Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 59

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.

Oxford Academic[edit]

Just caught wind of this news from reading a post on BugGuide's forum: Oxford University Press is making some of its online content free due to COVID-19. Apparently this includes all articles from Annals of the Entomological Society of America for instance (I have checked, they are indeed free now on the website). I don't know which other journals on there relevant to us exactly will be free-to-read, nor if this is only temporary, but I thought it may be useful to inform users here about this. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will have to see if anything post the elbakyan sundown is in there (anything pre-2019 can be found otherwise). Circeus (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Authorship of Botryocrinidae[edit]

The authorship of Botryocrinidae is listed as "Wachsmuth & Springer, 1886" by IRMNG and several other sources, but as "Bather, 1899" by for example Fossilworks – both without parenthesis. Anyone here who has access to the most recent accepted data? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

ː Is definitely Bather, 1899; see here BHL. Wachsmuth and Springer, 1886 discuss Botryocrinus, but not in its own family. Neferkheperre (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as I've been able to find out, the Wachsmuth & Springer, 1886 authorship refers to their section "Botryocrinites". I've seen "-ites" names be later treated as valid family-group names at least in Coleoptera, so this may be what's going on here too. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe Iestyn to be correct. Whether -ites here ought to be treated as a vernacular name or not is irrelevant because of the provisions of ICZN article 11.7.2. The authors are Wachsmuth and Springer. Note that under the ICZN, ONLY a combination of a specie sunder a new genus can receive parentheses (and even only optionally). And yes it makes tracking down names a huge pain because you can never tell what rank or form a family-group name was originally published as! Circeus (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have not looked into the authorship of that family, but have just done a few updates in IRMNG adding relevant genera (for example the type genus and several others were not included...). I noted one complication in passing, which is that the work that I previously used as the source of this family name (Gahn & Kammer, 2002: supports an enlarged concept of this family (also including genera formerly in Barycrinidae Jaekel, 1918), however the latter family i.e. Barycrinidae is treated as accepted/valid in Donovan & Webster, 2015:, which I have followed as the most recent IRMNG source for now. Of course all content in IRMNG is subject to review, also a subset of genera are not yet allocated to their relevant families, or may follow outdated and/or contradictory sources (hence the "Interim" word in the IRMNG name) So little time, so much to do... Regards - Tony Rees, IRMNG Tony 1212 (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is also this;
  • not be based on certain names applied only to fossils and ending in the suffix -ites, -ytes or -ithes.
This definitely makes Bather the author. The two texts indicate W and S were creating informal groups of genera within a family, and Bather created the formal name Botryocrinidae. Suffix -ites had several uses in 19th and early 20th centuries. In molluscs, it indicated fossil species of living genera, such as Crassatellites for Crassatella. Neferkheperre (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unless I'm mistaken, that means a specific type of technically unavailable genus name (i.e. a name assigned to a fossil without clear intent of coining a new genus) cannot be used as the basis of a family name. Quoth the cross-referenced article 20:
A name formed [by sufficing that onto an available genus name], and applied to fossils to distinguish them from extant members of that taxon, without clear evidence of intent to establish a new genus-group taxon [...] cannot be used as the valid name of a taxon [Art. 23.1] or as the basis of a family-group name [Art.].
Plenty of available family group names in -ites are listed in this article, and given two of its authors are current or past commissioners of the ICZN, I tend to trust their judgement. Circeus (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Preferred format for reference section[edit]

Dear all, in thousands of my editions I have used this format:
{{Reference template}} {{BHLpage|xxxxxx Original description p. yy}} or {{BHLpage|xxxxxx First availability p. yy}} that will result in Reference template Original description p. yy BHL or First availability p. yy BHL.
A few of the pages have beed pos-edited to this format:
{{Reference template}} {{BHLpage|xxxxxx yy}} that will result in Reference template yy BHL
Is there a preferred format? Or do we want to have one? Thanks --Hector Bottai (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as I know there is no preferred format in regards to the "Original description & First availability" part. Good idea to discuss it here! As a starting point, here's a link to information about the parts of citations for which we do have a preferred format: Help:Reference section.
Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]
I'd say - strongly - that we should only use {{BHLpage|xxxxxx|yy}}, as phrases like "Original description" and "First availability" (and even "p.") contravene our language-neutrality policy. - MPF (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Personally, My approach is that you're not supposed to "comment" on the reference in the reference section of thet article. I think that was a practice of Stephen that spread out to other users, but it's not what a reference section is for. Plus when done with an updated reference template, such material will get plonked after the "Reference template" link...
Back when I was editing, if I ever chose to put that sort of links, I would do it in the reference call. See e.g. in Solanum africanum. Circeus (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The page of description belong to name section not to the reference section in my opinion, i do not use that kind of format, as a redundant if the page already cited and linked in name section. Burmeister (talk) 02:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

───────────────────────── Sorry for the somewhat petty remark, but the name of the "BHL page" template is just that: i.e. {{BHL page}} with a blank space, and not {{BHLpage}} without one. The latter redirects to the correct one though. It was moved by Andy Mabbett in February last year, in order to increase readability. Just saying... :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

That shouldn't make any difference; the important one is to use a vertical line "|" between the "xxxxxx" and the "yy", not a space - MPF (talk) 11:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The only difference is that using the {{BHLpage}} template includes an automatic redirect to the {{BHL page}} template, so from a server point of view it's a two-step operation. Using {{BHL page}} directly is only a single one-step operation, since it doesn't involve a redirect. You're of course correct in that there's no visible difference from a user's point of view, but I still see no reason to use {{Template:BHLpage}} so that the server in reality needs to call two pages instead of one, in order to do a single task. However this is all a bit out of scope: let's stick to Hector Bottai's original question instead, and discuss redirects another time. :-)
Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist: - I'd not really thought of redirects like that! I suspect that "BHLpage" is far more widely used that "BHL page" (I'd not even seen that format before!). Is there any way of counting the number of links using each? If yes, should the redirect and the template be swapped round? - MPF (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A search for insource:/BHLpage/ gives 18.559 pages and templates, insource:/BHL page/ gives 4.417 pages and templates. The original name is BHLpage, Three years after its creation it was moved to BHL page, without trying to find a consensus. --RLJ (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see any discussion about to change the name of the template, or consensus for that. A space to increase readability!!! Redirects are not a wrong issue to be wripped out like user @Tommy Kronkvist: is doing sistematically, please stop and discuss first. --Burmeister (talk) 02:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Burmeister: I fully take your opinion onboard, and will stop until this matter has been discussed and decided upon. Please note though, that as usual my edits have all been made in good faith. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

───────────────────────── @MPF: The {{BHLpage}} template is currently used on 27,770 pages while {{BHL page}} is used on 33,403. Changing any of them into the other can be rather easily done by bot; actually in this case it's easier than in most other bot-jobs, since there are no parameters to consider, only the name of the template. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

The {{BHL page}} count includes the count of {{BHLpage}}. Compare the count for the templates alone: of 5.385 links, only c. 1.700 go directly to {{BHL page}}, the rest via {{BHLpage}}. -RLJ (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks @RLJ! What's the best way to find the precise numbers? When I do a search to show only the templates without any redirects, I get 5,385 transclusions + 2 links for {{BHL page}} and 4,127 transclusions + 0 links for {{BHLpage}}. (You need to click the blue "Count" link next to the "Go" button in order to show the sums.) –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]
@RLJ and Tommy Kronkvist: - thanks! In that case, I'd say definitely worth swapping round to 'BHL page' redirects to 'BHLpage' - MPF (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"BHL page" is more readable to humans than "BHLpage". Do you have any counter argument why the latter template name should be preferred? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: - (sorry for the late reply!) that there are 4 times as many pages using 'BHLpage' than there are using 'BHL page'. And while 'BHL page' may be more readable, 'BHLpage' is more spellable, particularly when converting from other less good templates which use structures like 'BHL/page' - MPF (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MPF: There are probably more instances of "BHLpage" because it was the original name for the template until two years ago, when Pigsonthewing changed it to have a space in the name. Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The number of uses is immaterial; if that were a criterion, we could never change anything once it was established. I don't think that "BHLpage" is "more spellable", however that might be measured. I doesn't matter whether people use "BHLpage" or "BHL page"; what matters is how easy it is to find and understand the page at Template:BHL page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Absolutely doesn't matter to me. It is not readable to the common user, it's just a template.--Hector Bottai (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

───────────────────────── Please note that we have the same issue with {{BHL item}} which was moved from {{BHLitem}} by RLJ only nine hours after the {{BHLpage}} was moved by Andy Mabbett in February 3, 2020 (and approximately three weeks before the {{BHL}} template was last edited, as of today).

