Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 64

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.

Bumastus barriensis[edit]

Sources differ:

  • Bumastus barriensis Murchison, 1839 (Fossiilid; IRMNG)
  • Bumastus barriensis Volborth, 1864 (Fossilworks; Gbif)

why does this happen, which is correct, and why? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Muchison, 1839 is correct: the genus Bumastus was originally described in Murchison, 1839 with only one species, Bumastus barriensis (see [1]), which is therefore also the type species (by monotypy). I have no idea why Fossilworks gives the authority as "Volborth, 1864" (I think it is probably an error on the part of whoever entered the data?), but the corresponding record at The Paleobiology Database actually gives it instead as Murchison, 1839: [2]. GBIF I assume copied this authority from an older version of the The Palaeobiology Database's record, given it states the website as the source. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That said, I've been getting the feeling for a while that Fossilworks isn't actually being updated anymore, despite what the About page says. I've noticed in particular that new taxa, references and other data from 2021 up to this year are missing, when comparing it with Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


At present, WS has Eohippus as a syn. of Hyracotherium in Equidae, cited source is "Fossilworks ... Accessed on 20 November 2015". However Froelich, 2002 reinstated Eohippus as a valid genus and moved Hyracotherium to Palaeotheriidae; this is currently followed in Wikipedia and Fossilworks, for both Hyracotherium and Eohippus (the latter remains in Equidae). A search of Google Scholar since 2010 for articles including both names ( indicates many workers still using phrases such as "Hyracotherium (=Eohippus)", but I am guessing that is incorrect? From Prothero, Donald R. (2017). Evolution (What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters) || 14. Bossies and Blowholes. , doi:10.7312/prot18064-019:

"These early Eocene horses have long been known as Eohippus (but that name is invalid for most of them) and Hyracotherium (but Hooker [1989] showed that Hyracotherium is a member of a native European group known as palaeotheres, not a true horse). Froehlich (2002) analyzed the North American fossils in detail and found that the old name Eohippus is only applicable to one of the species, E. angustidens. Instead, many of these early Eocene horses belong to Protorohippus, while others are assigned to a variety of genera, including previously proposed names such as Xenicohippus, Systemodon, and Pliolophus, as well as new genera such as Sifrhippus, Minippus, and Arenahippus. The old days when all early Eocene horses could be lumped into one genus (whether Eohippus or Hyracotherium) are long gone!"

So would I be correct in suggesting that at least we resurrect Eohippus from synonymy, plus move Hyracotherium to Palaeotheriidae?

Ref: Froehlich, D. J. (2002). Quo vadis Eohippus? The systematics and taxonomy of the early Eocene equids (Perissodactyla). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 134(2): 141-256., available online at Tony 1212 (talk) 03:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am guessing that under the scenario outlined above, our page for Hyracotheriinae may be requiring an update as well - have not checked where the genera listed therein now reside... Tony 1212 (talk) 03:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who can be considered a Taxon Authority?[edit]

We have so many "Taxon Authorities" who don't really deserve a page in Wikispecies:

  • Many are just PhD's graduates who fancy having a page.
  • Many published a zoological book or article but never authored a single species.
  • Many are name-variations of a same author.
  • Many are just errors, spam or vandalism.

Unresolved or Unmentioned Authorities is a partial list I compiled that consists of suspects in belonging to one of the above categories. To my mind in every authority page must be listed at least one species the person authored and at least one publication. Is this an exaggerated requirement? I think this is a reasonable one.

Can we browse through the list and cull it down, or else "bring to life" some genuine authors? I hope we join forces on this! Mariusm (talk) 11:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think your ideas are very reasonable. For botany if an author is not on IPNI then further investigation is warranted. Andyboorman (talk) 11:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Name variations should be merged with a redirect. Vanity pages, spam and vandalism pages should be deleted (or tagged by non-admins for speedy deletion); do you have examples? "Errors" can mean many things, and need case-by-case assessment; examples would again be useful. I thought all of the aforesaid was already agreed, and standard practice. Authors of books or papers, but not taxonomists, is a grey area - they may be co-authors with taxonomists, for example. Again, case-by-case assessment would probably be appropriate. Your list would be better as a category; if for no other reason than it would alert their creators through watchlists. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First, I am far to be an specialist on who is or not a taxon authority. But I have doubts about being the author of at least one taxon to be the only criteria. Example: authors of a paper that radically changed the taxonomy of one or more species; other, authors of a paper that promoted a ssp to species range. Why they shouldn't be considered a "taxon authority"? At the end of the day, those authors had a crucial influence over those certain taxa. I can easily list some authors that never authored a single taxon but for sure are much more important that some obscure authors of a single taxon. Food for thought.--Hector Bottai (talk) 13:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is an old discussion relevant about the subject, see: Wikispecies:Village_Pump/Archive_56#Candidates_for_speedy_deletion. Burmeister (talk) 14:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Including the authors of every book and paper on Zoology/Botany is excessive, but even important authors who didn't author a taxon name are not really within WS scope. Mariusm (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some other examples of non-taxon authors may be found at the base of Category:People, though they may not neatly fit into one of the above categories Mariusm lists. A number of them for instance were created by PeterR for (presumably) entomologists, and linked to either a publication or a collection of theirs in which types are deposited, but in other cases I'm not exactly sure why they were created at all. (For instance, who on earth was Stephen Maxwell Van Dyck and why does Wikispecies have a page for him? No details are given at all so this appears to be an entirely useless page, unless it happens to be the full name of Steve Van Dyck?) Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Instead of at least one species the person authored it should be: :at least one taxon the person authored, synonymized, re-defined or changed status/rank. Mariusm (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mariusm: definition is brilliant.--Hector Bottai (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess the point I tried to make in the previous occasion is that we really have two separate titles here. Taxon Authority and Taxon Author. Personally I do not consider all taxon authors as taxon authorities, I do not think you have to be a taxon author to be an authority. The more important term is Taxon Authority, this would be someone who through their published works have demonstrated the relationships and classification of some group of organisms in a way that has received widespread acceptance, even if that has since changed. Plenty of species have been described by people who have no established acceptance or recognition and it ended up being the work of others who eventually established that the species they named were valid. I would suggest its the ones who did the work and garnered the eventual acceptance who are the authorities. As a taxonomist myself I have named 7 species and 3 genera, this makes me a taxon author. However I consider that it is my work re-arranging the entire family Chelidae, demonstrating the relkationships, resurrecting species and sinking them, doing synonymies and publishing keys across some 200 papers that has received worldwide acceptance and usage in all relevant checklists that makes me a taxon authority, not the species I described they are not relevant to the bigger equation. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 20:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noctuidae or Erebidae? (Both in Lepidoptera.)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikispecians. I wonder whether this edit of the Catocalinae template is correct, where an unregistered editor changed parent taxon of subfamily Catocalinae from Noctuidae to Erebidae? If incorrect, please also have a look at the editor's other recent contributions: there are 14 of them. A note here after your checks would be welcome. Thanks beforehand! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Catocalinae are indeed placed currently in Erebidae but as a tribe (Catocalini). See Molecular phylogenetics of Erebidae (Lepidoptera, Noctuoidea). Reza et al., 2011. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3113.2011.00607.x. Mariusm (talk) 09:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seeking volunteers for the next step in the Universal Code of Conduct process[edit]


