Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 53

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.

Taxon is incorrectly named[edit]

Childonini's taxon is incorrectly named, the correct term is Chlidonini. Jackson Cordeiro Brilhador (talk) 07:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Hm, the Spanish wikipedia seems to have made the same typo. Even worse still, the correct name and the incorrect spelling also have separate Wikidata items! (see [1] and [2]) This is a fair bit of mess to fix... (I'll see what I can do about it now) Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Done, I've fixed everything except the Spanish wikipedia article's name, and the "Childonini" redirect page and its unused template just need to be deleted now. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Spanish wiki all fixed. Template here deleted. Thanks!!--Hector Bottai (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Nordenstam taxa[edit]

Right now there are 25 taxon names redirected from the "Nordenstam" disambiguation page. Most of them probably refers to Åke Nordenstam (specialized in Isopoda and other crustaceans) but some of them may instead refer to the Swedish botanist Bertil Nordenstam (B.Nord., born 1936). Please help out specifying the author name on each of those taxon pages. –Thanks! Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC).

And similarly, but far worse, over 320 taxon pages linked to the "Gmelin" disambiguation page . . . MPF (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
And even worse still, 470 taxon pages linked to the "Gould" disambiguation page . . . MPF (talk) 10:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I get the feeling linking to author surnames is rather widespread across Wikispecies. For instance, I've just found 140 pages link to "Jones", 221 pages link to "Chen", and 400 pages link to "Smith". Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Same species, different name[edit]

The genus Chlidones has eight species, but one of the species I have a doubt about the validity of the name.

Sp. 1 - C. rufovaria (Wikidata) described in 1901 by Fairmaire (Cf. in BHL). This species is used here on Wikispecies, on Wikipedia NL, and is referred to on the websites TITAN, GBIF, CoL and EoL.

Sp. 2 - C. rufovarius (Wikidata) described by the same author, is used on seven Wikipedia pages, and is referred to in BioLib, EoL, and IRMNG. It was referred to in GBIF but has been deleted. But here at wikispecies there is no page for this species.

Therefore, I would like you to clarify about the correct validation of this taxon. Thanks! Jackson Cordeiro Brilhador (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

What gender is the name Chlidones? If it's masculine then the species should be rufovarius, if feminine then it's rufovaria. At least, to my understanding, that's the issue here. Judging by the other species names listed it looks like it's masculine, but I'm just guessing. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
According to the ICZN Code, most (but not all) genera ending in -es are masculine (Article Waterhouse treated it as masculine when he assigned the only original/type species to it, C. lineolatus BHL which to me confirms it as masculine (although I am not really an expert in genders). Under that reasoning, rufovarius is correct, rufovaria (Fairmaire's original spelling, see BHL) incorrect (he or she also misspells the genus as Chelidones and gives Waterhouse's species as "lineolata") but is a correctable error (authority remains the same). TITAN lists rufovaria only, lists it under Chelidones rufovaria as a misspelling (without indicating that both the genus and species are misspelled), but has no entry for the correct name; the TITAN record for "Chlidones rufovaria" then ends up in CoL as "accepted name" (go figure).
So in my reading, Wikispecies, etc. should be using rufovarius as a corrected original spelling (original spelling Chelidones [sic] rufovaria); either the entry for rufovaria can remain as an incorrect original spelling pointed to the correct version, or the correct version can merely note the incorrect original spelling - not quite sure how Wikispecies normally handles misspellings, whether original or subsequent... Tony 1212 (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
We have a template {{Orth. err.}} that is used for marking correctable orthographic (spelling) errors. The original name can be listed on the species page with that template marking it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Hm, that template appears to be used only on one page currently (specifically, the plant division Anthocerotophyta), and it links to the corresponding glossary entry where it talks about ICBN requirements. The trouble is, Chlidones is a beetle genus, so ICZN rules apply here, and I'm not sure if using orth. err. is okay here or not. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
There's a variant {{OE}} that's used on a few more pages, but serves the same function. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Editing news 2020 #1 – Discussion tools[edit]

19:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


What is the purpose of this template? How are we defining it for our purposes, and where (if anywhere) should the template be placed? There are a lot of questions this template raises. I've seen it used at Nepenthaceae, which includes a single genus but many species. Should it be used it there is only one extant member, but there are extinct ones? Only one subordinate taxon of lower rank, and how much lower? Only primary ranks, or do we count the additional ranks like Tribe, Subfamily, etc.?

