Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life

WikiProject Tree of Life

Main pageTalkArticle templateTaxonomic resourcesTaxoboxesParticipantsArticle requests

FYI – November lichen task force newsletter

<--- Previous issue | Next issue ---> | Tip Line SYMBIOSIS: The lichen task force newsletter — November 2023 A look at what we've accomplished, working together
Our tiny task force is working to improve coverage of the world's lichens – unique symbiotic organisms composed of one or more fungal partners with one or more photosynthetic partners. They're found around the world, covering more than 7% of the earth's surface – from frigid polar areas to the steamy equator, from the edges of lapping seas to the highest mountains, and from city walls to the most pristine wilderness areas. They provide food and nesting material for myriad animal species, may be major players in the creation of soil from rock, and produce substances which may prove beneficial in our fight against pathogenic organisms. Want to learn more? Join us!	Articles of note New featured list: Outline of lichens (October 29) New good articles: Teloschistaceae (9 September) – a large family of mostly lichen-forming fungi Elke Mackenzie (18 October) – a noted British lichenologist who was also part of a secret WWII mission to Antarctica Teloschistes flavicans – the type species of the type genus of the family Teloschistaceae
Project news Esculenta has been on a tear recently and now has six articles under consideration for good article status: Anaptychia ciliaris, Buellia frigida, Chrysothrix chlorina, Placidium arboreum, Pulchrocladia retipora, and Punctelia. Esculenta has also submitted Teloschistaceae (which received its GA star in September) for consideration as a featured article. We now have articles about two additional noted lichenologists: Vitus Grummann and Oscar Klement. "Year of description" categories have been added to all genus and species articles. The number of genus and species articles continues to grow. We now have 935 articles about lichen genera and more than 2100 (including redirects) about lichen species. It's not all good news: The number of articles on our cleanup listing has also grown, with 5% of the task force's articles showing some sort of potential issue. These range from missing or unreliable sources to dead external links and orphaned articles. Some of these could probably be sorted relatively quickly, if you're looking for a fast way to help the project improve the quality of its coverage.
Newsletter challenge The "Phytochemistry" section in our Stereocaulon ramulosum is convoluted and virtually unreadable – and has had a "clarification needed" tag since July of 2022. The editor who whips this short section into shape (and the one who cleans up the associated references) will get public kudos in the next newsletter.
Got a suggestion? A correction? Something you'd like to see included in a future issue? Drop a note at the Tip Line with your ideas!

Delivered by MeegsC (talk) 09:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Authority of Megalonyx

@Al2oh3: has changed the authority of Megalonyx to Jefferson, 1799, over Harlan, 1825 The vast majority of the literature I have seen uses the Harlan authority (e.g.) [1] [2] [3], though I have managed to find one use of the Jefferson authority in the literature ([4]) Al2oh3's justification for doing this in the edit summary is The authorship of the genus Megalonyx was corrected to Jefferson, 1799 (rather than Harlan, 1825). The description in Jefferson's 1799 paper fully meets the standards for availability of a genus-group name according to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (2000). Harlan (1825) respelled the genus as "Megalonix," but also clearly attributed the genus-group name to Jefferson. Harlan's name, "Megalonix" is an "incorrect subsequent spelling" (ICZN, Article 33.3), and therefore invalid. To be honest, I am not a massive fan of this. This seems like WP:OR to me without an ICZN petition on the matter, and we should actually prefer what the majority of actual researchers are using over our own interpretations of the code. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Corrected by whom? YorkshireExpat (talk) 09:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

We need a secondary source saying it has been corrected. The argument may well be correct, but Wikipedia guidlines don't allow us to make that determination. A primary source saying it is wrong is not sufficient, when the majority of sources use that authority. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

If it helps at all, I've found more instances of "Megalonyx Jefferson, 1799" in the literature: [5] (from 1904), [6] (from 2007, page 609), [7] (2010 thesis, page 37), [8] (from 1995). The last one in particular in passing claims that "Megalonyx Jefferson, 1799" was non-binomial though, which may have some relevance to why Harlan, 1825 is used instead by some authors? "Jefferson, 1799" is also the authority used in Nomenclature Zoologicus (see page 71). Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Its a strange one in a way. Both are listed in ZooBank, however, Megalonyx Jefferson 1799 has no type species listed whereas Megalonyx Harlan 1822 does, that being jeffersoni. If no type has ever been added to the Megalonyx Jefferson 1799 then the name is unavailable and hence the correct name would be that authored by Harlan in 1822. After such a considerable amount of time I would say the ICZN would have to wiegh in on that and its likely that the older name would be deemed nomen oblitum in the absence of any other ruling. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 20:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually... the obligatory validation of a genus with a type species only applies to genera described after 1930. This case would not need a type species to be considered valid. —Snoteleks (Talk) 23:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes that is true, but to use the genus now requires a type species to be subsequently applied which does not seem to have ever been done. As such, and considering the the significant amount of subsequent usage of the Harlan name would require the type species to be applied. It would no doubt be challenged with the ICZN at this point as the Harlan name clearly has stability which is a major consideration in the code. Without the subsequent designation of a type and the consideration of stability I would consider the Jefferson name nomen oblitum. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 07:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia another point here is that at least the Amson et al. 2014 paper you link that uses Jefferson does so without comment or justification, to be fair the paper is largely about another genus Thalassocnus hence they did not need to spend much time on that, but the point is this is not a primary revision of the issue at hand here and hence should not be used as an authority on the issue of authorship of Megalonyx. To make this change we need an accepted by revision publication that explains why they are resurrecting the Jefferson name. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 08:22, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it is best to indicate the authorship of Megalonyx as disputed. That approach does reflect the recent literature. Al2oh3 (talk) 20:19, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Al2oh3 What recent literature has made a nomenclatural assessment that resurrects the name under the authorship of Jefferson? If there is no analysis then they could just be wrong for all we know. In general all recent lit has had the name under Harlan, those acceptions I have seen make no justification of this. You cannot just use an alternative nomenclature without justification, doing so is usually ignored, not deemed disputed. Please cite the paper that has the justification for using Jefferson. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 03:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

There are certain things like gender agreement which - being automatic and mandatory under the ICZN - do not constitute "original research" and do not require a citation to be included in Wikipedia. The issue of Megalonyx is a little bit more iffy. I can say, however, that the point above about Jefferson's work being non-binominal is false. Having read the work in question (linked twice, as references 4 and 6 in the WP article) it is a Code-compliant pre-1930 description. Note in particular the following Code Article: "11.4.1. A published work containing family-group names or genus-group names without associated nominal species is accepted as consistent with the Principle of Binominal Nomenclature in the absence of evidence to the contrary." There is no evidence that Megalonyx was not proposed as a Linnaean-concept genus name. As such, I personally do not see anything that would refute using Jefferson 1799 as the author of the name. Yes, the name was treated only once as a capitalized name, and subsequent uses in the paper used "megalonyx" or "magalonyx", but that is not evidence for non-binominality. More to the point, perhaps, is that it seems that historically Jefferson was accepted as the author (e.g., in Neave), and then at some later point someone argued to change the authorship, and this act was apparently done in contravention to the Code. If it's a matter of Code-compliance, which is objectively determined, then I don't think we're dealing with an OR issue at that point. One can always cite the Code, and then state which of the two alternatives in in compliance, much as one would cite the dictionary for the definition, pronunciation, or etymology of a word. Dyanega (talk) 19:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

One final point: Article 12 states that a description, definition, or an indication are required to make a name available prior to 1930. The inclusion of a known species is one of the methods of indication, and is not a general requirement for pre-1930 genus-rank names. Many genus-rank names prior to 1930 had no originally included species, but they are still available names. Further, the type species of Megalonyx is M. jeffersoni, as it was the first included species; this is made explicit in Article 69.3: "69.3. Type species by subsequent monotypy. If only one nominal species was first subsequently included in a nominal genus or subgenus established without included species, that nominal species is automatically fixed as the type species, by subsequent monotypy." Please also note that this Article explicitly states that a genus can be established without included species. Again, I see no reason not to accept Jefferson as the author of the genus. Dyanega (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you Dyanega and it would seem that the Jefferson description is valid, my issue is one of stability and that it should not be for us to change the status quo, I asked for a primary pub that has recognised this then I am fine to follow it. I agree the Jefferson description meets the code from what I can gather and monotypy is a valid species designation, the second species was added 1832 I believe. I have been seeing it as oblitum ie forgotten due to the subsequent overwhelming usage of the Harlan name. I would rather that was corrected in valid literature so we do not end up with a dual nomenclature and the vast majority of publications and checklists use Harlan and have done so for a long time. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 01:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Having read the account, it was light on descriptive details relative to modern scientific papers, though given that the three word phrase "Cornibus deciduis palmatis" (literally "palmate deciduous antlers") in an auction listing was enough to validate Megaloceros [9], I can certainly see why Dyanega thinks its enough to validate Megalonyx. My concern, like Faendalimas, is that this feels like something that should be resolved by ICZN petition, and that's not Wikipedia's purpose to correct authorites that are widely used the scientific literature. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Wether or not it went to a petition would be up to the workers on that group, I work with reptiles so its not one I would likely weigh into at that level if it came up. However, my gut feeling is that push comes to shove someone working on mammals would probably put in a case requesting authorship be stabilised under prevailing usage. If that happened under Art 82.1 it is probable that the Harlan name would stand until the ICZN made their decision which can take some time. This is why I would prefer to see this reviewed and accepted in the Primary Lit before we make the change. Which will affect us at Wikispecies too as we are using the Harlan name there too. GBiF has both names as valid which is doubly unhelpful. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 04:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have stated this more clearly: Jefferson's authorship is cut-and-dry. The ICZN generally does not accept a case unless there is some question about the correct application of the Code. That is, formal applications to the Commission generally involve setting aside the rules of the Code in order to achieve a desired outcome that is otherwise contravened. In this specific case, only if everyone wanted Harlan to be the author would there need to be a formal application and vote and ruling, because Harlan is not the author under the Code. An application sent to the Commission to "fix" Jefferson as the author would be rejected without review, because the Commission would not need to intervene at all. However, if what you want is simply a published statement that Jefferson is the author, then anyone can publish a very short opinion piece (one page, maybe two) in the BZN that says "The correct authorship and date of Megalonyx is Jefferson, 1799". Dyanega (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree, it is, as I was getting at we are an encyclopedia, not a journal article. But my worry is someone may try to conserve the Harlan usage. Not the other way around. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 02:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I got here late but perhaps have a little to add. I believe acceptance of Harlan (1825) as the authority stems from George Gaylord Simpson's 1945 classification of mammals (Simpson, George Gaylord (1945). "The principles of classification and a classification of mammals". Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 85: 1–350. hdl:2246/1104.) which states (p. 70, footnote 4): "The supposed genus "Megalonyx Jefferson, 1799," long sentimentally cherished by American palaeontologists, is non-existent. Jefferson definitely did not establish such a genus in zoological nomenclature, but it can be ascribed to Harlan."

When I reviewed this problem some time ago for my nomenclatural database, I came to the same conclusion: there is no indication in Jefferson's paper that he is creating a scientific name. He uses the word "Megalonyx" together with "Lion", and never mentions any formal scientific name. I see that Dyanega came to the opposite conclusion though, and he surely knows more about the Code than I do.

In any case, I don't think it should be Wikipedia's business to decide which interpretation of the Code is correct. The article Megalonyx now says that authorship is disputed, and I think that's the right call until someone publishes a paper explicitly arguing for one author or another. Ucucha (talk) 06:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Also getting here a bit late, but no matter. I checked for "Megalonyx" in my own holdings and it is under authorship of Jefferson, 1799, per Neave (Nomenclator Zoologicus); also per Harlan's 1825 work, visible at https://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=coo-AAAAcAAJ. I also noted Simpson's remark "The supposed genus "Megalonyx Jefferson, 1799," long sentimentally cherished by American palaeontologists, is non-existent. Jefferson definitely did not establish such a genus in zoological nomenclature" as stated above, and then reproduced verbatim in McKenna & Bell, 1997, who accordingly ascribe the genus to Harlan. However checking the original work by Jefferson, like Doug Yanega I see no reason why the name should not be available ("established" in the statement by Simpson): the article is accessible at https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/12181210, wherein Jefferson names the animal "the Great-Claw or Megalonyx" on p. 248, which certainly looks like a genus-level nomenclatural act to me, in direct contrast to Simpson's assertion (which is not accompanied by any further evidence); the lack of an included species being no barrier to effective publication at that time. So in contrast to Hesperomys project / user Ucucha, I think I will add in a record for "Megalonyx Harlan", attribute it to McKenna & Bell ("basis of record" in my database terminology), but make it a later usage of Megalonyx Jefferson, noting also that Harlan (mis-)spells this name Megalonix when first encountered (p. 201), but does spell it correctly in the index (pp. 316, 317) and also on pp. 202 and 203 of the main text.