Personally I much prefer {{BHL page}} and {{BHL item}} over the "non-spaced" versions, since I find they make the code clearer and are easier to distinguish from the {{BHL}} template. For example when comparing {{BHL page|726886}} and {{BHLpage|726886}} I think the latter is a lot more likely to be confused with {{BHL|page/726886}} than the former. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Tropicos offline[edit]

Please note that the Tropicos online taxonomic database is currently offline. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Addition to the {{Refer}} template[edit]

Please note that I've recently added a new parametre called "Reference" to the {{Refer}} template. It can be added either as {{Refer|reference|name of disambiguation page}} or with a capital "R" i.e. {{Refer|Reference|etc…}}


{{Refer|reference|Seeman & Beard, 2011}} will be shown as:

The reference template Seeman & Beard, 2011 may refer to:

See Template:Manson, 1967 for an example.

Happy editing! Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Updates on the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines Review[edit]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

Hello everyone,

The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) Enforcement Guidelines were published 24 January 2022 as a proposed way to apply the Universal Code of Conduct across the movement. Comments about the guidelines can be shared here or the Meta-wiki talk page.

There will be conversations on Zoom on 4 February 2022 at 15:00 UTC, 25 February 2022 at 12:00 UTC, and 4 March 2022 at 15:00 UTC. Join the UCoC project team and drafting committee members to discuss the guidelines and voting process.

The timeline is available on Meta-wiki. The voting period is March 7 to 21. See the voting information page for more details.

Thank you to everyone who has participated so far.


Movement Strategy and Governance
Wikimedia Foundation.--SOyeyele (WMF) (talk) 00:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hybrid or not?[edit]

On the Malus floribunda page the taxon is given as "Malus x floribunda Siebold ex Van Houtte (1865)" in the "Name" section. What's up with the hybrid mark? A mistake? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I'd presume a mistake; I've removed it - MPF (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll have to come back on that! POWO give it as a hybrid - first mention I've seen of that anywhere, that I can recall. I'd like to see their reasoning before moving the page, though. - MPF (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some good info here; I'll put the hybrid symbol back and move the page later this evening. More worrying, a lot of the pics in the commons category are likely misidentified (e.g. fruit with persistent calyces) - MPF (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IPNI list it as a straight species Malus floribunda citing this protologue and description, whereas the RHS suggest hybrid. Most apple specialist assume an ancient probably artificial hybrid involving M. sieboldii and other species from the Korean peninsula and/or Japan. Teasing out lineages in Malus is very difficult indeed. Andyboorman (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

───────────────────────── Update and closure: As a result of the above‎ discussion the page was moved to Malus × floribunda by WS bureaucrat MPF at 23:10, 1 February, 2022‎ (UTC). –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

UserStatus template[edit]

Of the mere seven users of {{UserStatus}}, one has not edited since 2020, one since 2021, and one was indefinitely blocked in 2020. One last edited in January this year, but their status has said "Online" ever since 2017. Another user has not created the subpage that sets their status.

I propose to delete the template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have it on my page but honestly am not that impressed with it, nor do I think it does much worthwhile, so yes delete, ´please let me know though so I can delete the template and status sub page. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 21:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak delete If someone wants to use it, go for it, but it does seem somewhat unhelpful and misleading, so that's not good. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm also in general favor of delete, but only if no is actively using it. Circeus (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Central Notice Request for Income tax fundarising for the Wikimedians of Slovakia User Group[edit]

Our organization, Wikimedians of Slovakia User Group, has requested central notice for income tax fundraising campaign from the 15th of February to the 30th of April 2022. For further information, please see this site on Meta. Thank you!--Lišiak (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested articles[edit]

Does anyone monitor Wikispecies:Requested articles? It seems to grow exponentially, but hardly anything is removed from it.

In any case, I have just split off the previous years into separate pages - the 2021 page alone is ~350Kb. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good job with the split! I occasionally venture in to the mists of the "Requested articles" page but sadly very seldom create any of the items entered there. Most of the listed taxa are beyond my field of expertise. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]
This is an inherant difficulty we have here, newly described taxa from groups none of us have any expertise with are often difficult to create pages for. Its not that we cannot create the page in question, its the flow on effect to the already created pages, this is particularly true of genus splits, though it also impacts species splits. You have to have a handle on all the literature of a group to assess the issue. I have same issue with disputed and non-standard categories, for example I just do not know what to do with all those Protists, since even their own taxonomists disagree on that. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Didn't even know this list existed! A brief look through, the trickiest aspect is that it isn't arranged taxonomically, so it is hard to find items in the list within ones' experience zone: e.g. I saw a few birds scattered through the list (mostly subspecies, so of low priority), but finding all the birds in the list would be a nightmare. So I suspect it is destined to languish unused. - MPF (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with MPF. Add (hemi-/heterotypic) homonyms and homotypic synonyms to the equation, and it doesn't get any easier. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Modify affiliation of taxa[edit]

New in editing on wikispecies, I do not know how to modify affiliation of Arotros genus. It shall be moved from Bombycidae/Epiinae to Apatelodidae family. I have the articles of reference to support this. Thanks for help, I am learning. Dherbin — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dherbin (talkcontribs) 14:01, 9 February 2022‎.

The above moved here from my talk page, for wider discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
need to see the refs for this everything I have found in a quick search has them in the Bombycidae still, if this is very recent it may not have been caught up on yet. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 16:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dherbin, could you please present the references here first? Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Hi Tommy
Following references:
1)From Hamilton et al.2019 Dherbin (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then, the article I also referenced in wikispecies:
Template:Herbin, Orlandin & Carneiro, 2021 Dherbin (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tommy, I also communicated with my correspondent in British Museum so that they can update Lepindex entries that are now not up to date. Response was that they do not maintain anymore Lepindex, and a significant number of needed changes are identified. There are talks to transfer this activity to another platform. Dherbin (talk) 17:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dherbin To answer the initial question, you can edit the taxonavigation for a taxon by editing its Template page, in this case Template:Arotros. Most taxa pages on Wikispecies should have one, except species and lower (unless they have subtaxa). You may find the "Template tab" gadget in Preferences useful for this, since it adds a "Template" tab, making those pages easier to find and edit. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Monster lestyn. I have updated the template page Arotros. Also the template pages Bombycidae to remove Arotros, and add Arotros to Apatelodidae template page. Nevertheless this being done, when I open the Arotros page I still see that it refers to Bombycidae, scratching my head why. Have started to contribute since yesterday only, and I realize I do not master how all this works. And Thanks to Tommy for the corrections he did to some of my entries, I apologize if I do not do everything right. Dherbin (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