And where should this taxon be placed when it is used? Right now it seems to be used in the Name section, but it has nothing to do with the name. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

  • It is just a tag to indicate that a particular taxon is monotypic and is not compulsory. It is botany not taxonomy, but can be useful. Andyboorman (talk) 19:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
    That response failed to address any of my several questions. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Placed under name, that is the name
    • Placed under Name, that is the extant taxon (of the page) is monotypic. It does not, of course apply to subordinate taxon and additional ranks. It is simplicity in its self. Harmless and not essential, just like author categories, VN, distribution, images, additional references and so on. All in my humble opinion. Andyboorman (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
      That answered some of my questions, but not all. It still doesn't answer what we mean on Wikispecies when we say a taxon is "monotypic". What are our criteria for that decision? Do we count only extant subordinate taxa, or accepted subordinate taxa, even if extinct, at for which level of subordinate taxa?
      • Examples:
      • Is Tyrannosaurus a monotypic taxon because it contains a single accepted species, or not because it contains no extant species?
      • Is Aristidoideae monotypic because it contains only one tribe, or not because it contains three genera and genus is the next lower primary rank?
      Questions about terms like "monotypic" are neither simple nor straightforward because the definition is highly plastic depending upon the context. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Surely both of them are monotypic because "monotypic" has nothing to do with being extant or extinct, and it refers only to the taxon immediately below? Monster Iestyn (talk) 04:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
"Surely" isn't always the case for these. Your choices suggest that if there is only one living member of a taxa, but for which extinct species are known, then the taxon is not monotypic. Therefore Ginkgo is not monotypic, despite having many known fossil species, but yet we have it tagged as monotypic.
And your second response means that whether a taxon is monotypic or not depends on which ranks of subtaxa we recognize. So a subfamily like Aristidoideae might be monotypic if we recognize tribes as a rank within that group, but would not be if we excluded the rank of tribe from our classification. What benefit is gained by tagging such groups whose status as "monotypic" depends on the inclusion or exclusion of data, and not on any property of the item itself? --EncycloPetey (talk) 07:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
For Aristidoideae it is not monotypic, as it contains more genera than the type, but I take your point. For this subfamily it could be argued that the use of a tribe is rather meaningless. Personally I would delete it as it, as serves no useful taxonomic function and could be even demoted to a homotypic synonym of the subfamily. Andyboorman (talk) 10:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
This is why I am asking that we either set precise criteria for what we mean by "monotypic", or else not bother tagging "monotypic" taxa. Right now we have no consistency in the way the label of "monotypic" is being applied. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


Did we decide to begin including a Distribution section on pages? I see that @MILEPRI: has added one to Dumortiera hirsuta.

I also note that this particular addition has multiple typos. So if we are going to have a Distribution section, what standard for names of regions will we follow? And in what language will they be presented? --EncycloPetey (talk)

