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

Archive1 Archive2 Archive3 Archive4 Archive5 Archive6 Archive7

Hi, your edit on Propolis regarding scientific journals is noted. Please see its talk page on WP:MEDRS if it piques your interest again. I decided to leave out a major part of the edit, only leaving in what was originally stated in a book on Propolis, where it talked about its use in traditional medicine (which is not medicine). Knightoften (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have added Wikipedia:Page_mover privileges to your account, should make some of the taxonomy related changes more easy. Shyamal (talk) 02:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! Dyanega (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's up with this edit? wbm1058 (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That user (Estopedist1) was engaged in a number of counterproductive page moves, changing fairly explicit taxonomy-related disambiguations to more...ambiguous disambiguations. In this case, "proturan" is a lot more helpful than "animal". I have discussed the practice of renaming articles with this user, and they are in fact now engaged in the exact opposite activity, finding "generalized" disambiguations and making them more specific. This Yavanna entry is one that I reverted prior to this. If you look at Estopedist1's edit log, you'll see what I'm referring to. Dyanega (talk) 18:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dyanega,

I saw you removed my image of the Cypherotylus annulatus, and I was wondering why. It was confirmed that it is a Cypherotylus annulatus by Dr. Marianna Simoes. She is the director of the Coleoptera-section of the Senckenberg Institute, one of the top biology research institutions in Germany. https://www.senckenberg.de/en/institutes/senckenberg-german-entomological-institute-muencheberg/systematics-and-biogeography/coleoptera/

Best regards, Leandro Fangmann

LordRichter26 (talk) 16:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guarantee you, I am also a world authority on Coleoptera, and that particular photo is of a chrysomelid beetle in the genus Stolas. Are you certain that you did not show a different image to Dr. Simoes? While there are some erotylids that are similar in general appearance, that image is NOT an erotylid, and no professional coleopterist would be likely to make such an error. Dyanega (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I sent you a PM per mail. If this is a Stolas, than this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesomphalia_turrita) must be wrong, since this is exactly the beetle I photographed. Or it is indeed a Mesomphalia turrita, than I would kindly ask you to rename my photo again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordRichter26 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dyanega,

The reason I reverted all of those IP changes was because these pages appeared on the Broken Redirect list as broken redirects, that is the redirect target had been changed to a blank page. In cases like this, either an admin or a bot deletes the page but I chose to revert the page to a prior condition so that it wasn't pointing to a blank page. It now looks like you have found a way to change those blank pages into articles but I don't know anything about tiger beetles. I thought that a revert was preferable to a page deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dyanega. Regarding this, social evolution isn't currently a disambiguation page. It was briefly today, because C9mVio9JRy turned it into one and then retargeted all the incoming links. I reverted these as effectively an out-of-process deletion and the articles is now at AfD.

I'll leave it up to you to decide whether social evolution or sociobiology is the more appropriate target on kin selection. Your expertise would also be welcome at the AfD. Thanks. – Joe (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that it is very likely that your reverts at European hornet are correct, and it is up to the editor wanting to add material to justify it on article talk. However, this is their first edit to Wikipedia and they need better guidance. Your most recent revert has edit summary "please read the comments on your userpage before trying to continue with these edits". Please look at that page and imagine you were the new user. They see gobbledygook including "I reverted one of your recent contributions ... If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox" (not from you). The fact that they did not use italics is irrelevant. I don't know whether the source used is any good, but they added something. The only question should concern what the edit tries to achieve. I can see that, even if correct, the text is probably not helpful at that point. However, ideally you would evaluate whether the user is a potential contributor or menace. If the former, you would put a polite explanation on article talk and ask the user to engage there. Johnuniq (talk) 02:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I wish to respond to your particular comments in your 'Talk' message to me. I kindly ask that you take the time to read everything thoroughly that I have written and attached:

"While I recognize that you are eager to contribute your personal knowledge of the moths of Suriname, WP policy prohibits the addition of material that is based solely on personal knowledge. If you wish to contribute information, you must provide a citation giving a reliable source for that information. It appears that you have not provided any reliable sources for any of your recent additions, and this is a violation of WP policy. I will politely ask that you stop making additional edits until and unless you can provide citations or links to sources that support the information you are adding, at a bare minimum".