───────────────────────── basically because templates are nested and the first line of a template is the template it is nested under. In this case you have the Template:Epiinae is the first line of Template:Arotros and the Epiinae template is nested under Template:Bombycidae you need to follow all the templates and pages to complete this move. If Epiinae is no longer in Bombycidae and I have not looked at the paper yet, then Epiinae needs to be nested under Apatelodidae template. If Arotros is under Apatelodidae only you may need to rebuild a number of templates. Generally you have to not only edit the taxon you are interested in but all those around it too to get it right. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dherbin: Template:Arotros and Arotros are two separate pages, the former provides the taxonavigation for the latter through the use of {{Arotros}} in the latter's wikicode source. (Sorry for not making that clear earlier) Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thk you guys. I think I understood now! To clarify Arotros is nested to Apatelodidae. Epiinae remain nested to Bombycidae. I found the Template: Arotros and modified the link of Arotros to Epiinae, replacing Epiinae by Apatelodidae. It works! Dherbin (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes I looked at the paper and its clear, I also created Template:Asocia another genus from the group which was missing. @Dherbin: please check all the members of these groups for any effects the changes may have inadvertently had. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just noticed some minutes ago as I wanted to create the template for Asocia genus, now that I understood, and surprisingly it was already done! I know few other examples from what I did these last two days, I will proceed. Thks. Dherbin (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Leadership Development Task Force: Your feedback is appreciated![edit]

Hello everyone!

The Community Development team at the Wikimedia Foundation is supporting the creation of a global, community-driven Leadership Development Task Force. The purpose of the task force is to advise leadership development work.

The team is looking for feedback about the responsibilities of the Leadership Development Task Force. This Meta page shares the proposal for a Leadership Development Task Force and how you can help here. Feedback on the proposal will be collected from 7 to 25 February 2022.

Thank you!--SOyeyele (WMF) (talk) 11:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikispecies Agathidinae: Many entries include long lists which are pure black&white printouts, with no click-path to the entry location.[edit]

Two examples of many: Agathirsia and Braunsia

I recommend you implement one-click access to these many lists. I suspect the problem(s) may be typo-level and thus quickly & easily corrected. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zjwill (talkcontribs).

I fixed Agathirsia and Alabagrus its been computer generated from a txt source by the look of it, badly. I just needed to add the necessary templates. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 06:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template expansion depth: 40→100[edit]

Hello, as per Phabricator here, and following on from last year's Village Pump discussion here, the template expansion depth has (as of a late January software update), been increased from 40 to 100, so for instance Anas formosa is no longer to be found in Category:Pages where expansion depth is exceeded. This category/folder, though gradually reducing in size, is not yet empty—as of time of writing, there are still >1,000 (down from >5,900) pages which appear in this category. Not all of these show on the page itself that they are within the category, and if one purges the cache on the individual page for those that do, they do so no longer (though they may still be listed on the category page); I imagine the category itself will continue to empty by itself over time, but the functionality issue is seemingly resolved, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice. Thanks for letting us know. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great news! Thank you very much. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Toki Pona language[edit]

Please note that after being rejected in 2008 and 2018, the Toki Pona constructed language was accepted by SIL International in January 2022,(Ref. 2021-043) and adopted with the "tok" language code. (SIL is the ISO 639-3 registration authority.) In Wikispecies the Toka Pona language code is currently added to for example the Biota page, but not rendered in any "Vernacular name" tables as it isn't yet implemented by our modules and templates. I don't think it's used in any of the Wikimedia projects yet, but it will most likely be added fairly soon. See task T236938 at Phabricator for details. This language code is unlikely to be widely used any time soon, but at least now you know what tok stands for, should you come across it in the VN sections. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 01:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Flora Uzbekistana[edit]

I think that Flora Uzbekistana should be merged into Flora Uzbekistana. Tashkent but I'm not 100% sure. Thoughts? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Also note that IPNI has the latter as Flora Uzbekistana but Tropicos calls it Flora Uzbekistanica. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I think what's going on is that the Russian title transliterates to Flora Uzbekistana [this would need confirmation by looking at a physical copy], while Flora Uzbekistanica is the alternate title in Latin. This was a somewhat common practice for soviet material pre 1990 (and causes quite a bit of confusion when tracking it online!). Note that just to compound things, a distinct (or possibly new edition of) Flora Uzbekistana began publication in 2016"! Circeus (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quickly checked for myself and yep, it appears Flora Uzbekistanica is the Latin title, and Flora Uzbekistana is a transliteration of "Флора Узбекистана". "Tashkent" is just the place of publication. The two pages definitely seem to refer to the same thing, the volume numbers and years match. Monster Iestyn (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Taxon range" property in Wikidata[edit]

If you contribute to Wikidata, please have a look at this WD discussion: WikiProject Biodiversity: How best to use the taxon range property? I know that most of us Wikispecians don't use the taxon range (P9714) property, but perhaps we should? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

When existing I prefer to use the image range map property taxon range image map (P181) rather than listing a lot of countries.--Hector Bottai (talk) 12:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I commented however, yes maps are generally better than listing countries, however by listing countries you can also autogenerate the maps, which may be a better way. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 12:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd disagree about listing countries, strongly, because human political boundaries are so mismatched with taxon distributions. Consider e.g. Pinus brutia, which occurs widely in Turkey, but also in a tiny area near Sochi in Russia. This leads to the autogenerated map showing the whole of Russia coloured in, which grossly misrepresents the species' distribution. Cases like this are legion. - MPF (talk) 01:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I had a discussion on taxacom about protists, higher orders specifically the conversaion I have preserved here as subpages, maybe we can start sorting these out as they account for most of our Disputed and Non-Standard entries. User:Faendalimas/Protists. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 21:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That would be great and is waaay overdue, but those pages are often so messy I tend to stay clear of them... However if we get a few pages sorted out as examples (of sorts) I'll be happy to help out after that! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 06:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]
You have copyright permission, presumably, to reproduce others' emails here? If so, please add a link to verify it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
its a publically visible list but yes I asked they gave permission (messages) they have also been informed of the page here on wikispecies by Tony 1212 and given the link if they wish to follow it. I thought you were a member anyway so you would have seen it already. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 16:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry, but you saying "If no one minds I may copy the responses here over to the wiki" does not equate to each of the authors granting a licence to put their content on page which carries a "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License" statement. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Navigation templates - obr & cbr[edit]

Hello, {{obr}} & {{cbr}} now exist, and can be used similarly to {{fbr}} and {{gbr}}, but instead, respectively, in a template for an ordo and for a cladus/anything else; examples of these in use may be found at Template:Gaviiformes and Template:Tyrannoraptora, thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Literature link templates - error[edit]

Hello, something has gone wrong with Category:Literature link templates - it has lots of extraneous entries which I'm pretty sure used not to be there; does anyone know what happened/how to fix it? Thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{Ptax}} didn't have noinclude around the category. I just added noinclude to that, and I think that might have now fixed it. Monster Iestyn (talk) 02:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...well, mostly fixed, some reference templates have had the category accidentally substituted into themselves. But they can be fixed manually, and there aren't many of those now at least. Monster Iestyn (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've removed [[Category:Literature link templates]] from eleven reference templates where it had been added by mistake. I think that's all of the "wrong" ref. templates listed in the category. The category still lists some of the authors linked to by those eleven templates, but I hope those authors are going to be automatically removed as soon as the server cache catches up. If not then I've missed something, in which case you're all welcome to help. :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 05:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Resolved. Everything seems okay now. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 05:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Remember to Participate in the UCoC Conversations and Ratification Vote![edit]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

Hello everyone,

A vote in SecurePoll from 7 to 21 March 2022 is scheduled as part of the ratification process for the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) Enforcement guidelines. Eligible voters are invited to answer a poll question and share comments. Read voter information and eligibility details. During the poll, voters will be asked if they support the enforcement of the Universal Code of Conduct based on the proposed guidelines.