What this means is that (in the absence of further arguments to the contrary) IRMNG will continue to presume that Jefferson's paper is the available source for this name, and that Simpson/McKenna & Bell, and others who have followed them, are following a fallacious statement backed by no stated reasoning. Maybe I am wrong on this, but it seems logical to me at the present time - although any more recent published clarification from someone "in the know" would certainly be helpful. Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 02:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, I have cited this discussion on the Wikispecies talk page for Megalonyx, see https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Megalonyx , with a recommendation that authorship for the genus is changed there from Harlan to Jefferson, as per Doug Yanega's statement above "Jefferson's authorship is cut-and-dry...". In case anyone wishes to comment further in that location... for consistency, I would also propose that authorship for this taxon be changed here as well (there could still be a statement regarding the variation found in the literature, and its probable source). Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 02:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, PrimalMustelid joining here. I'm not completely sure of who has taxonomic authority by definition, but we're leaving out one particular source by George Gaylord Simpson. In 1942, he argued that referral to Thomas Jefferson as holding taxonomic authority is erroneous, pointing out that apparently, "Harlan may have been the first to use the name in a valid Linnaean form and hence may be its technical author." Another author of "Prehistoric Monsters: The Real and Imagined Creatures of the Past That We Love to Fear" in 2009 argued, "Until 1820, Jefferson's name Megalonyx was used in the vernacular, rather than as a scientific name selected in a valid Linnaean fashion. Then, French zoologist Anselm Desmarest (1784-1838) honored our third president by assigning remains of a species to Megalonyx jeffersoni. Thereafter, American paleontologist Richard Harlan (1796-1843) formally renamed the animal Megalonyx jeffersoni in volume 1 of a work titled "Fauna Americana; being a description of the mammiferous animals inhabiting North America" (1825). Therefore, Harlan (and not Jefferson, Wistar, or the others) is cited as the first technical author of the genus and species Megalonyx jeffersoni." PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

PrimalMustelid - None of the sources you are citing made reference to the ICZN, which is the final arbiter of the authorship of names; under the ICZN, Jefferson was the author. A genus name does not have to be published originally in a binomial ("a valid Linnaean form") in order to be made available. As I quoted earlier in this thread: "11.4.1. A published work containing family-group names or genus-group names without associated nominal species is accepted as consistent with the Principle of Binominal Nomenclature in the absence of evidence to the contrary." Many genera originally coined prior to 1930 had no included species, and Megalonyx is one of these examples. Dyanega (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I am aware of that rule, but I find it questionable that Jefferson's work contained "genus-group names" at all. He uses the word "megalonyx" in virtually the same way he uses the word "lion" (for example, in table headers). Would you say that Jefferson also introduced a generic name Lion? If not, what is the principled difference between the words "megalonyx" and "lion" in Jefferson's article? Ucucha (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Jefferson did more than provide a name, spelled "Megalonyx", he provided a Latin description that accompanied the name. For names coined prior to 1930, that is all the Code requires. Again, there are hundreds of genus names, of some incredibly well-known taxa, that have been recognized as valid for well over 100 years that have no more evidence than this to back them up, but the Code not only allows us to recognize these poorly-proposed names, it compels us to accept them. Again, the Code explicitly says you have to provide evidence if you wish to claim the name was NOT proposed as a genus name, and you would need to submit a formal application to the Commission if you wanted to give the authorship to Harlan by setting Jefferson's name aside. The Code in its present form (i.e., a published book) did not exist in 1942 when Simpson made his claim that Jefferson was not the author, so his personal opinion (and that of any other taxonomist prior to the compilation and widespread acceptance of the Code in 1961) is irrelevant. The authorships of names change all the time, when scrutinized. Case in point: for decades, the overwhelming majority of genus names published by Dejean were treated as unavailable, thanks to Neave publishing a catalog in 1940 that said they were all unavailable. Then, in 2013, two taxonomists, one of them an ICZN Commissioner, reviewed all of these names and determined that nearly 1000 of these names were actually available, and suddenly Dejean became the author of all of those names, when someone else had previously been credited with authorship for over 70 years. Neave was wrong, and didn't have the Code to consult in 1939 when he wrote his catalog. All it takes to set aside a mistaken authorship is the evidence from the original work by the actual author, and proper application of the Code. This case, regarding Megalonyx, is trivial by comparison. Dyanega (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I have read the original descriptions of most existing scientific names for mammals, so I know that many old descriptions don't comply with today's standards. The Code is rightly very permissive for names published before 1930, because otherwise many prominent names would become unavailable. But there is a flipside, which is that being too permissive may mean making too many names available, and that also leads to instability. For example, I still don't see why your argument would not imply that Lion Jefferson, 1799, is also an available name. Contrary to what you wrote above, Jefferson did not provide a formal Latin diagnosis for "megalonyx" (unless I missed it), and in any case such a diagnosis is not a requirement under the ICZN, only under the botanical code.

Article 1.3.5 of the ICZN excludes names used "as means of temporary reference and not for formal taxonomic use as scientific names in zoological nomenclature". My contention is that Jefferson used "megalonyx" in that way: he did not use a formal system of scientific names. Ucucha (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the Latin description refers to this ... I will venture to refer to him by the name of the Great-Claw or Megalonyx, to which he seems sufficiently entitled by the distinguished size of that member. Jefferson is providing a Latin name and its basis on the properties of the animal.

What other animals were described by Jefferson? If there are others, were they accepted and what type of description is there? —  Jts1882 | talk  15:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Jefferson's work contains an extensive table (pp. 249-250) of the dimensions and characteristics of the bones, which is - quite frankly - better in many respects than most of the contemporary descriptions then being published by "real" taxonomists. Not only that, these characters were presented in direct comparison to the same bones of a lion, and thus indisputably qualifying as a formal diagnosis (my insertion of the word "Latin" above was a brain fart). He even stated the type depository! Again, something that "real" 18th-century taxonomists hardly ever did. For a paper published in 1799, the taxonomic content of Jefferson's work was exemplary, even if he was skimpy on the nomenclatural aspect. Ucucha, I'm quite serious - if you feel so strongly that Jefferson's authorship is wrong, and that you can provide evidence that he was not using Linnaean nomenclature, then please go ahead and submit a petition to the ICZN to suppress that work and give the authorship to Harlan. If your case is compelling, then you should have your proverbial "day in court", but until then, no one has ever formally contested Jefferson's authorship, so it stands. Frankly, if a cranky pre-ICZN pedant like Neave saw fit to acknowledge Jefferson as the author, I think that convincing even more pedantic active ICZN Commissioners to deny Jefferson's authorship is going to be very difficult. A final minor point: the ICZN does not apply the concept of "stability" in certain contexts, such as dates, authorships, and gender agreement. These parameters can and do change without affecting nomenclatural stability, as in the case I mentioned above where several hundred genera changed authorships and years due to a single publication validating Dejean's authorship. That same publication DID point out the few cases where the valid name of a genus would change due to Dejean's name having seniority over a name in use, and they DID point out that these few cases threatened nomenclatural stability - not because of the change in authorship, but because of the change in the validity of a name. The Code, and Commission, are very clear on the distinction between what affects stability and what does not. Dyanega (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I should say something briefly about Wistar. Since Wistar authored a second description of Megalonyx, using the same bones, and in the same publication as Jefferson, an argument could possibly be made that the name should be considered as having competing simultaneous authorships, but this would be a little tricky to justify under the provisions of Article 50. While both authors provided Code-compliant descriptions, the thing is that Wistar cedes authority to Jefferson (admittedly in a subtle way, but it is clear enough), and that skews the interpretation of authorship in Jefferson's favor. It would be difficult to justify applying Article 50.6 here, giving authorship to Wistar rather than Jefferson (this would also require a petition to the Commission). One of the very minor differences between the two works, and one of the reasons to point to Wistar's paper, is that towards the end, on p. 531, he makes reference to "the megatherium" and "the megalonix". It's worth pointing out, in the context of the argument regarding whether or not he and Jefferson were treating these as names in the Linnaean sense, that the name "megatherium" was in fact a Linnaean-system name published and made available by Cuvier in 1796, and the observation that Wistar de-capitalized it cannot be construed as evidence that he was rejecting the Linnaean nomenclatural system. The more obvious conclusion is that people were not, in 1799, in the habit of always capitalizing Linnaean names, even when they were in fact being recognized as Linnaean names. The other thing is, Jefferson and Wistar used different spellings: "-onyx" versus "-onix" (the latter also used by Harlan). If there is ever a petition to grant Wistar (or Harlan) authorship, that changes the original spelling, and that would possibly threaten stability. Dyanega (talk)

A paper has recently come out in Zookeys supporting Jefferson as the authority of Megalonyx, which was reviewed (and presumably approved) by many of the authors that have historically used the Harlan authority. [10] I think this settles the issue. I wonder if this paper was prompted by this discussion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Adherence to correct spelling of scientific names as determined by nomenclatural Codes

User:UtherSRG has, in the process of refusing to allow an uncontested move of an article from an incorrect spelling of a genus name to the ICZN-compliant correct spelling of that name, stated today that "We aren't beholden to the ICZN." As an ICZN Commissioner, I think it's important to establish, here, that third-party sources that are in demonstrable violation of the ICZN (or the other nomenclatural Codes) are not acceptable as sources for Wikipedia (except in the context of being cited as using the wrong spelling). Just because 9 out of 10 authors misspell a scientific name does not mean Wikipedia has to accept that as the correct spelling, if even a single authoritative source exists that demonstrates that a different spelling is correct under the relevant Code. Is it really necessary or appropriate to compel editors to submit a formal request to WP:RM every time they find an outright and easily-confirmed error in a taxonomic article in Wikipedia, instead of simply fixing it?

Scientific names are not a "popularity contest", and no organism can have more than one spelling of its scientific name; only one spelling is correct, and all other spellings are not, and need to be fixed if they appear anywhere, Wikipedia included. More to the point, there are no third-party sources that take precedence over nomenclatural Codes, so there should be no expectation that - as UtherSRG suggests - a scientific name shouldn't be changed in Wikipedia until and unless there are multiple third-party sources available for citation that use the correct spelling. That's certainly not how taxonomy works, and I don't really think that all the admins here would agree that this is how Wikipedia works, either. In fact, in taxonomic practice, species-rank scientific names can change spelling even where NO publication appears with the correct spelling: this often happens with mandatory gender agreement (e.g., when a genus is synonymized with a genus of a different gender, authors do not always publish the new spellings of all the included species names; it's "an exercise left to the reader"). It is therefore entirely possible for the correct spelling of a scientific name to have ZERO published citations - but the Codes tell us what the correct spelling must be, even if it is never literally published, and that same accepted principle certainly should cover Wikipedia. Is this really subject to dispute?

This isn't a petty matter, or personal thing, this is a really fundamental aspect of how the science of taxonomy works, and how it interacts with Wikipedia, and I think it's important to be clear whether or not Wikipedia acknowledges formally-accepted rules of science as having primacy, so I hope we can have a civil discussion about this. It affects ALL scientific names, which are governed by well-established nomenclatural Codes, and account for a very large percentage of the articles in Wikipedia. If there is nothing explicit in Wikipedia policy regarding the need for scientific names to comply with the relevant Codes, then maybe now is a good time to make a push to do so. Dyanega (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

If the original genus name is clearly verifiable in the original description, then i see no problem with changing it to that, even if the majority of taxonomic literature is incorrect. I would like to see evidence from the academic literature that the spelling error is acknowledged if available. The problem is though, why would researchers trust the spelling of species on Wikipedia over what other scientists are using in the academic literature? I certainly wouldn't on first glance.

I think a more significant issue is your mass changing of species names to correctly match the grammatical gender, which results in species names that have never been used outside of Wikipedia. That's essentially WP:OR, and it doesn't really do anything to correct what researchers are using, because why trust Wikipedia over the academic literature? This is something that needs to be resolved in academic venues, rather than the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I suppose that WP:COMMONNAME was the argument used, which would make it a Wikipedia issue. I would argue that (for extant species anyway) that binominal can hardly be described as common names. This would be different for dinos (e.g. T. rex), and I opened a can of worms by moving something boldly, but I do have move rights. If I'd have found an article about a taxon using the scientific name misspelled, I'd have probably just moved it without the RM. YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Preferrably changes like these would be done with reference to the proper ICZN communication and/or entry on the matter. The Morrison Man (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Adding self-made corrections to several species names in article space is not only WP:OR, as previously stated, but also extremely confusing to the public and should be avoided at all cost. If the ICZN has issues with a nomenclature, it should resolve these issues with the concerned researchers and avoid doing it via proxy encyclopedia. The nomenclature used on Wikipedia should reflect the current scientific consensus on the matter in the published sources, not the opinion of private individuals, be them ICZN consultants or New Latin amateurs. Any species names that you have changed in the past to satisfy the expectations of the ICZN should be moved back to their situation within the sources. Don't forget that Wikipedia is often used as a generalist and practical handbook, even for researchers, and can give to the people with power to change the nomenclature the false impression that the changes have been done in effect in the litterature, which is often not the case. By modifying Wikipedia articles arbitrarily to satisfy your opinion on the requirements of the ICZN, you're actively going against the interest of the ICZN in the long run, and spreading potential disinformation on the Internet.

When I tried, myself, to include an etymology for Stegotherium back on my early editing days, inferred on the etymology, in New Latin, of these terms, this addition was criticized, and I took it down, due to it never occuring in any sources consulted. Similarly, your expectations on spellings are in a quite similar situation.

If 9 out of 10 authors misspell a scientific spelling, this is a misspelling. If 10 out of 10 authors misspell it, this is a consensus. As an ICZN commissioner, you should be able to correct, by yourself, any infractions to the code, or at least to contact the respective authors. Wikipedia is not a proxy for a scientific dispute, but must observe the consensus. One paper would suffice, but we need at least one paper.

Mandatory gender agreement, or anything like that, only concerns scientific publications. Wikipedia should be a reflection of those scientific publications, not the scientific publication that makes the decision. The correct spelling of a scientific name can't be decided by one random editor here ; if we allow you to take these kinds of decisions, which we shouldn't, we would also allow any other editor to add their own interpretation of the correct New Latin name, which would quickly become, as we say colloquially around here, the Far West, and would end up doing infinitely more harm than good to public perception of scientific names, academic consensus, and naturally to the ICZN itself.

A really fundamental way of how Wikipedia works is by removing, by all means necessary, any original research, and to focus on substantiated observations in the sources. Contrarily to academic publications, Wikipedia is only a repository of information already available elsewhere, and as such can not be the support of any taxonomical change, even if a code comes into conflict with it. I'm entirely favorable with the ICZN's effort to standardize scientific nomenclature, but Wikipedia is not the place for such an effort. All modifications done to already existing article to correct its declensions or genderizations should be treated as original research if not substantiated by at least one published work.

