User talk:Titanoptera

Welcome!

Hello, Titanoptera, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! SwisterTwister talk 20:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit to Luffa

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Luffa, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 09:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Megasoma

Hi. Do you have a published citation that synonymizes either M. hermes or M. rex? If so, this citation needs to be added to the article. Thanks, Dyanega (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any synonymization citations about M. hermes. It was my mistake. About M. rex and M. actaeon johannae, I found some citations here:catalogue of life

GBIF An annotated checklist of the Scarabaeoidea (Insecta: Coleoptera) of the Guianas

'Five papers (Prandi 2016, 2018a, 2018b, 2019; Van Meenen and Schouteet 2018) on Megasoma actaeon have recently been published, all of them dealing with its purported subspecies, with some new, closely related, taxa being described. It appears these papers are partially overlapping, with at least one taxon (found outside the research area) being newly described twice. We consider the presented characteristics between all these species, subspecies and forms rather minimal given their variation within the newly defined taxonomic bounderies, especially as no genetic evidence is produced. Although the distribution of a taxon described in Prandi 2016 is within the research area, we have refrained from including it in this checklist until more solid evidence for its validity is provided.'

--Titanoptera (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. This is a cautionary note, but it does not formally propose synonymy; it would be fair to annotate entries for M. rex and M. actaeon johannae as dubious, with a link to this paper, but I would say they should not be treated as synonyms yet. As they note "until more solid evidence ... is provided". Dyanega (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinion. I'll revert current edition and add some taxonomic errors(overlapped, dubious) and notes in this paper.--Titanoptera (talk) 03:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you already edited. I checked a little later. Thanks for your contribution.--Titanoptera (talk) 03:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@user:Dyanega: Hi. I just found two papers about Megasoma rex and M. actaeon johannae. References are here:

M. rex: Prandi M. (2018) Synopsis of the species Megasoma actaeon (Linnaeus, 1758). Part 1. Splitting actaeon beetle , Gekkan Mushi 571:1-13 Gekkan Mushi (Japanese)

M. actaeon johanne: Van Meenen, J., & Schouteet, T. (2018). A new subspecies and a new individual form of Megasoma Kirby, 1825 of Peru (Coleopteraé, Scarabaeidae, Dynastinae), Lambillionea, CXVIII(2):125-138. Lambillionea (French)

According to these papers, type locality(Peru) and taxonomic characters of both species are very similar. That is why researchers in 2019 may thought as 'dubious' or 'overlapping'.

And most of all, the article in journal Lambillionea was published in June and Gekkan Mushi was in September. So, if M. rex and M. actaeon johannae are same, the valid scientific name should be M. actaeon johannae by the priority of nomenclature.

See also: Another checklist site annotated that M. rex is a synonym of M. actaeon johannae. BioLib--Titanoptera (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Actually, that last point - about the synonymy of M. rex versus M. actaeon johannae - is interesting and also problematic. It does not give a print citation for the synonymy, for one thing, but it also lists a "form" name. Under the ICZN, "form" names are excluded from zoological nomenclature entirely. They are not available names, and do not have authors or dates. It is amazing that someone would, in 2018, be attempting to adhere to a practice that was formally prohibited back in 1960! Dyanega (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]