User talk:Dyanega

For anyone wondering, I'm the collection manager of a major US insect collection, and an actively publishing insect systematist. I work with several different insect orders, but focus on the Hymenoptera in particular. I am also intimately involved with efforts to create a standardized "Official" registry of zoological scientific names, and expect I may ultimately get involved in formal collaboration with Wikipedia.

Archives

Archive1 Archive2 Archive3 Archive4 Archive5 Archive6 Archive7 Archive8 Archive9

Caucasian honey bee edit ref: Apis mellifera pomonella

Hi Dyanega,

You have added to the Caucasian honey bee page the below info.

"...and ranges to the Tien Shan Mountains in Central Asia. where it was believed to represent a new subspecies ("pomonella"), a claim which has not been supported."

But from re-reviewing the source you have cited for the phrase "a claim (A. m. pomonella is a new subspecies) which has not been supported", the "A revision of subspecies structure of western honey bee Apis mellifera" source article only lists A. m. pomonella as a subspecies in Table 1., and lists the A. m. caucasia as a subspecies in Table 1. and then only in a paragraph 5 of section 3, discussing its lineage, with neither referencing each other, nor raising doubt over A. m. pomonella taxon status as a subspecies:

Also after looking at the sources and sentence structure for your sentence "and ranges to the Tien Shan Mountains in Central Asia" I realize there is no source cited (the source beside the word "pomonella" is to support the claim its a new subspecies, not relating to its range).

Can you explain why you made these edits without a source and claims that are not supported but contradicted by the cited sources? I'm guessing I've missed something, maybe you are aware of more recent DNA analysis but you have given the wrong sources?

Apologies if I've made a mistake and thank you for your help. Bibby (talk) 12:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

References

A. m. meda listed by Engel not ICZN?

Hi there,

hope you can help me here; from going through Engel's list of A. mellifera subspecies, the A. m. meda is listed with the text;

“17. Apis mellifera meda Skorikov: The Median Honey Bee Distribution.—This race is most common in Iran and Iraq but does range into south- eastern Turkey and northern Syria.”

BUT when I search for it on the ICZN list I cannot find it, not even as a synonym, etc. So, IF my understanding is correct, we should remove A. m. meda from the subspecies list, and I'll create a wiki page for it, but treat it in the same way as Bombus incognitus.

But I'm afraid I've missed something, or have made a mistake? Bibby (talk) 13:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I've just noticed I can't find Apis mellifera mellifera either, so I must be missing something, these are the two web pages I've looked through.

https://www.discoverlife.org/mp/20q?search=Apis+mellifera

https://www.discoverlife.org/mp/20o?act=x_checklist&guide=Apoidea_species

Bibby (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi

have you received any feedback from the other Commissioners of the ICZN about the A. m. meda? I was wanting to create a page for it, but should I treat it as a recognized subspecies or not? Bibby (talk) 11:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi

I have just now gone ahead and created/published a page for the Apis mellifera meda honey bee, I am assuming it is Ok, even though it is not listed on the ICZN's list of Apis mellifera subspecies? Should I mention this on the page? Or just leave it and wait for the ICZN's list to be updated, assuming Engel's list is correct? Thanks anyway for your help. Bibby (talk) 12:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Engel's is the most recent authoritative work, and aside from names published after 1999, should be considered reliable. I don't know why the ITIS list doesn't include it. Dyanega (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment of Colony collapse disorder

Colony collapse disorder has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

FYI

just a small thing for your info. your link for the International Bee Research Association (IBRA) on your website is dead, it should be https://ibra.org.uk/ Bibby (talk) 12:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Update is done. Dyanega (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

That Edit Was Not "Vandalism"

Please look at Wikipedia:Vandalism to see what vandalism actually is. Good faith edits are not vandalism. I have a hard time believing that "long penis" is an actual species of moth. I suggest to provide better proof and sources to the page if it is an actual moth. Master106 (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Master106:, "pennis" (with 2 n's) means wing or feather. There are about 100 articles on Wikipedia for species with the epithet longipennis, and many more longipennis species without their own articles are mentioned in genus articles. Plantdrew (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Nosoderma plicatum

Hi, when you moved the subject page from Phloeodes plicatus, you had noted that the (genus) name was changed in 2006. Currently, all the refs in the taxonbar (BioLib, BOLD, BugGuide, EoL, GBIF, ITIS NCBI) point to Phloeodes plicatus. I have access to García-París et al. (2006), where the species was transferred, but is there a more up-to-date reference for the accepted genus placement of this species? Loopy30 (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I had not seen any, but I tracked it down: the placement by García-París et al didn't last two years before it was almost summarily reversed, so it was my fault for not digging a little deeper. A number of species names and generic placements were changed in 2008, in this paper: [1] and it will take a bit of work to accommodate this, unfortunately. I can't find anything more recent, so the 2008 paper does appear to be the status quo. I'm glad you prompted me to check, and apologize again for confusing the issue. Dyanega (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Valid name (zoology)