As follow-up to the message about the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines by Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Vice Chair, Shani Evenstein Sigalov, I am reaching out about the next steps. I want to bring your attention to the next stage of the Universal Code of Conduct process, which is forming a building committee for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C). I invite community members with experience and deep interest in community health and governance to nominate themselves to be part of the U4C building committee, which needs people who are:

  • Community members in good standing
  • Knowledgeable about movement community processes, such as, but not limited to, policy drafting, participatory decision making, and application of existing rules and policies on Wikimedia projects
  • Aware and appreciative of the diversity of the movement, such as, but not limited to, languages spoken, identity, geography, and project type
  • Committed to participate for the entire U4C Building Committee period from mid-May - December 2023
  • Comfortable with engaging in difficult, but productive conversations
  • Confidently able to communicate in English

The Building Committee shall consist of volunteer community members, affiliate board or staff, and Wikimedia Foundation staff.

The Universal Code of Conduct has been a process strengthened by the skills and knowledge of the community and I look forward to what the U4C Building Committee creates. If you are interested in joining the Building Committee, please either sign up on the Meta-Wiki page, or contact ucocproject(_AT_) by May 12, 2023. Read more on Meta-Wiki.

Best regards,

Xeno (WMF) 19:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Circumscription of Pinus[edit]

I have been looking through the infrageneric circumscription of Pinus. The usage and naming of the two subgenera are now fairly well established with only a few exceptions. However, below this I have problems establishing where our circumscription comes from, for example, Sections and Subsections under Pinus subg. Strobus seems to be a mish-mash of the two references cited, which only agree in part. The protologue does not deal with sections. I hope to be enlightened in due course, before making any major changes. Please see Gymnosperm Database, as an alternative. Andyboorman (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In addition, there is some differences in species acceptance across differing resources, for example Pinus uyematsui possible synonymn of Pinus morrisonicola. Andyboorman (talk) 08:45, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MPF: & @RLJ: As main editors on these pages, do you have objections to me bringing Pinus in line with our references, Conifer Database, Gymnosperm Database and more current publications? Some species may disappear in synonymy, by the way, as well as some adjustments in tribal and subtribal circumscriptions. Andyboorman (talk) 09:17, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Andyboorman and RLJ: - I stopped contributing on wikis a couple of months ago due to the way I was treated - bullied off - by a very senior wikimedian on Commons; the way I was made to feel very unwelcome and unappreciated. But in case my opinion is still of interest or value, I would advise strongly against Farjon's Kew Conifer Database in particular, and to a lesser extent the Gymnosperm Database too, which has gone downhill in recent years due to increasing convergence with a lot of the very poor taxonomic decisions by Farjon in the Conifer Database. A far better option would be Businský's work; he has (unlike Farjon) studied all the taxa in person in the wild, and his observation and taxonomic judgement is considerably better. Case in point above; Businský's illustrations clearly show that Pinus uyematsui is strikingly distinct (slender cones with thin scales; seeds small, with a long wing 2-3x seed length: similar to Pinus peuce or Pinus wallichiana) from Pinus morrisonicola (stout cones with thick, woody scales; seeds large, with a short wing approx equal to the seed length: more similar to Pinus parviflora or Pinus flexilis). They should not be treated as synonymous; Hayata (who described both) was quite correct in considering them distinct. Similarly, Businský has been to Hainan and studied Pinus fenzeliana in the wild (Businský specimen from Hainan); he is correct in saying that it is absolutely not the same as Pinus wangii subsp. kwangtungensis (as Farjon claims, without evidence), but is the same as Averyanov's much later Pinus cernua.
On my talk page some time ago, you commented "... I would much rather trust those operating out of professional academic institutes, such as RBG Kew". Yes, I am in general strongly in favour of following an authority; however, that authority has to be earned to be trusted; it has to show itself in accord with evidence. IOC for birds has that trust for me; there are hardy any of its decisions at odds with evidence, and those there have been, usually end up being sorted sooner or later (e.g. the recent split of Larus brachyrhynchus from Larus canus; long overdue, but done, eventually). But Kew, while Farjon remains a commanding 'back seat driver' in conifers, does not. It is full of arbitary decisions that do not reflect either specimen morphology evidence, published data, or internal consistency. Sadly, I have to conclude, Farjon is not a competent authority. He had far too many cases of poor taxonomic judgement (across multiple families and genera), often clouded with misidentifications (sometimes glaring) on herbarium specimens (I know someone who is compiling a lengthy list of them, in just one conifer genus alone). I would actually contend that Farjon has been the biggest obstacle to progress in conifer taxonomy and nomenclature in recent decades, and I know of several other conifer experts who would agree with that. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much, MPF, for your valuable comment! Businsky's work is available as PDF file:
Indeed @MPF: thanks for your input. I agree that WS has to be conservative when it comes to species and so Businsky will be better than PWO/Farjon. However, not sure about his infrageneric circumscription, as it seems very fine grained and the recent phylogenetic work does not fully support his position. I will get to add the citations in due course. Andyboorman (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
--RLJ (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! The paper copy is better, it includes all the illustrations (and a set of photos of the 17 rarest pine taxa) that are not in the pdf; well worth getting! - MPF (talk) 00:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is not easy! Have a look at my page for Pinus subsect. Cembroides, as an example of trying to do a WS page where consensus is problematic. Comments please particularly from @MPF: and @RLJ:. Apologies. Andyboorman (talk) 09:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Andyboorman and RLJ: - definitely not easy! There's three different factors of consensus; (1) whether the species has been accepted by everyone or not (only Pinus cembroides has been universally accepted among the true pinyons; one person or another has included all the others as infraspecific taxa in it), (2) the circumscription of each species (while Pinus cembroides is universally accepted, what infrataxa if any should be included within it, is much disputed), and (3) what taxa should be included in Pinus subsect. Cembroides, and which belong in other subsections, is also disputed. I saw you moved Pinus maximartinezii and Pinus pinceana to the subsection, but not Pinus rzedowskii; yet these three are a clear monophyletic group (Clade I in Syring et al. 2007, and Montes et al. 2019 & Montes et al. 2022), which deserves taxonomic recognition. Although Montes et al. put all 3 in subsect. Cembroides, their own data show that the three are phylogenetically distinct from the rest of the subsection. So while Businský treated his Pinus subsect. Rzedowskianae as monotypic, its recognition as including all three makes very good sense, and I think we should continue to follow this here as I had done before. - MPF (talk) 15:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes not easy! Except for Pinus johannis all taxa are accepted by both parties, only the ranks are disputed. Personally I would prefer the newer concept, but anyway, it should be made clear which concept is followed, and the synonyms which the other party accepts could be noted with "Accepted by POWO [or the other party]". --RLJ (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MPF: & @RLJ: Thanks for your well considered comments and I have adjusted the subsection using them. I will place comments on the Discussion Page and individual taxon pages in due course. Andyboorman (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andyboorman and RLJ: - thanks! I guess we should perhaps mention that Montes et al. include subsect. Rzedowskianae within their broad circumscription of subsect. Cembroides. Worth adding too though, the 3 species circumscription of subsect. Rzedowskianae was obvious from morphology long before the genetic data supported it; the Arboretum de Villardebelle website already had that circumscription in its earliest available archive from January 2004. - MPF (talk) 21:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MPF: & @RLJ: And for my next trick! I propose that Pinus subg. Pinus be re-edited mainly using Jin et al. (2021) as the latest treatment. Any thoughts, as it is much broader than Businsky, although there are many similarities in species composition? Andyboorman (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andyboorman and RLJ: thanks for the heads-up! The great majority I'd agree with, but the following points:
  • Businský (and others) is right in splitting Pinus hondurensis from the very dissimilar Pinus caribaea (which is much more similar to P. occidentalis than it is to P. hondurensis).
  • The infraspecific taxa of Pinus contorta are best treated at subspecific rank (as we already do here), not varietal.
  • They've missed that Pinus douglasiana (1943) is long predated by Pinus gordoniana (1847; a widely overlooked name, despite it being well illustrated in its protologue [not helped by another Silba & Farjon balls-up confusing it with the very different P. montezumae from a completely different part of Mexico!]).
  • Pinus apulcensis is better treated as a separate species from Pinus pseudostrobus.
  • Pinus washoensis is rightly a synonym of Pinus ponderosa subsp. ponderosa from their own data in Appendix 1 Fig. S1, as well as several other authors.
  • Pinus uncinata being split from Pinus mugo (rather than being a subspecies of it) is also not supported by their own Appendix 1 Fig. S1, nor other genetic work (e.g. Heuertz et al. 2010, Journal of Biogeography 37: 541–556; Celiński et al. 2017, Comptes Rendus Biologies 340: 339-348); I don't see any reasons to change from Christensen's very thorough 1987 monograph.
  • It omits a handful of recently described species from E Asia and Mexico and a few species they couldn't access (Pp. amamiana, cubensis, johannis, occidentalis, tropicalis; see Appendix 1); these should be retained, as there isn't any evidence from this paper to synonymise them.
  • Of their sectional and subsectional arrangement, I'd agree with all except Pinus heldreichii (I reckon Businský has this right, as a subsection of Sect. Pinus) and the Pinus latteri - Pinus merkusii pair, which are both morphologically and ecologically closer to subsect. Pinaster than to subsect. Pinus; I suspect further work may refine their allocation from what Jin et al. give.
I'll take another look in the next day or two to see if there's anything else I've missed! - MPF (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the above points! Andyboorman (talk) 09:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Still planning to check more on this! Placeholder to keep it live - MPF (talk) 23:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And still!! - MPF (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PDF links of J. Jap. Bot. have been unfunctional[edit]