The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) provides a baseline of acceptable behavior for the entire movement. The revised enforcement guidelines were published 24 January 2022 as a proposed way to apply the policy across the movement. A Wikimedia Foundation Board statement calls for a ratification process where eligible voters will have an opportunity to support or oppose the adoption of the UCoC Enforcement guidelines in a vote. Wikimedians are invited to translate and share important information. For more information about the UCoC, please see the project page and frequently asked questions on Meta-wiki.

There are events scheduled to learn more and discuss:

You can comment on Meta-wiki talk pages in any language. You may also contact either team by email: msg(_AT_) or ucocproject(_AT_)

Sincerely, Movement Strategy and Governance
Wikimedia Foundation
--SOyeyele (WMF) (talk) 12:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiki Loves Folklore is extended till 15th March[edit]

Please help translate to your language

Greetings from Wiki Loves Folklore International Team,

We are pleased to inform you that Wiki Loves Folklore an international photographic contest on Wikimedia Commons has been extended till the 15th of March 2022. The scope of the contest is focused on folk culture of different regions on categories, such as, but not limited to, folk festivals, folk dances, folk music, folk activities, etc.

We would like to have your immense participation in the photographic contest to document your local Folk culture on Wikipedia. You can also help with the translation of project pages and share a word in your local language.

Best wishes,

International Team
Wiki Loves Folklore

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image dispute[edit]

Neonauclea reticulata images have wrong label?

Clarification required... Outermayo (talk) 10:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've renamed all the image files at Commons to Neonauclea truncata, as per their Taiwanese origin. They are of a cultivated plant, not natural, so there is a slight chance they could be N. reticulata introduced from the Philippines, but I'd suspect this is a fairly low risk - MPF (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Outermayo: Thank you for joining discussion. Sometimes, like this time, we will face cases where native range information found in databases (e.g. POWO, IUCN Red List) and region described in images do not agree. In such cases, we had better suspect that misapplication of scientific name occurs. As of this plant, such misapplication has been repeated so many times like I have listed in this entry, as if it were tradition. I know there still exists concern such as MPF expressed, but the first description of Nauclea truncata (Hayata 1911: 140) states that N. truncata is different from N. reticulata (whose holotype we can see at Kew Herbarium Catalogue and JSTOR) by obovate leaves with short acute apex and his description matches well the images of Taiwanese 欖仁舅 at Commons. --Eryk Kij (talk) 11:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Outermayo and エリック・キィ: What would also be useful here, is if someone could visit some wild origin specimens of the two taxa, and upload photos of them at Commons - using photos of cultivated plants of unknown source origin is not good practice! - MPF (talk) 11:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cristóbal [María or Mariá] Hicken[edit]

Cristóbal María Hicken has been marked for merger with Cristóbal Mariá Hicken, by new user Vanbasten 23. Which is the correct spelling? Is the other a typo, or a name that was published? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would say Cristóbal María Hicken is correct spelling, based on an Argentinian website independent of any of us here. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 21:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Pigsonthewing: I came because Wikidata. I found two elements and i need to merge them. Thanks. --Vanbasten 23 (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Scott, especially after considering their respective Wikidata items, which can be found here:
  • Q110858619 – our "Cristóbal María Hicken". No Wikidata links to other Wikimedia projects. Wikidata item was created by User:Neferkheperre in February 8, 2022‎.
  • Q5555788 – our "Cristóbal Mariá Hicken". Wikidata item include links to Spanish WP es:Cristóbal María Hicken and Portuguese WP pt:Cristóbal María Hicken (note orthography of "María"). Wikidata item was created by a deWP-based bot in February 28, 2013, already then spelling the name "Cristóbal María Hicken".
Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Thanks all. Merge completed, here and on Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The journal Selbyana now purports to be "open access" - with a default CC by-nc licence, including all back issues. Do we flag such licences on our pages about journals? If so, how? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No we don't, but I think we should. I propose we add a non-mandatory Open access: line to the lists on our journal pages (below the journal's title, years of activity, place of publication, etc.) followed by either "CC-by-etc.", "no", "unkown" and so forth as values. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]
I also agree we should, could probably make it a simple to use template also if you wanted. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open access and its family are available. Andyboorman (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had forgotten about the Access templates but yes @Andy, you're of course right. The Open access, Paywall, Hybrid open access journal and legacy Open access green templates all have mouse-over functions with explanatory text. If preferred more details can be added e.g. *License: {{Access|open}} CC BY-NC. Many of our journal pages use bold text for the lists "header" which for the above example would be rendered as
  • License: Open access CC BY-NC
The phrase "Open access" is shown if hovering the mouse cursor over the lock icon. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Thanks, all. For convenience, those templates are written as: {{Access|open}}, {{Access|closed}}, {{Access|hybrid}} and {{Access|green}}. I would be wary of using the term "Open" alongside a licence with an NC restriction, the "access" qualifier notwithstanding. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

───────────────────────── Agreed. An exclusively "non commercial" license most certainly doesn't mean that it's "open" for all purposes. Thank you for your edits an valuable input. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Block me[edit]

I was an accidental disruptive editor. I admit. See my user page. --Fragguni9989 —The preceding undated comment was added 01:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC) by Fragguni9989 (talkcontribs)Reply[reply]