I must have visited Valid name (zoology) at least once before (I did add a WikiProject banner to the talk page), and I've probably visited it several times, but I guess I never paid any attention to the content. It's awful (especially the lead). Are you interested in making it not complete nonsense? I intend to investigate links to Valid name (botany); I don't see any reason why redirects to Validly published name in the context of botany should be linked to anything other than that title. Plantdrew (talk) 02:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

You have made an incorrect deletion or removal

Why did you remove my addition in Latrodectus and Latrodectus hesperus! The species is the one O claimed it to be and not a misidentified species as you claim. You have no justification but your own judgement. Please revert your edition! Rodolfosalinas (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Notogramma cimiciforme/Notogramma cimiciformis

I had proposed Notogramma cimiciforme and Notogramma cimiciformis be merged several months ago, but wasn't sure which spelling to use. They've now been merged. What spelling should be used? Plantdrew (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

All genera ending in "-gramma" are grammatically neuter by default; a coining author would have had to explicitly state their new genus name was feminine in order to override the default. I see that the only other adjectival species in the list is "purpuratum", which is neuter, so it would appear that cimiciforme is the correct spelling. Thanks for checking! Dyanega (talk) 14:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I found a copy of Loew's original creation of the genus. He included one species, and named it "cimiciformis" - under the Code, this is considered evidence that the genus was NOT intended to be neuter. As such, it turns out that the species named "purpuratum" should be purpurata instead. This is the kind of thing that should be considered acceptable in Wikipedia, but I have occasionally encountered resistance with such edits, and complaints that it constitutes "original research". I will point out, for the record, that while under most circumstances I would agree, changing spelling for gender agreement purposes in zoology does NOT have to be published, or cited, ever. It is treated as mandatory and automatic, so there will virtually never be a source that you can cite, either for the gender of a genus, or for the spelling of an epithet. This case is a good example of precisely this problem: Loew did not explicitly say "My new genus is feminine", but he combined the genus with a species name that was not neuter, so the rules of the Code determine that it is feminine. It is not, strictly speaking, fair to say that this is original research, any more than looking in a dictionary for the definition of a word would be considered original research. Anyone reading the Code would arrive at the same conclusion, objectively determined, just as anyone reading any dictionary will find the same definition for a given word. I expect that editors rarely cite a dictionary in Wikipedia, even in cases where one was clearly consulted, and they certainly aren't accused of doing original research. Dyanega (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I checked Cole 1923, and he actually originally spelled the name as "purpurata" here. Looks like this genus goes counter to the default rule, for sure. Dyanega (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but what you're saying here sounds a bit different from what you told me when I brought up the case of Sybistroma to you back in 2021 (link to discussion). In that you said that "any genus name or suffix that is definitively Greek in origin and has a definite gender in Greek takes that nomenclatural gender, regardless of the treatment by the original author or any subsequent authors". So the conclusion was that Sybistroma is neuter because of the neuter "-stroma" ending, regardless of how it was originally used (Meigen originally included in it "Sybistroma nodicornis" for instance). I also mentioned the case of Syntormon there, which as it happens is another genus created by Loew, and is either masculine or neuter depending on who you ask (Loew treated it as masculine, but it has the Greek neuter ending "-on"). But you're saying now Notogramma is feminine because Loew treated it as such, even though it has a neuter ending "-gramma" and Loew didn't actually explicitly say he was treating it as feminine? Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Dyanega, you might be thinking of a discussion (somewhere, I don't remember exactly where), that you and I (and others) participated in, where I was concerned about correcting a misspelling where the demonstrably correct spelling (per the provisions of the ICZN code) had absolutely no presence on the internet (and probably not in print). I wouldn't say that correcting the spelling in that situation is exactly "original research", but I do remain concerned about Wikipedia introducing a spelling that appears nowhere outside of Wikipedia; it might not "stick". I.e., other editors might return it to the spelling that is attested outside of Wikipedia (in general, I'm suspicious of Wikipedia only spellings; I've encountered quite a few that were clearly mistakes that originated on Wikipedia). It's a different situation when multiple spellings exist outside of Wikipedia. Plantdrew (talk) 04:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I see the source of the confusion: these other words have a single derivation, but "-gramma" could be a Latinized version of the Greek ending "-gramme", which is feminine. In the absence of an etymology, it's not possible to tell whether an author meant the neuter word or the feminine word, which is why they're all neuter by default. The cases I cited before have no such ambiguity, because the dictionary has a single derivation and a single gender. Dyanega (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah, sorry then, I was not aware names ending in "-gramma" might be problematic in that way. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