In the case of Cyrtophleba/Cyrtophloeba, the ICZN doesn't matter much. What matters is that Rondani, the genus author, takes natural precedence, and that any subsequent author committed an orthographic mistake. If this name had not been effectively published, the ICZN would not take precedence, as the correct orthograph would be the only one present in the source material, Cyrtophleba, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. I've grown to know a bit a number of my fellow editors, and I know for a fact that, for most of them, knowledge of Latin, Greek, and the, often tricky, Latin-Greek fusion that is taxonomical Neo-Latin can be quite lackluster. Forcing them to systematically correct any scientific name they stumble upon to respect a code that is outside the general guidelines of Wikipedia will be a quite dangerous endeavor. Larrayal (talk) 00:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Now that a few people have weighed in, I hope I can be allowed to address a few of these points. The argument I was making was general, not focused on the specific case that triggered it, but since User:Larrayal raises that case, let's use it as an example. What it exemplifies is the conflict between authoritative and non-authoritative sources, and my argument is that an editor who is competent enough to distinguish between authoritative and non-authoritative sources should be allowed to act on that knowledge. KNOWING that a given source is spelling a name wrong, and another right, and acting accordingly, does not - I would contend - constitute "original research" any more than consulting a dictionary for the spelling of a word. I assume that Wikipedia accepts the spelling given in a dictionary before any other sources, no matter how many have it wrong. For example, when I Google Search for "tumeric", the exact match only, I get over 5 million hits. However, that spelling does not appear in Wikipedia except as a redirect to the correct spelling. If editors are able to exclude "tumeric" from Wikipedia because it is misspelled, then it should be just as easy to exclude a misspelled scientific name when there is an authoritative source that shows it is wrong, and create a redirect - just like for "tumeric". In the case of Cyrtophleba/Cyrtophloeba, the ICZN is crucial to the resolution. Why? Because Rondani spelled it both ways in the original publication, and only the ICZN gives explicit instructions as to how such a case is resolved. In fact, the list of misspellings is extensive: CRYTOPHOEBA, CYRTHOPHLAEBA, CYRTHOPHLEBA, CYRTOPHLEBA, CYRTOPHOEBA, CYRTOPLOEBA, and CYRTHOPLAEBA - but only Cyrtophloeba is accepted under the ICZN, because it was selected under ICZN Article 24.2.4 by the original author acting as First Reviser. There is one print source that explains this, and one online source, the BDWD. There are numerous other sources that use the wrong spelling, including some sources that people who don't know any better will generally consider authoritative, such as GBIF. Bear with me here, please, because this very, VERY intimately relates to the argument that several of you have made, that Wikipedia exists outside of the academic sphere. It most emphatically does not. Wikipedia is linked inextricably to all of those online resources like GBIF, ITIS, IRMNG, BioLib, Fauna Europaea, IPNI, WORMS, Fossilworks, etc., both directly and through intermediates like Wikidata and Wikispecies. Most of those sources, however, are not authoritative sources of either taxonomic data, or nomenclatural data. Some are aggregators, and accumulate both good and bad information, without discriminating, and most of the others are manually-curated by people who are not taxonomists. What this means is that a lot of misinformation exists, and persists, through this interactive network of online sources that are effectively immune to being corrected. Even a world authority is unable to go in and fix a misspelling in any of these sources. This directly contradicts the claim made above that somehow taxonomists could exercise control over the appearance of misspellings online. They CANNOT. Aside from taxon-specific resources like the BDWD, the majority of online sources of scientific names are NOT screened by taxonomic experts, and most are unresponsive to external feedback. The name Cyrtophloeba is a perfect example of the problem - there IS a definitive published source that very explicitly gives the correct spelling and explains it, as well as the BDWD, but only a few of the many online sources have incorporated this information. GBIF, for example says that Cyrtophloeba and Cyrtophleba are BOTH "accepted" names, which is literally impossible, but because GBIF lists the latter misspelling as "accepted", other sources have picked it up and propagated it. Wikidata does not include Cyrtophloeba at all, because Wikidata is generated from Wikipedia, and until recently, Wikipedia used the wrong spelling. The point is that PRINT PUBLICATION of the correct spellings of names typically does little - or nothing - to impact the appearance of these names in the various online sources, because that's not how these online sources work. There is either a time lag, or a labor lag, or some barrier, so what appears in print may or may not eventually find its way into these sources. That's where Wikipedia is different, and crucially important to the scientific community. Wikipedia (and Wikispecies) is perhaps the only venue where new scientific knowledge can be disseminated immediately and accurately. You don't seem ready or willing to acknowledge how important that is - the claim that Wikipedia is not used by academics is utterly disingenuous, as it ignores how little reliance modern scientists place on print publications, and instead rely primarily on finding information online. I've been helping train taxonomists for the past 25 years, and they now use Google Search for essentially everything, and most have never used a library. For almost any scientific name you type into Google Search, Wikipedia is going to be the first result. The next most common results are going to be these other online sources like GBIF, ITIS, IRMNG, BioLib, IPNI, and such. Since Wikipedia is the only one of these sources where errors in scientific names can be fixed directly, it is essential that Wikipedia ALLOW for misspellings to be fixed there. Otherwise, scientists - yes, scientists, not just laymen - are generally going to accept the results of a Google Search uncritically; in a very large number of cases, they won't know when a name they have typed in is misspelled, or what the correct spelling is, UNLESS there is an entry in Wikipedia that explains it. In other words, a misspelled name that has found its way online is going to propagate, proliferate, and confuse people until and unless there is an entry in Wikipedia that sets things straight. I am going to ask those of you who think I'm overstating the case to try an exercise: without referring to Wikipedia or Wikispecies, how easily can you determine, definitively, which of these two spellings is correct: Lepisma saccharina or Lepisma saccharinum? It's one of the most common insects in the world, so it SHOULD be easy, right? This demonstrates exactly the opposite of the claim that academia can keep its own house in order - academics use online searches to do their research, and especially for things like the spelling of scientific names, the majority of authoritative sources are online, and NOT in print. Wikipedia is supposed to present facts, not misinformation, even when that misinformation is widespread. Do people honestly feel that an editor who discriminates between misinformation and fact is engaging in "original research" by doing so, and therefore prohibited from fixing errors? To use one of the examples above, it IS original research if you manufacture an etymology that does not appear in a dictionary, but NOT original research if you're consulting a dictionary that does contain it. I don't see how consulting any of the nomenclatural Codes, and citing that Code, is fundamentally different from consulting and citing a dictionary. Dyanega (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Personally I'm with Dyanega on this one. The fundamental issue, I think, is what is meant by "verification", given that "verification not truth" is the requirement here. The most reliable source for the correctness of a scientific name that is governed by a nomenclature code is that code, not usage, whether by professional biologists or others. Of course we must mention widespread orthographic variants, but our articles should be titled and should use the name that is correct under the relevant code, always provided this can be clearly sourced to the code. (An advantage of the areas in which I mostly edit, plants and spiders, is that there are taxonomic databases regarded as authoritative for these groups, which usually have the correct names under the Codes and will make corrections if they are told and accept that there are errors. Also correcting botanical names seems to be less controversial – botanists have only recently abandoned Latin descriptions, so are still expected to know some Latin and follow gender agreement, etc.) Peter coxhead (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I also agree with Dyanega perpetuating clear errors is not in keeping with the concept of providing accurate information. I also do not consider such corrections as WP:OR there are afterall references with either spelling. As such the editor here should make their decision between those publications based on an assessment of compliance to the ICZN Code. It is also risky to accept incorrect spellings as, although possibly not the case in this situation, it can lead to unnecessary homonyms being apparent (pseudo-homonyms as they are not really homonyms they are incorrect information) and as an Encyclopedia striving for accurate information should be a priority. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 16:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Im NOT with Dyanega. If a spelling is not found in any source, we here at wikipedia can never, at any point be the source that first publishes it. I would highly suggest reading OR and deeply contemplating the repercussions if this dicussion were happening at the wider village pump forums. I suspect that Dyanega would at the very least be chastised, if not outright topic banned for violation of POV COI editing rules. Its problematic that Dyanega continues to introduce "corrections" in instances where there IS no reference to the orthographic variation being used.--Kevmin § 19:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, there are two distinct issues here. The thread started over a case where there were multiple spellings in the literature, and there was a source that explained which spelling was correct under the provision of the ICZN. When there are multiple spellings in the literature and a code-based argument for which spelling is correct, we should follow the code-based argument. UtherSRG's argument that we should determine the spelling to use by application of WP:COMMONNAME is nonsense. That's not how Wikipedia does taxonomy. If a species has been placed in different genera we don't decide which genus to place it in by looking at the number of Google hits for every combination. We follow recent sources that have coherent genus concepts. And when the IOC changes the vernacular name of a bird (usually due to a change in circumscription, but sometimes with no change in circumscription), Wikipedia changes the vernacular name (IOC vernacular names for birds are not WP:COMMONNAMEs, but COMMONNAME is not the sole thing to consider in titling articles).

The other issue, that Dyanega has brought up before is whether Wikipedia should correct spellings when there is only one spelling in the literature, and the spelling in the literature is incorrect under the provisions of the ICZN. This happens a lot with lepidoptera because lepidopterists don't care about gender agreement. Wikipedia should not be the only source for a spelling that is found nowhere else in the literature. I do see species epithet that I suspect don't agree with the gender of the genus. But I'm not certain that the gender of the genus is what I suspect it to be. And I'm not certain that the species epithet isn't a noun in apposition that doesn't need to agree with the genus. I guess it would be a little less OR if I changed a spelling while providing a reference that explicitly gave the gender of the genus (but I suspect a big part of the lepidoptera problem is that such references don't exist). Plantdrew (talk) 21:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I was referring to the case at hand specifically where there are multiple publications. The original spelling is always published it's in the original description, subsequent spellings are erroneous unless a nomenclatural explanation has been given. Which would mean you would have at least two publications to choose from if there are two spellings. I do appreciate that WP as an encyclopedia cannot make the first move on this I totally agree with Kevmin on that but this is unlikely to be the case in most instances. The reason I do not consider it WP:OR is because in the absence of a publication justifying an alternate spelling for a species name the only correct spelling is the one in the original description. That is not original research, you are following the original description. If there is a justifiable spelling change in a publication that is still not original research because again you are just following a review publication and should be doing so. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 21:48, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The issue I was involved with there was only one known primary source and no known tertiary srouses using the corrected spelling at the time. Later it was found there were more tertiary sources. And while I'd called out COMMONNAME, what I intended was to wait for multiple tertiary sources to confirm the spelling correction. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Having thought more fully about this, I no longer have an opinion one way or the other about correcting onwiki, but I think the correct action for incorrect emendations made in recent scientific papers is that a request for correction should be made to the relevant scientific journal. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows taxonomic precedents set by the existing literature, Wikipedia should never itself attempt to set precedents; we follow, don't lead. We have clear rules about that at WP:OR and WP:synth. This is not the right venue to emend names, that should be done through publications or petitions within the relevant fields. Only when such a process is finalized and accepted, then we can change it here accordingly with no problem if it can be cited. FunkMonk (talk) 09:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

At no point have I said anything about emending names. Let's be perfectly clear about that. Changing the spelling of a species epithet from "striatus" to "striata" when it is transferred into a feminine genus is not emending the spelling - under ANY of the nomenclatural Codes, these are gender-mandated spelling variants of the same name, and changing one variant to another is not an emendation; an emendation is a change that results in a different name, like changing "striatus" to "stratus". What I am and have been referring to in this thread are - primarily - these mandatory spelling changes that, under the various Codes do not ever need to be published in order to take effect. Gender agreement is simply the most common mandatory case, but there are other similar situations (such as when there are two spellings of a name in the literature and only one is valid). I will give the most common and broadest example that occurs: a genus-level phylogenetic analysis is published, in which genus A and genus B are synonymized, and/or genus Y is separated from genus X, of which it had previously been a synonym. Each of these genera may have dozens to hundreds of constituent species, but since the paper is about the generic classification, the authors do not list all of the re-combined species names. Hundreds of papers like this are published each year. MANY times, the species affected by the generic reassignment are moved into genera of a different grammatical gender, and MANY times, this means the spelling of some species names will need to be changed because they are adjectives. The point I am trying to establish here is what policy should apply, in Wikipedia, in this sort of situation; if Wikipedia adopts the new classification, then I argue that editors should also comply with the relevant nomenclatural Code and adopt the necessary revised spellings of the species names, even when the individual spellings have never appeared in print. If a botanical revision comes out that says that the genus Gonolobus is now a subgenus of Asclepias, that would mean over 100 species presently treated as masculine need to be moved into a feminine genus. If an editor changes the present Gonolobus article so it appears as a subgenus of Asclepias, they should make the required changes to all the affected adjectival names in the list, and move any bluelinked articles to a new, correct title. In such a situation, it is entirely possible that it could take several years before anyone published all of the new spellings in a citable source, so a policy that insists on waiting for a citable source to appear is, I would argue, entirely inappropriate in such cases. A rare species like Gonolobus barbatus might not have its new name (Ascepaias barbata) appear in print for decades, if no one is actively publishing about it. It does not make sense to me to say that editors would be forced to make an article titled "Asclepias barbatus", a spelling that directly violates the ICBN and misleads readers, just because the name Asclepias barbata had never been published. Here's the thing about this example: in this basic scenario, the name Asclepias barbatus would never have been published anywhere, either, so if the principle is to never use unpublished names in Wikipedia under any circumstances, editors would be unable to do ANYTHING whenever genus affiliations are changed without the publication of a new species list. Such a strict policy stands to do more harm than good, and that's why I would instead argue that we need a policy that allows editors to adhere to the nomenclatural Codes when contending with lists of species and titles of articles whose spellings are demonstrably incorrect - i.e., that an editor who changes the spelling of a name to comply with a relevant nomenclatural Code is NOT violating the prohibition on "original research", and NOT going to have their edits reverted. Dyanega (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