PDF links of The Journal of Japanese Botany (J. Jap. Bot.) became unfunctional probably few days ago. Now its contents are available only at J-STAGE (allegedly started since 21 October 2022). I will replace deprecated links with DOI manually while wiser solutions are also welcomed. --Eryk Kij (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@エリック・キィ: - see if the old links remain available at too - MPF (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is Steve Van Dyck and Stephen Maxwell Van Dyck the same author?[edit]

I copy and paste a question from an earlier thread, above, about duplicate and/or unnecessary author pages:

For instance, who on earth was Stephen Maxwell Van Dyck and why does Wikispecies have a page for him? No details are given at all so this appears to be an entirely useless page, unless it happens to be the full name of Steve Van Dyck? Monster Iestyn 15:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC).

I think that the two Van Dyck's are probably the same person. See for example Dasyurus spartacus ("Bronze quoll") where our WS page currently only lists "Van Dyck, 1987" for the authorship, without actually specifying any given name. The corresponding Wikidata item Bronze quoll (Q133184) claims Stephen Maxwell Van Dyck (Q21340096) to be the author. This is backed up by the protologue:

Stephen M. Van Dyck. 1988. The bronze quoll, Dasyurus spartacus (Marsupialia: Dasyuridae), a new species from the savannahs of Papua New Guinea. Australian Mammalogy 11(2): 145–156. (PDF.)

Other sources referring to the same publication instead names the author as "Van Dyck, S.M."[3] (in the IUCN Red List) or "Stephen Van Dyck"[4] (active at Queensland Museum, i.e. same workplace as "Steve Van Dyck").

There are other Stephen Maxwell Van Dyck taxa as well, for example Chestnut dunnart (Q134079), Cinnamon antechinus (Q135437), and Subtropical Antechinus (Q135439). A more thorough investingation of these often ends up in listing "Steve Van Dyck" instead of "Stephen Van Dyck". –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I'm not sure if Wikidata is reliable here or not, the Wikidata item for Stephen Maxwell Van Dyck was created in 2015 by a bot automatically from the Wikispecies page. Stephen Maxwell Van Dyck was then set as the taxon author on the Bronze quoll's wikidata item in 2016 by the same bot. (Rather awkwardly, the Wikidata item for Steve Van Dyck has been around since 2013, so why did the bot not choose that one instead?). Otherwise what you say makes sense to me, though the protologue's PDF doesn't actually give "Maxwell" or "M." so I don't know where IUCN got that initial from.
Wish we could ask Open2universe where he got the taxon author name (and other taxon author names if needed) from in the first place, but it appears he's not been active on any Wikimedia site since 2016. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Correct scientific name for the (domesticated) horse[edit]