If it helps at all though, George C. Steyskal wrote an article reviewing the genus Notogramma in 1963 ([2]) and in his view the generic name was "obviously a Greek compound of neuter gender". Reading his obituary, he was stated to have knowledge of Latin and Greek, so he probably knew what he was talking about here (but it would have been nice to have the original Greek in the text to double check). Monster Iestyn (talk) 23:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

It's a mess because Greek has both "gramma" (neuter - see [3]) and "gramme" (feminine - see [4]). Since the latter term means almost the exact same thing, and latinizes to "gramma", dipterists have argued, sometimes quite vehemently, that taxonomists USUALLY intend this, and not the Latin word at all. The only thing that can possibly constitute evidence that an author intended the feminine Greek noun (other than an explicit statement) is treating it as feminine when combining. Personally, I don't much care for this, and I'm not really certain the Code allows it, but it is a source of contention. Dyanega (talk) 23:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

To make matters more confusing, I discussed this case with other Commissioners, as it seems to be a fairly unusual situation where there are multiple dictionary meanings for a word, and they are of different gender - the Code does not actually give a specific course of action to be followed here. The general feeling is that if we were to draft a rule to cover the contingency, it would probably use the original author's combination as evidence, but others pointed out that just because that specific case isn't covered doesn't mean the present rules don't adequately allow for it. VERY strictly speaking, then, in the case of Notogramma then Article 30.1.1, saying that a word or suffix that exists in a Latin lexicon takes the gender found there, is the one that can be said to apply because the statement is true (so think of it as a flow chart). The argument against this is that this same ending can also be transliterated Greek, which is governed by Article 30.1.2, and the outcome of that rule is neuter. The same word can ALSO be Greek with a latinized ending, in which case it would be feminine under Article 30.1.3! If you read the Code like a flow chart, then you accept the first Article that applies, but whether this is appropriate is questionable. The Commissioners do not entirely agree how to treat this case. Under these circumstances, the consensus was that if the gender in the majority of recent works is neuter, to keep it neuter. This goes counter to my recommendation above. Basically, it's a mess with no absolutely clear-cut resolution. Dyanega (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Daggers

While daggers are a valuable symbol in articles that discuss both extant and extinct taxa, they are purely redundant in articles on fully extinct groups as the prose of the article will already have covered that they are extinct. Please stop over-daggering extinct taxa articles.--Kevmin § 18:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi. It's not dagger-spamming, it's fixing the formatting of the various articles because they are inconsistent. Some of the articles on fossil taxa have daggers, others don't, and even within articles, some genus names are given daggers, and others aren't. It's INCONSISTENT, and that's misleading. I hope you'll reconsider. Dyanega (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Misleading in what manner to a general audience readership? You state that this is a fix of formatting, but its not something covered anywhere in the Wp:MOS. Would you look at a journals inhouse MOS requirements when your submitting to them and say I like my way better, so I will ignore there MOS? You also need to keep in mind that as these articles are to be written for a general readership, unless the first instance of a † is explanted or included via the {{extinct}} template, the readers will likely have NO idea what is even being meant. Yes there ideally should be consistency, but as dive by editing happens daily this is a hard thing to maintain. Also the stance I suggested is the one used in by the largest group of Feature articles on extinct taxa, namely dinosaurs. A look at Theropod vers Therizinosauria show that dagger use is maintained in the article prose on Theropod specifically as the subtaxa list includes both extinct and extant members, with the dagger being explained, while at Therizinosauria no daggers are used, as the whole of the group is extinct and that is covered in the very first sentence of the lede.--Kevmin § 19:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I see that you edited the Pseudopolycentropodidae article so instead of having a mix of daggered and un-daggered names, they are all un-daggered now. That was precisely the kind of misleading inconsistency that could lead readers to think that they were (in some cases) looking at extant taxa. I can see your point about having a mixture of extant and extinct taxa, and I can concede that as long as the article makes it clear that everything displayed is extinct, there is no obvious source of confusion. That being said, then, let me ask you if you would concede that my adding the dagger annotation for the categories is actually appropriate, for exactly that same reason? That is, if one goes to "Category:Mecoptera" isn't it helpful for readers to know at a glance which of those taxa are extant and which are extinct? Adding the dagger to the category draws that distinction, and I would argue that it is an improvement over a mixed category. Dyanega (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I fully agree that the category sorting is valuable and I tried to keep it where I saw you had also implemented it on the pages I have watchlisted. If I removed the sorting from any of those pages I will go back through and readd them.--Kevmin § 13:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Sarcoptes scabiei pronunciation

