would keep the taxa as they are for now. By the way the whole family needs updating to current levels of acceptance. Andyboorman (talk) 08:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
That's roughly correct, which is why I did not try to change it, but I think the page should reflect it, as should the WP page. I have never used GRIN as as authoritative source, but rather TPL and WCLSPF. And now there are more, with POTWO and WFO. But none of these explain their decisions. Taxonomic revision is a very formal process. Crassulaceae taxonomy is very complex and unstable, due partly to extensive homoplasy, but also to the effect of Sedum, a very large part of the family, that is polyphyletic. From almost the start, Sedum has been recognized as an artificial catch-all taxon, and as noted above, there are two schools of thought, s.s. and s.l., although the tide seems to be moving towards splitting. Ohba segregated 27 species of Hylotelephium from Sedum in 1977, including T. telephium, where it became the type species. Since then a number of species have shuttled back and forth between the genera. The Plant List actually contradicts itself by pointing to Ohba as the source.
The real question is - where is the science? Molecular phylogenetics has been disappointing in sorting this out. But what there is, suggests T. telephium is a sister of T. sieboldii (Lim and Choi 2018), which is accepted. This points to to the former being properly accepted. As you may have noticed I am working on setting all this out on WP.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Agreed the science is emerging but not there yet and even APW is a bit thin. The secondary sources boil down to POTWO, as Hylotelephium embedded into Sedum versus the rest (COL, WFO, TPL etc.), where there is segregation. As @Michael Goodyear: points out species circumscription is not stable across secondary sources, for example COL has the most combinations. I would also tend to ignore GRIN and use Tropicos with care. So what should WS do? In my opinion, for now the most conservative view would be Hylotelephium s.l. sensu COL, unless there is compelling evidence otherwise on a species by species basis from scientific sources. If I undertake the work here in updating the pages, I will add a note, either on the taxon page or more likely on the Discussion Page. I would also avoid embedding Hylotelephium into Sedum sensu EnWP - other language WPs differ.
Incidentally, as TPL was last updated 2013, I now longer use it as a source of first resort, preferring COL, which was updated this year. --Andyboorman (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
See my note on the TPL page. It has officially been superseded by WFO, so should not be used in the first instance. Yes, I agree the phylogeny is inherently unstable. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Returning to my original point re the status of H. telephium, I reviewed Ohba's later work, which was based on molecular phylogenetics. It is clear, eg Mayuzumi and Ohba 2004, that Hylotelephium is itself polyphyletic. Therefore the concept of type species is moot, and the simplest step would be to simply omit it from the genus page.
Not sure that it is a good idea to leave this species in Sedum based upon a single analysis within which this route is not even proposed. I think this proposal borders on OR, without additional support. The concept of type species is always a construct, so again my advice is the leave things as they are pending more research and a wider consensus. Andyboorman (talk) 07:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
No, I would not advocate returning Hylotelephium to Sedum, despite POTWO. Numerous phylogenetic studies of Telephiae demonstrate that the segregates from Sedum there, such as Hylotelephium, continue to show a distinct separate lineage, but on the other hand don't allow stable infrageneric taxonomy. In fact if there any changes made to the WS page for this genus, I would not go further than deleting the type species (many WS genera pages do not include type species) to avoid the confusion I pointed to in my original note. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I would be happier if others would contribute. @RLJ: how about it you have very good taxonomic opinions in the past and are working on Hylotelephium at the moment? Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it is primarily a matter of nomenclature and not of phylogeny. To be validly published, it is obligatory that a genus name has a nomenclatural type (art 10.1 ICNafp), which is in the long run the type specimen of a species designated as type of the genus (so it would also formally correct to cite the basionym , Sedum telephium, as type of Hylotelephium, but Ohba indicated Hylotephium telephium in the protologue). A circumscription of the genus containing Hylotelephium telephium will always be Hylotelephium unless it conflicts with priority by containing the type species of another, older, genus. A circumscription containing other species currently included in Hylotelephium, but not H. telephium will get another name, unless the type of Hylotelephium is changed by conservation (but it is highly unlikely that this could be accepted by the Nomenclature commission of IAPT). I think that focus on quantity or lack of information are the main reasons for missing type indications in WS articles. I advocate for keeping the type species in the article. --RLJ (talk) 21:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
@RLJ: @Michael Goodyear: could not have put it better myself. Occasionally a genus is generated without a formal type, but this is not the case so Art. 10.1 is relevant. When editing older pages, I always add the type when it is missing, as they are usually easily sourced. Andyboorman (talk) 08:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
To be quite clear, WS should follow nomenclature, not simply phylogeny, even though these days one follows the other. However this can be a long convoluted process. Case in point, in 1984 another cluster of Sedum was suggested to be elevated to genus Petrosedum, on morphology grounds. In 2016 this was further recommended on phylogenetic grounds (Nikulin et al 2016), and finally implemented (Galllo 2017). Anyway the point I was making is that unfortunately there is a muddle in the online literature which was likely to confuse the reader. I suspect the placement in POTWO is an error resulting from migration, which I may pursue. I do not know anyone who had advocated returning Hylotelephium to Sedum, quite the opposite, with the Russian team that have been leaders in this in the last decade presenting evidence to restrict Sedum to Sedeae.(Nikulin et al 2016)
On the other issue, I am delighted to hear that type species are being systematically added, I also do so on WP. Anyway the page is now much improved. Thankyou. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Crassulaceae will now get even better, I hope. Thanks @Michael Goodyear: Andyboorman (talk) 21:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


I was looking at Special:WantedCategories and this author (Category:Guschanskaja taxa) is completely eluding me. Here's what I've pieced up:

  • Family name transcribed variously as gush- or gusch-, and -aïa, -aja or -aya. This transcription issue is pervasive in pre-70s slavic names, but "Gushanskaya" seems the more frequent in recent publications
  • Given name starts with L (Л), patronymic initial is transcribed variously kh or ch, so I assume it starts with cyrillic Х
  • Female (judging by the form of the family name, the male form would be Guschansky)
  • Worked in Trematoda, possibly Platyhelminthes more generally.
  • Worked at least from the 30s to the 50s
  • Collaborated with Konstantin Ivanovich Skrjabin on several occasions

... and that's it. I'm usually one to puzzle these out, but this one is beyond me. The full name has totally eluded me (at least in that period I don't think married Russian women took on their husbands' names?). Do wehave anyone who can do research in Russian? Circeus (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I've asked the folk of en.Wikipedia's 'WikiProject Russia' for help. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Several papers by Skrjabin and Guschanskaja are listed here [16], (annoyingly, in a format that can't be copied & pasted). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
[ec] en:Acuariidae lists "Viktorocara Guschanskaja, 1950", but it's a red link, and otherwise uncited. "Viktorocara schejkini Guschanskaja, 1950 (по Гушанской 1950)" is discussed, in Russian, at [17], which give us "Гушанской", but that may be a reverse transliteration. I've also added some papers to Konstantin Ivanovich Skrjabin. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