It is still not our job to do. We report what is written elsewhere. Nothing more, nothing less. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure, we can and must report when mis-spellings are common – but this doesn't stop us saying that they are mis-spellings. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Actually, if UtherSRG's comment is taken at face value, editors are NEVER allowed to say something is misspelled until and unless there are mutlitple published sources that say it is misspelled, and those sources are cited. Dyanega (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Indeed. Correct. Anything else is WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. It is not our job to correct errors in publication. It is only our job to report what has been published. If no publication has used what the ICZN calls correct we should not use any unpublished spellings. To use an unpublished spelling is OR and SYNTH. If there are multiple spellings in one or more publications, we can note this. We are not to make the determination as to which is correct. Less strictly, we do have to make some editorial decisions, such as what to put in our taxoboxes, etc. However, we should make some note in the body of the article along the lines of "most publications use X spelling, while some (fewer) publications use Y spelling". We can point to the ICZN and note what the code says is correct. But we should not make the correction beyond this. Again, to go further than this is OR and SYNTH. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Going further - when a publication specifically calls out a mispelling and makes the correct and then later papers adhere to this correction, we can at this point drop the misspellings. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

UtherSRG - I'm not trying to badger you, honestly, I do understand where you're coming from, and why you might perceive "granting an exception" as a "slippery slope" instead, but my not-so-hypothetical example above is one I would like to know how you would address, given the strict prohibition your policy entails. To reiterate: if a paper came out that sank the genus Gonolobus into the genus Asclepias without providing a list of species, and no one published an updated list that included all of the new name combinations for, say, 10 years, are you saying that Wikipedia editors would have to wait for 10 years to list the Gonolobus species under the genus name Asclepias simply because there was no published literature placing any of those individual species into Asclepias? If so, does that not seem like a policy that is detrimental to the goals of Wikipedia? Dyanega (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Question 1: Yes. We report what has been published. Question 2: No, for OR and SYNTH is more detrimental. It just isn't our job to do that work. The paper that makes that change should note the gender change required. (Not that we can make that happen...) I don't even think they would have to list all 100 species; they can simply say that they note the gender change of the genus and perhaps list a small number of actual changes. (Even that smells too close to OR and SYNTH now that I re-read it.) I suspect they would be referring to some of those species anyway to make the determination that the genus should be demoted to a subgenus; if they do refer to some species and continue to use the older spelling, it is even harder to justify making the change. But no, I doubt we'd have to wait 10 years, as I'd expect other sources to pick up the gender change and start using the appropriate new names, and then we can point there. Basically, if there is no primary, secondary, or tertiary source we can point to, we are out of bounds to make a change. Pointing to the ICZN's code is not sufficient; to do so would absolutely be SYNTH. Either the original paper should note the change in some way (preferably by a full listing of the name changes), or later papers or other secondary publications would have to use the newer spellings, or some reliable tertiary source such as a database would have to make those changes. If none of those happen, we can't point to some place for a reader to verify the change, so we should not make the change.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that we do go and make the change to those 100 species in Gonolobus and then 10 years pass and still no one else has published anything about any of those 100 species, then Wikipedia looks like we don't know what we are talking about, that we make stuff up on our own. Wikipedia has no deadline. We can wait as long as we need to have a source note the change and then we can pick it up. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Now let's say that in those ten years, the type species of Gonolobus, Gonolobus macrophyllus, has had a new publication about it which squarely places it within Asclepias, but the remaining Gonolobus species have not.

Are you then arguing that we should move Gonolobus macrophyllus to Asclepias, while retaining all the other species at Gonolobus—in spite of the fact that the status of the genus is tied to its type species, and our acknowledgement of the new placement of the type species therefore inherently means Gonolobus cannot be the correct name for any of these lingering species?

Because if anything would make Wikipedia look like we don't know what we're talking about, it's that sort of thing... AddWittyNameHere 19:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Dyanega:, I feel like I must be misunderstanding your example, because that's not how the ICBN works. You can't publish a paper saying "Gonolobus is a synonym of Asclepias and all Gonolobus species now have combinations in Asclepias". Well, technically I guess you could publish such a paper, but it would not establish the combinations in Asclepias. You need to actually publish each combination and make it explicit that you are doing so: "'Gonolobus is a synonym of Asclepias... Asclepias barbata comb. nov., basionym Gonolobus barbatus...". The person who invokes the magic words "comb. nov." then get credited in authority citations (following the parenthetical name of the author of the basionym). As far as I'm aware, if it was published as Asclepias barbatus, that would still count for establishing the combination, but would be a correctable error.

POWO (and Wikipedia) treats Genyorchis as a synonym of Bulbophyllum. We have an article on Genyorchis macrantha; the POWO record states "This is name is unplaced". Nobody has ever published Bulbophyllum macranthum (and maybe nobody will ever need to; if somebody says that Genyorchis macrantha is a synonym of Bulbophyllum fooianum, POWO could go with that synonymy and get rid of the "unplaced" flag).

Purely for the record, a replacement name has now been published for Genyorchis macrantha, namely Bulbophyllum deshmukhii. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I also hadn't understood the ICZN to work like you are implying. You can just lump a genus without explicitly publishing new combinations for the species (and you can split!!! a genus by just saying "some of the species should go in this other genus" without enumerating which species are affected)? Lumping may lead to secondary homonyms. Wouldn't those need to be dealt with by explicitly publishing replacement names? Plantdrew (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

That was my fault for forgetting - in an attempt to make this not PURELY about the ICZN - that in botany, new genus combinations have independent authorship. Let's pretend, then, that they're animal genera. And no, the ICZN does not at all require that you have to indicate which species are being lumped or split. That's taxonomic, not nomenclatural, and up to the editors and reviewers of a journal to insist upon or ignore. Dyanega (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

yeah this comes down to what people can do and should do..... Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 20:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with the idea that Wikipedia's "no original research" policy means we should not change specific epithets, but Dyanega brings up a good point around what to do if a change in generic classification doesn't explicitly deal with all the species involved.

I have a non-hypothetical example. Ferran et al. (2022) sank the otter genera Aonyx, Amblonyx, and Lutrogale into Lutra. They discussed the extant species, but said nothing about fossils. What if Wikipedia accepts that reclassification, and I want to write an article about the fossil species Amblonyx indicus Raghavan et al., 2007? If I use the original combination, Wikipedia looks inconsistent because Amblonyx is a synonym of Lutra. But if I recombine the species name, fix the gender agreement, and use Lutra indica, I have made up a name combination, which goes against our policies. (And in this case, I've also created a secondary junior homonym, which is another matter that needs sorting out.) I don't know what the right answer is. Ucucha (talk) 15:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

You should use the older combination fir the article title, while in the article you can discuss that Ferran et al 2022 did what they did, and note that the ICZN rules say the name should be changed. Are you consistent with all existing publications on that taxon? Yes. Are you avoiding OR and SYNTH? Yes. Are you indicating there's an inconsistency between the existing taxon publications and the publication that made a changed? Yes. Are you maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia? Yes. Are you creating new problems? No. Would you create new problems if you did something other than this? Yes. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

There has been a lot of interesting discussion about this, but I think it comes down to whether nomenclatural codes or Wikipedia rules take precedence when choosing the name for the title of a Wikipedia article. Doesn't this dichotomy fall under WP:TRUTH and more specifically Wikipedia:Wikipedia is wrong? Esculenta (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

well Dyanega they do have the issues of OR and SYNTH here on Wikipedia, personally I think the slippery slope could be avoided but the intracies of policy and how to impliment them is a difficult discussion on Wikipedia. On Wikispecies we would alter all the names accordingly as we update the new combination, however in saying that we have no OR or SYNTH policies and hence do not face that issue, plus as a smaller wiki with all our editors being at least somewhat involved in taxonomy it is possibly a little easier for us. This of course means it will be parsed to Wikidata and can eventually end up on Wikipedia anyway. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 20:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Help: Urceolus publication date

So there are two claims for Mereschkowsky's description year of the euglenid genus Urceolus, and I do not know which is correct:

• Mereschkowsky 1879. Appears as such in AlgaeBase. Sources supporting this point towards an article titled "Studien über Protozoen des nördlichen Russland" (in German), published in the journal Archiv für Mikroskopische Anatomie 16: 153-248, which is available at the Biodiversity Heritage Library and apparently published at Springer too, including a DOI identifier (10.1007/BF02956383). All in all, seems pretty reliable, and you can literally see Mereschkowsky write "Urceolus Alenzini, nov. genus et nova species" in page 188. However I found no scholarly article that backs this year.
• Mereschkowsky 1877. Appears as such in ToLweb. According to the scholarly articles, this is the correct date, and the 1879 one is a misquote. These sources cite an article with the same title, "Studien über Protozoen des nördlichen Russland", but published in the rare journal Trudy Imperatorskago S. Petersburgskago Obshchestva Estestvoispyatatelei 8: 203-376. This journal seems to have lasted until the early 1900s, and I couldn't find any English record of it online, or trace of this article at all. In addition, the wikispecies page for Urceolus leads to an article by Mereschkowsky with a different title, "Etjudy nad prostejsimi zivotnymi severa Rossii" (in Russian), but same year and journal. When searching online for this title, I encounter nothing except other articles citing it instead of the 1879 one. Sources say this is the correct date, and that the other is a misquoting, and that if 1879 was the correct date, the junior synonym Phialonema (by Stein 1878) would have preference over Urceolus.

Can anyone help with finding out which one is correct? I can't seem to get a hold on the 1877 paper.—Snoteleks (Talk) 17:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you see this Google Books page? It gives a different journal for the 1877 paper (Travaux de la Soc. des Naturalistes de St. Pétersburg vol. viii.), and a bit of contextual information about the early circumscription of the genus. Esculenta (talk) 18:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Just for information, Neave (Nomenclator Zoologicus) gives Mereschkowsky 1879, Arch. mikr. Anat., 16, 188 for Urceolus, as does ING, from which I presently have it in IRMNG, however for Phialonema Stein, 1878. ING says:

"According to Buetschli (Mastigophora in Bronn's Klassen Ordn. Thier-Reichs 1(2): 825. 1884) the type is referred to Urceolus Mereschkowsky 1877." So there is an inconsistency there, possibly leaning towards an 1877 date for Urceolus. Happy to change my info in IRMNG if the earlier date comes through as believable... Tony 1212 (talk) 18:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Esculenta the journal Travaux de la Soc. des Naturalistes de St. Pétersburg is the same as Trudy Imperatorskago Sankt Petersburgskago Obshchestva Estestvoispyatatelei, it's just the French name, at least according to wikidata:Q107567684. I think your Google Books finding solves the issue, since it is Mereschkowsky's own explanation. I find it believable. —Snoteleks (Talk) 19:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

By the way, I found the free access version on BHL. —Snoteleks (Talk) 19:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

That being Ann. Nat. Hist. 5, 7: 209-280 (1881), which is the English version, which has the species under question on page 219 with a citation back to the original Russian work of 1877. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

You seem to have resolved it. However it this helps, I'd interpret the 1879 paper as being a republication in translation of the 1877 paper. You've found the journal name in Russian and French, and the article title in Russian and German. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I definitely suspected that it was a translation to German. However I did not want to assume this since it is not explicit anywhere. I guess it's not wrong to assume it? But it would help to have the original Russian ver. —Snoteleks (Talk) 14:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

It's certainly desirable to confirm the hypothesis; I've found errors in taxonomic databases by going back to the original source before. (I've just reported a couple of spurious records to IPNI - cases where the author was citing a prior name, not publishing a new one.)

I note that republication, for different audiences, was considered more acceptable in the 19th century that it is nowadays.

The problem I'd have here, assuming I could find the papers, is that I can only get a vague sense of the meaning of German text (Google Translate is better than me), and I couldn't make any sense of transliterated Russian, never Cyrillic. I've run the first paragraph of the 1879 paper through Google Translate, and it contains the statement "In the VIII B. of the Works of the St. Petersburg Natural Scientists' Society I have described all the already known and new freshwater and marine infusoria that I have found, a total of about 150 species. In this work I want to describe almost exclusively the new forms I have found and then share the general conclusions I have come to." (infusoria is an old term for microorganisms).

The first sentence looks like a reference back to the 1877 paper - right volume (I think the "B" is an abbrevation for Band, meaning volume) and the German version of the journal name (translated into English by Google Translate, though I had to capitalise Works myself). So the second half of the first sentence combined with the second sentence seems to say that it is a publication of parts (new taxa descriptions and general conclusions) of the 1877 paper. Nowadays I'd expect an explicit additional preceding paragraph of the form "This paper is a translated extract of material previously published in Russian in Trudy Imperatorskago S. Petersburgskago Obshchestva Estestvoispyatatelei 8: 203-376 (1877)", but things were sloppier back in the day. People remain inconsistent on whether the titles of articles and name of journals are translated or not (never mind that many Latin American journals publish papers with both English and Spanish titles for each paper).

I'm in two minds as to whether he "should" have cited the original publication for each new taxon, rather than denoting then as new taxa. Most of the time you wouldn't change the main text to cite the original publication when reprinting or translating a work (I might add footnotes to a translation), but in this instance I can see an arguable case for making the change.

So we have a provisional conclusion that the novel taxon descriptions were published in the 1877 paper. With the Ann. Nat. Hist. text it's pretty much a conclusive conclusion.

Lavateraguy (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The russian description can be found on GoogleBooks here. As far as I understand it (my Russian is poor), it really seems to be the original text of the German translation of 1879 here. (I'm a native German speaker). Thiotrix (talk) 11:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Elsewhere I've seen the Russian work cited as pp. 1-299, which doesn't seem to match the actual text (56-385?) Lavateraguy (talk) 12:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The article begins on page 203 and ends p. 385. Thiotrix (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Just noting that there are 2 other names ascribed to that 1879 Mereschkowsky work in Neave (Nomenclator Zoologicus), as follows:

• Haeckelina Mereschkowsky 1879 Arch. mikr. Anat., 16, 211.
• Merotricha Mereschkowsky 1879 Arch. mikr. Anat., 16, 186.