I fully understand what you are saying, but I find the use of the words 'personal knowledge' twice in one sentence unfortunate. Yes, I admit to failing to list reliable sources, which, by the way, but nothing I do is "based solely on personal knowledge". My biggest problem is the daunting task of wading through pages upon pages of Wikipedia rules, regulations, guidelines, policies, etc. I have still not been able to figure out how to place an image inside the taxobox. I am not an IT expert, and don't profess to be.

As a published author of numerous books on military history (Google Gerry van Tonder), I am more aware than most of the imperative of corroborating veracity of content with the inclusion of verifiable sources. With a personal collection of more than 2,100 Suriname flora and fauna images, taken by my brother and a colleague from 2109-2021, I elected to join iNaturalist (see https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/gerryvantonder) primarily for robust scientific identification, but also to freely share data about a country's flora and fauna of which the scientific world has limited knowledge. FIFTY PER Cent of my collection remains species unidentified. I started with Wikimedia when Loopy30 asked for permission to use one of my images. In good faith, I also removed ALL copyright to all of my 2,186 iNatularist images—by far the greatest contributor for Suriname (proof: https://www.inaturalist.org/places/suriname) Loopy30 has been great, and he is aware of my work.

I have now also received a message from Yi yi 13:03, 8 Apr 2021 (CEST), who says: 1. "don't post unsuitable content" Everything I have posted is my own. Interestingly, a few of my OWN images of moths were disallowed as 'unsuitable'! I simply cannot understand this as all my Suriname images are in the same data base on my PC. 2. "Remember not to copy texts or images from books or websites as it is NOT allowed to insert copyrighted material (if you are the author / author, you must follow the appropriate procedure ), and to write following a neutral point of view". As a professional published author, I am fully aware of what YiYi has deemed necessary to also lecture me on.

It is very apparent, certainly in my case, that the background of new Wikipedia contributors are not looked at to check that they are genuine bona fide individuals.

I have acted in good faith, wishing purely to FREELY share the extremely valuable PERSONAL Suriname flora and fauna data I am sitting on—ALL EXCLUSIVELY MINE. Everything I have posted to date has been conclusively identified on iNaturalist by some of the world's leading authorities. There is NO guess work—that would be extremely unprofessional! There are a few of these, for example Drs Marc Epstein, Ryan St Laurent, Matthew Cock, with whom I am liaising to have field work done in Suriname. I must also mention Dr Hajo Gernaat, the world's leading authority on Suriname butterflies, who has identified every single one of my butterfly images. He is currently working on his latest book on the rearing of Suriname butterflies, to which I am contributing some images and data for free. (see https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hajo-Gernaat)

So quo dehinc? My personal options, which I do not wish you to assume they are 'threats'. I am being objective: 1. Withdraw from Wikipedia and delete what I have erroneously done so far. 2. Seek an alternative method to place my collection in the public domain. This has always been my stated objective: to produce an illustrated checklist of Suriname flora and fauna photographed by my brother and colleague in Suriname, and verified by experts. Unidentified species will remain as such—I don't speculate and I don't guess. This, I know beyond any doubt, will greatly benefit the relevant global scientific communities. My specialist partners and I know with absolute certainty that I have a fair number of undescribed insect species. When Loopy30 contacted me, I realised initially that Wikipedia would be a good platform, especially when I saw, after just a few moth image inserts, that Wikipedia lacks what appears to be an enormous number of moth images. I do wonder if this is also the case with all Insecta. 3. Globally reinstate my copyright on all my iNaturalist images, i.e. my whole collection on my data base. 4. Continue with Wikipedia, but with a greater understanding from yourselves that I am not some fly-by-night hacker with a personal agenda. I employ scientific names to my full collection, from Kingdom all the way down to Species, with each image carrying a GPS location and date of photo. 5. On this basis, a dedicated and patient Wikipedia editor would be required to take me through the process step by step until I become proficient. I'm afraid this 65-year-old is of a generation that struggles with seemingly endless pages of application instructions. As I have said above, I have yet to figure out how to insert an image into a taxobox. I am yet to figure out VisualEditor or Wizard, with which I have unsuccessfully tried.

To avoid duplication and to keep him in the picture, I would like Loopy30 to have sight of this message.

I have attached a 3-page list of specialists whom I consult for ID purposes. Also, screenshot images of parts of my database files/folders headings so that you can see the depth of my collection. Fungi and Plantae are in other folders.