The Russian name is: Гушанская Л.Х. (or Guschanskaja L.Kh.).
Few of her publications:

  • Гушанская Л.Х. 1945. Влияние специфических особенностей брачной жизни птиц на их гельминтологический статус // Докл. АН СССР 50.
  • Гушанская Л.Х. 1946. К фауне паразитических червей тетеревов и рябчиков // Сб., посвящ. К.И.Скрябину. М.; Л.
  • Гушанская Л.Х. 1952. К гельминтофауне диких куриных птиц СССР // Тр. Гельминтол. лабор. АН СССР 6. ———Mariusm (talk) 12:16, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

As a start, I've gathered what I can from the above into L.Kh. Guschanskaja, made a category under that name, and created a corresponding Wikidata item. Would anyone care to deal with the Viktorocara red links? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I've also founds mentions ([18], [19]) of "Cyrnea apterocerca (Guschanskaja, 1931)"; also on [20]; again as "(по Гушанской, 1931)". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
In case it helps, IRMNG has the following genera authored by "Guschanskaja" or "Gushanskaya":
Most of these probably originate from Nomenclator Zoologicus in the first instance (details, with microcitations, on relevant linked taxon pages). You could search for other name variants too if you want. Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 20:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Of course the most inclusive IRMNG search input term would be "Gus%hanska%a". It turns out, though, that this does not return any records not in the above 2 sets:
- Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 22:14, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Guschanskaja is simply Gushanskaya transliterated in fashion of German. She seems to have favored parasitic helminths, mainly nematodes and trematodes. Гушанской is Gushanskaya in a non-nomnitive case inflection. The Soviets had several labs and publications devoted to parasitic helminths. Тр. Гельминтол. лабор. АН СССР means "Proceedings of Helminthology Laboratory Academy of Sciences USSR, where Tp. stands for Trudy (=Proceedings). Doklady (ДоклaДй) is Transactions. There is one devoted entirely to trematodes, all aspects therof.

Viktorocara is a nematode, here is a not too recent revision: PDF. Neferkheperre (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
IRMNG page for Viktorocara is here: - species data from a range of sources, not necessarily complete or up to date (or entered at all), but useful as a starting point, as often as not :) Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 22:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Category:Primary types[edit]

Category:Primary types and its few subcategories have hardly any entries. Should they (the categories) be deleted? Or kept and replicated across Wikispecies? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Delete if you want my opinion. Just clutter. Andyboorman (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Burmeister (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Done and gone. Another leftover project of Stephen showcasing his usual habit of dumping info in category pages...Circeus (talk) 21:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)


While we're on this, do we want to keep the Category:Eponyms subset? I thought we were documenting these directly on author pages? Circeus (talk) 21:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Author pages use {{Eponyms}}, which is formed and accumulated exactly as {{Taxa authored 2}}. We did this recently as alternative to Patronyms. Category is automatically created. Discussion is in Pump archives. If some type of cleanup is desired, why not convert Patronyms to Eponyms. Neferkheperre (talk) 12:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Publication dates[edit]

I quite curious for your opinions about "who to follows?" when external databases quote different publication dates. One precise example:

  • an article by John McCrady : "Gymnopthalmata of Charleston Harbor" have been published with a clear date quoted at the begining of the article :"April, 15th, 1857".
  • one name Hippocrene carolinensis McCrady, 1857 is published there. The date is confirmed with ITIS here and here with the valid name.
  • however on WoRMS the citation is Bougainvillia carolinensis (McCrady, 1859), so I check at the title page of the volume 1 of this publication of the Proceedings of the Elliott Society of Natural History of Charleston, South-Carolina, and it is quoted that those procedings concern indeed the period november 1853 to december 1858, but at the bottom the print date is 1859
  • GBIF, have created two data entries ([21] and [22]) and they consider that the right quotation is the one with 1859. Note that they call one synonym of the other, but it's very likely more of a tecknic constraint due to their database than a true "synonym", but that's not my subject.

If I wanted to create an entry for this publication, what date should I enter: 1857, when the article were accepted by the journal, or 1859 when the journal have been printed and beeing made available to the public? Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Well the dates when a paper was presented to a meeting and the date when it was actually published per the code can vary wildly. In this particular case, there's an article with a discussion specifically on dating this paper (note 4, on page 50):
Circeus (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks you, interesting, note that WoRMS quote the first article of the same author in the same volume of that journal as to be from 1857... [23]. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
  • There is also:
  • Calder, D.R.; Stephens, L.D. & Sanders, A.E. 1992: Comments On The Date Of Publication Of John Mccrady's Hydrozoan Paper Gymnopthalmata Of Charleston Harbor. The Bulletin of zoological nomenclature. 49: 287-288 BHL
Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
After having read two or three time that last article, and as far my understanding of the English language allow it to me, I think the WoRMS is right and that ITIS seem to be running behind. I understand that the first article have been made available on sept. 15th 1857 and that the second article have been made available with the complete volume in may 1859. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
that's also how I understand it: they found further evidence that the paper was published later. Good find! Circeus (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)


We have 42 pages linking to Template:Diopsoidea, which does not yet exist - it's our most-linked such template. One such page is Diopsidae. Can someone create the template, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

user:Atylotus made an edit to {{Diopsidae}}, with (as far as I can tell) no follow through on any other page whatsoever (e.g. the superfamily where that family had previously been placed), much less creation of the invoked template. I'm reverting the edit since it wasn't even sourced to anything. Circeus (talk) 22:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. @Atylotus: The ping above was broken. Do you wish to comment? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Nothyboidea is junior synonym of Diopsoidea: see in book [24] (page 1432), "The oldest familial name in the group is Diopsidae, which dates from Billberg (1820). Therefore, Diopsoidea supersedes previously used superfamily names such as Nothyboidea and Tanypezoidea " and also [25] --Atylotus (talk) 09:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
We have no opposition to the change as such, as long as it's done properly and every relevant page is edited accordingly. Circeus (talk) 14:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Biostor template[edit]

{{Biostor reference}} (shortcut: {{Biostor}}) is now available, for linking to pages like

Simply type {{biostor|66034}}, which renders as: Biostor

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Challenger voyage[edit]

Why all of a sudden we are removing Challenger Voyage categories? That is a very important oceanographic/zoological voyage which is being used as a baseline for climate change and biodiversity change studies. A few years ago, when I started the Challenger project, I discussed its format here and it is archived. Helpful suggestions were made. I estimate well over 8000 species were described, and these categories can help workers. I find them helpful in my own work. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. Personally I have not touched this issue for years (since the discussion about high-level categories years ago that went nowhere). Circeus (talk) 14:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Me neither. Have you got an example of a taxon, or editor who is undertaking this removal? Andyboorman (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing this morning removed category:Challenger Cirripedia from several cirripede pages, and deleted entire category. Yes discussions seem to fizzle out without accomplishing much, but it would be nice to have some type of opportunity to do so before deciding to eliminate what people have been working on. It wastes time to restore these things. Neferkheperre (talk) 17:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
So is @Pigsonthewing: going to reverse these changes and bring his proposals here for discussion? Andyboorman (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── It is my understanding that such esoteric categories are deemed out-of-scope. Is there any evidence of consensus to use them? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

