Shortcuts: WS:V, WS:VP

Wikispecies:Village Pump

From Wikispecies
(Redirected from Wikispecies:Village pump)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

WikiSpecies notext-invert.svg Welcome to the village pump of Wikispecies.

This page is a place to ask questions or discuss the project. If you need an admin, please see the Administrators' Noticeboard. If you need to solicit feedback, see Request for Comment. Please sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~ or clicking the signature icon in the edit toolbar). Use the Wikispecies IRC channel for real-time chat.

If you're going to critique the work of fellow editors (blatant vandals excepted) in your post on this page, you should notify them, either by mentioning them with a {{Ping}} template, or with a post on their talk page.

If you insert links to Wikipedia pages in your comments, don't forget the leading colon (:) before the wiki language code (including when you reference a remote user page instead of using a local signature), otherwise it will generate spurious interwiki links collected in the sidebar instead of in the expected location within the discussion. Thanks.

Village pump in other languages:

1 (2004-09-21/2005-01-05) 2 (2005-01-05/2005-08-23)
3 (2005-08-24/2005-12-31) 4 (2006-01-01/2005-05-31)
5 (2006-06-01/2006-12-16) 6 (2006-12-17/2006-12-31)
7 (2007-01-01/2007-02-28) 8 (2007-03-01/2007-04-30)
9 (2007-05-01/2007-08-31) 10 (2007-09-01/2007-10-31)
11 (2007-11-01/2007-12-31) 12 (2008-01-01/2008-02-28)
13 (2008-03-01/2008-04-28) 14 (2008-04-29/2008-06-30)
15 (2008-07-01/2008-09-30) 16 (2008-10-01/2008-12-25)
17 (2008-12-26/2009-02-28) 18 (2009-03-01/2009-06-30)
19 (2009-07-01/2009-12-31) 20 (2010-01-01/2010-06-30)
21 (2010-07-01/2010-12-31) 22 (2011-01-01/2011-06-30)
23 (2011-07-01/2011-12-31) 24 (2012-01-01/2012-12-31)
25 (2013-01-01/2013-12-31) 26 (2014-01-01/2014-12-31)
27 (2015-01-01/2015-01-31) 28 (2015-02-01/2015-02-28)
29 (2015-02-28/2015-04-29) 30 (2015-04-29/2015-07-19)
31 (2015-07-19/2015-09-23) 32 (2015-09-23/2015-11-21)
33 (2015-11-21/2015-12-31) 34 (2016-01-01/2016-04-17)
35 (2016-03-22/2016-05-01) 36 (2016-05-01/2016-07-12)
37 (2016-07-13/2016-09-30) 38 (2016-10-01/2016-12-04)
39 (2016-12-04/2017-01-17) 40 (2017-01-18/2017-01-28)
41 (2017-01-29/2017-02-13) 42 (2017-02-14/2017-03-21)
43 (2017-03-20/2017-08-11) 44 (2017-08-10/2017-12-07)
45 (2017-12-08/2018-01-08) 46 (2018-01-19/2018-03-11)
47 (2018-03-11/2018-09-11) 48 (2018-09-01/2019-02-17)
49 (2019-02-22/2019-...)

A lot of data on species at russian Lomonosov Moscow State University resource[edit]


Thanks a lot for your work! World wouldnt be such a great place without wiki resources. I don't know how to contribute here, I'm not in biology at all, but i just found this data source.

Go here, pess ESC, then swtich to EN at the top right corner, for example mark the "Specimens with photo only" checbox on the popup window, click "OK". Then at the top ringt corner change a "Rows" to 1-20000 (max) and I bet you will be impressed how many rare species photos are availible there.

I bielive you could gather much more usefull information there, some of it choul be translated. Maybe somebody could contact MSU, but even if not, somehow we have to save this content before a possible isolation of russian net.

P.S. Other depositaries:

Thanks again, and sorry me for breaking your commetns publishing rules.

Regards, @sntxerror. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 22:22, 12 April 2019‎.


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

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

Template:Authority control for species?[edit]

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

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

That exists on en.Wikipedia, as en:Template:Taxonbar, "used on approximately 390,000 pages". I can import it if there is consensus to do so.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm all for this. Ideally it would also include CoF (i.e. the online database of Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes) but unfortunately I can't even find a Wikidata property for that. CoF is comparable to the much more frequently cited FishBase database (P938) however it's often a lot better updated, plus contrary to most FishBase records include information about type localities, holotypes, type repositories, links to protologues etc. Here at Wikispecies we currently use the {{CoF}} template instead; please see the "Links" section on the Devario leptos page for an example. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC).
A "taxonbar" with an overview of some relevant databases could be useful here, but I think the taxonbar of en-wiki is highly "overloaded" with its multiple links, even growing with each regional database that will be linked to Wikidata (see [1] for an example). By the way, in some cases, Tropicos and IPNI can really be used as sources for type material of genera or species. The CoL has different versions for each year that differ considerably, and it is mostly not linked on Wikidata (at least for those plant groups I am editing). --Thiotrix (talk) 07:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
en-wiki taxonbar is getting "overloaded" in some cases, but WikiSpecies can just remove support for the less relevant databases. The en-wiki taxonbar doesn't show every taxon ID that's on Wikidata (national taxon databases from non-English speaking countries aren't included at en-wiki). Catalog of Fishes doesn't have a property on Wikidata yet; it just needs to be proposed (as {{CoF}} states, "the id number for an individual record does not seem to be easily available using just the Catalog of Fishes..." which may be reason why a CoF Wikidata property doesn't exist yet). Catalog of Life identifiers can change between releases, which makes it difficult to have a Wikidata property. Also, Wikidata inherited a large number of garbage taxon records from CoL via the Waray/Cebuano/Swedish Wikipedias, and the active taxonomy editors on Wikidata have a rather dim view of CoL. Plantdrew (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
On the same topic, you will be happy to know that GBIF import the external identifiers for taxa from Wikidata, see at bottom of a taxon page. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps we should draft a list of which databases are the most useful / relevant for our purposes (e.g. IPNI, AlgaeBase), and decide whether that list is of adequate length? Then provide a Wikidata link for access to any additional databases. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Good idea. See also {{Global}} which is transcluded on more than 17,600 pages but rather crude. Replacing it with an "Authority control"-type template linked to Wikidata would probably be a good thing. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC).