Possibly these should also date from 1877 as per Urceolus, but I am not in a position to check right now... Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

From the copy Thiotrix found

• • Merotricha Mereschkowsky 1877 Travaux de la Soc. des Naturalistes de St. Pétersburg 8: 291
  • Merotricha bacillata Mereschkowsky 1877 Travaux de la Soc. des Naturalistes de St. Pétersburg 8: 291
  • Haeckelina Mereschkowsky 1877 Travaux de la Soc. des Naturalistes de St. Pétersburg 8: 333
  • Haeckelina borealis Mereschkowsky 1877 Travaux de la Soc. des Naturalistes de St. Pétersburg 8: 335

If you're feeling keen you could work through the document; one can pick out the new taxon names since they're in Latin script, and explicitly denoted as new. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Haeckelina is on p. 211 (1879, German) and p. 336 (1877, Russian). Merotricha is on p. 186 (1879) and on p. 291 (1877). Kind regards, Thiotrix (talk) 12:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, all! Interestingly, ING had the "correct" 1877 date and work for Merotricha, an alga (does not hold Haeckelina, a heliozoan). The latter is in fact a preoccupied name, its replacement name is Servetia Poche, 1913 which is in Clathrulinidae according to Adl et al., 2019. Interestingly again, both these taxa seem to be freshwater; from the radiolarian element, I was rather presuming that the results of this "plankton expedition" were exclusively marine... Tony 1212 (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Speaking of Haeckelina, apparently that name was also used as Haeckelina Bessels 1875 (a foraminifer) and later substituted by Astrorhiza. WoRMs only has that record of Haeckelina, without the heliozoan. —Snoteleks (Talk) 19:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh I just realized that was the original Haeckelina, because it was created two years earlier than the heliozoan. So both Haeckelina names have been rejected, meaning there isn't any organism named Haeckelina now. —Snoteleks (Talk) 20:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Candidatus taxa

Ran into this recently... I see some variance in how to handle these taxa. Very few are using the automated system. I started converting one... I ran into the family first, Methylomirabilaceae, which used plain text so I automated it as such, but the linked species Methylomirabilis oxyfera that isn't yet automated uses quoted text. What is the correct way to handle these? I was thinking of trashing and replacing everything above the species as incertae sedis, but given that the full hierarchy is proposed, that might be overkill. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is very inconsistent about how it handles Candidatus taxa. There are many articles for taxa that LPSN lists as Candidatus where Wikipedia has no indication whatsoever of that status (e.g. Magnetobacterium bavaricum). There at least a few articles where Wikipedia has a title that indicates the status but which are not in Category:Candidatus taxa (e.g. Candidatus Ulvibacter alkanivorans). There are several articles in the Candidatus category that don't have titles indicating that status (e.g. Borrelia texasensis) There are probably some that aren't in the Candidatus category, and which don't have Candidatus in the title but might indicate Candidatus status in a (manual) taxobox or elsewhere in the article.

The ICNP ([11]) wants Candidatus names to appear as :Candidatus Magnetobacterium bavaricum. Candidatus italicized, name in plain text. LPSN adds quote marks around these names:"Candidatus Magnetobacterium bavaricum".

Achieving consistency means addressing how to title articles (include Candidatus and/or quote marks?), how to present Candidatus names in e.g. lists of species, running text, taxoboxes (include Candidatus, italicization, quote marks?).

Implementing automatic taxoboxes for Candidatus taxa is a whole other thing that involves resolving the other questions I've raised. There are only two taxonomy templates with names beginning with Candidatus: Template:Taxonomy/Candidatus Phytoplasma and Template:Taxonomy/Candidatus Savagella. Frankly, these genus level templates don't work. Speciesboxes expect a genus template to be a single word that should be italicized (not two words with the first unitalicized and the second italicized). Candidatus Phytoplasma solani uses an {{automatic taxobox}} with |species_text= and |binomial_text= to specify the italics. Candidatus Brocadia anammoxidans use an automatic taxobox with no taxonomy template, but with |genus_text= to specify the italics. It is possible (as {{Automatic taxobox}} works now) to set up taxonomy templates for ranks at genus or higher that will display with italicized Candidatus followed by an unitalicized name, but it is pretty messy. It is impossible to set up taxonomy templates (as {{Speciesbox}} works now) that are formatted correctly for species. Using {{Automatic taxobox}} for Candidatus species with |genus_text=, |species_text= and |binomial_text= is a work around, but it's ugly.Plantdrew (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I was unaware of |genus_text=, |species_text= and |binomial_text=, which led me to look at Category:Automatic_taxoboxes_using_manual_parameters. There are a number of articles on undescribed species (based on museum vouchers), for example, ten articles of the form Bedotia sp. nov. 'Namorona'. These were created by PolBot based on IUCN assessments made in the early 2000s, e.g. archived here. I can't find them on the current IUCN site (see Bodotia - genus) and Fishbase doesn't mention them (see Family Bedotiidae). Should we have these stub articles? The previous justification was the IUCN asssessments, but if the IUCN no longer list them, should Wikipedia have articles or just restrict coverage to the list in Bedotia? —  Jts1882 | talk  10:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jts1882:, I don't think we should have articles on these undescribed species. A couple have been taken to AfD; e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aplocheilichthys sp. nov., where I supported deletion on the grounds that the IUCN record had been deleted. However, I'm now not sure that the IUCN records have actually been deleted (I PRODed a couple others a few months ago and then de-PRODed them myself). At Bedotia sp. nov. 'Ankavia-Ankavanana', the first link in the reference takes you to a live page for the undescribed species on the IUCN website. The third link (via DOI) goes to the IUCN homepage, and IUCN link in the taxonbar goes to an error page. Searching the IUCN website for "Bedotia sp. nov. 'Ankavia-Ankavanana'" gives no results. It is possible that the IUCN still has a page for "Bedotia sp. nov. 'Namorona'" somewhere that is difficult to accesss, but it is also possible that it has been deleted. IUCN citations from 2007 for undescribed species don't go anywhere, but IUCN citations that were updated in late 2021 go to live pages as far as I know. I'm not sure exactly what process was used to update the links in 2021; it might be the case that anything that didn't get updated then had the IUCN page deleted. I still think we should delete Polbot created articles for undescribed species (they fail WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES), but it is not straight-forward to say that IUCN no longer lists them. Plantdrew (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I think you may be right that the pages still exist but are hard to find. After I wrote that last comment I also found Bedotia sp. nov. 'Ankavia-Ankavanana' with a live link and a few others in other genera. When the IUCN changed their url format a few years ago, everything went dead and they slowly started adding the redirects until it seemed all worked. As their search system doesn't find the pages that do exist, it's possible the other pages were overlooked. The Wikidata formatter URL property used by the taxonbar uses the Redlist API to get the redirect, which is why you get the json error pages.

I don't feel strongly about deleting them. I would be against creating such articles, but as they exist they do no harm. If the consensus is to delete the articles, the IUCN statuses can be added to the lists in the genus articles and the pages left as redirects. Some of the pages aren't even mentioned in the genus articles and are orphaned. I did find the IUCN report on these assessments (the pdf is on their site) and added it to the Bedotia page.

Apart from the fish (about 40 articles) there are some similar articles on gastropods and plants (e.g. Helichrysum sp. nov. A (and B-E). —  Jts1882 | talk  07:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

We could make {{Candidatus speciesbox}} and {{Cadidatus autotaxobox}} as wrappers that use {{Automatic taxobox}} to set up the boxes properly, using the non-Candidatus names for the underlying taxonomy templates, and adding in the appropriate quotes and italics. [See my "Hrm..." below for later thoughts.] (Though, we may want something more than a wrapper so that we can suppress the "manual parameters" category... but at least a wrapper is quick and easy to implement) But yes, the main issue is how do we want things to look, and what standard do we cite to say "See, that's why we are doing what we are doing." *cough*See below*cough*. If ICNP and LPSN are the only two systems, I guess we just weigh their merits and pick. No others with any merit to speak of? And so the case I originally ran into that was using quoted text with no Candidatus is incorrect? Cool. Is Ca. an accepted abbreviation for Candidatus or no?

• ICNP: Candidatus Methylomirabilaceae and Candidatus Methylomirabilis oxyfera
• LPSN: "Candidatus Methylomirabilaceae" and "Candidatus Methylomirabilis oxyfera"

I thought I was going to like ICNP's system better, but frankly, since I'm so used to seeing bi- and trinomials in italics, the quotes in the LPSN system help to parse what's being said better than the plain unquoted ICNP system does.

And for the bolded lede usage:

• ICNP: Candidatus Methylomirabilaceae and Candidatus Methylomirabilis oxyfera
• LPSN: "Candidatus Methylomirabilaceae" and "Candidatus Methylomirabilis oxyfera"

Here, the bold sets things apart nice enough, though I think the LPSN has grown on me. The quotes bring this into some amount of alignment with the non-bacterial proposed taxa like "Jingia" dongxingensis, though not things like Commelina sp. Sandstone, not to mention the Bedotia articles you mention. (I say draftify all of the defunct Bedotia articles.) Why can't all these organizations discuss these things together and pick one common system. *sigh* Don't answer that... I don't want to hear about extra-organizational squabbles...

Hrm... while my original thoughts on a wrapper for Candidatus boxes would be simple for just genus- and species-level taxa, I see it's going to be more difficult to do something like what is indicated as desired for Methylomirabilis oxyfera with using just a wrapper; the taxonomy templates would need to return the correctly formatted text for the higher-level taxa (as we already do with disambiguated taxa), and the wrapper can deal with the genus and species modifications.

Mockups to follow... - UtherSRG (talk) 13:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Some mockups

"Candidatus Methylomirabilis oxyfera" Methylomirabilis sp.. Scale bar; 200 nm. Scientific classification Domain: Bacteria Phylum: "Candidatus Methylomirabilota" Class: "Candidatus Methylomirabilacaea" Order: "Candidatus Methylomirabilales" Family: "Candidatus Methylomirabilaceae" Genus: "Candidatus Methylomirabilis" Species: "Candidatus M. oxygenifera" Binomial name "Ca. Methylomirabilis oxygeniifera" corrig. Ettwig et al. 2010 "Ca. Methylomirabilis oxyfera" Methylomirabilis sp.. Scale bar; 200 nm. Scientific classification Domain: Bacteria Phylum: "Ca. Methylomirabilota" Class: "Ca. Methylomirabilacaea" Order: "Ca. Methylomirabilales" Family: "Ca. Methylomirabilaceae" Genus: "Ca. Methylomirabilis" Species: "Ca. M. oxygenifera" Binomial name "Ca. Methylomirabilis oxygeniifera" corrig. Ettwig et al. 2010 Candidatus Methylomirabilis oxyfera Methylomirabilis sp.. Scale bar; 200 nm. Scientific classification Domain: Bacteria Phylum: Candidatus Methylomirabilota Class: Candidatus Methylomirabilacaea Order: Candidatus Methylomirabilales Family: Candidatus Methylomirabilaceae Genus: Candidatus Methylomirabilis Species: Candidatus M. oxygenifera Binomial name Ca. Methylomirabilis oxygeniifera corrig. Ettwig et al. 2010 Ca. Methylomirabilis oxyfera Methylomirabilis sp.. Scale bar; 200 nm. Scientific classification Domain: Bacteria Phylum: Ca. Methylomirabilota Class: Ca. Methylomirabilacaea Order: Ca. Methylomirabilales Family: Ca. Methylomirabilaceae Genus: Ca. Methylomirabilis Species: Ca. M. oxygenifera Binomial name Ca. Methylomirabilis oxygeniifera corrig. Ettwig et al. 2010

The Ca. abbreviation might be an invention of Wikipedia; I haven't found it anywhere else yet. NCBI uses quotes. I didn't realize we had List of taxa with candidatus status; links there omit Candidatus, so it could help to find article titles that omit Candidatus. That list hasn't been substantially updated since early 2018.

This 2017 publication is an initial attempt at compiling a list of Candidatus taxa. Candidatus names in running text are given in single quotes. In the table, names are not italicized, and Candidatus is omitted from the table rows.

I think this 2020 publication (by the same lead author) is the first "official" list of Candidatus names (but there are more recent updates). Names are given in running text without Candidatus, without quotes, and in italics. In the table, names are given in the same format (no Candidatus, no quotes, italics).