How is esoteric being defined here? These Challenger categories are broad-scoped enough to be useful without being so large to be unwieldy. That does not seem esoteric. I don't see categories listing discoveries of dedicated scientific expeditions as esoteric. There are many people who desire such information. Most of categories created by Thorpe can be considered esoteric, as they are so narrowly defined as to have only one or two entries. Yes, this was discussed here when I first began the Challenger project, about 2016. They are archived, and there was actual discussion, with helpful suggestions. So, not only do discussions fizzle out here, they don't get remembered, either.
Likewise, categories applying to one taxonomic group cannot necessarily be considered esoteric just because they don't apply to all groups. Category for turtle cirripeds applies mostly to Platylepadidae, as obligate symbionts. There cannot be any cognate category for turtle oysters, they don't exist. Neferkheperre (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment: I'm not enough experimented to fully know what is exactly the role of the administrators here in Wikispecies. But I'm administrator in Commons with several thousands of administrative actions, and it will not comes to my mind to delete arbitrarily the works mades by others (excepted for the cases listed in the relevant policies), putting them in front of the accomplished fact, and knowing that this will probably frustrate them. As an administrator in Commons, and knowing that the result will frustrate someone, the question would more have been for me: "Is there any evidence of clear and obvious consensus to delete them? ". I find that too rough towards Neferkheperre. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Since the deletion has caused an immediate reaction I would suggest that the category is being used. There is enough of a consensus for them to be retained. As such I think in the interrem these deletion should be reverted. If a case to delete them is made and accepted the issue can be addressed that way. Otherwise let them be. I have no issue that you deleted them Andy being Bold with editing is encouraged in Wikimedia, however, the downside of being bold is sometimes it does not go as expected. As such when this happens it is better to revert and then discuss as appropriate. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell (from pigsonthewing's edit history, if a different account was involved, I wouldn't know about it), only three pages had the category removed, so we're not talking a MASSIVE edit spree here. This sort of taxonomically-adjacent historic/bibliographic content is a priori appropriate for Wikispecies, but clearly represents too much material to fit a single list page, so it does seem clear that a category is the best way to group all of it. Right now I strongly suspect subdividing Category:Challenger voyage taxa by group was not necessary (and I'm not sure I like dividing it ultimately either anyway). Either way, I definitely wouldn't object to recreating at least Category:Challenger voyage taxa. Circeus (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikispecies Publications templates[edit]

Hello, a few month ago we had a little discussion in Wikidata with Circeus about the way to "link" the templates relative to publications to the corresponding items. After a few time passed I think that the sitelinks are not too bad. Example with Template:Sutcharit, Ablett & Panha, 2019Q63651805c:Category:Media from Sutcharit et al. 2019 - 10.3897/zookeys.163.2003. On the left side of the template page here you have a link "Wikidata item" in the section "tools" and a link to Commons in the sections "in other projects", which is undoubtedly useful in case there is free media available, and there are many in Zookeys. Of course in Commons you have the link that lead here to the corresponding template. Some thoughts? Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that only a small proportion of templates can be linked directly like that, nothing that has a page in category:sources can. It's a very frustrating situation but with Pigsonthewong's flip-flopping on the issue between the two proposals somehow, I don't think it's going to improve. Circeus (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Why not? a lot (almost all?) seems already linked... Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
And in the extend that we don't create pages but templates for specific publications/articles, then it is very relevant to link those templates to the corresponding items, because the "items", here, about those publications here are indeed ... the templates. Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
More I think to that more I'd like to see a precise example where it is not possible to use the site links. Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Literally anything in category:sources that has a matching template (or worse templates) cannot have the template connected to the wikidata item b/c there is already an item in wikispecies that "hogs" the connection, i.e. Plantas Hartwegianas (d:Q6077912) vs. Template:Bentham, 1839 or Man. Bot. N. United States, 2nd ed. (d:Q47062273) vs. Template:Gray, 1856. You can't do any wikidata connection between the template and the author or the work because the property that would allow doesn't exist (and was voted down twice, thank you Andy M. for that), so any such connection must be documented manually on wikispecies (in a rather haphazard fashion, I've found). Circeus (talk) 00:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
@Circeus: In the sources such as Plantas Hartwegianas imprimis Mexicanas, and that is connected to an item, is there several articles that will potentially lead to the creation of several templates? or will Template:Bentham, 1839 be the only template associated to that source? Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


I have made significant changes to Crassulaceae, based upon the latest literature and the conversations with @Michael Goodyear: above. Have a look and post comments please, if required. Not perfect but OK for a work in progress I feel. Andyboorman (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

This is clearly a difficult area, but I think we need to be realistic. Whether we like it or not Thiede and Eggli (2007) established the current taxonomy of the family, which has not been revised since, and has been used by every subsequent author. Trying to avoid a technically illegitimate tribe name (Telephieae) by transferring its genera to another tribe is misleading. Umbiliceae (correctly named) is not composed of two clades. The appropriate name for Telephieae is probably Hylotelephieae, but this has not formally been proposed. If the intent is to avoid having a Telephieae page, then the problem should be addressed under the higher order (Sempervivoideae), not Umbiliceae. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Alternatively, if someone is willing to, publishing required names for a system used in a different/upcoming publication is a long-established tradition. It's not OR if we publish it formally specifically so we can use it in Wikispecies. Circeus (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Why is Telephiineae listed there at all? It's based off the Caryophhillaceae unranked infrafamilial name by Bartl. and has no business being here, it should be listed at Corrigioleae (Telephieae would be the correct name for that tribe were it not for unranked basionyms not establishing date precedence). The name to list is the illegitimate _and_ invalid (art. 32.1 by way of art. 19.3, not based on an included generic name) Telephiineae 't Hart (the "basionym" of the Ohba & Thiede name). It was published as "Telephineae", but correctable under Art. 32.2 unless I am mistaken, in 't Hart & U. Eggli (eds.), Evol. & Syst. Crassulac. 167 (1995). Circeus (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
I have removed Telephiineae as per advice from Circeus. OK? Andyboorman (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
If anyone's interested, I'm entirely willing to collaborate on a publication that would validate Hylotelephieae (this could be easily done if 't Hart published a description or diagnosis). I was about to suggest maybe seeing about validating Brachyglottidineae (see unplaced Senecioneae and its talk page), but there are serious paraphyly issues between the genera involved, so better not touch that. Circeus (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
I think this would be a good approach and hopefully @Michael Goodyear: would be willing to collaborate. Have you tried approaching @Franz Xaver: I think he has experience with this sort of rapid publication, and he is a very good taxonomist and botanist. Andyboorman (talk) 12:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
I would think that making a formal correction would be the ideal approach. Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