Just checking - currently in WS we have the domesticated horse as Equus ferus caballus, subspecies of Equus ferus, cited refs are Wilson & Reeder, 2005 (however the link actually goes to their entry entitled Equus caballus caballus) and ICZN Opinion 2027, 2003, which seems (to me) to rule that ferus has priority over caballus at species level, but by inference, only if the 2 are considered conspecific (my italics). Wilson & Reeder's use of caballus is according to this stated reasoning:

"Recent caballine horses have been assigned to two different species, E. caballus (or ferus) and E. przewalskii, but many authors now include przewalskii in caballus; see Corbet (1978c:194), Groves (1974a), Bennett (1980), and Bennett and Hoffman (1999). Gromov and Baranova (1981:333-334) continued to recognize two species, gmelini (= ferus) and przewalskii. Groves (1971b) and Corbet (1978c:194) proposed that ferus (the Tarpan) replace caballus, objecting to the use of specific names based on domestic animals. Gentry et al. (1996) proposed that majority usage be confirmed by adoption of the first available specific name based on a wild population for the wild taxon, in this case deemed to be E. ferus. It has not been demonstrated that most authors have termed wild horses E. ferus rather than E. caballus or E. c. ferus or other names. Azzaroli (1984), Bennett and Hoffman (1999), and Forsten (1988) are among those who have used the name caballus for the species. The case is complicated by the very much wider use of przewalskii as a name for wild horses, though przewalskii is commonly treated as a species separate from E. caballus. Gentry et al. (1996) asked the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary power to rule that the name for the wild species is not invalid by virtue of being antedated by the name based on the domestic form. The Commission has ruled in favor of the proposal (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 2003). It has stipulated that ferus is not invalid but has not specified explicitly what name is to be used for the species by those who consider E. caballus and E. ferus to be conspecific (see Bock, 1997). Material evidence that ferus is a distinct form of wild horse is limited to osteological material of two specimens and it has not been reliably identified with Pleistocene or Holocene local populations (Forsten, 1988). Its status as a wild rather than a feral form is disputed (e.g. Epstein, 1971) and it is not regarded as ancestral to domestic horses by Kuz'mina (1997). Accordingly ferus is here treated as a subspecies of E. caballus. The systematics of ferus needs to be more thoroughly reviewed."

So I am wondering if we are correct using ferus caballus where, Wilson & Reeder, taking account of the ICZN decision, use caballus caballus. Minds greater (or more up-to-date) than mine may be required here, perhaps. FWIW, Wikipedia is currently confused. At the lede states: "The horse (Equus ferus caballus)" but then the taxon navigation box says: "Species: E. caballus, Subspecies: E. c. caballus." Also they have a page which gives E. caballus as the type species, but when you click on it you get back to "The horse (Equus ferus caballus)" which is where we started... I can change the WP page(s) (I think) but only if I know what I should be changing it to... Tony 1212 (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK: Just checked ITIS and it says: "See Groves & Grubb (2011: 8 & 13). The diverse origins of domestic horses are discussed, the scientific name applicable to the domestic horses, as a species, is provided, and it is noted that it is believed to be derived from Equus ferus." (Ref. is Groves, Colin, and Peter Grubb, 2011, Ungulate Taxonomy Page(s): ix + 317 Publisher:Johns Hopkins University Press, ISBN: 1-4214-0093-6. So maybe this is the source for considering caballus a subspecies of ferus these days?? On the other hand, ITIS (current version) uses Equus caballus for this species, noting Equus ferus caballus as a synonym. Tony 1212 (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not have access to the full text of Groves & Grubb as given above, however on their p.8 they give the scientific name for the domesticated horse as E. caballus and treat it as a separate species from E. ferus, therefore this cannot be the source of the current information in Wikispecies (or Wikipedia for that matter). Tony 1212 (talk) 01:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know it is just a blog, but the author of this article may have correctly set out the principles involved in this case. Now I am hoping that other Wikispecies experts may be able to offer an opinion here :) Tony 1212 (talk) 07:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Doing my best not to labour the point here, BUT... if Wilson & Reeder use caballus, as do Groves & Grubb 2012, as does ITIS (present time), as does e.g. The Mammal Diversity Database of the American Society of Mammalogists (ASM) - see - and WS wishes to continue to use Equus ferus caballus, should there not at least be a reference to a recent source that supports and justifies this usage? Alternatively, we should maybe change to caballus as per the cited sources just listed. But it's not a decision I feel comfortable making unilaterally in case there are other reasons for maintaining the status quo name. Just putting it out there... Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 04:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note that the page was moved in 2015 (10:55, 8 June 2015 - Editor abcdef talk contribs block - m 2,648 bytes 0 - Editor abcdef moved page Equus caballus caballus to Equus ferus caballus over redirect: ICZN Opinion 2027), without discussion, by a unilateral decision, so you can move back, as the sources you brought corroborate the return of the initial name of the entry. Regards, Burmeister (talk) 11:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I tried to move to Equus caballus, but made a mistake, I moved it to "Wikispecies:Equus caballus" in error... but the system will not me move "Wikispecies:Equus caballus" to "Equus caballus", saying that there is already a page there. Can someone assist? Basically I want the history from "Equus ferus caballus", now at "Wikispecies:Equus caballus" I believe (incorrect destination), to go to "Equus caballus", along with whatever content was there prior to my first move. Help needed... I decided (at this stage) on the desired destination being "Equus caballus" not "Equus caballus caballus", since the logic of the naming depends on caballus being recognised as a species in its own right, separate from ferus (and corresponds with the cited sources). Help needed, possibly from an admin - thanks in advance - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, I will merge the two pages. Burmeister (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, looks good so far as I can see. I have added additional references and links, and will annotate some of the issues in a to-be-added section "Alternative treatments" if that is considered to be the best place for them... Tony 1212 (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now done, see Equus_caballus#Alternative_treatments. The wording in this new section is somewhat convoluted but I have done the best I can to cover the various issues involved (others may improve if they see fit). See also the Equus caballus Talk page for selected relevant discussion. Tony 1212 (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is the true scope of Wikispecies?[edit]

Wikispecies is supposed to have "all species of life", right? But what counts as life? While clearly all cellular life counts, we also include viruses. But do we include prions? Nanobes? Plasmid? 2007Gtbot (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Do these entities have a formal taxonomy? Andyboorman (talk) 06:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hmm - not sure. In 2006 when I was creating IRMNG, I added a "phylum" subviral agents, with "classes" for Prions, Satellites, and Viroids, all from the 2006 ICTVdB (viruses) via the then latest Catalog of Life; see Prions, for example, then sort into "Fungal Prions" and "Mammalian Prions", which I support at "family" level (plus children), still there in IRMNG at this time. However such items no longer appear in the ICTV database, e.g. 2010 onwards, so I am not sure whether or not I should keep them... Tony 1212 (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No (at least not an easy to find one), but I don't think thats the correct question. If they are life, then they have species and thus the species need pages. But like are they life? 2007Gtbot (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Too many orphans....[edit]

We have accumulated here too many orphaned pages - more than 3000 - see [5]

An orphaned page is one which isn't referenced or mentioned by any other page, this probably means that is is in some kind of error.