 DoneJustin (koavf)TCM 02:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I was thinking that adding a topic on how to move pages may be useful in the Help:Contents since this is a feature needed anytime taxa are moved to different parent taxa. Possibly expand and go into more detail on templates there also, thoughts? Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 21:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you think we need to do much more/better than mw:Help:Moving_a_page? —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The act of how to do it no, and that could be linked as additional info but e may need to explain when to move pages because of the specific issue here of nesting taxa under their parents. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 21:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think this might be helpful also in relation to wikidata: unless the wikidata link is removed prior to a taxon page move, and then readded against the item for the new combination or equivalent, one wikidata item is likely to end up linked to an assortment of different taxa, as is the case with eg "Baikal Teal", which has links both to Anas formosa and Sibirionetta formosa, whereas my understanding is that each taxon/taxon name should have its own item, with, ideally, only the "right" pages linked, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Maculosae tegmine lyncis: - I'm not sure that's right? The wikidata Baikal Teal page is set to Sibirionetta formosa, with only a link to its protonym Anas formosa, which has a separate wikidata page Anas formosa. It is true that some of the various language wikipedias still use the old name (e.g. Basque language), but that doesn't affect the wikidata page; the rule is that (generally) all the wikipedias about a taxon should all be linked from the same wikidata page, even when different languages use different taxonomies. Or am I misunderstanding and you are meaning something else? - MPF (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe that wasn't the best example, either that or as you say. I've just moved Bullockornis planei to Dromornis planei, without removing the wikidata link first; wikidata has two related items, wikidata:Q22111932 "Bullockornis planei" (the protonym) and wikidata:Q106704224 "Dromornis planei" (the new combination); wikispecies is the only other wikimedia site link; since I didn't remove the link before the page move, the wikidata item "Bullockornis planei" is, as a result of the "Automatic Update from Connected Wiki" (upon the wikispecies page move, per the history), now linked to the wikispecies page "Dromornis planei", while the wikidata item "Dromornis planei" has no link at all, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Maculosae tegmine lyncis: - Thanks! I see what you're referring to now. It needs all the links at wikidata to be moved to the new name; I'll do it later today and give you a ping here when I've done - MPF (talk) 10:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC) - and done! - MPF (talk) 11:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Maculosae tegmine lyncis: I guess really wikidata:Q136317 Bullockornis ought to be merged in too, but that's trickier, as it also has a page here - MPF (talk) 12:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MPF: Yes, Bullockornis is likely now a synonym of Dromornis, though apparently there was also Bullockornis sp. and eg Mayr, 2017 "still" refers to Bullockornis, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you; what would be ideal is if the wikispecies (now a) redirect Bullockornis planei could also be linked to the wikidata item with this label (I just tried, and I couldn't link the wikispecies redirect); then, were there various language wikipedias linked to the original combination, they could still connect with wikispecies etc (and anyone viewing "Bullockornis planei" on wikidata could arrive at the Dromornis planei wikispecies page with just one click). When (8 Oct) I moved the wikispecies page Myotis muricola caliginosus to Submyotodon caliginosus, the wikidata items wikidata:Q20906887 "Myotis muricola caliginosus" and wikidata:Q19521374 "Submyotodon caliginosus" were seemingly automatically merged; after restoring the version of the "Myotis muricola caliginosus" wikidata item before this automated merger, ie, while it was still linked to the wikispecies page Myotis muricola caliginosus prior to the page move, we seem to be left with this more ideal situation, where one wikidata item is linked to the wikispecies taxon page and the other to the redirect page, but that doesn't really seem like a best practice/universally repeatable way of arriving at this end result, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Maculosae tegmine lyncis: Thanks! Redirects at least usually aren't connected to wikidata items; it does happen sometimes, but I'm pretty sure it's not standard. So I'd not worry about that too much! - MPF (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MPF: Just one more point! (Leaving aside whether or not it was a good move in terms of the taxonomy), if you look at Hydrobates matsudairae (wikidata:Q28122588), moved from Oceanodroma matsudairae (wikidata:Q785281), where the wikispecies pages and the wikidata pages for each name are aligned, the updated wikispecies page is now isolated since it is the only link to the wikidata item "Hydrobates matsudairae", while the wikidata item for the old name "Oceanodroma matsudairae" has links to pages in 27 different language wikipedias; assuming we want wikispecies to be linked in to wikipedia, unless we can somehow link redirects, this effectively discourages page moves, or encourages linking wikispecies to the "wrong" wikidata item, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 15:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i.e., perhaps we need some kind of mechanism whereby we can link wikispecies taxon redirect pages to wikidata items, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Maculosae tegmine lyncis: - yet another wikidata pair to work on! And presumably the commons category, too, and the same for all the other taxa previously in Oceanodroma - it really is getting a complex nuisance to update moves between genera! I did a genus of just 3 species a few months back, and it was a solid 3 hours work disentangling the old links and reconnecting to the new. That's why updates - particularly to widely-known species like birds - are falling so far behind, now (e.g. our treatment of Argya and other genera in Leiothrichidae and related families is woefully out of date, both here and at Commons). It was never this bad before wikidata got its claws into everything :-( MPF (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MPF: Hours of link maintenance in such cases simply isn't a workable solution - less Herculean users simply won't do it, and as you say, there are many pages to be updated, not to mention those that don't yet exist. There has to be some kind of software-based solution, similar to the ability to add the Commons category property to a wikdata item (so that one more than one wikipedia page can see a link in the left-hand margin to one and the same Commons category), except we want also to look out from wikispecies to articles across various wikipedias, potentially linked to a number of different wikidata items. Perhaps some kind of system where in wikidata you link the items for the various items/combinations, then, to generate the links in the left-hand margin, there is a sweep of all links to related/connected items. That, something else, or, as can presumably be done with the current software, to have only one wikidata item for Baikal teal, and include on that one item the information that is currently spread across the Anas formosa and Sibirionetta formosa items (is there a benefit of having this split? as far as I can see, there is only the one wikidata:Q1405 item "Augustus" even though he is referred to as Octavian before 27 BC, and he changed families), Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 16:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another option, with at least two benefits, would be, instead of moving pages when there is an update, to maintain the page with the old taxon name and create an additional page with the new taxon name, noting on the page for the old combination, perhaps with a redirect/synonym/pointer template at the top and a link in the taxonavigation section, that there is a new combination; this would mean both pages could be linked to wikidata, and via that to the various language wikipedias, and have the benefits of (1) being something that could be decided upon and (gradually) actioned entirely within wikispecies; and (2) allowing eg type information, where there are two descriptions using different material which are subsequently deemed to relate to the same species, to be maintained for each (in a few years there may be new analytical methods which would warrant a revisit of the old material etc). Are there any obvious drawbacks with this? Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am all for the creating of all synonyms so that we become fully a registry of names which should be our desired goal (which in itself would be an enormous task), but not all combinations our species pages are nested you want them sitting under incorrect genera? Artificially inflating the metrics on genera. The nomenclature here is used, not just by wikidata, but by international checklists, nomenclatural research works etc. This would be a direct negative on the currency and traceability of our data as has been recognized by external organizations such as the IUBS. It will be never ending, taxonomy is a fluid science, names are not stable from a nomenclatural perspective in combination and are not meant to be. If there are two descriptions at same level, eg species, then you are dealing with synonyms, currently synonyms are generally redirects, as are changed combinations. I could not support keeping combinations does more harm to wikispecies than any benefit for wikidata. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 03:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is that different from your point here that we should have pages for all names/synonyms, with the full data, rather than redirects? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 03:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
no, your asking us to keep pages when we move them, ie create a dublicate page under the new combination, combinations are not synonyms. I said above I am all for creating synonyms that are in their original combination and linked to their senior synonym. That is very different to what your asking. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 13:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks like I explained badly what I was trying to mean - I think I'm trying to say what you are saying, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 13:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC) Following w:Synonym (taxonomy) and Help:Name section#Synonyms or Synonymy , are you saying the Synonyms subheading on eg Macaca fuscata is wrong, because this list combines synonyms sensu stricto with combinations? We could get round the above issue of "inflating the metrics on genera" either by omitting the taxon pages for historic combinations from the genus page, or by listing them as species excludendae, which might serve users well by enabling them to find on the genus page the taxon they may be looking for, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC) Or a nova et vetera nomina section, as on Felis, Felis chaus, and Phorusrhacidae (in collapsed box), which also shows some of the history of the taxon (and is a great help, not least re completeness, when compiling the page), without inflating the number of currently recognized species, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 14:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No the synonymy on the page should be called the synonymy I am not referring to that, a synonymy is a list of synonyms ordered by priority and can only include available names listed by priority. You seem to be confusing mononomials and binomials. The species name only refers to the mononomial species epithet, what genus name it is in combination with is the binomial. Our pages are main-spaced under the binomial name, so if a species changes genus we move the page to reflect that, we generally leave a redirect but that's all. We need them to be redirects as that makes a search go to the current page. The species Emydura macquarii was originally described as Emys macquarii later being moved to Chelemys macquarii before finally to Emydura I think we should have a page for Emys macquarii as that is the original combination but we do not need a page for Chelemys macquarii, this would add extra work and confusion. The original combination would be linked to from the species page not the genus. You need to separate the Genus from the Species names for nomenclature. The species name stays the same for the most part (gender can effect spelling in some names) irrespective of the genus, the genus is for context. Genera should only be linked to valid (zoology) species names we cannot just create duplicate pages of species pages that are being moved named for their new genus. This was not about the metrics for Wikidata or even within Wikimedia its for the primary users of this database of names, which is checklists, taxonomists and many people who do not generally even use Wikipedia. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for taking the time and trouble to explain/elaborate; just two points (though I would have thought listing, under the Synonyms/Synonymy heading, names used and subsequently found to be unavailable might have some benefit in terms of completeness/comprehensibility), (1) "we cannot just create duplicate pages of species pages that are being moved named for their new genus" - if, before the Emydura move, we were to have had both Emys macquarii and Chelemys macquarii (of course they wouldn't be exact duplicates, as some of the information and links would likely be different), would it not be a little like that; and (2) "this would add extra work and confusion" - that's a starting point for this part of the discussion, in that a user above said they spent three hours fixing the links for three species, which means it might be significantly less work to have multiple pages; the alternative is to move pages, likely without removing the wikidata link first, which potentially adds confusion to that project, plus results, as in the Hydrobates/Oceanodroma example above, in an effectively orphaned page within the wiki world (so wikispecies users cannot easily click through to the related article in the language of their choice etc). I don't know whether it's much of a disservice for some users, while there may be a benefit for others. Over to others on this though. Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your using the generalized wiki concept of the terms synonyms and synonymy, these are actually two different things both defined by nomenclatural codes, which we follow here. Synonyms are all available (zoology) names of a currently valid (zoology) taxon. A synonymy is a list of synonyms ordered according to the relevant code in terms of priority. These are not the same thing. I have no issue with people listing unavailable names in there, as long as they are identified as such, particularly if they have been used.
The content of the page is not the point and is irrelevant. It is the name space that is a duplicate. Chelemys macquarii is identical to Emydura macquarii the names because only the macquarii part is important from a nomenclatural point of view. It will create search and data-mine issues. You can always link your wikidata items to the redirects if you wish, though I imagine that will be problematic. I sympathize with the issue but I don't agree with the solution, and I am not sure your really understanding what this project is doing. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 16:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In terms of the use, or otherwise, which is made of this place by the pros, it looks like the entire team, including any editorial assistants etc, on this one: DOI: 10.1111/zoj.12397 could have saved themselvs a lot of bother by spending five seconds typing Bellulia into the wikispecies search box, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC) Reply[reply]
I have raised a query on wikidata to see if anyone there can think of a workable solution, thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since it doesn't look like it has been brought up already, Wikidata's WikiProject Taxonomy explains why there are items for each species name combination. It seems the goal here is to make Wikidata neutral wrt accepted names, but obviously this has made linking the items to Wikipedia (in all languages) and Wikispecies rather complicated. I understand their reasoning but nevertheless it has frustrated me too as well as many others of course. (I would have added more but then it risks looking like a rant, to be honest) Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not trying to make Wikidata do anything, though you have a typo above "wrt" so am not clear what you were saying there. I am familiar with the Taxonomy Project there I do edit on Wikidata a bit, I admit not a lot. In the IUBS working group papers we listed all the major list aggregators that could or are in the act of going global. We examined Wikipedia, Wikidata and Wikispecies among those. But we only listed Wikispecies. There were reasons for that. If you wish to know why message me. But I cannot discuss that on here. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 20:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was using "wrt" to mean "with respect to", sorry about that. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ahh that makes more sense sorry used to acronyms being caps. At present its hard enough to get all taxa covered, get all the names in, combinations apart from the original and the currently accepted have little relevance in nomenclature and should only be in the synonymy. So they tend to be made into redirects or often as not effectively deleted by being moved without a redirect. Though I would encourage people to leave the redirect for combination changes. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 20:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks; there may be a work-around, but it's probably not ideal - is it possible to transfer the history without moving the page? If one creates a page, links it to wikidata, then creates a new page, links that to wikidata, then redirects the old page to the new, wikidata already has a link to both pages, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC) cf. Category:Redirects connected to a Wikidata itemReply[reply]
@Maculosae tegmine lyncis, Faendalimas: “You can always link your wikidata items to the redirects if you wish, though I imagine that will be problematic.” That approach is preferred by many w.r.t. the “Bonny and Clyde problem” for the Wikipedias. The technical fix of allowing links to redirects via the Wikidata UI has been discussed repeatedly, but meets heavy resistance from some quarters. It was a community wish that garnered a good number of votes this year, but didn't make the selection of top wishes. m:Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Wikidata#Allow adding sitelink to redirect in Wikipedia section. Is there some way a bot could be coded to add special Wikidata handling for Wikispecies page moves? (e.g. create item for new name/combination, link old name to redirect page) That would fix incoming sitelinks to Wikispecies, but for outgoing you would still need to move all the sitelinks from the old-name item to the new-name item (or add manual sitelinks to override Wikidata). Absent some special back-end magic, I think a dedicated Wikispecies instruction page for page-moves and redirects would be warranted, that covers cases such as genus splits (move page to new binomial combination and re-link Wikidata), name brought into synonymy (merge content and redirect synonym to accepted name), etc. ⁓ Pelagic (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A partial work-around is possible, as may be seen on Oceanodroma matsudairae, (the redirect page of this name, not the page to which it redirects; see the history); by replacing the redirect with holding text such as "a", the page becomes something that can be linked to wikidata, then once the link is made, the redirect can be (re-)instated. This means that the rest of the wiki world can potentially link via wikidata to the up-to-date page on wikispecies, but still from wikispecies there are no/limited links to the rest of the wiki world, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Variants on Template:Image - † / no italics[edit]