Both publications are in IJSEM which is the journal of record as far as the ICNP is concerned. I think it is understandable that Candidatus is omitted from the (hundreds of!) names in these publications, since the context is crystal-clear. I am surprised that the 2020 publication has italicized the names. My inclination would be to format names as: Candidatus Methylomirabilis oxygeniifera. Candidatus italicized and not abbreviated, name not italicized, no quotes. Plantdrew (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I saw in the definition of Candidatus in the IJSEN about the 2017 and 2020 lists, but I didn't go looking. It seems, then, that there's some wiggle in how to implement, based upon usage. Big list of only Candidatus taxa? List just the binomial. Running text? Be more formal in the usage. That's fine. It makes sense. I think that means we can be more flexible in how we construct the taxoboxes; as long as we make things adequately distinct, we are good. For instance, perhaps the title of the taxobox has "Candidatus Foo bar" in the title of the taxobox, and then just "Foo bar" in the taxobox listing. I'll make another example... - UtherSRG (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

More possibilities

Candidatus with no common name... "Candidatus Methylomirabilis oxyfera" Methylomirabilis sp.. Scale bar; 200 nm. Scientific classification Domain: Bacteria Phylum: "Methylomirabilota" Class: "Methylomirabilacaea" Order: "Methylomirabilales" Family: "Methylomirabilaceae" Genus: "Methylomirabilis" Species: "M. oxygenifera" Binomial name "Methylomirabilis oxygeniifera" corrig. Ettwig et al. 2010 ... Or perhaps.... "Candidatus Methylomirabilis oxyfera" Methylomirabilis sp.. Scale bar; 200 nm. Scientific classification Domain: Bacteria Phylum: "Methylomirabilota" Class: "Methylomirabilacaea" Order: "Methylomirabilales" Family: "Methylomirabilaceae" Genus: "Methylomirabilis" Species: "M. oxygenifera" Binomial name "Candidatus Methylomirabilis oxygeniifera" corrig. Ettwig et al. 2010 What if there's a common name... Methyl-eating critter Methylomirabilis sp.. Scale bar; 200 nm. Scientific classification Domain: Bacteria Phylum: "Methylomirabilota" Class: "Methylomirabilacaea" Order: "Methylomirabilales" Family: "Methylomirabilaceae" Genus: "Methylomirabilis" Species: "M. oxygenifera" Binomial name "Candidatus Methylomirabilis oxygeniifera" corrig. Ettwig et al. 2010

Could the |classification_status= parameter be of use, e.g. |classification_status=Candidatus taxa in quotes. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that might be a great way to key the format we settle on, though I think "Candidatus" is sufficient vice "Candidatus taxa in quotes". - UtherSRG (talk) 13:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Taxobox authority statements

What should the format be of the authority listed in taxoboxes? My understanding is that we follow how the authority is published, which is done in accordance to the industry standards for that taxon. For animals, that means "Name, Year", possibly in parenthesis. For fungus, that means "Name". Esculenta reverted my change on Architrypethelium submuriforme citing their own preference, while I cited industry standards. Which is correct? - UtherSRG (talk) 15:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Note GBIF and COL demonstrating the same format I used. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Also note the taxobox instructions, though it only lists plant, animal, and bacteria, and omits fungus, though there is no reason fungus should be non-standard. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Those were possibly intended to correspond to the 3 codes, even though it does say kingdoms. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

In the ICNafp (botanical Code, covering algae, fungi and plants, with a few "special cases"), the convention is to cite the author (full name or abbreviated form) with no year (https://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/pages/main/art_46.html), sometimes (for changed generic placement or new rank with an original author name given in brackets as per their example "Neotysonia phyllostegia (F. Muell.) Paul G. Wilson". However I have noticed a trend in some compendia such as Index Fungorum (for Fungi) to start appending the year as well, e.g. in example https://www.indexfungorum.org/names/NamesRecord.asp?RecordID=30415 although we have (at genus level) Sporites H. Potonié, Abh. preuss. geol. Landesanst. 9: 185 (1893)", at species level we have "Sporites papillatus (Dawson ex Schimp.) H. Potonié 1893", while in Algaebase (example: https://www.algaebase.org/search/genus/detail/?genus_id=43626_ we have at genus level, "Ceratium F.Schrank, 1793", while at species there is no year, just being "Ceratium tetraceras Schrank" in this instance. What this means, to me, is that the Fungi and Algae main compilers (also some other compendia, particularly in the area of plant microfossils, which also tend to include year as well as author name) are actually ahead of (or depart from) the Code in considering the year important as well as the author name, in line with zoological practices. I do the same (since 2006 in IRMNG, although only for the botanical genera, not species unless they come in with that info) although I am not a nomenclatural authority by any means; but to me it adds interest in being able to trace the history of use of names, as well as tabulate (for example) new taxa erected by year; and in cases of homonymy within the same Code, allows simple inspection of which is the earlier name.

Unfortunately in my view, Wikipedia probably should follow the Code at this time, jettisoning the potential useful information included in the year...Tony 1212 (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually I had not looked deeply enough into the present Index Fungorum conventions. It seems there are 2 separate but linked systems maintained by the IF guys, Index Fungorum and Species Fungorum. IF has moved (mostly) to including year as well as author; SF has (mostly) not at this time. Example current search result from IF (search term="Amanita", rank = genus) (start only):

Amanita Dill. ex Boehm. 1760, (also see Species Fungorum: Agaricus); Agaricaceae

Amanita Adans. 1763; Agaricales

Amanita Pers. 1797, (also see Species Fungorum: Amanita); Amanitaceae

Amanita 1 Vaginatae Quél. 1872; Amanitaceae

Amanita 2 Phalloideae Quél. 1872; Amanitaceae

Amanita 3 Muscariae Quél. 1872; Amanitaceae

Amanita 3 Validae Quél. 1872; Amanitaceae

Amanita I Vaginaria Forq. ex Quél. 1888; Amanitaceae

Amanita II Peplophora Quél. 1888; Amanitaceae

Amanita sect. Amanita Pers. 1797; Amanitaceae

Amanita sect. Amarrendiae (Bougher & T. Lebel) Zhu L. Yang, Y.Y. Cui, Q. Cai & Ling Ping Tang 2018; Amanitaceae

Amanita sect. Arenariae Zhu L. Yang, Y.Y. Cui & Q. Cai 2018; Amanitaceae

Amanita sect. Caesarae Singer 1943; Amanitaceae

Amanita sect. Mappae E.-J. Gilbert 1940; Amanitaceae

Amanita sect. Ovigerae Singer 1951; Amanitaceae

So with this as a possible "industry standard", maybe a case can be made for including year as well as author in Wikipedia (which would suit me fine). Tony 1212 (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Giving the year of publication (or transfer) after the authority still "follows the code", it just appends useful information onto it, rather than jettisoning it. We are creating an encyclopedia article to summarize useful or important information about a taxon. If some editors think we are "breaking the rules" (what rules, I'm not quite sure, it's never said anywhere explicitly that years cannot be included in this way) by adding this extra useful information, how do they think about adding a separate taxobar column for "year of publication"? Esculenta (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually this is what I do in IRMNG anyway, e.g. for Primulaceae (https://irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=113235) I give:

Primulaceae Batsch ex Borkhausen, 1797

1. Genus Aegiceras J. Gaertner, 1788
2. Genus Amblyanthopsis Mez in Engler, 1902
3. Genus Amblyanthus Alph. de Candolle, 1841
4. Genus Anagallis Linnaeus, 1753
5. Genus Androsace Linnaeus, 1753
6. Genus Antistrophe Alph. de Candolle, 1841
7. Genus Ardisia O. Swartz, 1788
8. Genus Ardisiandra J.D. Hooker, 1864
9. Genus Asterolinon Hoffmannsegg & Link, 1813-1820

(etc).

However I do not necessarily consider that this follows the Code examples, more adds useful information as discussed above, that I am loth to lose...

Also I do not really consider myself an "industry standard", unfortunately.

Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Personally I would establish both author and year a Wikipedia rule. Even though the botanical code does not deem it necessary, it is a minority of all the existing taxa. Both the ICNP and ICZN support it, and ICZN controls protozoa. Although there is no unified code for all protists (yet), there is a strong tendency among protistologists to treat them all the same, with author and year, regardless if they are algae. Also, for plant taxa we can easily add the year, since websites such as IPNI already display the required information, and even a link to the original description.

I think the entire ToL project should take a vote to establish a standard across all Wikipedia taxon pages. It would also be useful to vote on whether or not we should place a "," between the author and the year. —Snoteleks (Talk) 19:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

It's also possible to add this information through adding the appropriate category, but that doesn't exactly make it front and centre. YorkshireExpat (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

The first point I would like to make is that for names covered by the ICNafp whose authorities have standard abbreviations in IPNI or Index Fungorum we use the standard author abbreviation. So, for example, it should be Amblyanthus A.DC. and Anagallis L. There are no such standard abbreviations for names covered by the ICZN, so immediately there is an important difference.

The second point is that for names covered by the ICNafp, if we want more than just the names of the authors, we should follow the format that it uses. Consider this quote from Art. 11 Ex. 8: "Antirrhinum spurium L. (Sp. Pl.: 613. 1753) when transferred to Linaria Mill. is called L. spuria (L.) Mill. (Gard. Dict., ed. 8: Linaria No. 15. 1768)." Let me be clear that I don't advocate doing this; I strongly support our present approach with ICNafp names.

The reality is that the nomenclature codes are different, and the sources that use those codes correctly therefore necessarily use different formats. We should follow the codes and the examples they provide. We shouldn't attempt to vote on a separate English Wikipedia code. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, I would like to at least see that whole format implemented in botanical taxoboxes, with the year and publication included. —Snoteleks (Talk) 08:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

One way of doing this is using the short ICNafp format and adding the OD as a citation. Although there could be a question of the citation being inappropriate, as the source for the author would be a secondary source and not the original paper. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually, there is one thing we should vote on, and that is where the limit between using the ICNafp format and using the [author, year] format. Most basal Archaeplastida groups, and most non-green algae I have seen, use the [author, year] format in their taxoboxes, although technically the ICNafp approach should be made. In the same manner, oomycetes and slime mold taxa have adopted the ICZN format both here and in the literature, although according to the ICNafp it should be their format. It is only in land plants and true fungi where I start to see the ICNafp format. I think we should at least come to a consensus on which WikiProjects should abide to the botanical nomenclature: only WP:Plants and WP:Fungi, or additionally WP:Protista (and WP:Algae by extension). —Snoteleks (Talk) 08:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I would add one qualification on what Index Fungorum does in a case like Amanita. The name is give as follows:

• Amanita Dill. ex Boehm., Defin. Gen. Pl.: 490 (1760)

I interpret this as following the ICNafp code in the bolded bit (the actual taxon with author) and then adding the citation which includes the date. This is different from adding the date to the author name. That said the same record has an editorial comment "Rejected against Amanita Pers. 1797" where the date is included with the author without the citation. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

That format with the author and date without the citation also appears when searching for a taxon. It seems like there is some sort of implicit consensus that the "abbreviated" version of a record is in the typical [author, year] format used outside botany. —Snoteleks (Talk) 10:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@Snoteleks: I'm not sure what you mean by "implicit consensus" above. Exactly the reverse is true. Go to Bellis perennis (because its taxonbar has a lot of entries) and then go to all the specifically plant taxonomic databases. Everyone I looked at either used just the author, i.e. "Bellis perennis L.", or gave a version of the full "Sp. Pl. 2: 886. 1753". Not one I found used "L. 1753" with or without a comma or parentheses. It's overwhelmingly the case that taxonomic databases for plants use just the authors or the full citation.

We could use the full citation, but this is a general encyclopedia, not a biology encyclopedia, so I don't believe the full citation is appropriate. As per Jts1882's comment above, the full citation could be expanded into a reference (it's not in any of our accepted citation styles as it is), but because it's primary, it can't substitute for a secondary reference.

Our current advice is, in my view, absolutely correct for ICNafp and ICZN names, but we need to say a bit more about names under other codes, e.g. bacteria, viruses. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

What's your justification for not allowing the appendation of the publication date onto the authority? We are a general encyclopaedia, and it seems to me that the insistence of following some rigid rules of displaying authority in a prescribed format reduces the information value of the taxon article. For a real-life example, sometimes I like to go to taxon pages and add the "year of publication" category. For many, many stub-class (or even higher-rated) plant articles I have to go to an external website to even find this information. How is this acceptable in a general encyclopaedia? Esculenta (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

There are no "year of publication" categories. If there were, that would make things simpler. There are "species described in year" categories. There have been multiple discussion about what exactly "described in year" means for plants that have lead to Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Description in year categories. Following that essay, a "described in year" category for a plant species is supposed to be the year that the taxon was first described and given a name in accordance with the ICNafp. That name under which a taxon was first described may not be the name that currently used (e.g. changes in rank from subsp. to sp. or vice versa, transferring species to a different genus, dealing with situations where a name needs to be replaced). The year of first description isn't necessarily relevant to taxonomist trying to determine which name(s) have priority; the year of publication of any subsequent combinations is what is relevant for determining priority

Under the ICZN, the "year of publication" is the same as year that is relevant for determining taxonomic priority, and is almost always the same year as the year of "first description" (barring cases of e.g. secondary homonymy).

Under the ICZN, epithets have priority. Under the ICNafp, combinations have priority. That's why ICNafp author citations including the combining authority; it is relevant to tracking down the publication where the combination was established, with the date of the publication being relevant for priority. And that's why ICZN author citation include year when the epithet was established, and not the name of the combining authority (the combining authority's publication is irrelevant to priority).

I think it would be nice if the ICNafp had a tradition of including the year relevant for priority in author citations. But it doesn't. What would somebody familiar with the ICZN make of Architrypethelium seminudum (Mont.) Aptroot (1991)? I think they'd associate 1991 with Mont.'s publication. And a Wikipedian adding "described in year" categories would likely go with 1991.

I think "described in year" categories are a waste of time and would be happy to get rid of them. What is relevant to a lay reader with an ordinary definition of "described" is what Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Description in year categories gets at (lay readers are mostly going to be interested in "how long have scientists known about this species", not "what year is relevant to determining taxonomic priority"). IF the "described in year" categories are supposed to be relevant to taxonomists interested in priority, the categories are poorly named. If it is desirable to give citations in a longer form such as "L. Sp. Pl. 2: 886. 1753", it's going to crowd taxoboxes, and is probably more appropriate for Wikispecies than a general encyclopedia. Plantdrew (talk) 02:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

We had the "Description in year" discussion a while ago, with it not getting resolved. You think these categories are a waste of time, that's fine, but my experience is different. I use them regularly to help organise my work and document progress, and am happy to "waste my time" maintaining them. You say "I think it would be nice if the ICNafp had a tradition of including the year relevant for priority in author citations. But it doesn't." So why does Wikipedia have to follow suit? You ask about the hypothetical ICZN person who gets confused the first time they see a year in a taxobox about a fungus; they quickly learn what it means and move on. Happens all the time. Wikipedians incorrectly adding categorizing year also happens sometimes, and I correct it when I see mistaken categorizations. It seems that this will keep happening until the entire categorisation scheme gets overhauled, but it doesn't seem like there's any real will to do that. In the meantime, I will continue parenthetically appending the year after the authority in fungus taxon articles I create, because I think it is more beneficial to the reader than without. Esculenta (talk) 03:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm OK with the years in the taxobox at Staurospora. But Staurospora purpurissata has Category:Taxa named by William Nylander (botanist), and Category:Lichens described in 1863, and Arthonia purpurissata has no categories for "taxa named by" or "described in year". Lichens described in 1863 for a species redirect (Staurospora purpurissata) to a monotypic genus is consistent with Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Description in year categories. I'm not sure that Category:Taxa named by William Nylander (botanist) is consistent with other ICNafp articles/redirects for subsequent combinations. Modeling taxa vs. names is not straightforward. Plantdrew (talk) 03:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I was pretty sure I was following the recommended categorization and redirect schemes, and am still not sure what was wrong with what I did after your explanation. If I'm messing this up, please leave a note on my talk and I'll correct my previous errors. Would like to know what I'm doing wrong before the next 1000s of articles I create. Esculenta (talk) 13:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Re: Architrypethelium seminudum (Mont.) Aptroot (1991). I don't think the 1991 should be in parenthesis in the abbreviated name (without journal). It isn't in Index Fungorum where the Architrypethelium record says:

Record Details: Architrypethelium Aptroot, Biblthca Lichenol. 44: 120 (1991)

Typification Details: Architrypethelium seminudum (Mont.) Aptroot 1991

If we don't use strict ICNafp for Fungi and follow Index Fungorum, we're force to interpret their use of dates in author naming (long and short form). I can't find a clear description. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I didn't mean "implicit consensus" in Wikipedia plant taxa, I meant in the search page of Index Fungorum for Amanita. —Snoteleks (Talk) 12:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Apologies if this has been mentioned already, but there's a fair amount here on the topic. YorkshireExpat (talk) 10:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I notice that there is no mention on how to display dates, or whether dates should be displayed at all. —Snoteleks (Talk) 10:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

It may be possible to infer from the examples, but yes, nothing explicit. YorkshireExpat (talk) 14:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Acaulis

I moved this from where it pointed before, but see it's a word used in systematics. I left a hatnote, but if anyone feels that's not sensible let me know and I'll put it back how it was. YorkshireExpat (talk) 19:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

My opinion is that epithets are almost never notable, except in the context of some other topic.