Gerryvt (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Dyanega

I have several images of wasps, including in the Family Vespidae: Apoica, Pachodynerus, Polybia and Pseudopolybia. In the case of the latter, I've inserted a good image of a Pseudopolybia compressa which may be of interest to you. I see there is very little on this species in Wikipedia.

It was photographed at Tapanahony, eastern Suriname (Lat: 5.06734Lon: -54.441038Accuracy: 488m) on February 7, 2020.

Is there any way I can get all my Hymenoptera images to you - I believe this is your speciality. If you have a 'neutral email address, then I can use WeTransfer. Included, under Formicidae is a pair of winged Cephalotes atratus mating. Also a winged Nomamyrmex hartigii or esenbeckii, and an Azteca sp.

My apologies for not putting a heading on my last User Talk message to you, but it is there - right at the bottom with a few images I sent with the message, in with the European Hornet message just above.

Gerryvt (talk) 16:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I found

"Latest revision as of 20:57, 8 April 2021 (edit) (undo) (thank) Dyanega (talk | contribs) m (Undid revision 1016689681 by Fkbreitl (talk); the video is not a fly in the family Calliphoridae)"

Why do you think so? What fly do you think it is? --Fkbreitl (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll post a response on your talk page. Dyanega (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I replied at my page asking you if you could add this interesting information about larvae to the correct species, because I think it is important information that should be possible to find also in Wikipedia. --Fkbreitl (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Douglas, Regarding my editing of the article on the Apis cerana cerana and adding the work of Pesenko et al. 1990. This is one of the priority articles on the morphology, taxonomy, and biology of this bee species. But I do not know how I can refer to this important work about Apis cerana cerana. Kind regards, Vladimir Radchenko — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mebrc1952 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I looked it over, and it is somewhat outdated, as the "subspecies" of cerana are no longer recognized. However, I found a place where its inclusion is still appropriate, and placed it back into the article. Dyanega (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks!