[undent] What do you mean, "making a formal correction "? The name "Telephiineae 't Hart" is not validly published (and "Telephieae ('t Hart) Ohba and Thiede " even less so), not because of requirements but because its very form precludes it ever being a valid name for the group in question, so it can't be "corrected" under Art. 33.2. Even if we COULD publish a nomen novum (which is not possible because, again, not validly published), it would not be possible to put 't Hart even as ex author, even if we are citing his description as our validating description (again, assuming there is one, as I do not have access to a copy of the book anywhere near Montreal to check on that). Circeus (talk) 00:15, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Re-reading this, it came off as a LOT more abrasive than I intended it to. What I mean is I genuinely have no idea what you mean by "making a formal correction would be the ideal approach". Circeus (talk) 03:01, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I did not read it as abrasive, I was merely supporting your previous statement proposing "a publication that would validate Hylotelephieae" given that I had suggested this would be the more appropriate name for the tribe representing the Hylotelephium clade. I was speaking informally, ie that this would be a formal proposal that would correct the existing error. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
The only description for Telephieae ('t Hart) Ohba and Thiede ined. I have managed to read is on page 100
As far as I can tell, G&G (and thus presumably 't Hart) are discussing "Telephiineae"/Telephium/Hylotelephium clade as a much broader group (see the figure on p. 796) than Thiede & Eggli's Telephieae (who put only five genera in it). They are also casting some serious doubt on the monophyly of Thiede and Eggli's Umbilicieae. If the aforementioned figure is accurate as a consensus tree, I can't fault them about that second point. I've found two recent papers that are very relevant too:
  • Nikulin A. Yu., Nikulin V. Yu., Gontcharov A.A. (2015) "[On the Phylogenetic Structure of the Tribe Telephieae (Sempervivoideae, Crassulaceae) on the Base of rDNA Sequence Comparisons]." (in Russian) Ботанический Журнал 100(10):1030–1040. DOI: 10.1134/S0006813615100038 . PDF.
    • A pretty decent confirmation (judging by the figures) that Hylotelephieae is phylogenetically fully characterized as monophyletic.
  • Shaw, J.M.H. (2017). "(2512) Proposal to conserve the name Orostachys with a conserved type (Crassulaceae)." Taxon 66(2):521–522. DOI: 10.12705/662.24 (open access).
    • A broader summary of the situation with focus on the polyphyletic nature of Orostachys (which means that we basically really ought to recognize Kungia, btw), but including, amongst other things, a brief aside about a morphological synapomorphy for Hylotelephieae.
Circeus (talk) 17:54, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I think I covered that evolving literature in my WP pages on Crassulaceae, Sempervivoideae and Sedum. As I read it, the Russians, who have been the most prolific in this area recently, support the revision in Kubitzki of the earlier taxonomy by t'Hart, but nowhere do they see a problem with the nomenclature. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Among other authorities adopting the Thiede and Eggli nomenclature is David Mabberley: Plant Book. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks @Circeus: for the papers I have templated them. Clearly there is emergence, but not yet clarity - interesting stuff. @Michael Goodyear: good and comprehensive pages on WP. Working molecular botanists rarely see a problem with nomenclature, but WS tries to follow ICBN processes and procedures, as it is primarily a source for taxonomy and classification. I am sure there is enough to publish a valid tribal name for Hylotelephieae side stepping all the problems with Telephieae. To go for a nom. cons. for the later is taxonomically more problematic, or is it? Sorry I still think the name is illogical, but what do I know! Andyboorman (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

[Undent] Okay, so, the key element we'd need to be able to look at would be the relevant "protologue" in 't Hart, 1995 (which ideally we'd want to refer to for a validating description IMO, though Thiede & Eggli is an option too). I can make a source request at en: for that if no one is near a library that has it. t' Hart 1977 (mentioned in Shaw, 2017) doesn't really work for a validating description. This verified, it should be easy enough to draft a short note (e.g.), should/could we do this on-wiki? Circeus (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I have put up a source request at en:wp (though I suspect it won't be that useful b/c the clade has since been used in a narrowed circumscription). I'll start drafting something in my userspace soon. Anyone believe in the usefulness of publishing a name for the "Leucosedum clade" while we're at it? (no need for Sedineae, as it already exists anyway... assuming 't Hart's publication of it was valid, anyway). Circeus (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
First draft is up. I'm still waiting on help re: 't Hart (1995). Circeus (talk) 00:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned Pages[edit]

This special page has become useless as a resource, as there must be ten, if not hundreds of thousands of orphans. The culprit is the automated, unintelligent use of MariusBot, which has mined species pages from COL without linking them. The net result of Mariusbot's activity to exceed the 5000 result data cache. Solutions anyone? Andyboorman (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Also this procedure is creating duplicates see Abryna-petri versus Abryna regispetri. There is a lot of mess being created and this is just a snap shot of the cached As! Is this bot still on the go? Please keep away from plants Urgh! Andyboorman (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Not sure the mining of CoL is a good idea in anycase. Even CoL acknowledge they are way out of date. They are currently developing CoL+ but its not released yet. In the meantime their database is dangerously error-ridden. They are not updating it anymore all their efforts go into the new version which is not yet available. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
So was Mariusbot still mining? I have blocked it for now, so if its current users could post here then that would help. Sorry to force the issue. Andyboorman (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Scott, well CoL is as up-to-date as its contributing sources and there is a 2019 (April?) annual release - it is just the monthly updates since then that are suspended while they transition to a new hosting environment for next year's release as I understand it. I agree that some parts are more up-to-date than others, but to say that the Catalogue as a whole is "way out of date" is a bit unfair. List of latest and updated sources for the 2019 release is available at if interested. That said, there may indeed be sectors where better lists are available elsewhere, however in general the CoL's philosophy is (or should be) to find those resources and swap them in as available (presuming that they can be made available in a suitable format of course). That is not to deny that there can be errors in CoL, but if they are advised to the source databases they can (at least in principle) be corrected there. Presuming of course they are indeed errors, not just a difference of preferred taxonomic treatment etc. - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 02:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@Tony 1212: Please dont misunderstand me I am a big supporter of CoL and have been involved in it to a degree including discussions on its future. I have no issue with it being utilised on here as a source where appropriate, but note we are discussing automated usage here not using it as an appropriate source when someone has actually read it and made an informed decision on how up to date a particular page is. For my specialty, reptiles, I consider CoL as one of the 4 international checklists people should use and have said so in plenary lectures. For example this lecture. There is a big differnce between sources that are read and those that are datamined. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 20:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@Rdmpage: (who was never very active on here, sadly) is also knowledgeable of these issues and especially how nightmarishly difficult it can be to actually correct meta-catalogs like CoL and GBIF, because (basically) entries in those catalogues are simply not manually curated whatsoever, leaving them at the mercy of data-transfer errors or minor discrepancies in the source catalogs. Circeus (talk) 23:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@Faendalimas:Hi Scott, I'm sure we are basically on the same page, it's just that blanket statements like "They [i.e. CoL] are not updating it anymore" are not exactly accurate in this situation and may lead readers who have not checked to dismiss CoL as a potential useful source. As stated on its information page, it is easy to see which portions have been updated and when, and that *could* form a basis for more informed data mining... Anyway I will leave further discussion to others from here. Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 21:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikispecies litterature[edit]