Lavateraguy (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposal about "threats" in the standard outline

Hi members of WikiProject Tree of Life! Greetings from WikiProject Climate Change where I spend most of my time. I came here through the issue of how climate change can impact biodiversity loss (e.g. this article, needs further work: Effects of climate change on plant biodiversity. My post here is prompted by a discussion on the talk page of flowering plant where I argued that a main level section on "threats" ought to be included (not hidden under "interactions with humans"). I compared it also with the outline of koala and dolphin. The dolphin article has a dedicated main level heading on "threats", the koala article doesn't but has some content under "conservation"; an approach which I find sub-optimal. I copy three pertinent talk page entries from the talk page of flowering plant below: EMsmile (talk) 10:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Housekeeping comment: I removed the comments that you copied from Talk:Flowering plant to this Talk page. That discussion does not make sense when taken out of the context of Talk:Flowering plant. The comments are still at Talk:Flowering plant#Conservation is certainly an 'interaction with humans'. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with that house keeping step because those discussions were actually not overly specific to flowering plant. That was the whole point: I had started the discussion there but was told to come here. Anyway, I'll leave it up to User:Chiswick Chap if they want to copy their comments across to here, or re-add them. EMsmile (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Further discussion

There is considerable variation in how this is handled so it might be difficult to get a consensus for how it should be handled. A quick survey found the following arrangements:

• Conservation section included in interactions with humans
  • Flowering plant (Conservation in Interations with humans, after Practical uses and Cultural uses)
  • Bear (under Relationships with humans)
  • Mammal (threats section as 4th subsection of Humans and other mammals
  • Insect (Populations declines as part of Relationship with humans)
• Conservation/threat separate from interactions with humans
  • Koala (Conservation section after Human relationship)
  • Dolphin (Threats section before Relationships wth humans
  • Bird (Threats and conservation after Relationship with humans)
  • Tiger, Lion, Polar bear (Conservation section before Relationships wth humans)
• Three sections
  • Orchid (sections on Uses, Cultural symbolism, and Conservation)
  • Oak (sections on Uses, Conservation, and Culture)
• other
  • Amphibian (conservation section only)
  • Reptiles, Bees (no conservation section, only Relations(hip) with humans
  • Fungus (no Conservations section, but has see also link to Conservation of fungi

On balance I think separate sections are better, but it will depend on the amount of material. Articles on charismatic species have more conservation and have multiple conservation sections. And when there is less information, a single section may be better. —  Jts1882 | talk  11:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Jts1882 speaks my mind here. I think it really depends on the article. For some taxa, reliable sources have a lot to say about conservation and threats, and for other taxa reliable sources say much less. The extent and angle of the coverage should reflect other how other reliable overviews of the topic cover it. Articles like Zebra mussel shouldn't say anything about conservation at all. I don't think it's wise to try to standardize this across a wide swath of articles. (P.S. I'm responding to a post on the Wikiproject climate change talk page). Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for these responses. Yes, for sure, it will be rather variable. But that's the whole point of having a template: it helps people to remember which aspects may or may not be relevant for that particular species. At the moment the template, as set up by this WikiProject, looks like this and doesn't mention the possibility of having "threats" as a main level heading. In fact, threats are not mentioned explicitly and only in passing in the explanation for the "conservation" section. I think this can be improved upon. I don't even think that "conservation" as a main level heading is more relevant than "threats" as a main level heading.

At the end of the day, the editors can decide how they want to do it for each article but the template could provide guidance. Do we think "threats" are important for some/many of these species? I think so. I don't think that threats ought to be hidden below something like "interactions with humans" or below "conservation" as is the case in the flowering plant article. And I don't think that it would add too much bloat or lead to WP:COATRACK which is what User:Chiswick Chap had said on the talk page of flowering plant. (I think that comment should have stayed here because it was not specific to flowering plant). EMsmile (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

"Rhyphelia variegata" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Rhyphelia variegata has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 9 § Rhyphelia variegata until a consensus is reached. Kk.urban (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Taxonomic changes by 172.243.157.124

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The IP 172.243.157.124 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been making dozens of taxonomic changes over the past few days. However, a number of their edits have been previously been reverted for being incorrect. For example, in one recent edit they claimed that the clade "Panartiodactyla" exists [12], when as far as I can tell, it has never been used in the scientific literature by anyone ever [13]. This makes me suspect that some of their edits may be deliberately introducing errors, and I am tempted to mass revert all of their changes, but I wanted to get feedback here before doing so. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I have the impression that there is a proposal/practice of using X for the crown group and PanX for the total group. (Panaves fits this convention; Panarthropoda and Pancrustacea do not.) Under that convention Panartiodactyla would be the artiodactyl total group. This particular example, depending on context, could be WP:OR (a web search found one use of the term, not in the formal scientific literature) rather than deliberate disinformation. Lavateraguy (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

They've made other edits that are just outright wrong as far as I can tell. Take this edit to Star-nosed mole (Condylura cristata) where they change the original binomen listed in the synonyms section from Sorex cristatus Linnaeus, 1758 to Talpa cristata Linnaeus, 1758. However "American Recent Eulipotyphla Nesophontids, Solenodons, Moles, and Shrews in the New World" states that Sorex cristatus Linnaeus 1758 is the original binomial combination, while the combination Talpa cristata was made by Zimmermann, 1777. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

As another example, back in November, the IP removed Elephas ekorensis from Elephas and instead placed it in Palaeoloxodon [14] [15], despite no scientific literature having ever done this. [16] I originally thought this was something that this person made up, but this is apparently an error that has been made on various non-academic amateur taxonomy websites going back to at least 2009. [17] At the very least, it demonstrates the judgement of this user regarding taxonomy is extremely questionable, and having to manually check if every one of their changes is correct will be a labourious process. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually, it's been used once in passing in a 2022 book chapter, but there's no discussion behind the reasoning of this. [18]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Or conceivably it could be the PhyloCode equivalent to autonyms in the ICNafp. One would need to refer to PhyloCode to investigate that possibility. Lavateraguy (talk) 00:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

is Picozoa monotypic?

I can only find one species in the phylum 122.56.85.105 (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

If you search the literature you'll find several papers mentioning a diversity of picozoan lineages. (On paper has cladogram with Picomonas judraskeda and Picozoa spp. 1-6. By that standard they're not monotypic. But there may well be only one species formally described - it's not done to erect a species solely on the basi of a DNA sequence. By that standard they are monotypic. Lavateraguy (talk) 00:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

It all depends on the classification adopted for the new species when they are described. As far as I can see the Picozoa contains a single class (Picomonadea), single order (Picomonadida), single family (Picomonadidae) and single genus (Picomonas), with a single formally described species. It's monotypic all the way down. When they describe the new species, will they all be placed in Picomonas or in new genera. Will they all belong to the same family, order and class? I suspect a new class is unlikely so Picozoa would remain monotypic in a rank-based classification. However, if they adopt a phylocode classification without the redundancy, it won't be monotypic if there are new genera. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to homogenize the phylum-level incongruence in protists

So once again I have to battle the mess of a classification that the late Cavalier-Smith arranged and kept modifying year after year. There are many taxa that were at first introduced (many by himself) as phyla, but that later he changed in rank to subphyla or infraphyla, but every author retains them as phyla. Here is a handy comparison I made:

Comparison between the two systems

Group	Cav.-Smith			Other authors (incl. earlier Cav.-Smith)
	Phylum	Subphylum	Contains	Phylum
Stramenopiles	Gyrista	Bigyromonada	Developea & Pirsonea	Pseudofungi
		Pseudofungi	oomycetes & hyphochytrids
		Ochrophytina	heterokont algae	Ochrophyta/Heterokontophyta
	Bigyra (no conflict)
Alveolata	Ciliophora (no conflict)
	"Miozoa" (obsolete)	"Protalveolata"	colponemids	obsolete (paraphyletic)
		Myzozoa	dinoflagellates	Dinoflagellata
			perkinsozoans	Perkinsozoa
			chrompodellids	Chromerida/Chromeridophyta
			apicomplexans s.s. (Sporozoa)	Apicomplexa

Since his classification is unsupported outside of his sphere, and it's not even being followed consistently in Wikipedia (Miozoa is nowhere to be found and many of these are already referred to as "phyla" within the article text), I propose we adopt the following system in our taxoboxes (deviations from the current taxoboxes are in bold, changes already implemented are underlined):

• Clade Stramenopiles
  • Phylum Bigyra
  • Clade/Superphylum Gyrista
    • Phylum Heterokontophyta/Ochrophyta
    • Phylum Pseudofungi (classes Developea, Pirsonea, Oomycetes, Hyphochytrea)
• Clade Alveolata
  • Order "Colponemida"
  • Phylum Ciliophora
  • Clade Myzozoa
    • Phylum Apicomplexa
    • Phylum Chromerida
    • Clade Dinozoa
      • Phylum Dinoflagellata
      • Phylum Perkinsozoa

I know it seems like a Frankenstein monster-type mixture of classifications, but I cannot think of a better way to deal with this until a single unifying revision changes it all. The current unifying revisions have dropped taxon ranks entirely, but that doesn't seem like something other wikipedians would like. This is my attempt at condensing the currently accepted ranks of very different organisms. So please, show support for this new system or argue against it. —Snoteleks (Talk) 13:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

It's a tricky one, coming up with a classification that can be sourced and can't be considered original research. Michael Guiry of AlgaeBase has a recent article on diversity of algae and uses Heterokontophyta, Chromeridophyta (Chromerida) and Dinoflagellata (as well and Cryptophyta and Haptophyta) as algae phyla, which can be used to support the photosynthetic part of your scheme. The AlgaeBase classification also treats Bigyra and Ciliophora as phyla , but uses Oomycota instead of Pseudofungi. The higher classification on AlgaeBase is a bit scrambled, but the phyla seem clear there and in the J. Phycology article and can support much of your scheme.

As a general comment on ranks, I think the major ones (phyla, classes, orders and families) are useful for the lay reader as the give some idea of where the taxa fit on the tree. The intermediate ranks like subkingdoms and infraphyla are less useful and become even harder to source for a consistent treatment. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I have cited Guiry's paper in that table above. It's the paper that prompted me to notice this issue, actually. I also noticed the Oomycota, but then again all fungi-like protist groups have their phylum label: Plasmodiophoromycota, Hyphochytriomycota, Labyrinthulomycota... I agree with your comment about ranks, and the fact that they are so superfluous that they change so often inside Cav.-Smith's classification makes them even less useful. —Snoteleks (Talk) 13:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion about whether Heterokontophyta is a synonym for Stamenopiles or Ochrophyta. In part this because some sources are only treating Algae where the two have the same algal contents. The use in the Hoek, Mann and Jahns system includes the non-algal classes (Bicocoecida, Labyrinthulomycetes, Hyphochytridiomycetes, Oomycetes), although Hoek's 1978 description only includes algal classes. According to Guiry et al (2023) the definition by Moestrup (1992) includes the "the heterokont water moulds (Oomycetes, Hyphochytriomycetes), the labyrinthulids and thraustochytrids” and that "Moestrup’s (1992) concept of the name Heterokontophyta is the closest to today’s concept" (i.e. the one they are describing). Other parts of Guiry et al (2023) give the impression the Heterokontophyta only includes the algae classes (e.g. the table says current classes implying it is inclusive). The AlgaeBase entry for Phylum Heterokontophyta has a note saying 'Botanical name for the clade informally called "stramenopiles"', although it treats Bigyra, Oomycota and Heterokontophyta as phyla. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

According to the Guiry et al. (2023), it seems very much like a synonym of Ochrophyta, with only the algal classes included. They also talk about the convoluted history of the phylum name, which is why they validly publish it in that year, without recognizing any previous publication which would be more vague in definition and include other heterokonts. I think maintaining Ochrophyta in our taxoboxes is better, since it is less convoluted, but in the Ochrophyte article I mention the Heterokontophyta Guiry, Andersen & Moestrup 2023 as validly published too. It seems to be preferred among phycologists. —Snoteleks (Talk) 13:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The AlgaeBase note must simply not be up to date, or perhaps taken from the context of previous uses of the Heterokontophyta name that are not the same as its 2023 diagnosis. —Snoteleks (Talk) 13:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The note is dated 12 November 2023 and the entry cited Guiry et al. (2023), which is dated 11 October 2023. There is also a clear statement that Moestrup’s (1992) concept is closest to the one they are describing. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, well... more reasons to prioritize Ochrophyta, I suppose. —Snoteleks (Talk) 13:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Deletion of Eunectes akayima