I've reverted your edit on this as I don't seen why my edit was reverted. I didn't remove or change any information that was already there, I added information that might have been useful to some readers. It was unsourced, but I don't think that's a reason to revert: I often see 'cite' requests next to unsourced information in Wikipedia articles. If you prefer a different pronunciation, please add it as an alternative. If you know of a source for the pronunciation of specific binomial terms in biology, I'd be interested in looking at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdoerr (talk • contribs) 16:05, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. You must provide a source for material you add, or the edit gets deleted. Please read WP:RS, and please adhere to that policy. I'll happily bring the matter to some admins if you feel inclined to dispute this policy. As an aside, there are no definitive sources for the pronunciation of scientific binomial names, because while they are based upon Latin, they are not actually pronounced as if they were Latin. You can ask 30 scientists to pronounce a name, and get 5 or 6 different answers. No particular answer is "right" or "wrong" - which is all the more reason not to arbitrarily add "pronunciation" to any Wikipedia articles containing scientific names. Thanks. Dyanega (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

That's not my understanding after reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Citation_needed#When_not_to_use_this_template. That makes clear that you should only remove unsourced information if it concerns living persons. Otherwise you should simply add the Citation_needed tag. It specifically says: 'Except for contentious claims about living people, which should be immediately removed if not cited, there is no specific deadline for providing citations. Please do not delete information that you believe is correct solely because no one has provided a citation within an arbitrary time limit. If there is some uncertainty about its accuracy, most editors are willing to wait at least a month to see whether a citation can be provided.' Sdoerr (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I see you've modified the pronunciation. Unfortunately, you don't indicate the stress in the second word. One problem is that we are not dealing with the word scabies in its nominative form, which is three syllables in Latin and stressed on the first syllable. Scabiei is the genitive case, and the e is long (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/scabiei), so the stress pattern in Latin is sca.bi.e′.i. That gives the initial syllable sca secondary stress rather than primary stress, which is why I went for a short a. (WP's article seems to agree in section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_English_pronunciation_of_Latin#Short_vowels point 4, though I would not have been so dogmatic myself.) Whether the i would still be elided with the following stressed e is also debatable: we don't elide them in 'medieval', for instance. Sdoerr (talk) 08:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

And this, you see, is why so few articles in Wikipedia give pronunciations of Latin words: because different sources give different answers. The Wikipedia entry you used initially as a source made it clear that "rabies" (and by extension, scabies) has two syllables, and explained exactly why. Yet, Wiktionary evidently says "rabies" has three syllables ([5]). Accordingly, there are two sources in direct conflict. I see now that the Wikipedia entry for scabies also gives a two-syllable pronunciation, using the same vowel sounds I independently derived from the Wikipedia entry on Latin pronunciation. The pronunciation citation given there is a third source, and not a crowdsourced wiki. Two out of three sources therefore indicate the "i" is a silent semivowel, and not at all like the "i" in "medieval". In a nutshell, there are sources clearly suggesting that the name "scabiei" should be pronounced much the same as the word "radii" - the same number of syllables, and the same vowel sounds. Again, that you located a source that says otherwise only highlights the problem with giving pronunciations in the first place. I will note, as well, that Wiktionary - which I make extensive use of literally every single day at work to look up Latin terms (which I also use every single day) - is demonstrably prone to errors, and because of the small number of contributors, and the extreme complexity of their templates and sourcing guidelines, errors there are vastly less likely to be fixed than errors in Wikipedia. I can point to dozens of clear errors there like "alternative" adjectival forms that appear without citations, or are admitted to be neologisms (a good trick for a "dead" language), or whether a word is a noun or an adjective, and I have never until today even bothered to concern myself with how Wiktionary suggested that things be pronounced. That it indicates that "rabies" has three syllables is all the more reason for me not to ever use Wiktionary as a reliable guide for pronunciation. In just a quick check, the very first scientific name I looked at - the way to pronounce the "cc" in the name "Coccinella" - the Wikipedia pronunciation guide says it's pronounced like in "successor", a "ks" phoneme, but Wiktionary says ([6]) it's either a "t" sound followed by a "ts" sound, or a double "k" sound, and neither is how people pronounce that name, which I've heard spoken by dozens and dozens of different people over several decades, not all of them native English speakers. They ALWAYS pronounce that phoneme the same way as in "successor" - i.e., suksessor, and koksinella. The Wiktionary entries appear to be using archaic pronunciation guidelines, rather than the guidelines in the Wikipedia article you cited, which very closely align to actual modern usage, and modern usage is what Wikipedia should be presenting to readers. I would accordingly argue strongly against using Wiktionary's guidelines at all for scientific names. Dyanega (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Aaaaba genus

Could you reinstate my edit to Buprestidae, as I think it is correct. See its talk page for support. MightyWarrior (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Delta (wasp)