I've started Wikispecies:Wikispecies in the litterature as a straightforward way to track anything published that originates directly or otherwise explicitly acknowledge material on Wikispecies material (or equivalent on other projects). Hopefully the list of articles will get longer. Circeus (talk) 22:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I took the liberty to move the page to Wikispecies:Wikispecies in the literature. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk),21:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC).
My French was showing XD (sadly, you can't spellcheck text fields the way you can text areas...) 21:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for compiling this list. Google Scholar should be able to provide a quick list identifying these papers. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


Hello, is this template name ok, or should it be renamed? it doe's not really follow the relevant section of Help:Reference section. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Thorpe created these, they apply only to Zootaxa reference templates before 2015. They are really not condoned, and should be re-directed to standard format reference templates. They typically have no author links, and list no more than three names, no matter full author list. So most need updated. I believe there may be cognate Pt templates for Phytotaxa references. Neferkheperre (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer: Please note that when redirecting or moving a page, all links on the referring pages should be changed in the process. See Pages that link to "Template:Zt3700.2.3" for this specific case. Those links should all be changed too, so that they point directly to the new {{MacIsaac et al., 2013}} template without having to make a detour via the redirect page. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC).
OK, thanks you, it's done, I have replaced it in 2 pages, excepted this one. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
For all you botanists, there are Pt templates referring to Phytotaxa citations. Neferkheperre (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Muricea echinata[edit]

Hello, I was searching for the publication of Muricea echinata Milne Edwards, 1855, I found a 1857 publication by Henri Milne-Edwards there, however he seems to states that the autorship ("Muricea echinata, Valenciennes, Gorg. [Compf.-rend., (. XLI, p. 13)" is for Achille Valenciennes. I found this publication there, the name is published within the binomen Eunicea echinata. Shoudn't be the current name Muricea echinata (Valenciennes, 1855) genus changed by H.Milne-Edwards? Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC) "

Possibly so, I have not looked, but the thing is we cannot make nomenclatural acts, whic includes corrections to current nomenclature. We can make a note of it but until that is appropriately published in a code compliant way we cannot actually change it, and then by referring to the publication that does it. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 20:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
This publication may help. Authors treated Eunicea echinata Valenciennes, 1855 as nomen nudum. Burmeister (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer: take with a handful of of salt anything in WoRMS that does not have a full reference to the original description (and double-check that reference if it's there). Zoological literature (and even databases) are full to the brim with errors of all sorts in this regard (so glad botany has both author and combiner and no year, significantly harder to mess up IMO).
@Faendalimas: correcting authorship is not a "nomenclatural act" in any shape or form.
@Burmeister: I'm really confused by Breedy and Guzman's argument as to why Verrill 1866 and not Milne Edwards 1857 is the correct author. Is there some key difference between the botanical and zoological code at play here? Circeus (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Good point, they jump Muricea echinata Milne-Edwards, 1857 and go directly to Verrill, 1866. Maybe email the authors for some explanation will help to untie this knot. Burmeister (talk) 01:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
They seem to be arguing that something about Valenciennes' purported specimens causes Milne Edwards' name to be unavailable. Under the ICBN, that is a load of crock (typification issues have nothing to do whatsoever with effective and valid publication), but I have no idea whether that is relevant under the ICZN code. Circeus (talk) 02:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Email sent, recorded here for further reference:


I am an editor on Wikispecies. Recently a contributor expressed some confusion with the authorship of M. echinata (, and someone noted the authorship assignation chosen in your 2016 revision ( However, we have remained somewhat puzzled as to why M. echinata Milne Edwards & Haime, 1857 is presumed to be unavailable.

As we understand it, Milne Edwards & Haime include a description ("Polypiéroïde rameux, étalé; branches de grosseur médiocre; papilles calicinales grêles, cylindriques et extrêmement saillantes. Couleur d'un brun-rouge."), which makes it automatically not a nom. nud. At the same time, whether Verrill actualy publishes such a description could be questioned (although I am not familiar with the finer points of the ICZN on this issue, for I usually deal in botanical nomenclature). If Verrill is presumed to publish a new name with improper attribution to Valenciennes due to "Eunicea echinata Valenciennes 1855" being unavailable, why wouldn't the exact same reasoning apply to Milne Edwards & Haime?

Hoping you can clarify this issue.


Circeus (talk) 02:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC).