Difference between certain templates[edit]

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

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

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

Consensus vote[edit]

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

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

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

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

Panicum maximum Jacq.[edit]


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

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

Genus (subgenus) species[edit]

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

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

How many animal species are on Wikispecies?[edit]

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

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


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

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

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

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

Panorpodes paradoxus or paradoxa?[edit]

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

  • If you look at the WP links, most of the Panorpodes paradoxa (Q5407361) link to Panorpodes apicalis. From that, I gather these should not be merged, as P. paradoxa is presumably a later homonym of P. paradoxus and had its name changed. It's not a good idea to guess when merging. But note that entomology is not my field, so I don't know for certain either, but I do see that an anon made changes to one of the entries post-creation, and would recommend a bit of poking around from someone who knows where to look. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
The original publication of Panorpodes is here:, and contains only the (new) species P. paradoxa [clearly the original spelling]. The only reason I can see that someone might later use the spelling paradoxus would be if they decided the original genus was masculine, not feminine, and M'Lachlan's original spelling was in need of correction (if you look at the ITIS record for Panorpodes,, most of the terminations are masculine - but these could be in error as well). Need a better expert than me (on Mecoptera) in this case... Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
ICZN Code, Article, states: "A compound genus-group name ending in the suffix -ites, -oides, -ides, -odes, or -istes is to be treated as masculine unless its author, when establishing the name, stated that it had another gender or treated it as such by combining it with an adjectival species-group name in another gender form." From this it would seem that Panorpodes is feminine since its type species (by monotypy) was given a feminine ending... Again, just my impression from a quick initial look. Tony 1212 (talk) 22:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, in this publication Miyamoto seems to treat P. paradoxa as a synonym of P. paradoxus: [2]. Korg (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Noted, Korg, although if it is the same "name" with just the termination changed it is not "really" a synonym - just an alternative orthography... Anyway: I checked Penney & Byers, Check-List of the Mecoptera of the World (1979), available at, and they use paradoxa as well as other feminine endings (decorata, pulchra) so it seems certain that in their mind at least, the genus is feminine. Thus, the masculine terminations shown in ITIS and used by a subset of recent workers e.g. paradoxus for paradoxa look incorrect to me.
Just to reiterate: paradoxa and paradoxus are the same taxon (same author, year, work) and the WS pages for them should indeed be combined - in my view under paradoxa, the original spelling and consistent with the genus being feminine under ICZN Code, Article as cited above. Panorpodes apicalis is listed separately as a good species in Penney & Byers, it dates from Miyake, 1910 so there is no (normal) way it could take precedence over Panorpodes paradoxa (/-um) which is the type species of the genus and dates from 1875, even if apicalis was subsequently synonymized with paradoxa (which does not seem to be the case). Tony 1212 (talk) 05:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

IOC 9.2 is in the air[edit]

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

ItWikiCon 2019 - Call for submissions[edit]

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

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

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

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


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

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

Distributions and nadi template[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

The exact citation is:

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

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

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


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

Part 1 of the article was published in 1834: [3]. Sadly it doesn't help with the author's ID. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it is Joseph Gilbert Totten. Some links: Biographical Etymology of Marine Organism Names (BEMON), 2400 Years of Malacology (PDF, see p. 1493), National Academy of Sciences, Biographical Memoirs (PDF, see p. 88). Korg (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
See [4] and [5]; both refer to an interest in conchology; [6] connects him to the conchology of Newport, USA. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Excellent work, thanks you dear colleagues! Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Axel Adolph Olsson vs Axel A. Olsson[edit]

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

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

Hylotelephium telephium or Sedum telephium?[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

New tools and IP masking[edit]

14:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

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

This Wikidata query may be of interest:

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

There are currently 4,413 results.

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


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

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

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

I've asked the folk of en.Wikipedia's 'WikiProject Russia' for help. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Several papers by Skrjabin and Guschanskaja are listed here [7], (annoyingly, in a format that can't be copied & pasted). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
[ec] en:Acuariidae lists "Viktorocara Guschanskaja, 1950", but it's a red link, and otherwise uncited. "Viktorocara schejkini Guschanskaja, 1950 (по Гушанской 1950)" is discussed, in Russian, at [8], which give us "Гушанской", but that may be a reverse transliteration. I've also added some papers to Konstantin Ivanovich Skrjabin. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

I've also founds mentions ([9], [10]) of "Cyrnea apterocerca (Guschanskaja, 1931)"; also on [11]; again as "(по Гушанской, 1931)". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
In case it helps, IRMNG has the following genera authored by "Guschanskaja" or "Gushanskaya":
Most of these probably originate from Nomenclator Zoologicus in the first instance (details, with microcitations, on relevant linked taxon pages). You could search for other name variants too if you want. Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 20:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Of course the most inclusive IRMNG search input term would be "Gus%hanska%a". It turns out, though, that this does not return any records not in the above 2 sets:
- Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 22:14, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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