At https://wsc.nmbe.ch/species/56550, the World Spider Catalog (WSC) has corrected the original authors' specific name "ralli", which was clearly stated in the original paper to be in honour of the grandparents (both of whom were named) of one of the authors. So it definitely should have been "rallorum". The question is whether the correction is justified under Art. 32.5.1 as the WSC claims. It seems to me that it's not a lapsus calami, but an incorrect latinization, which is not considered inadvertent. So although as a linguist I applaud the correction, is it actually allowed by the ICZN? Peter coxhead (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hemiptera, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greek.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to my understanding of the ICZN, the two articles Mispila (Dryusa) coomani and Mispila (Mispila) coomani shouldn't both exist. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding is correct. Breuning's 1968 Dryusa name is a junior secondary homonym, and can't be used as a valid name so long as it is placed in the same genus as Pic's 1934 name. Evidently, the last revision of the genus was in 1968, by Breuning, so it's been sitting unresolved for 53 years. That's a very old unresolved homonymy! If the subgenera are raised in rank, the homonymy would go away, so maybe people have been aware of the problem but hoping it would vanish on its own. Hard to say. But, thanks for bringing it to my attention, I do know just the people who would take action on this. Dyanega (talk) 16:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another case - Zalmoxis_(harvestman) 1886 vs Zalmoxis_(bug) 1865. Shyamal (talk) 11:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, dear - this one is a real problem if it is genuine. The names of the opilionid family and superfamily would have to be replaced, and that would be very disruptive. I've contacted a reduviid researcher to confirm Stål's spelling. Thanks for bring this to my attention. Dyanega (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zalmoxis/Zamolxis is pretty messy. BioLib acknowledges both spellings for the reduviid, and goes with Zalmoxis; but that could be an error. And there's also a protist Zamolxis described in 1982; I'm not sure if it's in a group governed by the ICZN, but it is listed in Nomenclator Zoologicus. Plantdrew (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked the original paper, and BioLib, as is all too common, has it wrong. I've moved and retitled accordingly. The protist genus is real, and is not a homonym, as it's a different Code, but it does mean that someone will need to make a page for it, and that the assassin bug Zamolxis article will need to keep the "(bug)" dablink to keep it separate from the protist. While we're on the topic of egregious errors in BioLib, it also lists the related genus Bartacus under "Alcmena", which is a genus of spiders - once again, BioLib is using the wrong name for a taxon. DO NOT TRUST BIOLIB - Always look for independent confirmation. Dyanega (talk) 22:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it appears that I was slightly off - SOME protists are treated as animals for nomenclatural purposes (others not), and radiolarians are evidently one of those groups. The 1982 Zamolxis name has already been replaced, by Ximolzas Dumitrica, 2007. Still, probably best to leave the bug article with the dab title. Dyanega (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even worse: It turns out that Bartacus is a junior synonym, but BioLib has the senior synonym misspelled AND listed as a synonym of the wrong genus. The name that is senior to Bartacus is Dalytra, but BioLib erroenously spells it "Dalyrta" and lists it as a synonym of Acholla. Again, BioLib is not a trustworthy source. Dyanega (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the mix up, Zamodes obscurus surely lives up to its name. Is there anything that can be said about the taxon? I can find only one reference to it in the literature in the last century (Other than your book, which is cited in the article). Is this not uncommon for insect species? Is it actually likely to be extinct? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do think it is likely to be extinct, actually. There are at least two northeastern cerambycids known from single specimens collected over a century ago (Z. obscurus, and Xylotrechus gemellus), and if they were associated with tree species that have vanished, this is entirely plausible. For example, if these were species associated with the American chestnut, the loss of essentially all the mature trees to blight in the early 1900s could easily have caused their extinction, as only mature trees have thick enough bark to support the larvae of subcortical feeders. Zamodes is a real puzzler because there's no clear connection to other genera in that tribe, and it's evidently not a match for any Old World genera (i.e., it was an introduced species that never became established). Dyanega (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely agree with your edit at European hornet and won't revert, but WP:WikiProject Animals#Article content says that the original was the correct style for animal articles. (WP:PLANTS style differs.) Peter coxhead (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ORLY? Well, that just seems illogical, to be honest. Basically, that means that if an article originally titled by scientific name (in which the scientific name is bolded in the text) is moved to a version titled using a common name, the name would no longer be in bold, and that makes no sense. Might be worth reviewing that policy, especially if the plant folks do it logically. Dyanega (talk) 22:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be very happy to support you if you want to raise it at WT:ANIMALS. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This 2021 paper purports to erect a new genus of beetles, Platydrilus. However, this name is in use for a genus of oligochaetes, being first published in a work dated 1891:
Michaelsen, W. (1891), "Beschreibung der von Herrn Dr. Fr. Stuhlmann auf Sansibar und dem gegenüberliegenden Festlande gesammelten Terricolen. Anhang I. Übersicht über die Teleudrilinen", Jahrbuch der Hamburgischen Wissenschaftlichen Anstalten, 9: 49.

It's yet another example of the problems caused by not having any central 'register' of ICZN names (although if the authors had used Google Scholar they would have quickly found the name was pre-empted).

I've e-mailed the authors. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a constant problem, with authors who can't be bothered to exercise even rudimentary levels of scholarship. In the past two days, we can add the beetle names Ochralea and Morrisia to the list. Dyanega (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, seeing your correction of the name of a species in Colasposoma based on its gender reminded me of a similar kind of issue in the fly family Dolichopodidae that I noticed some time back and which has bothered me ever since. Maybe you can give your thoughts?

The species Sybistroma obscurellus has been unfortunate enough to have been spelled with all three possible spellings for each grammatical gender in the literature and/or the internet, as you can probably infer from the discussion title. The English Wikipedia page currently uses the masculine spelling, though going by recent publications this spelling does not seem to be considered correct anymore. Even worse, the species has currently two Wikidata items for two of these spellings, which also even have two separate IDs on iNaturalist (?!?) and GBIF.

I would have renamed the Wikipedia article already and merged the Wikidata items myself already, if it were not for some debate surrounding the gender of Sybistroma itself: I already made a note about this on its page, but basically either it's feminine because of how it was originally used (according to Grichanov and Kazerani (2014)), or neuter because it's based on the neuter Greek noun "stroma" (which is argued by the British Isles Diptera checklist on dipterists.org.uk, for instance). So, which spelling should the species be using: obscurella or obscurellum? Does it matter that the genus was argued to be feminine by some and that some of the Dolichopodidae literature (as well as Grichanov's Dolichopodidae website) uses it that way??