@EncycloPetey: This has been discussed many times and we last landed on keeping them. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Something should be added to the Help pages then. It hasn't.
That also doesn't answer my question about standards for names of localities. Doe we include only nations? subnational regions? In what language? The addition I've linked too contains a list of US states, various islands and provinces, is in more than one language, and includes multiple glaring typos. What level of localities are expected, and under what standards? --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Standards should follow the outlines advocated by the commonly used Brummitt, R.K. 2001. TDGW – World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions, 2nd Edition, which is in English. But some editors are going OTT and seeming to drill down to almost postal code data! The example you mention has this in spades includes a blank VN. But it is not something I add to taxon pages, because of the concerns you raise. Andyboorman (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
The distribution in the article mentioned above was pasted from Catalogue of Life, it does not follow any standard. -RLJ (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
TDWG is a commonly accepted standard for vascular plants. The European scheme of floristic territories follows Flora Europaea, that of Northern America follows Flora of North America. It defines phytogeographical units with state names. Some islands (Svalbard, Corse, Sardegna, Sicilia, Kriti etc.) have vernacular names. The territories do not always correspond to current political units and should not be confused with them. "Ireland" includes Northern Ireland, "France" includes the Channel Islands and Monaco, but excludes "Corse" (Corsica) as well as the overseas territories, "Turkey" excludes "Turkey-in-Europe", "Czechoslovakia" and "Yugoslavia" continue to exist, etc. --RLJ (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I've worked in one herbarium that used TDWG, and they successfully applied it to their bryophyte collection as well. Will this system work for animals as well, including migratory species? And what options do we have for marine and freshwater species? --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Due to all the concerns raised, I continue to be radically against including distribution in WS pages. There are so many priorities, so many poorly edited pages, without references, etc etc, why loosing focus with problematic Distribution!!!--Hector Bottai (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I note that the previous discussion concluded that we accept Distribution, but it also said another poll would follow to decide the format of the section. Perhaps we should begin that discussion now? I also think we should not add any additional Distribution sections until we agree on at least some minimum standards. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes the current status quo on this is to decide how to do it, not to just start adding them. I am doubtful there will be any one method due to differences in terrestrial/ aquatic and migratory issues. There are standards in many animal groups also, but nothing consistent. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 01:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Agreed we need to move onto standards. Extant plants tends to be simpler, as long as editors stick to the/an agreed formula and not invent their own. Andyboorman (talk) 10:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Das Natur-System der vierfüssigen Thiere von J. L. Frisch, "P. S. in G."[edit]

I'm trying to find the author of the name Vulpes. On dewiki it is Johann Leonhard Frisch, on frwiki it is Just Leopold Frisch (wd), and the enwiki article doesn't specify it.

In the original publication, Das Natur-System der vierfüssigen Thiere (1775), the author is stated as J. L. Frisch, followed by the mention "P. S. in G.". What does "P. S. in G." mean? Korg (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

In this digitalisation, the author stated at top left is "Frisch, Johann Leonhard". Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Note that there is also an ICZN opinion about the same publication but they use "Frisch, J.L." [3]. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
According to this article in Wildlife Online it was by Just Leopold Frisch. This makes more sense to me than Johann Leonhard Frisch since Johann died in 1743, so a 1775 publication would have to be 32 years after his death. Interestingly it also talks about the 1954 ICZN opinion, which it turns out was later revoked. It also turns out that this may be all moot as François Alexandre Pierre de Garsault used the name Vulpes first in 1764 in his Les figures des plantes et animaux d’usage en médecine anyway. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Going by this article from Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature in 2009 (paywalled though accessible through Sci-Hub), Vulpes Garsault, 1764 (pl. 702) is the accepted authority for the genus, though it appeared without any listed species. The type species, Canis vulpes Linnaeus, 1758, was fixed by ICZN in Opinion 1129 (1982). Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
It is indeed the German zoologist Just Leopold Frisch's publication of 1775, but according to the rule of precedence the French naturalist François Alexandre Pierre de Garsault, used the genus name Vulpes in his 1764 publication, albeit without a species, but he accompanied it with a Red Fox drawing. Consequently it should be Vulpes Garsault, 1764 rather than Vulpes Frisch, 1775. Mariusm (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
And please see Here Mariusm (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Interesting information, thank you! Korg (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Main Page needs attention[edit]

{{Species-2020-04}} isn't working in the Main Page since April 1st. Can somebody here see to it? Mariusm (talk) 08:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