Hello, Template:ImageR​(egular), Template:ImageE​(xtinct), and Template:ImageER(​xtinct & regular) have been created with similar functionality to Template:Image but to display the text in the caption, respectively, (1) in regular/non-italics; (2) with †; and (3) with † and in regular/non-italics. This means that, as used in Suchia, an unspecified image can be pulled from wikidata via the template while formatting the caption correctly. Assuming no objections, I'll update the template documentation pages accordingly, thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thankyou for this initiative. A word of caution. Images pulled from WD will not have a species level caption and therefore, in my opinion, are of little or no use for taxa above species level. Andyboorman (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maculosae tegmine lyncis: I agree with Andy Boorman. Also, generally we only use the dagger † symbol for extinct taxa in the "Taxonavigation" section. Not in the "Name" sections or in image captions, and of course not in the "Synonyms" sections either. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Re that point, should the dagger † be used with the type species? Perhaps those two should be deleted then, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also more or less agree... I guess, where an image exists, we should be linking to it and specifying the species or equivalent in the caption; presumably it would be possible to create a Template:Image2 (or equivalent), altering the order of the parameters, which would allow one to name the species/amend the caption while still pulling the image direct from wikidata - but I guess this could be an issue where the image in wikidata is then changed; what I largely had in mind was instances where there is as yet no image in Commons, and sometimes Template:Image is added so that, were an image later to be uploaded and added to the wikidata item, it would be available to see (eg Eomysticetidae) - but for taxa above genus, the caption would then be displayed incorrectly in italics, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I propose we delete them. Furthermore I've edited the image code on the Suchia page: it's still the same picture, but now the caption shows the name of the depicted species since I argue that a picture of two crocodiles doesn't really "depict" the whole cladus... That also points out the main problem: For taxa above species level the caption will always be wrong (in respect to what the picture shows), unless added manually. So for genus and higher taxa we should always add the picture + taxon name manually, at least until we find a better solution. Whether we show an incorrect caption in plain text or the same incorrect caption in italics is very much a secondary problem – it's more important to get the actual names right. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]
I agree with @Tommy Kronkvist: here there are numerous issues with auto-adding of images, when it works fine, but you need to check and it many times does not. Additional issues are so many species are misidentified on Commons, I have moved 100s of images that were incorrect. I am not sure how WD handles that, I assume they update eventually. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also agree with @Tommy Kronkvist: I keep coming across {{Image}} added to taxa above species and having to either delete the template or search for a better accurately named image. The template more often than not was added, in good faith, by a uncontrolled bot - ouch! Manual expert driven control of images on WS, Commons and WD should be the norm. Andyboorman (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One more for agreeing we should show a named species, not an unspecified member of a clade. I'd additionally suggest that, wherever possible, the image should show a specimen of the type species - that way, the image doesn't need to change, if the circumscription of the clade changes. @Faendalimas: when you find a misidentified pic at Commons, it's always worth checking its page usage, and change it yourself (particularly so if it appears on WD!). True it can be tedious changing an image with hundreds of usages on 50 or more wikipedias, but you can't rely on the error being picked up, so it is worth doing (just as a random example, here's my list of contributions on Ukrainian wikipedia ... spot the 'replace misidentified image' summaries :-)) - MPF (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thankyou @MPF: Andyboorman (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MPF: I do and if you look at my contributions on several wikis, eg Japanese, these are all updates for images I have never edited those wikis for any other reason. I am not the only page mover. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excellent :-)) MPF (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Taxonomic databases[edit]