Of some interest maybe is the fact that another genus in the same family, Syntormon, apparently has a similar debate about its gender, which is argued to be masculine or neuter depending on who you ask. The only difference is that earlier this year an ICZN case was submitted to determine its gender. Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Code (Article 30.1) is very explicit; any genus name or suffix that is definitively Greek in origin and has a definite gender in Greek takes that nomenclatural gender, regardless of the treatment by the original author or any subsequent authors; the ONLY possible exception requires that the coining author must have explicitly given a disclaimer stating that the genus name "is not formed from, or is not treated as" a Greek word. In the absence of such a disclaimer, even if a name is USED a certain way, or even if a Greek etymology is given and the author misstated the gender, that does not matter; a name's gender is whatever a "standard Greek dictionary" says it is. Sybistroma is pretty certainly neuter, accordingly, and arguments about usage are irrelevant. Dyanega (talk) 01:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for explaining. I do recall seeing something like that in the Code when I last checked it for answers. That does sound like Grichanov's arguments are all wrong in the case of Sybistroma then. Monster Iestyn (talk)

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Leomk0403 (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 02:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In regards to my recent reverting of your change. I am hoping that if you decide to continue to argue for the previous spelling (cassinii), that you will address the specific arguments I have made in the comments. Article 33.4 makes it clear that cassini is an incorrect subsequent spelling:

33.4. Use of -i for -ii and vice versa, and other alternative spellings, in subsequent spellings of species-group names. The use of the genitive ending -i in a subsequent spelling of a species-group name that is a genitive based upon a personal name in which the correct original spelling ends with -ii, or vice versa, is deemed to be an incorrect subsequent spelling, even if the change in spelling is deliberate; the same rule applies to the endings -ae and -iae, -orum and -iorum, and -arum and - iarum.

And Article 33.3.1 states that "when an incorrect subsequent spelling is in prevailing usage and is attributed to the publication of the original spelling, the subsequent spelling and attribution are to be preserved and the spelling is deemed to be a correct original spelling".

Since this is a spelling issue, and not an issue of alternative names (synonyms, homonyms), the definition of prevailing usage in the Glossary applies, not the one in 23.9.

Alexander and Moore and Lloyd and Dybas were indeed incorrect to change the spelling. But now that it is vastly dominant the Code states that the new spelling is to be preserved.

Incidentally, I wrote to the iczn email listserv on this question one year ago and received confirming replies (two), none dissenting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmarshal2 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[Last point – I have not yet figured out how to re-set the page redirect from the original Magicicada cassini page.] Dmarshal2 (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Glossary definition is subjective enough in its phrasing that the point is definitely debatable. The list you posted to is by no means definitive, either; note that actual Commissioners - including the one Commissioner who is literally a world authority on Auchenorrhynchan names, disagree with the claim that the incorrect spelling is in prevailing usage. To wit: Dmitry Dmitriev maintains an authority file online of all Auchenorrhynchan names, and he recognizes cassinii as the correct and valid spelling. The Code does not recognize "popular literature" or online sources as entering into consideration for prevailing usage. The definition very much comes into play here: "that usage of the name which is adopted by at least a substantial majority of the most recent authors concerned with the relevant taxon, irrespective of how long ago their work was published." It is generally agreed upon that (1) "authors" means authors int he sense of the Code. Online sources do not count as authors, as they are not published works. Popular works (magazines, coffee table books, general biology texts, etc.) do not count, as they are not published in accordance with Article 8.1: "it must be issued for the purpose of providing a public and permanent scientific record". (2) the phrase "concerned with the relevant taxon" is a backstop, as it were, against the claim that ALL literature must be taken into consideration. This phrase is included in the definition specifically to exclude incidental usage of a name outside of the scientific literature. A work must be ABOUT periodical cicadas in order for the usage to be considered.

When you narrow the scope as the definition requires, Dmitry believes, and I agree, that there are not enough published works to establish "cassini" as being in prevailing usage, He lists the following history at [1]:

Cicada cassinii Fisher, J.C., 1852a:272
Cicada septendecim cassinii Walsh, 1870a:335
Cicada septendecim cassini Butler, A.W., 1886a:329
Tibicen cassinii Woodworth, C.W., 1888a:68
Tibicen cassini Osborn, 1902a:323
Tibicen septendecim cassina Wirtner, 1904a:209
Tibicen septendecim cassinii Adams, 1915a:pl.LV
Tibicina septendecim cassini Van Duzee, 1916a:56
Tibicina septendecim cassinii Van Duzee, 1917b:501
Magicicada cassinii Davis, W.T., 1925a:44
Magicicada septendecim cassinii Davis, W.T., 1928d:144
Magicicada cassini Myers, 1929b:222
Tibicina cassinii Froeschner, 1952a:8
Magicicada cassanii Leonard, 1964a:23
Magicicada cassi Mattson, 1980:133
Magicicada casini Kritsky, 2001b:118
Magicicada cassani Sanborn, 2013a:452
Magicicada ccassini Sanborn, 2013a:452

