Talk:Banffiidae

Animals Low‑importance

Banffiidae is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Animals To-do:

Here are some Open Tasks :

Copyedit:
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Improve: Photoperiodism, Tool use by non-human animals, Omnivore, Animal suicide, Sphaerium beckmani (a species in family Sphaeriidae),
Requests:
- Mammals:
- Invertebrates: Campocraspedon
- Fishes: Zaniolepis frenata
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Expand: Junqueira cow, Atka mackerel
Nominate and vote: Science collaboration of the month, Article Improvement Drive, WikiProject Animals Collaboration

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spelling of family name

Caron in the original paper spelt the name "Banffiidae", i.e. with two i's. This is correct according to Article 29 of the ICZN, in particular Articles 29.1 to 29.3. The type genus is Banffia, the stem of which is "Banffi-", to which is added "-idae" to give "Banffiidae", exactly in the way in which the example in the Code uses the genus name Reduvius to give the family name Reduviidae. Sources that use the spelling "Banffidae" are in error.

This could be explained in the article if it's felt to be necessary. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead I actually first set it up in Vetulicolia#Classification that way (probably in an unpublished draft), but most sources including Aldridge et al. 2007 "The Systematics and Phylogenetic Relationships of Vetulicolians", which is kind of the fundamental document for te group, as well as Li et al. 2018 "The enigmatic metazoan Yuyuanozoon magnificissimi from the early Cambrian Chengjiang Biota, Yunnan Province, South China", which is the more recent complete phylogeny, spell it Banffidae so I changed it to that. Same with Kummig, Liebach, and Lieberman 2020 "First occurrence of the problematic vetulicolian Skeemella clavula in the Cambrian Marjum Formation of Utah, USA"; in fact. The only use of Banffiidae I can find is in Conway Morris, Halgedahl, Selden, and Jarrard 2015 "Rare primitive deuterostomes from the Cambrian (Series 3) of Utah". I'm kind of impressed that PBDB has it correctly.

TBH it always bothered me- I was pretty sure Banffiidae was the correct form. Which I think would make "banffiid" rather than "banffid" the descriptor? Which I see you've already fixed :-)

I see you noted the discrepancy in the text. I think that's sufficient, no need to get into the grammar rules on this page.

Ixat totep (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Caron published "Banffi-idae", why not "Banffi-ozoa" rather than "Banff-ozoa". However, the ICZN doesn't apply above families, so class names can be formed in any way. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Preference against of names of scientists

@Peter coxhead I've taken Caron's name out of the sentence you added and just noted the paper and its date.¹ I prefer not to have names in the text (except when referencing a paper by author, which I try to minimize as well), but I'm not trying to start an edit war so here are my reasons:

Most people can't include names without it turning into a narrative about the people- that is not a problem with your edit, but it was a big part of why the Vetulicolia page was such a mess. The whole taxonomy section was "person A said this, and person B said that, and then person A replied and person C said..." which obscured the science and also made it impossible to just tweak- I had to research and rewrite it entirely.
Ooedigera is the only WP:GOODARTICLE among the vetulicolian pages, and it doesn't mention a single scientist name. This is the one page I haven't created or substantially modified, and I think it should be the guide to polishing all of the stuff I've added.²
I've gone through every vetulicolian page and (I think) removed all of this sort of thing, so this now really sticks out.

If there's some other style guide that contradicts this I'm happy to have it changed back, but I figure the Ooedigera article is the best objective style precedent.

¹ The date of that paper actually a bafflingly complicated question (see Banffozoa#Preference for Banffozoa over Heteromorphida), as it the publisher gives it a June 2005 date (under "Information") for issue with a formal date of "2006 (for 2005)", something I have never seen before. I adjusted the phrasing slightly for this ("dated" instead of "published in"). I've seen papers cite it as both 2005 and 2006, and Semantic Scholar uses the 2005 date. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

² Once I get the Vetulicolida page up later this week I'll be done building out this area and ideally it would all get some polishing

Ixat totep (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ixat totep: you and I understand that the authority "Caron, 2006" in the taxobox means that Caron published the name in 2006 (where 'published' has to be according to the rules of the ICZN), but I don't think we should assume that every reader knows this, so I prefer to explicitly say in the taxonomy section who published the name. Also there are categories for "Taxa named by ...", and such statements support the use of the category. I don't think there's any policy though, so it's a matter of preference.

Re ¹, yes, the publication date is confusing. The PDF version of the paper has at the very top "Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh: Earth Sciences, 96, 95–111, 2006 (for 2005)". So I would say that the Caron paper is dated 2005 but was published in 2006. My understanding of the ICZN is that when the name was actually made public, i.e. published, is what matters for the purposes of priority. Looking at some later volumes, it's even more confusing, because the PDF versions have text like "2010 (for 2009)" but the HTML says "published online ... 2009". Peter coxhead (talk) 07:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]