Under Delta (wasp) you put "Undid revision 1174504230 by Sjl197 (talk); gracilior is not a valid taxon; has been synonymized under c. campaniforme - be careful not to use outdated source material". Is there a particular source/sources that publish that, and better yet detail it? If so, could you please direct me to those. The name is used in Srinivasan & Girish Kumar 2010 JoTT: 2(12): 1313-1322 as (miswritten) "Delta companiforme gracilior (Giordani Soika, 1986)" which is only matching an observation to that supposed name, so i was wary about its status. All this relates to a couple of observations on iNaturalist, if to add the name "gracilior" there or not, and here i followed user request who noted "gracilior" was not given in Gawas et al. 2020 checklist of India, but didn't know why absent - and neither do I. In general, I fear for future of many wiki pages where I anticipate other cases like this will become common, i.e. synonymised/moved/invalidated taxa will keep being added back by people like myself who are comparatively experienced in particular taxa. Thanks for the catch and i'll keep trying to be cautious. Sjl197 (talk) 10:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for reply on my page - seen and appreciated. Thanks. Sjl197 (talk) 07:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Carl Linnaeus

Hello, I came across this edit. Do you have examples of the abbreviation "L." being used in zoology? Thanks, Korg (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

It's hard to find in online catalogs and checklists, which spell author names out in full, but trivially easy to find in the print literature. Just the first example to hand, a paper I was looking at yesterday: [7]. Just pick a Linnaean animal name, google it, and you should see plenty of examples using the abbreviation. Dyanega (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

As an aside, in zoology there are only two authors who are given single-letter abbreviations: Linnaeus and Fabricius. Dyanega (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect marking of edits as minor

You just did some ref work at Vulture bee, which is great. However, you marked these edits as minor. Please note that adding citations is never a minor edit. For details, please see Help:Minor, especially Help:Minor § What not to mark as minor changes. Keep on truckin' Paradoctor (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Glamis, California

The article Glamis, California has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Quite a grandiose (and poorly-sourced) article for a place that appears to be nothing more than a store and an RV storage lot surrounded by miles and miles of desert, in satellite images. Cited sources are insufficient for notability; no mention in Farr's history of Imperial County [8] makes it unlikely that this was a notable place. Certainly not a populated place. Fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Citation Barnstar
	Thanks Simuliid talk 19:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to join New pages patrol

Hello Dyanega!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

March 2024

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Northern green anaconda, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Things like directly citing the ICZN to draw their conclusions, saying "refused to acknowledge", weasel stuff like "all other issues aside", show a pretty clear POV and some level of OR. Neither the original claims nor the rebuttal should be treated as pure fact, but acknowledge in context. This is a good article and should respect neutrality requirements and Wikipedia:Words to watch. While paragraphs should be written regarding the nomenclatural dispute, there is no need to rush for this and use loaded terms. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 21:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Edits to Exomala orientalis

Please see my comments at User talk:Hahelen. I assume the page needs to be moved back and the taxobox restored to its original binomen. I just tried to keep the taxonomy error-tracking categories clear. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Gonostomatidae/Gonostomidae

Both names are junior homonyms, unfortunately. Of the two names for the ciliate family, Gonostomatidae is by far the more common (in a Google Scholar search on papers published since 1986, it gets 254 hits, vs. 6 for Gonostomidae). In his Monograph of the Gonostomatidae and Kahliellidae (2011) Helmut Berger writes:

"Goode & Bean (1895, p. 97) defined the fish family Gonostomidae based on Gonostoma Rafinesque, 1810 3. Later, the spelling changed to Gonostomatidae (e.g., Kalabis & Schultz 1974, p. 184; Lancraft et al. 1988). However, the original spelling (Gonostomidae) of the fish family is also still in general use (e.g., Bowmaker & Wagner 2004, p. 2379). The ciliate family based on Gonostomum Sterki, 1878 was established twice, namely by Small & Lynn (1985) as Gonostomatidae, and by Culberson (1986) as Gonostomidae. Both ciliate names are therefore homonyms of the fish family. The final adjustment of this rather tricky situation needs the collaboration with a linguist, a specialist dealing with this fish-group who knows all about the nomenclature of this taxon, and the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN 1999, Article 55.3.1). Preliminary I suggest to use the original spelling of the fish family (Gonostomidae Goode & Bean, 1895) and the older version of the ciliate family (Gonostomatidae Small & Lynn, 1985). This simple solution prevents homonymy."