I'm trying to reduce the orphans, but it involves some hard work...

So I'm asking the members to follow some basic rules to cut down on the number.

  1. when editing a genus species list or removing a synonym from a list please retain a mention either under a synonym title or on another species page, else redirect or delete that name altogether.
  2. when creating a new author page, please include at least one reference to one taxon the author contributed to, or at least to one taxonomic publication the author participated in. Pages such as Ana Sanz are truly unacceptable. Mariusm (talk) 05:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very sound rules. I fully agree. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]
As an inveterate creator of orphans when first editing here and now a curer, I also whole heartedly agree. Andyboorman (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fully agree.--Hector Bottai (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lyttle-Wight: Who created a number of the orphaned biographies - can you resolve any of these, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Really hard work. In a brief overview of the list, identified and de-orphaned >40 Aves taxa. Many are "nomen nudum" related to Linnaeus, 1758, created by @Kheller: easily linked to the corresponding template Template:Linnaeus, 1758 new names list. I suspect there are many other classis taxa with these characteristics. --Hector Bottai (talk) 12:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FYI Kheller has not been active since 2014 according to the user page. Apologies for earlier typo. Andyboorman (talk) 12:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Formae loc. f." ..?[edit]

The "infraspecific" part of the Taxonavigation sections for about half of the species listed on the Ornithoptera genus page looks very odd, for example (including big and bold type):

Subgenus: Straatmana
Species: Ornithoptera aesacus
male ♂ f
O.a.♂f. azurus - O.a.♂f. claudei   […]
female ♀ f
O.a.♀f. massaea - O.a.♀f. purpurea

The affected pages are: Ornithoptera aesacus, Ornithoptera alexandrae, Ornithoptera chimaera, Ornithoptera meridionalis, and Ornithoptera rothschildi.

The following taxon pages looks okay, though: Ornithoptera croesus, Ornithoptera goliath, Ornithoptera paradisea, Ornithoptera priamus, Ornithoptera tithonus, and Ornithoptera victoriae.

Does anyone know what to make of this? As far as I know the term forma has no standing under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (in contrast to botanical nomenclature where forma is accepted for infraspecific taxa). Also, what's up with the "male ♂ formae" and "female ♀ formae" stuff? Surely the taxonomy of these butterflies doesn't differ depending on gender? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

These forms which are really local variations have no taxonomic significance and are not recognized by the ICZN. Therefore they don't belong to WS and should be deleted. Just a waste of time and energy... Mariusm (talk) 05:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hence, when deleting the lists of formae from for example Ornithoptera aesacus I guess we should also delete the pages Ornithoptera aesacus ♂f. azurus and Ornithoptera aesacus ♀f. purpurea (etc…) instead of leaving them as orphans? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Right. All formea must be deleted! Mariusm (talk) 08:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Only for taxa subject to ICZN, therefore not using a blanket bot. Andyboorman (talk) 08:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would it be worth listing these names as synonyms of the species instead? Otherwise, I think it was PeterR who made all these pages for formae, I don't know if he was aware these are unavailable under ICZN. (I am a bit surprised that infrasubspecific names are being coined as recently as 2015 though, is this something lepidopterists still do in the present day?) Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The main problem with that is they aren't synonyms. We can't go ahead and call an unrecognized "rank" for a synonym, just because it seems convenient. It is of course possible to list them in some other way, but we can't call them synonyms. Synonyms are taxon names (albeit outdated), while forms are not recognized as such (except in botany).
By the way, here's how Wikidata threats them, in this case Ornithoptera rothschildi ♂f. kenricki: Q25397049.
Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Global Compositae Checklist[edit]

Global Compositae Checklist is no longer available and should be deleted off Reference Lists. However, a partial replacement is found here - Regards Andyboorman (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have replaced all GCC templates with GCD templates using the above mentioned webpage.--RLJ (talk) 19:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For convenience, here's a link to the template RLJ created: Template:GCD. The GCC template has been deleted. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:30, 13 May 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Consider changing pages[edit]

I was going to wikispecies for a project I'm working on when I noticed that it didn't give me descriptions of what each phylum, kingdom, domain, was characterized by. I think we should consider adding that to every page. I believe this would greatly improve WikiSpecies and help a lot of people. I know that its a species directory but what good is it if you dont even put even the briefest description of them or we could even put links to their pages on Wikipedia — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ducklan (talkcontribs).

@Ducklan: Can you give me an example? Maybe copy and paste something to User:Ducklan/sandbox and show us what you have in mind? —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did what you said but the main thing im trying to do is make wikispecies more accessible to those with less biological understanding. so like maybe when you hover over a link it tells you most common characteristic of that phyla or kingdom or whatever it is. or just link it to the wikipedia page although this is seperate, or you could just put it on that page
Ever Thankful Ducklan (talk) 17:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ducklan and Koavf: Please note that since yesterday the main thread for this discussion is here: Requests for Comment: Consider adding Descriptions, started by user Ducklan. Please keep the discussion in one place only, or it may become unnecessary confusing and lead to misunderstandings.
Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Agreed: let's move to that thread and discuss there. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Styling for {{Noref}}[edit]

{{Noref}} is certainly very visible, but it is very different from our other templates and inconsistent with other templates. Do we want this template to look this way? —Justin (koavf)TCM 14:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In my opinion no, we very much don't. The same goes for {{Stub}}. I think that for example {{Cleanup}} looks a lot better. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]
It needs to be translated, also. That said, it only has fourteen (14) transclusions; do we need it at all? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits
Last year, it was cited on about 2700 pages, but meanwhile I found references for most of them. The template should be kept for maintenance purpose, but should be adjusted to the style of {{Cleanup}}. .--Thiotrix (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. Done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I propose we empty and delete the {{Wikipedia}} template, which only purpose is to add a corresponding Wikipedia link to any page it's used on, like this:

Wikipedia For more information, look at Village Pump/Archive 64 on Wikipedia.
(It uses the PAGENAME magic word, hence the Wikipedia link always correlates to the page it's added to; in the above case of course "Village Pump" since it's added here at the Village Pump.)