It can only be created by admins because it is transcluded on the main page --DannyS712 (talk) 08:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
The past months it was Tommy who created these templates: Template:Species-2020-03, Template:Species-2020-02, Template:Species-2020-01... For October 2019, Faendalimas created Template:Species-2019-10.
In the past, redirects to other templates have been created as a quick way to replace the red link, see e.g. [4], [5]. Maybe for now a redirect to one of the previous templates could be created. Korg (talk) 13:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
As an admin, I can take action, but correcting this requires either locating a target for the link or writing a new content. If someone creates the content, I can insert it, but a general "do something" request isn't actionable. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 Done (only for April). Mariusm (talk) 09:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Blog post of relevance[edit]

Wikidata and the bibliography of life in the time of coronavirus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing:Thanks for the alert Andy - I've added some comments after the blog post - mainly about some guiding principles for personal research data management, but a few comments RE wikidata etc. at the end... Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 07:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

3D reconstitution[edit]

Hi, yesterday I found and uploaded the file c:File:Pagurus fraserorum (10.1371-journal.pone.0203107) Interactive.stl, a 3D reconstruction of the well-calcified structures of the Pagurus fraserorum male holotype. That's fun. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Ibatia ganglinosa[edit]

Please can a botanist check Ibatia ganglinosa? The page is sparse (but has interwiki links), and the image filename refers to Matelea ganglinosa. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks to User:RLJ, who has added all needed information to the Ibatia ganglinosa page. --Thiotrix (talk) 11:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


To entomologists: I created this Lamprotes disambiguation page, based on info here at WS, I am pretty sure on the Aves side, please review the Insecta side. Thanks! --Hector Bottai (talk) 10:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd suggest move the disambiguation page to Lamprotes (disambiguation), and have the valid genus as the stand-alone Lamprotes page. In general a single name should only be a disambiguation page if there are two valid genera with the same name (e.g. a plant and an animal, like Prunella or Oenanthe). Invalid names should not displace a valid name into disambiguation. - MPF (talk) 09:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
@MPF:  Done. Very valid suggestion.--Hector Bottai (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Obrigado! - MPF (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Redundant eponym templates[edit]

We have both:

and only need one of them. Which should we keep? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Pitke: I assume you didn't know about the existing template?
Personally I prefer the wording in Pitke's version but otherwise the "X by Y" naming convention is fairly well established for template names of this type (documenting templates in use is yet another reason the entire Help: series needs to be rewritten). Circeus (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I've been using Eponyms by person myself, since that seemed to be the most commonly used (as you can tell from the transclusions count), but if it turns out we prefer the other one that's not a problem with me. We also ought to have both {{Taxa by author}} and the chosen Eponyms category formatting template listed in Wikispecies tools. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I am fine with either, but there should only be one, so keep one kill the other based on conensus I guess. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep the oldest.--Hector Bottai (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep the oldest. Christian Ferrer (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Confirming I didn't know of the earlier template. Technically fine with using either, but have two notes on the original one: 1) can be confused for authorship instead of origin-of-name status, 2) non-person eponyms for bands, fictional/mythological entities, and less importantly places (these might have some other sort of term instead of eponym?). --Pitke (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Strictly speaking the sentence "Eponyms by NN" doesn't mean the same thing as "Eponyms of NN". From a Wikispecies perspective the first one is incorrect, since a category listing eponyms by a person should list the eponyms coined by a certain author. So if for example Linnaeus had named a bunch of taxa after his own apostles, then those eponyms would be named by Linnaeus and should be listed in the category, as named by him. And that's not what we want, is it? Instead we want the category to list the taxon names which are eponyms of the respective apostle, whether named by Linnaeus or not. I therefore strongly suggest:
  1. We move {{Eponyms of}} to {{Eponyms of person}} and then stick to that one. It's presently only being used on less than 20 pages so fixing the transclusions after renaming (i.e. moving) it should only take minutes.
  2. After that, using a bot or JSW to change the circa 140 {{Eponyms by person}} links shouldn't take more than a few hours at most, after which we delete the template.
I can make all necessary alterations fairly quickly, regardless which solution we come to agree upon. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC).
  • No problem with any of that, but for the record, the "by" in "Eponyms by person" is to be read as "sorted by", as in "publications by year". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I see: the "sorted (by)" can of course be implied rather than printed out. It doesn't happen too often, but this is one of the few occasions when my understanding of English gets "tricked" by the fact that it isn't my native language. Linguistics aside, which of the templates do we want to keep? In the above discussion we currently have two votes each for {{Eponyms by person}} and {{Eponyms of}}, and three for "either one". –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC).
I would prefer {{Eponyms of person}}, because it is precise and clear, even for non-native English speakers. --Thiotrix (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