Since Berger is the leading expert on the group, and a very experienced taxonomist, I'll change the name back to Gonostomatidae, if that's OK with you. Deuterostome (Talk) 13:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Except, that Berger has not read or applied the ICZN Articles correctly. He is very clearly not an expert on the Code, as he has cited an irrelevant Code Article instead of citing the directly relevant Code Articles. If you are willing to listen to the opinion of an actual ICZN Commissioner, I can explain this pretty clearly by citing the two actual relevant Articles. Bear with me:

This is the Article that determines the spelling of the fish family:

29.3. Determination of stem in names of type genera

The stem of a family-group name is based on the name of its type genus [Art. 63] and determined as follows.

29.3.1. If a generic name is or ends in a Greek or Latin word, or ends in a Greek or Latin suffix, the stem for the purposes of the Code is found by deleting the case ending of the appropriate genitive singular.

The fish family is based on the genus Gonostoma, which does in fact end in a Greek word, and the genitive singular of "stoma" is "stomatos" (στόμᾰ • (stóma) n (genitive στόμᾰτος); third declension). Therefore, under the ICZN, the fish family literally CANNOT be spelled "Gonostomidae" - this is a violation of Article 29.3.1, and the name MUST be spelled "Gonostomatidae", irrespective of any author ever spelling it any other way, including the author who first coined it. It is a mandatory spelling, not anything that is up to someone's discretion, linguistic preferences, or previous usage.

The ciliate family name falls under a different Article in the Code, namely Article 29.3.2:

29.3.2. If the name of a genus is or ends in a Greek word latinized with a change in ending, the stem is that appropriate to the latinized form, as determined in Article 29.3.1.

Example. In the generic name Leptocerus, of which the second part is latinized from the Greek word keras, the stem for the formation of the family-group name is Leptocer-, not Leptocerat-, as it would be if it were not latinized.

The ciliate genus name is Gonostomum, and has an ending that does not exist in Greek; it is explicitly a Greek word latinized with a change in ending. The stem derivation is therefore treated as if it were a Latin word, and not a Greek word, so instead of "Gonostomat-" it MUST be "Gonostom-" according to this Article. Again, this is mandatory. The ciliate name can never be spelled "Gonostomatidae", as it violates this Code Article.

Accordingly, the two names cannot be homonyms, because the Code mandates that they be spelled differently - and exactly the opposite of Berger's conclusion. If someone submits a petition to the Commission to do what Berger wants, and switch the spellings to the opposite of what the Code mandates, I doubt it would even make it to a vote - we review cases submitted to us, and this is so obvious an error on Berger's part that it would probably just be sent back to the authors explaining that there is no homonym that requires resolution. The fish family must be spelled Gonostomatidae and the ciliate family must be spelled Gonostomidae. It's actually very simple and straightforward. Dyanega (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the very detailed and informative reply, Dyanega. You've clarified the nomenclatural issues very well and it's pretty clear that Berger is mistaken. Unfortunately, ciliatologists seem to be unaware that Gonostomidae is the correct form for the ciliate family, and the name has not really been used since Culberson proposed it in his doctoral dissertation of 1985 (he seems to have been unaware of Small & Lynn's Gonostomatidae, which was erected the same year). Berger mentions Culberson's thesis in his own Catalogue of Ciliate Names, 2001, but dates it to 1986, for some reason (as he does in his later monograph on the group).

By contrast, Gonostomatidae has been used widely (though Lynn himself later preferred the name Trachelostylidae for a group of the same composition). The name is used in Adl et al., 2019 (the most recent version of the high-level classification scheme sponsored by the International Society of Protistologists), and it is the form used on WoRMS and EOL. It is the name that appears in pretty much all recent taxonomy on the group: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Gonostomatidae+ciliophora&btnG=

So, while Gonostomidae is clearly the correct name, using it here puts us out of step with these other sources. Perhaps the best thing would be restore Gonostomidae to the page, along with a parenthetical reference to Small & Lynn's family).