The template was created back in 2016 when Wikidata was still fairly undeveloped. Today Wikidata functionality is a whole other ball game and among other things it automatically adds Wikipedia links to the far left of all Wikispecies taxon and author pages. Hence the {{Wikipedia}} template is no longer needed. Furthermore it only generates text in English, and exclusively links to the English language version of Wikipedia. This doesn't sit well with Wikispecies ambition to be as accessible and language independent as possible. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

N Deleted. Thank you for your opinions. The template has been deleted. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 07:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

For similar reasons, should we remove the |Wikipedia= parameter from {{Repository}}? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Theodore Sherman Palmer[edit]

Wikispecies currently has two pages for taxon authors named "Theodore Sherman Palmer": a zoologist Theodore Sherman Palmer (1868–1955) and a botanist Theodore Sherman Palmer (1860–1962) (based on data from IPNI). However, I suspect these might actually be the same person.

According to an obituary for the zoologist from 1956 ([6]), he was President of the Biological Society of Washington from 1909 to 1910. As it happens, one of the two names IPNI gives for the botanist, Carex varians, comes from volume 14 of the same society's "Proceedings" journal. The other one, Dryopteris celsa, IPNI cites from a different source, Ferns of the Southeastern States. However, on looking this source up on Google Books ([7], page 477 if you can see it in Snippet view), it in turn cites volume 13 of the same Proceedings. In both cases the names come from the indicies of their respective volumes ([8] and [9] respectively), and the authorship of these names I presume come from the "Committee on Publications" pages of these volumes ([10] and [11], respectively).

What this tells me is that Theodore Sherman Palmer of IPNI is not necessarily a botanist at all, and he could well be the same person as the zoologist (unless by some chance two people named "T. S. Palmer" were linked to the Biological Society of Washington at roughly the same time, which I doubt). I also suspect that IPNI's years for the author are wrong, because it's not clear where they come from at all.

Does this seem right to everyone else? Have I missed something? Monster Iestyn (talk) 23:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He appears to only have contributed to the descriptions of two plants. I would advise that you contact IPNI and ask for clarification and then allow them to correct their entry. Clearly his work on game, field and habitat biology was far more important. Andyboorman (talk) 08:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Theodore Sherman Palmer (1868–1955) is very clearly the same T.S. Palmer who is given, with William Perry Hay & Charles David White, as one of the authors of the improperly published Carex varians in [12], as members of the Committee on Publications of the Biological Society of Washington, per The Auk's July 1956 obituary at [13]. IPNI has that person as also co-authoring Dryopteris celsa. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge now complete; someone still needs to inform IPNI. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, and apologies for not contacting IPNI yet about this issue. I'll send them an email later today. Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done, I've asked them where their years come from, and provided some of the evidence I gave earlier to link IPNI's record with the zoologist who lived 1868–1955. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I got a reply from an IPNI editor saying the dates come from Brummitt and Powell's book (Authors of Plant Names from 1992), but they've no idea where it sourced them from. It looks like they'll be correcting the IPNI record to use the dates I gave them (they've already updated HavardBotanist too), which should mean this is resolved now. Monster Iestyn (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Simple English vernacular names[edit]

I think we should remove "Simple" as a language from {{VN}}. I can't think if any case where it would have a different value from the value for "en". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed seems redundant. Also I think we ought not to add the taxon page name into VN unless absolutely essential. Andyboorman (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
no Agree per both Mabbett and Boorman. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]
no Agree both--Hector Bottai (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
no Agree both. Neferkheperre (talk) 11:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Missed this discussion, but just to add that omitting it is already mentioned in the VN Guidelines - MPF (talk) 12:41, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Selection of the U4C Building Committee[edit]

The next stage in the Universal Code of Conduct process is establishing a Building Committee to create the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C). The Building Committee has been selected. Read about the members and the work ahead on Meta-wiki.

-- UCoC Project Team, 04:20, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I notice that four sections are used on the above taxon page without references, as an incomplete classification. However, this dates back to Schilling, E.E. & Heiser, C.B. 1981. Taxon 30(2): 393-403. DOI: 10.2307/1220139. It appears that contemporary phylogenetic work only partially supports this classification leaving only clades. I propose dispensing with these sections and series. Any thoughts before I act? Andyboorman (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Carlos Henrique Soares Caetano[edit]

Carlos Henrique Soares Caetano seems to have a Spanish name. Is his family name Soares or Caetano? How should he be sorted, and templates for his works be named? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

His email (on one of his papers we cite) starts 'chcaetano', which rather suggests he wants to be regarded as C. H. Caetano - MPF (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
His affiliations in all his publications suggest he is actually from Brazil, so I believe this should be treated as a Portuguese name, and it should be sorted by Caetano (likely the paternal surname). See his CV on Lattes Platform, which confirms the name is cited that way in publications. When you search for his name on this page on the same website it displays a Brazilian flag, which as far as I know indicates Brazilian nationality. (I don't think this appears on the CV page itself) Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Global ban proposal for Leonardo José Raimundo[edit]

There is an on-going discussion about a proposal that Leonardo José Raimundo be globally banned from editing all Wikimedia projects. You are invited to participate at Requests for comment/Global ban for Leonardo José Raimundo on Meta-Wiki. Thank you! Elton (talk) 00:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As a result of m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Leonardo José Raimundo, Leonardo José Raimundo has been banned from all Wikimedia projects. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WorldCat Entities ID, P10832[edit]

I have added P10832 to {{Authority control}}; it can be seen, for example, in Carolus Linnaeus.

As there was an existing WorldCat link in the template, I've added it directly after that, before the VIAF value. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Do we want British-English versions of pages, such as Wikispecies:About/en-gb (compare with Wikispecies:About)?

It seems they would entail a lot of maintenance work, for little gain. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would have preferred British English not American, but its is now a done deal!. Andyboorman (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More sensibly, since English is the language of English people, "en-gb" is / should be superfluous. And create a subsidiary en-us page for those who want to read in the American language. - MPF (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Is it possible to create/use/incorporate ORCID code for modern author's pages? ORCID is very useful in listing verified bibliographic lists of published papers. Who can help? Any objections? Anna Pavlova IFPNI Staff (talk) 21:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ORCID iDs are already included in {{Authority control}}. If the value is added to the person's Wikidata item, it will show up here, and on any Wikipedia or similar pages about them. You may also add your own iD to your user page, as I have done on mine; see also Wikispecies:ORCID. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear Andy: thank you for some explanation. I recently created a number of contemporary authors having ORCID, but none of them were listed in fact in the pages of WS: see Alexis T. Howe, David Bass, Josephine Margaret Scoble, Rhodri Lewis, etc. Strange looking, frankly speaking. Anna Pavlova IFPNI Staff (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The values need to be added to the respective Wikidata items; would you like me to explain how to do that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear Andy, yes, I am interested very much. Anna Pavlova IFPNI Staff (talk) 09:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should we keep the page for Prions?[edit]