At present, the fact is obvious that the system of living organisms is extremely unstable and constantly undergoes changes. However, there is still no clear consensus on Wikispecies and related projects on when a new idea will become mainstream. Nowadays, taxonomic databases updated in real time are widely used. This raises the question of the following: Do we need leading sources on taxonomy?

Since compiling information from a large number of unrelated sources is original research, this is the argument for using databases. Nevertheless, the information in the databases can be partly related to the personal opinions of the authors, or, even worse, be just a dump of the latest scientific data (not always generally accepted). When different databases support the same point of view, this is a very convenient situation, but in fact, very often conflicting information is discarded in them. In such cases, it is not clear which point of view should be considered the main one. WS:PR provides some guidelines for using databases, but the lack of strong rules to refer to can be a source of many conflicts.

For example, WS:PR provides links to databases for individual taxonomic groups, but it is also recommended to use ITIS and BioLib, which have a wider coverage. How should conflicts between different databases be resolved? Another relevant example: the third and final edition of the Mammal Species of the World was published in 2005 and is still often used as a source for mammalian taxonomy. However, there have been many changes in taxonomy over the past 17 years, and both MSW3 editors (D. E. Wilson[1] and D. M. Reeder[2]) seem to acknowledge that their summary is out of date. At the same time, in recent years, the ASM Mammal Diversity Database, which is updated in real time, has proven itself, which, perhaps, should displace MSW3 in place of the main source for mammalian taxonomy. It is still unclear how to respond to the gradual obsolescence of MSW3.

Based on the above considerations, I believe that a consensus should be formed, which can also become a recommendation for editors of different language sections of Wikipedia. My opinion is that we really should choose the databases that can be the highest authorities on the classification of individual taxonomic groups. However, as with other sources, information from the databases must be critically reviewed. With the overwhelming prevalence of recent sources promoting the opposite view, the database may not be considered the primary source. HFoxii (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

heya yes this is part of what is behind the concept of Global Species Lists of which I acknowledge I am both an author of the many papers around that and a member of the IUBS Working Group on this. I don't think unstable is the right word here, they are changing a lot as the increased development of molecular techniques and their application has brought about many changes and also uncovered significant errors. On choosing a particular checklist/ database over another I would recommend people look at the principals we outlined in our papers starting with Garnett et al. 2020[3] however there are a series of 6 other relevant publications. Important issues with databases and checklists is who is making them, are they peer reviewed and do they have wide taxon community support. For turtles for example I would suggest the TTWG 2021 checklist is the best, Reptile Database effectively copies it in any case. Birds are problematic though they are endeavoring to fix their problems of have multiple international databases right now. Whatever checklist is chosen must be authoritative, have currency and stability, and lastly have clear methods. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a critical issue. On what concerns to Aves, IOC and Clements/eBird are, in my opinion, the most reliable and dynamic database sources. ITIS is faraway outdated and no longer should be followed. As our agreement is following IOC, I feel very comfortable about it and I try to be very disciplined when some taxonomic disagreement shows up.--Hector Bottai (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am a little hesitant to list all my papers on this important topic, as that is a bit self promotional, @Hector Bottai: I also have a recent paper relevant on the bird issue. Just among raptors there can be up to a 20% difference in the number of species groups recognised, also some taxa are in different genera among the bird lists. The problem in the birdlists stems from the emphasis and pressures upon each list. Birdlife for example is heavily influenced by conservation, hence it has fallen into the trap of recognising many more taxa than IOC with the hope of attracting conservation funding and legislation to populations by elevating them to species. I do think here at Wikispecies we should be using the principles proposed by the IUBS GSLWG perhaps we can have a discussion on the issue, Wikispecies is listed among the global databases recognised by the IUBS. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The w:Global Species List Working Group does have a wikipedia page for those wanting to see their work. Needs a minor update as all the papers are now published. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 20:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fully agree with @Faendalimas: on your observation about Birdlife/HBW, they went too far on poor based splits.--Hector Bottai (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi all,
There is no simple answer to all this. My practice with IRMNG (an analogous project to Wikispecies) is to look for, and if possible designate, a preferred "trusted source" for each taxonomic group or sector and follow that, with the following caveats:
- the preferred "trusted source" may have some internal sectors that are more up-to-date than others (i.e., there may be more recent treatments in the published literature, which can potentially then be followed if not too "bleeding edge" and/or themselves controversial)
- the "trusted source" may have errors (hopefully few), detectable via comparison and critical appraisal as compared with content in other sources
- the "trusted source" may take an editorial stance (which of multiple available options it chooses to follow, for example in the areas of lumping/splitting, taxonomic placement, etc.) with which I as a user may disagree (for example recognising a phylum or class, or lump vs. split that I consider not preferable according to other information, etc.)
Errors and questionable content in any trusted source should preferably be communicated back to the compilers of that source for action as needed, as well (I do this on a semi-regular basis, with a number of such sources).
With some groups such as birds, I recognise that there are multiple competing "trusted sources" that can be followed. In cases such as this I tend to defer to what is currently preferred in the Catalogue of Life, where possible, for pragmatic reasons if nothing else (minimising discrepancies with that compendium in that case, but not necessarily all)...
Examples of "trusted sources" for use in Wikispecies could be added to a relevant lookup page (not sure that is the best place, others may already exist??) and be maintained through time by interested persons, maybe, and discussed on that article's talk page or elsewhere.
As a practical example, for higher taxonomy of extant taxa I take (took) Ruggiero et al's 2015 "higher classification of all living organisms" as my starting point in 2015, but did not implement everything in it (for example keeping Aves as a class, not a subclass of Reptilia) and have also come to implement some subsequent changes following other authors according to my reading of the literature, such as moving Rozellids out of Protozoa into Fungi and a few other cases - each arguable one way or the other, but adopted as my own "editorial view" for IRMNG which may occasionally contrast with the Ruggiero et al. treatment - itself overdue for review of course...
Just my 2 cents worth, hopefully constructive. In an ideal world, databases should follow the literature, not other secondary compilations, but in the real world life is often too short to permit all that taxon-by-taxon effort; however we should hope that most database statements include an "audit trail" so that one can see from where they obtained their information, and then be able to make an assessment as to whether or not it likely represents the current/preferred treatment. Regards - Tony Rees, IRMNG Tony 1212 (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe replace "trusted source" with "default treatment" in the paragraphs I wrote above ... in the early days of IRMNG there were definitely "more trusted" vs. "less trusted" sources, now it is not so much a question of trust as of practical preference. Also, "default treatment" adds the connotation that one may on occasion wish to depart from it, hopefully with the rationale explained and appropriate supporting references cited... Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have mocked up an example page at which gives a suggestion as to how currently used treatments might be documented. If folk like this approach, I could port the content to a "proper" Wikispecies page for real world use... I do not plan to populate it, however in the long term it would be nice if it contained as a starting point, a "complete" list of all potential taxonomic groups that could be covered, according to some over-arching arrangement such as that at (my own arrangement - possibly with modifications to be agreed) or any other that editors may prefer... Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 06:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

