User talk:Nikita-Kluge

Nikita-Kluge, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Nikita-Kluge! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Cladoendesis for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cladoendesis is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cladoendesis until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Neoptera and Notoptera

I note that you appear to be citing yourself with respect to the Neoptera cladogram, in which case welcome to Wikipedia. May I at once caution that, like all scientists, you must be extremely careful to be studiously neutral in any matter, such as Neoptera, on which you have an outside interest (Wikipedia pedantically calls this a "conflict of interest" and inevitably has a whole policy, WP:COI, all about it). In this case, if you have a position on the group's phylogeny and other scientists have a different position, you are required to be studiously neutral on the matter, and must either explain both sides with equal emphasis, or must limit yourself to commenting and placing edit requests on the article's talk page.

There appears to be an issue with the status of the Notoptera as represented in the phylogenetic tree. I understand that the name Notoptera has been reused to mean {Grylloblattidae + Mantophasmatidae} by some scientists. It looks as if you disagree with that assignation, so I think it will be necessary for the for and against positions to be clarified in the article(s). With best wishes, Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Every scienbtist can have his own opinion, and Wikipedia must reflex all scientific opinions. However, the name Notoptera was given by Crampton (1915) to the order which includes grulloblattids only and is characterized by a peculiar structute of the notum, which is fused with the vestiges of wings (= ptera). Mantophasmatidae have nothing like this. If somebody believes that Mantophasmatidae are related with Grylloblattidae, he is free to accept the taxon which unites them; this taxon bears the scientific name Xenonomia Terry & Whiting 2005. But nobody may rename this taxon with the wrong name "Notoptera", which belongs to another taxon. So the naming Grylloblattidae + Mantophasmatidae "Notoptera" is nothing more than an error, and this error should be corrected in Wikipedia. User: Nikita-Kluge

Thank you for the detailed reply. However, the Xenonomia aspect is only part of the story, which continues as follows:

Terry and Whiting in 2005 named the lineage of insects that includes the Grylloblattodea and Mantophasmatodea, the "Xenonomia".

In 2006, Arillo and Engel described a new (fourth) species of rock crawler, noting that the name Notoptera had been resurrected and redefined following Engel and Grimaldi's 2004 recommendation to give a single order, "Notoptera Crampton (sensu novum)", that includes both the living and fossil representatives of the lineage.

Now, Engel, Grimaldi, and Arillo may of course be mistaken about the phylogeny, but I assume they are telling the truth about their giving of the name "Notoptera" to the clade, so I've added this material to the Notoptera article. Time did not stop in 2006, so perhaps the story needs to be extended with other materials, indeed perhaps yours, but as far as this goes, the tree ought to be labelled with the rock crawlers and mantophasmatids/gladiators. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

You must understand, that time really did not stop in 2006 and does not stop at all for scientific ideas, and later ideas are more important than earlier ones. But situation with names is opposite: according to the international rules of nomenclature, all scientific names are used according to the principle of prioprity, accordig to which older names and older definitions of names meaning have priority upon later ones. It is also important to understand, that priority belongs not to the author, but to the publication: even the author who have was first to publised the name is not responsible to change this name in his subsequent publication. If you will find a grammatic error in my text (that is probable, because I am not familiar with English langiage), you have to correct it without asking my opinion. In the same way, if we find an incorrect scientific name, we must simply correct it. Nikita Kluge