Wikispecies is supposed to have "all species of life", right? But what counts as life? While clearly all cellular life counts, we also include viruses. But do we include prions, nanobes or plasmid? We have a page for prions, but we don't seem to have any other pages for specific prions. 2007Gtbot (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No prions please! Mariusm (talk) 04:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Should there be a page for GFAJ-1? Plantdrew (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a species (of bacteria) therefore its ok. Mariusm (talk) 05:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So do we just go and deletus the page? 2007Gtbot (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Publication page of Eucalyptus[edit]

Please see Talk:Eucalyptus, and comment if you can help with the discrepancy I seem to have found. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 11:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anyone? @Andyboorman: do you know how to find out, please? - MPF (talk) 23:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's been  Done thanks to @RLJ: Andyboorman (talk) 19:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Taxon rank?[edit]

Hello all, I am once again trying to match Wikispecies pages to Wikidata items, or create new ones. My current attempt has already matched/created items for thousands of pages, but there are some stragglers that are hard to do automatically, many for no good reason. Example: What taxon rank is Diplosonema? As a human, I'd guess it's "genus", but why is that information missing from the page, when every other little detail in on there? Isn't that key information? And there are hundreds on similar ones. Or should I take that since there are no NCBI results for "Diplosonema", it's a misnamed page? --Magnus Manske (talk) 07:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another, related question: What is the taxon name of Thalassodes vickyae? Is it "Thalassodes vickyae" or "Thalassodes pseudosulawesus"? Why does the species name differ from the page name? (Similar for Charitoprepes apicipicta, Oryssomus rogeri, Incertae sedis (Solifugae)) --Magnus Manske (talk) 09:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And what's Calditrichaeota? --Magnus Manske (talk) 10:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thalassodes vickyae's problem (and the other two species) is fixed now, it was probably just a copy+paste error. Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your help! --Magnus Manske (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More fixes: Template;Quinetia appears to be a duplicate of Template:Quinetia with semicolon in the title by mistake, so I've flagged that as needing deletion (I'm puzzled why this duplicate was even created to begin with to be honest). N.N.Naidenova is the name of a taxon author that we don't know the full name of yet (and is probably from Russia or another former Soviet Union state), I've corrected the name to have a space between initials and surname for now. A lot of the other pages at a glance just don't seem to be using standard format in their taxonomy sections and need to be fixed, but "Genus incertae sedis" pages like Gonoconophora and Ankwlanno are fine I think (?): incertae sedis is just referring to their uncertain placements within their parent taxa as far as I can tell. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I made a few edits on Nonna Nikolaevna Naidenova, Russian (Soviet) helminthologist. Anna Pavlova IFPNI Staff (talk) 09:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Int Disambiguation[edit]

I've been noticing for a while that instances of Template:Disambiguation are being replaced with Template:Int Disambiguation in disambiguation pages. It seems to me the latter template was created was created as a copy of the first, but with translations and the ability to place disambiguation pages in the categories Category:People disambiguation pages or Category:Taxon disambiguation pages. Wouldn't these features of the latter template be better in the first one? It seems rather odd to me for there to be two templates for disambiguation pages at all to be honest. Monster Iestyn (talk) 12:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Given no discussion on this so far, I have now added merge templates to both of them. Monster Iestyn (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
no Agree with merge. Burmeister (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Template:Taxonbar and Template:Authority control are very convenient in effortlessly adding links. Can we consider launching a bot to attach them to every taxon or author page? Mariusm (talk) 05:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

no Agree I would support this initiative if there is consensus. Andyboorman (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
no Agree --RLJ (talk) 07:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
no Agree I have been manually adding these to my cirripede pages and author pages wherever applicable. Neferkheperre (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
no Agree Burmeister (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
no Agree Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
no Agree Please! Manual adding to every Aves page edited.--Hector Bottai (talk) 01:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
no Agree --MILEPRI (talk) 09:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
no Agree --Lupe (talk) 09:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
no Agree --Thiotrix (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
no Agree , but I would appreciate it if you checked settings of your bot before running lest duplication should occur. --Eryk Kij (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment - I'd be wary of adding it to the pages of living authors, in case it results in any breaches of privacy - MPF (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
no Agree IFPNI Staff (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We see eye to eye than on this useful feature. Anyone here feels up for the task to launch the bot? Mariusm (talk) 04:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
no Agree History person 2 (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

Carabus talyschensis and Carabus talychensis seem to be about the same species. The only difference is that one of the variants is a misspelling (see [14] [15]). Can we merge these if I am correct? --Ur frnd (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, Carabus talychensis is the original form in the protologue Google Books. Both spellings are about the one species. Anna Pavlova IFPNI Staff (talk) 11:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, merge. Unfortunately, the wikidata page and most of the interwiki links are at the incorrect spelling, and will need correcting too - MPF (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have merged and fixed the Wikidata items. --Magnus Manske (talk) 07:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many thanks to anyone for participation and help! Then we have left to merge the Wikispecies entries. --Ur frnd (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have merged at Carabus talychensis, but Wikidata is still using/ preferring talyschensis. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What name?[edit]

Hello, I want to create a page for Sadie Mills [16], who is the author of some taxa, however she is sometimes called Sadie Mills, Victoria Mills, V. Sadie Mills, ect.... See also Q56973165. What is the name we should use here? Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Victoria Sadie Mills, but with a note that she published under the other forms; and set up redirects accordingly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, thanks. Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Announcing the new Elections Committee members[edit]

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

Hello there,

We are glad to announce the new members and advisors of the Elections Committee. The Elections Committee assists with the design and implementation of the process to select Community- and Affiliate-Selected trustees for the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. After an open nomination process, the strongest candidates spoke with the Board and four candidates were asked to join the Elections Committee. Four other candidates were asked to participate as advisors.

Thank you to all the community members who submitted their names for consideration. We look forward to working with the Elections Committee in the near future.

On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees,

RamzyM (WMF) 17:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lima bassi/bassii[edit]

There is a mess in the literature regarding these species. Lima bassi Hedley 1904 is a synonym of Lima benthonimbifer Iredale 1925. †Lima bassii Tenison-Woods 1877 is a separate species. However, "Lima bassi Tenison-Woods 1877" can be found in WoRMS and at least two publications (here, and here). As far as I can tell, "Lima bassii Tenison-Woods 1877" is the correct form (as in the original paper and PBDB). How should this be addressed here (particularly with regard to synonyms)? Ilawa-Kataka (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikispecies tools on the edit page[edit]

Some small requests:

  • Could ==={{int:Synonyms}}=== be changed to ==={{int:Synonymy}}===, please? The latter is more accurate, better reflecting usage in publications
  • Could {{VN|}} have spaces added to make it {{VN | }} to act as a reminder and so they don't need adding afterward? If VNs are completed without spaces, it can lead to rendering problems on some browsers (with these browsers treating it as a single immensely long word which won't line-break).
  • Could {{BHLpage||}} be added to the list, please?