───────────────────────── Thanks @Tony 1212: this initiative could help as developed. I will add my pennies worth as far as vascular plants are concerned. IPNI is the definitive database of published names making no judgements as to accepted names, it is not perfect, but if you spot errors or omissions they will rapidly correct - please include the protologue or source it makes updates quicker. World Checklist of Vascular Plants(WCVP) is an emerging peer reviewed database of accepted names and brings together the "RBG Kew" stable of World Checklist of Selected Plant Families(WCSP) and Plants of the World(POWO). Like IPNI the curators are contactable and will edit out mistakes quickly and will update as required, but please note they take a consensus view and will argue for one side of a taxonomic opinion over another. Catalogue of Life(COL) is comprehensive and partially curated, it uses WCSP and other trusted databases, but some of these are are getting dated. Tropicos with it links to database of local flora has merits, although dated in parts. The problem for WS is when, for example POWO shows a difference to COL when it comes to acceptance, but that is a discussion for another time! Regards Andyboorman (talk) 09:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like this table existing, it will be helpful I believe and as developed should be migrated to exist among the help pages, which also need a complete rewrite. I added a comment on your talk page for the table @Tony 1212:. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I have fleshed out the demo table a bit more (animals and plants, more to do), not added any refs back as yet but will work on it further over the next day or so for your comments... Take a look again if interested. Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did a bit more work on my "mockup" table, but hunting around I found the page which I think covers essentially the same territory, so making my effort redundant ... so would suggest interested persons simply add their comments and additional recommended sources there... Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coming in late as usual :-) but as an aside, "Since compiling information from a large number of unrelated sources is original research" - it isn't, it is derived research. In the context of wikispecies, original research would be actions like publishing a new taxon here - MPF (talk) 10:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- Or taking one side over another when it comes to taxonomic opinions. Andyboorman (talk) 11:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, this is correct. However, I think everyone agrees that original interpretations of taxonomy based on synthesis from sources that promote opposing points of view are unacceptable. In addition, as mentioned earlier, it would be great if it were possible to form some kind of recommendation that would be applicable to related projects (including Wikipedia). HFoxii (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Disagree with @HFoxii:. Making reasoned recommendations favouring one taxonomic opinions over another is not the place of WS, as the site is about reporting taxonomy not debate. Evidence based discussions about taxonomic opinions belong in material to be submitted for consideration by peer reviewed academic press. Fortunately, about 99% of our taxon pages are non-controversial, therefore highlighting those few exceptions in a balanced manner is not too problematical IMHO. Andyboorman (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The presence of different interpretations leads to taxonomic chaos. This is a common problem, and although it cannot be solved all at once, certain measures must be taken to solve it. In my opinion, setting a recommendation to use / not use certain databases is the easiest way to make the situation less confusing. Otherwise, we run a great risk of creating original taxonomic interpretations based on conflicting sources. HFoxii (talk) 02:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure picking and choosing sources to fit a particular editors view point is the way to go. What about a fellow editor who disagrees taking the opposite view and edits out, so probably leading to an edit war? Andyboorman (talk) 09:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with @Andyboorman: here I think it better to maintain lists of available checklists with links to accessing them, in some cases a group may have several good checklists that cover different parts of the group better, its also important to recognise the contributions of local, regional and global lists as well as global taxonomic lists. Determine the currency, stability and authority of the different lists and understand their methodologies. As I said earlier have a set of criteria for using them and perhaps discuss that as a help page. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 13:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not saying that we should ignore opposing points of view. The problem is that when there are conflicting lists for the same taxonomic groups, it can easily lead to an edit war. An example has already been given above. There is currently a real-time updated ASM Mammal Diversity Database (MDD). However, the information on the MDD does not always match the Mammal Species of the World, which is traditionally used as the primary source for mammalian taxonomy. In addition, there is the respected taxonomic list of marine mammals by the Society for Marine Mammalogy. We also have a number of conflicting bird databases. What to do with such contradictions? What point of view should be considered the main one? HFoxii (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In fact, all I now propose is to formulate a list of databases recommended for use for certain taxonomic groups. When there are conflicting databases, one should choose which one will have more authority in resolving conflicts. HFoxii (talk) 02:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@HFoxii: I can do this for vascular plants from my own experience. How much detail do you need and do you want it posted here on this already crowded thread or will you create a new one? Andyboorman (talk) 08:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andyboorman: Any such contribution is appreciated. Tony 1212 has already started listing default databases for various taxa (although I disagree with him about the widespread use of IRMNG); maybe you should give your opinion on the list's talk page. HFoxii (talk) 07:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@HFoxii:@Andyboorman:I started such a table but then stopped it again, see comment above, reproduced here: "I did a bit more work on my "mockup" table, but hunting around I found the page which I think covers essentially the same territory, so making my effort redundant ... so would suggest interested persons simply add their comments and additional recommended sources there... Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)" Tony 1212 (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@HFoxii: I will compile a prod and cons list for you soon, but IPNI, WCSP, POWO, COL and Tropicos will always figure in the majority of my reference lists, in addition I have been made aware of new developments at WCVP. Do not use The Plant List, as it has not been updated since 2013. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For spiders, the World Spider Catalog is the most authoritative source and should always override other databases. Meta-databases such as COL, EOL, and ITIS are only as good as their input databases, which in some cases are low-quality self-published databases that should not be considered authoritative. Personally, I think we should avoid any endorsement of these meta-databases and focus on specialized primary databases. Nosferattus (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. Quote from Introduction to Illustrated Checklist of the Mammals of the World (Wilson is one of the editors of this book[1]): "Overall, reliance on formal taxonomic compendia in mammalian record keeping has often led to delays in the incorporation of systematic revisions. This is exemplified by the continual reference to Mammal Species of the World, Volume 3 (Wilson & Reeder 2005) as the starting point for all taxonomic arrangements in these volume, despite having been published 15 years ago. All vertebrate classes currently have online databases with updatable species lists (e.g., AmphibiaWeb, Reptile Database, AviBase, and FishBase), yet mammals were the exception until the creation of the MDD in 2018. The welcome fact that global Mammalia now has an updatable online database ensures that species-level mammalian taxonomy is more quickly adopted to inform diverse types of research from biodiversity conservation to zoonotic diseases".
  2. D. Reeder is a member of the ASM Biodiversity Committee, which oversees the ASM Mammal Diversity Database[2].
  3. Garnett ST, Christidis L, Conix S, Costello MJ, Zachos FE, Banki OS, et al. (2020) Principles for creating a single authoritative list of the world’s species.PLoS Biol 18(7):e3000736. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000736 pdf

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.