One final question. It was my understanding that a Ph.D. dissertation does not constitute a publication, under ICZN rules (per article 9). Does this affect that issue at all? Deuterostome (Talk) 22:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually, as far as the ICZN is concerned, the only things that matter is that the genera Gonostoma and Gonostomum were validly published, and that there are family-rank names based on them. Everything else is immaterial, including Culberson's name - whether it was validly published or not, he could never be the author of the family-rank name, since Small & Lynn did it first. The Code does not recognize the authors of mandatory spelling changes, and the family name Gonostomidae is attributed to Small & Lynn regardless of how they spelled it. In essence, there are only four names under consideration, and the confusing thing - and I admit that it IS confusing - is that of the four names, two of them were misspelled by the authors who coined them. The original spelling of the fish name was a misspelling under the Code, and the original spelling of the ciliate name was a misspelling under the Code, and each misspelling happened to be the correct spelling for the OTHER group's name. Berger's fundamental error is that he seems not to realize that under all previous editions of the Code, it literally does not matter what the original spelling of a family-rank name was. That is, prior to the 4th Edition of the Code, the author of a name had no control over how it was to be spelled; the name had to be spelled based on the name of the type genus, following the rules in Article 23.9, and that was the end of the matter. It really is unfortunate that the ciliate researchers and online resources followed Berger's lead on this, because it's a serious and confusing error. This case, and others like it, point out a significant "vicious circle" in Wikipedia; since Wikipedia cannot "take the lead", one is effectively prohibited from correcting obvious errors until and unless someone else has corrected them and can be cited. But, since so many taxonomists and researchers do in fact use Wikipedia as a source, if an obvious error is not corrected in Wikipedia, then it will continue to be perpetuated. The circle can only be broken, I would argue, if Wikipedia and Wikispecies point out when something is wrong, tell readers what the rules are, and explain how and why conventional usage runs contrary to those rules. I am not advocating giving only one side of the issue, because that would clearly be bias, but pointing out that one of the two alternatives is a violation of the agreed-upon community standards. The problems inherent in even an even-handed solution are (1) this tends to cross the line into "original research", and (2) an article can only have one title, and a taxobox can only use one taxon name. It's messy, with no easy answer. Dyanega (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for a very enlightening discussion. In this case, the perpetuation of Gonostomatidae is likely because of the relative obscurity of Culberson--whose contributions to ciliate taxonomy seem to have ended with his thesis--and the very high profile of Small & Lynn (and in later work, Berger). That said, I've seen some amazing examples of Wikipedia "confirmation loops". A number of years ago, I wrote a blog post about a non-existent protozoan that some prankster had slipped into the Wikipedia protozoa article. By the time I ran across it, this imaginary organism had propagated to hundreds of "scientific" sources (and even textbooks). Ten years later, I'm glad to see that most of these references have evaporated.

So, what to do about that little entry on the Hypotrich page? It's in a simple list of families, and can be edited without running afoul of the automatic taxobox. While it borders on original research, as you say, perhaps it could be entered as: Gonostomidae Small & Lynn, 1985 (=Gonostomatidae Small & Lynn, 1985). Or , alternatively, as: Gonostomidae (Small & Lynn, 1985) Culberson, 1985. (That seems questionable, since Culberson appears to have been unaware of Small & Lynn's family, so was not intentionally emending the group). Or perhaps as: Gonostomidae Culberson, 1985 (=Gonostomatidae Small & Lynn, 1985).

And there's also the small disagreement between the date Berger gives for Culberson's family (1986) and the actual date of Culberson's thesis, 1985.

Anyway, whatever you recommend is fine with me.

I have a similar decision to make on iNaturalist, where I curate ciliates and other microbial critters. I can easily change the family name to Gonostomidae, and there is little likelihood that anyone will complain. However, curators there are encouraged to follow certain "external taxonomic authorities", such as Catalogue of Life, WoRMS, even when those sources are mistaken (as they often are). Deuterostome (Talk) 15:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Checking around, there is one source - very often used as a reliable source in line with WP standards - that has the information correct for the use of "Gonostomidae Small & Lynn", and that's the IRMNG, here. It specifically and correctly states that Gonostomatidae Small & Lynn is an incorrect original spelling. So, there is one good source to cite. The idea of giving it in the list as Gonostomidae Small & Lynn, 1985 (=Gonostomatidae Small & Lynn, 1985) is the correct approach, citing IRMNG. Thanks. Dyanega (talk) 16:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Perfect, I'll do that. Thanks for taking the time to walk me through the nomenclatural issues. Deuterostome (Talk) 23:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I would like some info related to scaralis species and some other neotropical fulgoridae

I had recently noticed (1 day before yesterday) that you and a few other taxonomists had published and article regarding scaralis and a new genus. I would like to know whether you have photos of the other scaralis species (i.e. excluding inbio, which I could find in the paper). (especially photos species in the wild will give mor relevant diagnostic features for identification). I would also like to know that what is the difference between scaralis neotropicalis and picta. Also want to know the difference between auchalea pandora and amanita magnifica, which I believe are potential synonyms. Uploader1234567890 (talk) 08:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I meant amantia. the autocorrect spelt it amanita. Uploader1234567890 (talk) 08:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

sorry. I were asking the difference between amantia magnifica and auchalea pandora used on misidentified images. What is the difference between the 2 auchalea species? I don't have access to the description of annulata. Uploader1234567890 (talk) 08:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