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We discussed about Synonyms/Synonymy here in December 2022 and preferred to stick to Synonyms for the time being. If the edit tools shall be changed to Synonymy, the tool for automatic creation of redirects needs to be re-programmed, too. --Thiotrix (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! Yes, 'for the time being' back then; I was thinking now might be a good time to review it, six months on? I would certainly prefer a change to 'Synonymy', and there appeared to be a (small) majority preferring it even back then (granted, very limited sample size!). I'd assume the tool for automatic creation of redirects can be updated suitably, or is a one-letter change a massive task? - MPF (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Also {{BA}}, {{HOT}}, {{HET}} needs to be added. Fagus (talk) 08:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I think VN and BHL are non-controversial, sensible and should go ahead. As has been noted, Synonyms/Synonymy has wider ramifications, which first need to be worked through and assessed. Andyboorman (talk) 09:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! Agree with @Fagus: on adding {{BA}} [except isn't it {{BAS}} for basionym?], {{HOT}}, {{HET}} too. Also perhaps ([[protonym]]) would be useful. Would it be possible to have both 'Synonyms' and 'Synonymy'? Could add '[botany]' and '[zoology]' after them if it helps users understand why the two different headers? - MPF (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would prefer we looked at using synonymy also and adjusted anything needed accordingly. I had the same view last time. It is more in keeping with the codes and usage in the literature. Rest are fine. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Forgot, also {{Commonscat}}, please! Even if it does sound a bit scatological, it's more compact than '{{Commons category}}' - MPF (talk) 21:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any progress on this, please? I don't know how to edit the tools bar, so can't complete it myself - MPF (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Still waiting, please!! - MPF (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MPF: MediaWiki:Edittools is the page you want to edit. Monster Iestyn (talk) 00:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excellent, thanks! I'll give it a go over the next day or two - MPF (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done! @Thiotrix, Fagus, Andyboorman, Faendalimas, and Monster Iestyn: could you check over, please? We now have both ==={{int:Synonyms}}=== and ==={{int:Synonymy}}=== available; I added botany / zoology subheaders for them and other subject-specific tags like BAS, protonym, etc. - MPF (talk) 10:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A nomenclatural curiosity[edit]

Someone I know on social media pointed out that Monotropa hypopitys has, as one of its many synonyms, the reverse name Hypopitys monotropa; and I responded to say that the same applies to Picea abies which has the synonym Abies picea. Does anyone know of any other similar cases, and is there a name for such oddities? Reversonym and transposonym were suggested in the ensuing conversation. Trivia I know, but summer is the traditional 'silly season' :-) Thanks! - MPF (talk) 00:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is the kind of thing that can be answered with a Wikidata query. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! That's assuming all of the synonymy has been entered there, which I suspect it hasn't been in many cases! And guess who doesn't know how to carry out a wikidata query :-) - MPF (talk) 09:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yesterday I found Chordaria cladosiphon with reverse synonym Cladosiphon chordaria. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 09:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Super, thanks! No doubt there'll be more . . . MPF (talk) 10:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Please re-import (or copy'n'paste) MediaWiki:Gadget-popups.js from en.Wikipedia, where it has been updated to include the linked page's QID.

This requires interface admin permission. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tommy Kronkvist: Can you please do this? You're the only interface admin. Seeing as you are also a bureaucrat, could you also give me these rights? —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Koavf: I've had a lot of IRL- as well as computer issues lately, hence also been very inactive here at WS. However most of those problems are now sorted, and starting today I'll catch up here as musch as possible. Right now I'm in a hurry though. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 07:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Totally legit and at the risk of pestering, this would actually be a better argument for me having interface admin rights, since I have no life. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andy Mabbett:  Done. Thank you for your appeal. Future requests might be handled more promptly if posted to the Interface administrators' Noticeboard, which I monitor more closely than the Village Pump. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]
@Justin (koavf): In regards to Interface adminship, please see Requests for Interface adminship. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Taxonbar - where on page?[edit]

Hello, I have seen pages where the taxonbar is included after links and before VN, others where it is after VN but before Commons category, and others where it is the final item before any categories. Is there a recommended position? Thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 06:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My understanding is that it is the final item on the page before categories. Andyboorman (talk) 07:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 07:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spurious candidates for speedy deletion[edit]

Eg Codium fragile is for some reason, at the bottom, saying it is a candidate for speedy deletion; it isn't. Thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 12:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Maculosae tegmine lyncis It's transcluding the deletion notice currently at Template:Commonscat, that's why. (Fagus accidentally renamed the Commons category template to Template:Template:Commonscat just earlier, clearly it was intended to be at the other title) Monster Iestyn (talk) 12:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you (and issue now resolved), Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Homonym template - nomen novum - ISBN[edit]

Hello, where species are flagged as junior homonyms, and recent literature suggests this has not been addressed elsewhere, should Wikispecies look to present, ie, "publish", a new name? Per Articles 29 & 30 of the ICN (plants/algae/fungi) and 8 & 9 of the ICZN (animals), this can take the form of a (linked) pdf with an ISBN (obtainable apparently singly for £91 or £979 for 1000 (wikimedia may have funds) (and registration with ZooBank); this could easily be stored on Commons and linked to on a protected page on wikispecies. There could be a process of proposal to the administrators, among whom are experienced taxonomers, who could assess and take it from there. It might take a little more work the first time, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 01:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There could be the standard epithet wikispeciei [17], Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 02:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You could try it, but Wiki policy is not to allow original research. The proposal to publish a new name is likely to be considered as OR. Andyboorman (talk) 07:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please see Wikispecies:Wikispecies in the literature for the usual procedure. If a homonym is detected on Wikispecies, a new name has to be proposed in a peer reviewed journal. The publication may have a title like "Wikispecies Notula" xxxx. --Thiotrix (talk) 09:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We cannot make nomenclatural acts on Wiki pages. We do not count as a publication for the purposes of nomenclature and should not. There are a number of considerations to include which would among others for animals include the require of a fixed date of publication of a fixed publication where the publication is registered with Zoobank as well as the nomenclatural act. If you or anyone wants to do this just write it up and submit it to Zootaxa or a similar journal and it will be fine. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 10:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]