There have been no comments here for three weeks. How shall we resolve this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm up for switching to {{Eponyms of}} or {{Eponyms of person}} at this point if the rest of us all aboard with that. Since this discussion started (and stopped), I've apparently since subconsciously changed my habits and started using {{Eponyms of}} instead of {{Eponyms by person}} without realising it until now. It really does seem more natural to use "Eponyms of [person]" in English than "Eponyms by [person]". Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
no Agree support switching to {{Eponyms of person}} for clarity of purpose. I agree that the "by" alternative can be confusing. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


OK, I have moved {{Eponyms by person}} to {{Eponyms of person}}, and redirected {{Eponyms of}} to the latter.

The only significant difference remaining is that the template now uses the wording "List of eponyms of...", where {{Eponyms of}} used "Taxa named after...". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

There are now 191 209 pages transcluding {{Eponyms of person}}, but 248 in Category:Eponyms - in other words, 57 39 pages don't use the template, but could. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The Papers[edit]

Could tell me how is the complete or ideal structure of the papers. On the page Lafresnaye, 1849, shows nomenclatural acts, date of publication and new names. There are other parameters to add? Thanks! Jackson Cordeiro Brilhador (talk) 09:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Bit late, but unfortunately I don't think we have a commonly accepted "ideal" Paper page right now. Even with the bare minimum of {{Reftemp}} being subst'd at the end, not everyone actually seems to actively follow that, I've seen some editors that leave out the category and/or the include-only "Reference page" part. I myself may add a date of publication or ZooBank link where available, but I'm not sure how to handle nomenclatural acts or which acts to list exactly (for instance, there can be new combinations as well as new names). Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Nomenclatural acts include taxon names proposed as new or as replacement names for unavailable names. New combinations, synonymizings, or restorations from synonymy are taxonomic acts. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Distribution maps[edit]

I have created {{Map}}, based on {{Image}}. It will pull distribution map images from Wikidata, but can be overridden locally. You can see it in use on Chaetocercus astreans. On Alpheus luiszapatai, it displays nothing, because there is no distribution map on Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

We could, perhaps, change the caption ("distribution map"), to use a translation template to ensure internationalisation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
We also need to consider how to display or link to, and internationalise, the legend, as seen on Ardea cinerea. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 Comment: The "legend" assumes that every map is using the same color scheme and that the taxon is an animal which migrates. This scheme isn't applicable to other kinds of organisms. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
By the way, just a very small fraction of Aves does have a distribution map available. Vast majority doesn't.--Hector Bottai (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Language labels in VN template[edit]

I recently added the Kachchi language (કચ્છી) to {{Vn}}. It's label is showing up (for example on Cnidaria) as "kfr". What needs fixing? I've looked everywhere I can think of (documentation is sadly lacking), and purged all the relevant caches i can find, to no avail. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Since no one else has offered any help towards this, I may as well throw my hat in. Since I noticed "kfr" is a three-letter language code, I decided to test all other three-language codes with the VN in a new section on my userpage, using this category's list of templates as reference. I've found that many of these have the same problem as kfr in that their labels show the language code rather than the native name for the language. I've also found that some of them are actually missing from VN (e.g.: bgn, dir, dje), and even one of the codes in particular (bem) appears to have two labels in VN! Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Two repository pages that need merging[edit]