I have made a suggestion for deletion of the page on Eunectes akayima Here as the name is not going to stand in anyway that can use this name and it is premmature to try. When new taxa come out it is better to give a little time before creating a page to let the dust settle. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 03:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I would not endorse wholesale elimination of the content, especially the extensive discussion. I might, however, support a merge of the content into the article for Eunectes murinus, with maybe a greater emphasis on the critical reviews (those suggesting that while there may well be a separate northern species, it should probably be called Eunectes gigas, of which akayima is likely a junior synonym, if it's even an available name at all). There is already one paper that says this and can be cited now, and I imagine there are going to be other similar papers or reviews published to support that particular outcome. At that point, when there is community consensus as to the splitting of the species, the appropriate content could be removed and placed into its own article, with E. gigas as the scientific name, and the history of the name discussed. Dyanega (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you would consider stopping by and giving your opinion on the talk page of the Northern green anaconda article, where there's more discussion The Morrison Man (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

April lichen task force newsletter

The April issue of the lichen task force newsletter is available here. Delivered by MeegsC (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Potential identification issue with photos from commanster.eu (cross-post from Commons)

See discussion at Commons. (The misidentified photos I've found so far are all of insects, but this could be an issue for other animals and even plants and fungi.) Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Correct spelling of Bubalus wansijocki/Bubalus wansjocki

The article Bubalus wansijocki asserts that "wansjocki" is an error and that "wansijocki" is the correct spelling (without any good citation I might add), but the vast majority of scientific literature spells it "wansjocki" [19] rather than "wansijocki" [20]. The original publication is presumably the 1928 book "M. Boule, H. Breuil, E. Licent, P. Teilhard de Chardin Le Paleolithique de la Chine Masson et cie, Editeurs, Paris (1928)". I can't find an online version for this publication, so I have no idea which spelling is correct. Would appreciate help resolving this issue. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Just for proper evaluation, note that the conditions under the Zoological Code allowing for changes to spelling are very stringent and explicit, and note in particular the example given:

32.5. Spellings that must be corrected (incorrect original spellings)

32.5.1. If there is in the original publication itself, without recourse to any external source of information, clear evidence of an inadvertent error, such as a lapsus calami or a copyist's or printer's error, it must be corrected. Incorrect transliteration or latinization, or use of an inappropriate connecting vowel, are not to be considered inadvertent errors.

32.5.1.1. The correction of a spelling of a name in a publisher's or author's corrigendum issued simultaneously with the original work or as a circulated slip to be inserted in the work (or if in a journal, or work issued in parts, in one of the parts of the same volume) is to be accepted as clear evidence of an inadvertent error.

Examples. If an author in proposing a new species-group name were to state that he or she was naming the species after Linnaeus, yet the name was published as ninnaei, it would be an incorrect original spelling to be corrected to linnaei.

By way of comparison, a colleague published a species named "tolkeini". In the text of the paper, the etymology said "Named after J.R.R. Tolkein". Because the name was misspelled in the etymology, the only evidence that the name was misspelled is external, and the Code prohibits the use of any external evidence. Accordingly, this species is still spelled "tolkeini" despite being an obvious error on the author's part. I wouldn't be surprised if the "wansjocki/wansijocki" issue is similar, but the prohibition on the use of external evidence is very important, and not to be overlooked. Dyanega (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

The databases linked in the taxonbar all use wansijocki. The PBDB says it "belongs to Bubalus according to Croft et al (2006)" (doi:10.1644/06-MAMM-A-018R.1), which uses wansijocki in the systematics section. REPAD has an entry for Bubalus wansijocki Boule & Chardin, 1928 that states "Synonyms: Bubalus wansjocki Boule & Chardin, 1928; Buballus wansjocki Boule & Chardin, 1928 [orth. error used by (Dong et al., 1999:130)]". —  Jts1882 | talk  16:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Heh, reminds me of the poor Ginkgo which is a misspelled ginkyo (japanese for silver apricot, also sounds a lot better). I really wish the ICZN fixed spelling according to etymology, it would be satisfying. — Snoteleks (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Using categories for measuring number of taxa

Not sure if anyone else is interested in this but I like the idea of being able to gather a number of species, genera, etc. of higher taxa through the category system of Wikipedia. We already do this for at least genera and families, and although not all taxon pages are correctly categorized, I am currently reorganizing the protist categories to make this easier. But I realized not all taxa are accepted, and perhaps creating categories called "Accepted species" or "Accepted genera" would be way too much work. I'm thinking that we could make two categories for unaccepted taxa instead, named "Junior synonym" and "Basionym", so that we can obtain the number of accepted species by taking the total number of species and subtract the basionyms and junior synonyms. But perhaps this can't work, because we would have to somehow distinguish between synonyms of species and synonyms of other ranks such as genera and families, so that we only take species into account. This makes me think the "Accepted [taxon level]" idea is more realistic. Someone who has more experience with categories can probably shine some light on this.

On another note, could we use the automatic taxobox system to let a bot automatically categorize them in their taxon level? Of course that still leaves redirects (i.e. synonyms and monotypic taxa) for manual categorization, but I think it could be useful anyway.

Would love to explore both of these ideas. It'd be kind of like building a taxonomic database, and it would help us editors see what amount of coverage we have on a given taxonomic group (e.g., we could see results such as "around 40% of described annelid species are on Wikipedia", etc.). — Snoteleks (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Petscan might be able to do what you want. This search for squamate species looks for pages in Category:Squamata (and subcategories) that use {{speciesbox}} and returns 11239 results.—  Jts1882 | talk  14:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

That's excellent, thank you. — Snoteleks (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

We did this with lichen species in the lichen task force, and I liked having the number of species readily available so much that I did the same with fungus species. I've grown accustomed to not worry so much about "accepted" species. Buellia frigida isn't "accepted" by Index Fungorum, but they don't indicate why. However, it's perfectly "notable" by Wikipedia standards. Esculenta (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree, but I was referring to redirects from unaccepted combinations, not unaccepted species that have their own independent article. We already categorize redirects, but many of them are unaccepted synonyms of accepted species. — Snoteleks (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@Esculenta So the lichen species category completely disregards junior synonyms and unaccepted combinations. Should I do the same with protists? It seems more intuitive, but then do you categorize junior synonyms? Or do you not categorize them at all? — Snoteleks (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we disregard them (in the "species" counts). I'm not sure I see any advantage in including them, and then having to do math to figure out the species count. The # of taxa is what we're interested in, right? (not the number of synonyms/redirects) The junior synonyms are categorized normally ("R from alternative scientific name|fungus") Esculenta (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I guess I just didn't think of that option. Thanks. Also, great work with the lichen species category, it is so satisfying. Eventually I hope we have such lists for major protist groups as well. — Snoteleks (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@Esculenta I have more questions regarding your system. Do you keep the 'Lichen species' and 'Fungus species' separate, or do lichen species receive both categories? Also, do you categorize genera? If so, do you keep monotypic genera in their own category, as it currently happens with things like brown algae? — Snoteleks (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

They are distinct but interconnected; fungus species is the parent cat of lichen species. For lichens, we also categorize genera, families, orders, and classes (haven't gotten around to doing this for the fungi yet). Monotypic genera are kept in higher-taxa subcats (eg. category:Monotypic Lecanorales genera. Esculenta (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Esculenta I'm thinking of designing the protist species categories in a similar manner, but making distinct categories for every protist group that has more than a certain number of species. This would imply deleting a lot of intermediate categories that are for smaller groups. I was thinking that 2,000 species could be a good threshold. Any thoughts on this? — Snoteleks (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

TBH, I'm not sure. I guess it depends on what your objectives are. One of the goals of the lichen task force is to eventually have a page for each lichen taxon, so the taxon categories help give a sense of progress towards that goal. E.g., there are roughly 1050 lichen genera; our category:Lichen genera cat shows that we are close to getting them all bluelinked. We are quite far from doing that for the 20,000+ lichen species, but it's nice to be able to track the year-to-year progress. I suppose my advice is to plan out your category structure carefully beforehand to avoid future Caftaric/Nono64/Notwith scenarios! (check archives if you're interested and are unfamiliar with their historical nightmare categorization schemes) Esculenta (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Esculenta Useful advice, coincidentally I started doing exactly that. I opened a word document just to start planning protist species categories, because I expect that without planning I would end up going insane. — Snoteleks (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Esculenta One more question. Is there any way to make categorizing easier than going through each individual article and manually changing or adding categories? — Snoteleks (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Other than making a bot to do it for you, I don't think so. But alt-tabbing in batches and hot catting is pretty quick imo. Esculenta (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Snoteleks:, commons:Help:Gadget-Cat-a-lot might be helpful for you. When you are in a category page, it allows you to select articles to put in a different category without needing to open each article. Plantdrew (talk) 02:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Plantdrew Woah, thank you so much. This is a lot faster! — Snoteleks (talk) 12:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Taxa named by ... et al.?

We have categories for Taxa named by [individual author]. What do we do with taxa that have multiple authors, or that have so many authors that are often authored as [first author] et al.? Do we only refer to the first author, or to all of them, each in their own category of course? — Snoteleks (talk) 10:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Each in their own category (if every author even needs a category), it's pretty rare that the exact combination and order of authors have published multiple names, so such category would usually contain a single article, which is of little use. FunkMonk (talk) 11:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Honestly not that rare when it comes to insects and spiders. Lots of species means publications including multiple new taxa at the same time are pretty common even now. For the more niche groups, the number of experts also tends to be fairly low, resulting in a good few cases of the same authors publishing multiple articles together. Probably a lot less common in more widely-studied yet less speciose parts of the tree of life, though.

But yeah, I'd say that generally speaking, there is little benefit in creating layers of author-combination taxa categories on top of individual author categories when multi-categorizing the articles works just as well. Basically the only exceptions I could think of from top of my head are a few historical cases where all taxa named by all involved authors were named in a single shared publication, and that's a sufficiently rare situation it's really not worth making an exception for (since it'll likely result in the non-exception multi-author categories getting created as well by well-meaning folks who don't realize it's an exceptional case). AddWittyNameHere 12:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Even when it's the same authors, they might not be listed in the exact same order for every publication, but yeah, either way, list them each as their own category, that also gives a better impression of what a single author has published on. FunkMonk (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Help requested: Streblomastix family

I'm trying to look for the original description of the family of the metamonad Streblomastix. Although the wiki article claims its family is Polymastigidae, sources point towards an enigmatic family known as Streblomastigidae, often referring to a chapter in the 2000 book Illustrated Guide to the Protozoa. This chapter, in turn, refers to the first volume of Traité de Zoologie by Pierre-Paul Grassé as the origin of various oxymonad families, including Streblomastigidae, but does not explicitly say Grassé is the author of the family. Can anyone get a hold on an online version of this treatise and verify if Grassé actually describes the family Streblomastigidae? — Snoteleks (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

In particular, the citation is of a specific chapter in the treatise: "Grassé, P. P. (1952). Famille des Polymastigidae, Ordre des Pyrsonymphines, Ordre des Oxymonadines. In: P. P. Grassé. Traité de Zoologie, Vol. I. Masson et Cie, Paris. Pp. 780–823." — Snoteleks (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The citation is on Google Books, but only snippets can be seen. If you go to this page and enter "Streblomastigidae" into the search (""From inside the book"), you can see bits of the pages the keyword is on. From one of the snippets (page 797), it does indeed look like there is a description of the family. The family authority, however, is given as Kofold et Swezy, 1919. Hope this helps. Esculenta (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! It did help. I checked the Kofold & Swezy publication, which is at BHL, and they indeed described the family. — Snoteleks (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Changes to protist categories

The past few days I have been revamping the category system for protist taxa. Please take a moment to review the changes made:

1. "[Taxon] taxa by rank" renamed to "[Taxon] taxa". Reasoning: to include unranked taxa and to simplify the category name.
2. Creation of "[Taxon] species" categories for major groups. Reasoning: this was inspired by the category:Fungus species and category:Lichen species effort, since the species rank is arguably one of the most important in taxonomy and it could be used to quantify how many species are represented in Wikipedia.
3. Several minor groups ommitted, with their species and genera merged to higher taxa. Example: 'category:Cercozoa species' → category:Rhizaria species. Reasoning: only major groups (+2,000 species) are allowed their own separate categories due to the sheer quantity of species.
4. Several major groups ommitted, with their subcategories merged to higher taxa. Example: 'category:SAR supergroup taxa' → 'category:Protist taxa'. Reasoning: this was also inspired by the category:Fungus species and category:Lichen species situation, where the purpose of categories is to quantify taxa into two easily recognizable groups, without unnecessary intermediate clades diluting the effort. This shall be done to other higher clades such as 'bikont'.
5. Paraphyletic taxa deprecated. Example: 'category:Excavata species' → 'category:Metamonad species' + 'category:Discoba species'. Reasoning: paraphyletic and polyphyletic taxa (such as Chromista) are becoming increasingly obsolete, and thus make categorization more difficult.

Any criticism or discussion is welcome. In addition, these changes should ideally be implemented into category:Eukaryote taxa as well. — Snoteleks (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Brief comment - which nomenclatural Code governs names in these groups is often difficult to pin down, or may even be contentious. Editors working with some of these taxa may come into conflict if (e.g.) one editor treats a name as if it were zoological, and another editor treats it as if it were botanical. For example, authorship citations of the form "Coleps hirtus (O.F. Müller, 1786) Nitzsch, 1827" are not typically used in zoology, but do appear often in the protist literature. It might be helpful to establish a policy to help avoid or resolve any disputes like this. Dyanega (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Good point. Although for protists it usually is "(Author, year) Author, year", it's currently not solidifed as a policy. I should write it in the WikiProject page. — Snoteleks (talk) 13:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)