Talk:Gnathia marleyi

Use as a nomen nudum

I thought it worthwhile to state that the name had been used, as a nomen nudum, by Sikkel et al. (2011), because readers of the article may see that and think that the 2012 date must be wrong. People (including some taxonomists) have all sorts of misconceptions about this situation. Some people think that if a name was ever used as a nomen nudum, than it cannot ever be made available! So, it would be good if we could find a way to point out that, yes, the name was first used as a nomen nudum, but it doesn't make any difference to anything ... Carcinologist2 (talk) 09:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

All that is fine, but you need to have a source that says what you're claiming. The source you cited previously does not mention the name being a nomen nudum, and certainly doesn't comment on the validity of a name published in a later paper. In any case, it may be appropriate to have that kind of detail only in a footnote, as I did at Laurentaeglyphea, for example; note that in that instance, discussion of the dates and validity of publication had appeared in a peer-reviewed journal. The only discussion I've seen of Gnathia marleyi being initially a nomen nudum was a blog post at "Parasite of the day", which seems to have been removed (retracted?) since. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Please add

I see the species characterised as "tiny" and this makes sense, since it is a blood-sucking parasite on fish, but nowhere in the article is its size actually quantified. Also, cephalosome needs some sort of clarificatory link for general readers; I find it nowhere else on en.wikipedia, although I can see it in Google Books. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Impenetrable jargon

A sentence like "The cephalosome of adult male specimens has a distinct produced frontal border with conical superior fronto-lateral processes with a slightly sunken inferior conical medio-frontal process" is impenetrable in a general encyclopedia. Translate it into English, please, and perhaps insert the jargon as a footnote, in quotes.--Wetman (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gnathia marleyi. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2171770/Bob-Marley-blood-feeding-fish-parasite-named-him.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)