  •  Comment: I bringed my concern to WoRMS, Prof. dr. Bert W. Hoeksema changed there the authorship from Muricea echinata Milne Edwards, 1855 to Muricea echinata Milne Edwards, 1857, they apprently don't follow Breedy and Guzman's reasonning regarding an attribution to Verrill. I assume that, as Valenciennes had never provided a description, they gives the authorship to Milne Edwards, the first who gave a description in its 1857 paper. That is an improvement. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Deciding a name to be unavailable is a nomenclatural ac in zoology, also typification is a necessary part of the availability of a name, if a name is not correctly typified under the ICZN, ie it fails to meet a number of different acts concerning this, then the name is unavailable. Which means it effectively does not exist. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 12:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    I'm not particularly knowledgeable about old names, but looking a little deeper into the code the question of availability and validity of names (well, names published before 1931 to be precise) are 100% disconnected from even the existence of a type. I'm well aware that names which cannot be linked to a taxon because they lack a type (or the designated type is ambiguous) are problematic. That's what proposal to reject are for. But this name is connected to a clear, in-use taxon. If Muricea echinata Milne Edwards & Haime has a common or otherwise clear application, but no type, the solution is not to find an excuse to not use it (especially when it does not even change the application of the name), it's to designate a neotype.
    As to the email, it may be a while to get an answer as the corresponding author is "out of the country with little access to internet". Circeus (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    When I say it's an improvement, it is because Milne Edwards never published anything about this name in 1855, therefore nothing is more wrong than to say "Milne Edwards, 1855". In the extend that Breedy and Guzman, 2016 exist and that this publication adds a third element (the authorship of Verrill) to the equation, then this issue should be worth for to be a Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature case. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    Christian, please look back at the conversation and realize you are literally the only one stil talking about "Muricea echinata Milne Edwards 1855". EVERYTHING since has been about Muricea echinata Milne Edwards 1857. Circeus (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
????? Muricea echinata Milne Edwards, 1855 was the name and authorship quoted in the WoRMS page, and this have been the reason for why I opened the discussion. The authorship have been changed yesterday in WoRMS after I sent them an e-mail....I'm puzzled as to your last comment. GBIF and IRMING still have the heretic sentence "Milne Edwards, 1855", (heretic= because Milne Edwards never published a paper about that in 1855). So yes to go from 1855 to 1857 is maybe not the best solution (I'm neutral on that), but is is from my point of view a clear and obvious improvement. I will likely contatc GBIF and IRMING (both likely took WoRMS as source, or took the same source as WoRMS did) in the next few days. Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Again, read the actual thread. Literally everything after Burmeister's post aside from your note about having emailed the WoRMS people is a discussion about why Breedy & Guzman consider that the correct authorship is Verrill 1866 and not Milne Edwards 1857. And the post (starting with "I'm not particularly knowledgeable [...]") that you seem to have been answering as though I was talking to you.... well was not adressed to you in any shape or form. I was talking to faendalimas. Why would I ever have posted something addressed to you after his post instead of after yours? Circeus (talk) 04:54, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Just above you start with "Christian, please look back...", I guessed you talked to me. I'm more and more puzzled, I don't understand. Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
As the present IRMNG editor, I am happy to change the authorship for Muricea echinata to Milne Edwards, 1857 as per the recently adjusted WoRMS record (and have now done so) - IRMNG has a lot of species-level content from WoRMS and other sources (including an older copy of CoL) and generally does not independently check these for correctness, but they can be subsequently manually edited if required. GBIF will eventually get a revised record from WoRMS and will incorporate the new version following its next scheduled update, I imagine, since GBIF is a data aggregator, not an editing environment. (If WoRMS or another source revises the authorship further, then the IRMNG record can be changed again). As with Wikispecies, IRMNG needs a published source or "trusted" online database record to follow, but is not averse to suggesting corrections especially to the editors of online treatments if they appear to be incorrect or contain inconsistencies. In case this helps. Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 20:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Great, thanks you, @Tony 1212:, so then it would be great if you can change those taxa too, that have been fixed today (spelling error engelmanni not englemanni) : [26], [27] and [28], + original combinations and desriptions for [29] and [30]. As for GBIF, it's true they don't (and can't) fix the errors individually as this is too much of reprocessing, however they already said to me that they are happy to register these kind of cases meanwhile, so that they can be checked during the next processing. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer:OK, I have changed 2 instances of "englemanni" to "engelmanni" in IRMG as per your notification (I did not have the third one, WoRMS' Rhipidogorgia engelmanni, and probably will not add it since it is neither a basionym nor a currently accepted name). In general, at present I am no longer searching for new species names for IRMNG since keeping up with the new genus names has been plenty to occupy me for the past 5 years or so :); also for the same reason I am not adding the level of detail that WoRMS editors can do at species level (identifying original combinations and links to descriptions etc.) although I am happy to do so for genera.
For the record, I have a wikispecies talk page User_talk:Tony_1212 where you can post additional requests or comments relevant to IRMNG content, which I will endeavour to attend to if they are not too onerous (or sometimes even if they are...) - Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Note that I created the species page and its talkpage as well, including a solid link to this discussion. If there is a further change or progress in the authorship situation then it should be better to write there, and then to ping the potentially interested persons. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Von G. Stiasny[edit]

Hello, I wonder if I did not make a mistake about that name. I created this page this morning, with as well the wikidata item, but now I wonder if "Von" is a part of the name of if that is a kind of word that mean "mister". My source is this PDF at the page 735, but I did not know this language at all. Can someone confirm if "Von" is indeed a part of the name or if we have to ommit it. Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello Christian Ferrer, the language is German, and this "von" on page 735 means "[written] by". The full name of the author is de:Gustav Albert Stiasny. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 11:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Great, thanks you! Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer: Thiotrix is of course correct (he most often is... :) but as a side note I can say that when "von" is used in German surnames it is most often written with a lower case "v". In spoken German it usually means "from", but when used in surnames it takes the form of a so called nobiliary particle, meaning "of" (though nowadays not necessarily used as a sign of any kind of knighthood or a proof of nobility). In other words it's used much in the same way as "de" in French surnames (e.g. Charles de Gaulle, Ferdinand d'Orléans) and the English/Scottish "of" (e.g. Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough).
–Kind regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC).
Thank you for the explanation, it was the presentiment I had, of something similar to what you just said, the next morning when I drove my truck during my work, well after to have created the page... Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Pandanus fascicularis and Pandanus odorifer[edit]

There's an ongoing discussion on Wikidata regarding the possible synonymy between Pandanus fascicularis and Pandanus odorifer, and whether those Wikidata items should be merged or not (which they shouldn't, regardless of synonymy). Dear botanists, please have your say at the present Wikidata discussion so that their decision will be based upon well-informed and current sources. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC).

The discussion clearly hinges more on whether they should be merged or not even if synonymous. In this regard, Wikispecies has nothing useful to contribute. (personally I think attempting to make Wikidata duplicate every single name database is an absolutely terrible idea that the current property and constraint structure are extremely ill-suited to, but no one is interested in hearing that, so I avoid the topoic with extreme prejudice) All authoritative databases I can find that cover P. fascicularis do treat it as a synonym of P. odorifer. At least P. odoratissimus (the name P. odorifer was known under for a while) isn't muddling the waters even further. Circeus (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Agree with @Circeus: even though Pandanus fascicularis Lam., Encycl. 1: 372 (1785) was published before Pandanus odorifer (Forssk.) Kuntze, Revis. Gen. Pl. 2: 737 (1891), but the later has the basionym Keura odorifera Forssk., Fl. Aegypt.-Arab.: 172 (1775). See WCSP. Andyboorman (talk) 16:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Then again GRIN says Pandanus odorifer is "a name of dubious application" and that "the basionym [i.e. Keura odorifera Forssk.] lacks a type specimen and has never been typified.". And for Pandanus fascicularis GRIN states that it's a heterotypic synonym of Pandanus odorifer, auct. which doesn't really help either. But what the heck, GRIN is only GRIN after all. Circeus is right. The Wikidata discussion doesn't really mention the taxonomic situation at all, so it's not a subject of importance to Wikispecies. That being said the two WD items shouldn't be merged anyway, since both represents valid taxon names (though perhaps not valid taxa) and as such deserve their own post in the WD database. But that's to be discussed on Wikidata, not here. Thank you both for your input. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC).

Move funktion[edit]

If I want use the move funktion I get those warning: Internal error: [XYM13ApAADwAAJc2BHQAAADO] 2019-09-19 08:02:33: Fatal exception of type "WMFTimeoutException"] Who can help me. PeterR (talk) 08:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello @PeterR: I had the same problem yesterday when I tried to move the {{Zt3911.4.2}} template to {{Taylor, 2015a}}. It was due to an internal error in the Wikimedia database, which we can't fix here from Wikispecies. The error is now corrected, and you should be able to move pages again. Kind regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC).
Thank you Tommy. PeterR (talk) 07:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Which Burmeister?[edit]

Here's an issue for the entomologists: Category talk:Ernst-Gerhard Burmeister taxa#The wrong Burmeister. Thanks beforehand, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC).