wait. The species that was misidentified was imperatoria, and by mistake I took as magnifica. They are distinct enough, and I have seen figures of imperatoria. Uploader1234567890 (talk) 08:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Pls explain difference between auchalea species and also the difference between auchalea pandora and Amantia magnifica, which I believe are potentially synonymous. Uploader1234567890 (talk) 09:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I do not have Porion 1996, hence I have no other figure to refer to. S. quadricolor I don’t know any figures, and what troubles me even more is that I do not even have access to the original description of fluvialis. I am completely confused and and don’t know what to do if I don’t even have the original description of fluvialis. Uploader1234567890 (talk) 09:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Then you are learning an important lesson. Taxonomy is often massively unresolved. The genera Auchalea and Amantia have never been revised. No one has ever made sure that the two genera are different, or whether the species in them are actually good species. I can only tell you that the images in iNaturalist labeled as "Amantia magnifica" belong to the genus Auchalea. However, that could have three possible explanations: (1) they are misidentified, and are not Amantia magnifica at all (which is quite likely), or (2) they ARE Amantia magnifica, and it is a junior synonym of Auchalea pandora (somewhat less likely), or (3) they ARE Amantia magnifica, and it is a senior synonym of Auchalea annulata (not very likely). There is no way to distinguish these three possibilities until and unless someone compares the type specimens of all three species (they're all in different European museums). That has not happened in the 70 years since all three names have existed, and probably won't happen in the next 70 years. There just aren't enough taxonomists (myself, I am only sure of the identity of Auchalea pandora). Yes, this is confusing, but it's nothing that anyone is going to solve any time soon. That's pretty typical for invertebrate taxonomy; millions of species, and a tiny handful of taxonomists. Our best estimate is that we've named about 10% of all existing invertebrates, after 250 years of formal effort. Dyanega (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Any idea about Scaralis fluvialis, please???Uploader1234567890 (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I am also not sure about annulata. Thanks for info. I believe that you were correct about possibility 1 beacause the original description of Amantia magnifica includes mentioning feature like and olivaceous head and thorax and piceous tegmen, which are as in the iNat observations. Uploader1234567890 (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I meant not in iNat observations. Uploader1234567890 (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

The problems with Scaralis fluvialis and Auchalea annulata are the same: Lallemand's descriptions have no accompanying illustrations, and his type specimens are not easily accessible. Case in point: his description of Auchalea annulata mentions no feature that would allow it to be distinguished from Auchalea pandora. Until someone compares the two respective type specimens, it is impossible to know for sure whether Auchalea annulata is a valid species or not. I would bet money that it is not. Also, I found the original description of Amantia magnifica, and it specifically states the basal half of the hindwings is golden yellow, and that the head and thorax are green with red marks. The images in iNaturalist are very clearly misidentified, and are Auchalea. Dyanega (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I had also read about the green head and thorax, remember? You had access to the type of Quadricolor and fluvialis, as in your paper. Please explain… Uploader1234567890 (talk) 06:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I have one more iNat related question. Uploader1234567890 (talk) 07:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't personally have access to those types; one of my co-authors was able to photograph the type of quadricolor, and had someone send him a poor-quality photo of "paratypes" of fluvialis. The fluvialis specimens are not actually paratypes, but they were identified by Lallemand. They were also apparently two different species, but that was enough to know that fluvialis is in the same subgenus as quadricolor. Access to types is not always easy, some museums are worse than others. What's your iNat question? Dyanega (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. I find only one incompatibility: iNat users find it hard to find the species that scientists find, and scientists don’t easily find what the people of iNat find! Uploader1234567890 (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The actual question is that when i read the original description of Scaralis semilimpida, I started to believe that the iNat observations were misidentified. Are they really? Uploader1234567890 (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Both of your observations are fair; in the case of semilimpida, the only images I have from the type specimen are of its head and thorax. They do not exactly match the species shown in iNat. I have a specimen of something very similar to semilimpida, from French Guiana, and it doesn't quite match those photos, either - the head is a little differently marked, and the wings do not have that very black background color and very pale band like in the iNat photos (they are brownish with a lighter brownish band near the middle). I can't say definitively that the photos in iNat are misidentified, but I suspect that they are. That sort of problem is likely to be very common in iNat when there are photos taken of unnamed species, that people assign names to anyway. Non-experts are going to assume that everything in iNat MUST have a name, even though this is patently untrue. Dyanega (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

In the original description of semilimpida, it is only noted that there is one spot on the coastal and one on the sutral margin of the tegmen. There are no mentions of lines in the tegmen. Uploader1234567890 (talk) 06:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I spotted an important feature to differentiate scaralis neotropicalis and obscura. It is not written anywhere that the abdomen of obscura is red, in fact id is figured and described as bronzy. The observation of a scaralis that you could not identify was a good match for the neotropicalis figure in distant 1887. Uploader1234567890 (talk) 08:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Oryctes rhinoceros

Thanks for your correction of the Oryctes hrinoceros page. No, the beetle does NOT feed on the meat of coconuts. Bernhard Zelazny (talk) 14:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)