Back in November I flagged both BPBM and BMHU as needing to be merged into each other, since they are clearly both for Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum. However, I'm not sure which acronym should be used as the main one. It's also worth noting that both of them have their own Wikidata items at the moment. Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Another two repository pages that need merging are NMSE and RMSE. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Sometimes different acronyms reflect historically separate collections. For example, both UC and JEPS are housed in the same location, but are separate collections. Do we know that the acronyms you;ve listed are the same collection and not merely repositories housed in the same physical location? I am familiar only with the situations for herbaria, and not for zoological collections. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Well, in the BPBM/BMHU instance I have no idea what's going on. Both their pages currently have largely the same content, though BPBM is linked to the Bishop Museum Wikipedia pages via Wikidata, and it wikilinks another collection acronym (BISH). In the NMSE/RMSE case though, yes they do seem to have been historically separate, as the two museums involved were merged in 2006 (according to the information written on the NMSE page). This does make me uncertain whether they should be merged or not now though... I could have sworn I saw similar pages on Wikispecies where several acronyms were listed for the same museum for different collections. The trouble is, Wikispecies provides absolutely no standard for how respository pages should be handled as far as I can tell. Monster Iestyn (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I can only partially answer that. The BISH acronym is the official designation of the herbarium of the Bishop Museum. The Index Herbarorum is an international registry for herbaria and each herbarium gets its own designation. The holding institution may have its own name or acronym, and additional herbarium collections housed by the same institution may have their own individual designations. So a single institution might have an acronym for its name, but then have one or more official designations for the collections it houses, and these designations are often quite different from its name. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
What confuses me is where Wikispecies stands on multiple acronyms for the same institution, whether for multiple collections or not. From what you say it makes sense for each collection to have its own page, but then as I was trying to say earlier I believe I have seen other repository pages where other acronyms were treated as redirects to the main one. Luckily I just remembered an example I came across recently: OUMNH, which includes six alternative acronyms which are all redirects to the page. Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Historically, collections abbreviation have been poorly, if at all standardized outside the botanical literature (the GRSciColl has been an absolute failure in this regard), and users (last I was mucking around in that area, it was mostly PeterR) have a tendency to uncritically create pages for every acronym they stumble across without ever making any effort at checking whether the institution has other acronyms. Circeus (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Hm, no wonder things are a mess then. Meanwhile, do you think either of the pairs of pages I mentioned should be merged? Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Oh, absolutely. IMO we should not have a BMHU category at all, and the page should redirect to BPBM. It is clearly a nonstandard abbreviation for the same institution that sees a fraction of the use that BPBM does. Circeus (talk) 04:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


IZCAS is redirect to IZAS (IZAS Institute of Zoology, Academia Sinica (1930–1962)). I get every day info that the species are deposed in IZCAS. Why is IZCAS redirect to IZAS? PeterR (talk) 11:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Is IZCAS a different institution? Circeus (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Sofar I know not see Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (1957–present). I think that first the academy ws IZAS and after that it was IZCAS.

Fauna Sinica: Invertebrata Vol. 35[edit]

Who can help me with Fauna Sinica: Invertebrata Vol. 35. It is in Chinese and a summery in English. In the English summery they have forget to say where the species are deposed. PeterR (talk) 11:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Mollusca in the MNHN[edit]

Hi, just for info I'm currently uploading more than 17000 images of the molluscs diplayed in the MNHN web site and in their corresponding GBIF dataset, they are in c:Category:Mollusca in the MNHN. At that precise time the uploading it not finished yet. I started this morning at around 08h00 and it will be finished tonight at around 23h00 IMO. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC) (note that it will take me a little longer (lol) to check the categories, create them if necessary, or check the synonyms.)