For ease of discussion: it's about Panchlora and Nauphoeta being from a different Burmeister (why oh why has zoologie not adopted standard abbreviations...). For Panchlora, the "Handb. Ent." is Handbuch der Entomologie and it is indeed by Hermann Burmeister, the page can be seen here. Nauphoeta's on page 508 of the same work (confirmed via external source). Both pages have been adjusted accordingly (no link to BHL because the specific part is not on there). Circeus (talk) 04:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Good job! Thanks for setting things straight. As for why zoology hasn't adopted standard author abbreviations... it's a mystery. Life as we know it would be sooo much easier if the zool. abbreviations were all standardised. For example Wikispecies presently lists at least 20 different Chinese entomologists named Wu, mixed together with almost 40 other authors also named Wu working within other disciplines. Many of their respective given names are frequently transcribed in a wide variety of ways by different Latin- and Cyrillic script journals, and this sometimes makes it near impossible to pinpoint the correct authors. For example one German journal may transcribe an author's name in one way, while another German journal transcribes the same author's name differently. On top of that we have 8 different "James Smith", a bunch of Johann/Johannes Müller, 50 or so Andersen/Anderson, etc. etc... Using standard author abbreviations instead would help a lot, both saving time and minimizing the risk for errors. But alas – no such luck. Thanks again for your work though. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 06:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC).
I mean, I know why historically: basically because each specialty, sometime subspecialty, operates in its own closed-off world and doesn't really give a rat's ass about the others... a problem we do have under the ICBN between phycology, mycology, fossil plants, bryology and vascular plants (only the last of which are IPNI), but it's not quite as prominent. I'm just annoyed and mutters it every time the issue crop up (i.e. homonymous authors, undocumented publication abbreviations...). Circeus (talk) 09:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Not just homonymy in authors, but vertebrate people and invertebrate people ignore each other, and within invertebrates, malacologists are very insular. This results in very many homonymic taxon names, which goes back to mid-19th Century. In Soviet era, biologists had very little access to Western publications, and vice-versa. Same with China, to lesser extent. Taxon homonyms are numerous, and some taxonomists semi-specialize in solving them. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah. Botany doesn't have it quite as bad, and it doesn't help that zoology treats all names above genus as homonymous as long as the ending can be swapped. Mostly I'm surprised there just doesn't exist resources even similar to BPH, TL-2 or Index Herbariorum even for a given specialty (with the rare excption of some compiled, but not normalized, lists of collection abbreviations). What little exists is piecemeal or ad hoc and often not even close to complete (at least IPNI's areas of weakness—names outside the key ranks, horticultural literature...—are fairly well documented). Circeus (talk) 19:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Salticidae (jumping spiders) family is a mess[edit]

The family to genus taxonomy of Salticidae was dramatically revised in 2015 after a decade-long molecular and morphological study. (The previous family-level revision was in 1903.) While other sites like iNaturalist, BugGuide, and English Wikipedia have updated their taxon info to reflect this, Wikispecies, as usual, lags behind. The gist of the changes is that most existing subfamilies were moved to the tribe or subtribe level and four new subfamilies were created. There are approximately 640 genera in the Salticidae family. It looks about half of them show taxonomy between the family and genus levels and half of them don't (judging by random sampling), so maybe 300 are objectively outdated. And of those 300, maybe a third have already been updated by random editors. What is needed is for someone to systematically go through all 600+ genera and fix all the ones that are wrong and (optionally) add in new taxonomic levels introduced by the revision. Kaldari (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

"Eject HET Template"[edit]

Is this consensus and is it useful? --RLJ (talk) 16:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I do not consider this as useful. Many templates exist in an abbreviated form. The Rosibot should be stopped, until a consensus is found. --Thiotrix (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
...not useful. The translation already exists in the template. This conversion is complicated and no longer acceptable e.g. for commons. I asked the bot to stop in the moment.Orchi (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
It is not consensus, as its use has not been tested here by a vote. We are now aware of it existence, so now is the time to discuss. Meanwhile its use must cease whilst the originator presents a case for its use and automatic removal of the old template. Personally I do not find it at all useful, but if a case is made and a vote won, I will abide by the consensus. Andyboorman (talk) 17:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
As this botanical, I must stay out. To me, botany resembles more alchemy, or economics. I am into zoology, which Code is substantially different. Neferkheperre (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
The use of this template set is certainly not consensus at any rate. Circeus (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I am not keen on writing thousands of "*;{{int:Heterotypic}}:" etc. instead of "{{HET}}", 22 letters instead of 7!. I think it is a good and time-saving practice to use templates for such repetitive expressions. May be their use should not be obligatory, but it should not be prevented either. --RLJ (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, this template should stay. That's no improvement to replace it. --Franz Xaver (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  1. The template {{HET}} exists since 2011 and is used on many thousands of pages. Advantages: easy, time-saving, includes translations. Are there any disadvantages, besides that HET ist not a word, but an abbreviation?
  2. Since 2018, there exists also a template {{Heterotypic}}, it is used on 2 pages only. Advantages: easy to remember (at least for english speaking editors), includes translations. Disadvantage: needs more time for typing.
  3. "*;{{int:Heterotypic}}:" is no template, just includes translations. Are there any further advantages?. Disadvantages: needs more time for typing, rather complicated with several formatting signs.
The results of this discussion will also refer to the related templates {{BA}}, {{HOT}}, and {{REP}}. --Thiotrix (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I very much object to the way these templates add an additional level, entirely unnecessary IMO, of list items, and I oppose their use on any page I'm keeping tabs on. Circeus (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Here is an example of a page using the abbreviated templates #1: Atriplex pacifica. For me as a botanist, this information is necessary, as you can not know from the epithets, which names are based on the same type. @Circeus:, can you please give an example, how you prefer the list of synonyms? --Thiotrix (talk) 07:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
You misrepresent my post. I have no issue with dividing the synonym list (though I prefer to list a replaced name as just another homotypic synonym), I just prefer to not add an additional level to the list items, and especially not when that list level is hidden away in a template (I have always been very much opposed to the inclusion of the bullet point in the reference template too, but there's not much I can do about that one now). I just use the semicolon separations, e.g..
I also happen to think that the three-letter abbreviations are obnoxiously obscure (You can't even tell if a template is for nomenclatural status, typification or separating the synonym list). Some of our taxon abbreviating templates are hardly straightforward already, I think we want to make "mandatory" templates as easy to use as possible! (Also I could've swear there had been a discussion agreeing that distributions shouldn't be on taxa pages?) Circeus (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Rosibot has been making automated use of the so called "improved HET" template. This has left numerous pages with odd looking formats for example Agave parryi. Can somebody @RLJ: now use it to reverse these unsolicited changes, whilst this discussion is under way and until consensus is reached. Thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 07:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

547 articles? A one-click reset rolls back all Rosibot changes (also the previous ones) if nobody else edited the article in the meantime. @Rosibot: should be the first address for your request. The templates {{BA}} and {{MIS}} need translation, with which I am not familiar. -RLJ (talk) 08:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
For translations, the words "Basionym" and "Misapplied names" have to be included into the first table at Wikispecies:Localization (editable by admins). Then subpages can be created for different languages and the magic word {{int:}} will work. --Thiotrix (talk) 09:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much! --RLJ (talk) 12:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@RLJ: Thanks for adding the "Basionym" and "Misapplied names" items to Wikispecies:Localization – the {{BA}} and {{MIS}} templates have since been localized by @Thiotrix:. Talking about those, in fact there's quite a lot left to do with the members of the Templates for synonym lists category. Almost all of the templates there lack proper documentation or usage information, and to some extent this also includes the {{HET}} and {{HOT}} templates. This should be remedied, when possible. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC).
I have tried to give documentations for this set of templates ({{BA}}, {{HOT}}, {{HET}}, {{REP}}, {{MIS}}). But it seems, that the formatting now looks a bit odd, e.g.. I do not know why? Please have a look and emend the templates and documentations, if necessary. --Thiotrix (talk) 07:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm not seeing anything strange: the result looks normal to me (though still unappealing as ever). Circeus (talk) 15:44, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
The problem with superfluous line-breaks has been solved by User:RLJ, thank you. --Thiotrix (talk) 08:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Concluding, the editors discussing here prefer either option 1: {{HET}}, or a further option 4: ;Heterotypic (the latter lacks the magic word int: for localization yet). As nobody seems to like Rosibot's version, option 3 (with bullet and colon), it is good, that Rosibot meanwhile has reverted its changes to eject the HET template.
It remains the question, if the formatting of synonym lists should follow one common standard in Wikispecies? The template set HET, HOT, BA... was created in 2011 and included the bullet (= additional level of indentation) from the beginning. I agree with User:Circeus, that this is not optimal. Can we find a consensus for one preferred format? And could thousands of pages easily be re-formatted by a bot? I did not find previous discussions about this matter. --Thiotrix (talk) 08:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The consultation on partial and temporary Foundation bans just started[edit]

-- Kbrown (WMF) 17:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Open access template[edit]

It's been annoying me forever that we don't have an easy way to display open access of a reference or link, so I went an imported a template from enwiki at Template:Access, that give the four main possibilities (adjusting or adding new icons is fairly easy, though I hope they won't proliferate): Open access, Open access green, Hybrid open access journal, Paywall. Circeus (talk) 13:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm sure it will prove useful. However I feel Category:Image insertion templates might perhaps not be a suitable category for it..? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 20:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC).
Can the icons provide text when hoverovered? I know the first 2 symbols but I have no idea what the last 2 were. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Hovertext added. Circeus (talk) 18:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
If the closed access icon is too unclear, would Open access be in-your-face clear enough? Circeus (talk) 18:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I think so, however personally I don't have a problem with the current grey icon being unclear. I guess it depends a lot on what screen sizes, screen resolutions and brightness settings people use. These issues can sometimes be tricky to solve in the best possible way. I'm sure most people would say that the Paywalled paywall icon is a lot more vivid and striking than the current grey Paywall one. However we should perhaps take into consideration that in several parts of the world about 4% of the population (or more precisely, 8% of the male population) are red–green colour blind. They may find it more difficult to differentiate between the Open access green and Paywalled icons than the Open access green and Paywall ones. I don't know too much about colour blindness, but I think red–green colour blindness is a lot more common than for example red–blue colour blindness. Hence perhaps replacing the green icon with a blue Open access alternative would solve this, making it fairly easy to distinguish it from both the Paywalled and Paywall icons? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC).
Honestly, I'm not especially set on any particular set of icons. The only reason the green icon is there at all is that it was in the original version. Circeus (talk) 05:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:Taxa authored vs. Template:Taxa authored 2[edit]

@Pigsonthewing, Franz Xaver, and Fagus: The documentation on Template:Taxa authored 2 says it was supposed to be a "temporary fork". By now it has become the default template (19K uses vs. 12K for Template:Taxa authored). having a numbe rin the name of such an important template is odd, not to mention that all the actual documentation is in fact at Template:Taxa authored. Can the template be considered ready to paste over its originator now, with a bot set up to correct the links? Circeus (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Ladislas vs Władysław Taczanowski[edit]

There were two author pages, two categories, and a disambiguation page, for this obvious same author. Done some work to unify them.--Hector Bottai (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

New names vs unaccepted names[edit]

Hello, a lot of templates have a section "New names" (example). I wonder if within this section "new names" we can include the unaccepted names. Example, can I quote the name Anodon subgibbosa J. G. Anthony, 1866, in the extend that none other combination with subgibbosa is accepted. @Neferkheperre:, who is used to use that section.

Me I would say yes, I can quote that kind of unaccepted name in that section "New names", and with, of course, a redirect when the accepted name is available.

Just for info, on a topic a bit different, note that I often create a section "Other names" where I quote the names for whome the publication can serve as reference (example).

What do you think? Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I use to include the invalid names there, with the correspondent redirection when available or a red link when not.--Hector Bottai (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
My understanding is that this is more like, tracking the nomenclatural acts in the article. I genuinely have no idea whatsoever what it is you want to do and can't understand it without knowing what is actually in the paper that you are trying to convey. Circeus (talk) 03:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Hopefully Hector understood and have answered. The paper is there, I just created the corresponding reference template. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
When listing new names from a paper, I agree it is appropriate to list them regardless of whether they are still the accepted one for a taxon (although I prefer to not list acts at all, to avoid the chance of an overzealous editor creating an unwanted name page). Circeus (talk) 15:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
I think the "New names" section criteria is pretty clear. I am not sure what is the criteria or the purpose for the "Other names" section. There are papers with hundreds of other names mentioned and/or affected by the taxonomic implication. It would be very subjective for any editor to decide which "other names" to include or not. In principle, I am not in favour of that section.--Hector Bottai (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
If I were using template pages to document nomenclatural act (or quasi acts), here's what I would potentially document on them:
  • New names (duh)
  • Typifications
  • Nomenclatural corrections (i.e. documenting the correct author and place of publication)
  • Reversals of priority
  • Nomina documentation (i.e. of nomina dubia or nomina oblita)
  • New combinations (which under ICZN are basically entirely unregulated—their labeling as such is not even mandated by the code in any shape or form!!— but their documentation is of actual use to pretty much everyone)
  • Name purported to be published, but not actually made available.
Honestly, I don't really care much about how this information is actually structured. I'm going to venture that sections titled "other names" on template pages, when they exist, are likely to be the work of disgraced user Stephen Thorpe, who always had an habit of documenting far more stuff (and in unconventional manners to boot, such as on category or talk pages) than was pertinent for Wikispecies. Circeus (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Ok thank you all for your words, as it seems there is not really a consensus to do so, I removed that section "other names" (finally a kind of index for the names quoted in the papers), in the recent templates where I placed it. If I have to add a new section i will try to follow Circeus's arguments above. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)