Again, as he is the Commissioner most directly interested in this particular case, if you are interested in challenging his decision, I suggest you contact him directly and discuss the matter. The home page of the website I linked gives his email, he is generally responsive. If you would prefer that I contact him and post his response here, I can also do that. Dyanega (talk) 16:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, while I will concede that Art. 33.4 is indeed the one exception to the usual definition of an emendation ("is deemed to be an incorrect subsequent spelling, even if the change in spelling is deliberate"), that does not change that the altered spelling is not considered to be in prevailing usage by some authorities. Dyanega (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dyanega,

This is David Marshall again. Yes, I have corresponded with Dmitriev for years on Cicadidae names and even helped a bit with references for keeping his 3i online database in order. I have corresponded with him over this issue as well, and he and Allen Sanborn (2013 Cicadidae catalogue author) both do not prefer the use of 33.3.1 and the prevailing usage concept to override priority, and I understand their sentiment, but neither have presented an argument that shows that I am not following the Code.

After writing to the Commission, I decided a careful study was in order, which I have completed, in which I found that over the period 1980 to 2022 the name cassini has been used by around five out of every six unique senior authors (using stringent rules on the nature of the publication of course, as you indicated). The manuscript gives complete tables showing all cited references. You are welcome to see the draft if you happen to be interested. I guess my exchange with you here is showing that it was worth spending the time on this. One way or another it will be published somewhere and then others can weigh in if they choose. But I doubt that most people would disagree with my conclusion that five out six authors is a substantial majority.

My email address can be found at http://www.insectsingers.com/cv/dcm.html

Cheers,

Dmarshal2 (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oops forgot to say that I have sent the paper to the ICZN secretary to see if they think it merits publication there rather than in a general entomology or systematics/taxonomy journal.

Dmarshal2 (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all. Should this talk section be moved to Talk:Magicicada cassinii? It appears entirely about that one name. (On the substance I have no opinion. I'm not a taxonomist.) Invasive Spices (talk) 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I suppose some of this could be moved to the talk page there, but not all of it. As for the case you're making, David, we do face one additional problem: you say the evidence you have in hand is sufficient to back up the claim of prevailing usage. Saying that you've done the actual research is different from an unsupported assertion, and I'm always open to accepting evidence, so I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt under the circumstances, now that you've clarified things. That being said, Wikipedia does have a policy - which is sometimes but not always enforced - prohibiting editors from using original research as the basis for their edits. However, this case doesn't have a nice clean way to address a difference of opinion that has not yet been fully resolved, because it involves the title of a Wikipedia entry. That means that it's not possible to present an "either/or" scenario; the title has to be one spelling or the other. I think it might benefit from a little feedback from some other experienced editors who have no direct stake (like Invasive Spices, maybe), as to whether it's fair to go with the title ("cassini") that is most likely to emerge victorious (as it were) even if the issue is technically not resolved. An alternative would exist if that species had a more widely-used "common name", in which case the page title could use the common name, and both spellings would redirect to it. Even then, it would require a bit more elaborated section explaining the history of the controversy, linking to authoritative sources that use the different spellings. I'll contact Dmitry to get his take on this, if you've already been in communication then I'm curious as to why he has not changed the entry in his file. Dyanega (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I got a response from Dmitry almost immediately. Interestingly, he invokes Art. 23.9.1, but that does not apply to this case. As you correctly noted, Art. 33.4 is explicit in treating "cassini" as an incorrect subsequent spelling, which means it cannot be treated as a synonym (emendations have authorships, and can be synonyms, but incorrect subsequent spellings do not and cannot). Art. 23.9.1 only applies to synonyms and homonyms. If that's the sum total of his reasoning, then I have to disagree with him, and side with you. Dyanega (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dyanega -

A couple of different points to make:

1. Yes I know about the "original research" issue. The ICZN code leaves us in a gray area there since it leaves the individual investigator to make the decision based on his or her opinion, and to me this naturally extends to editing Wikipedia pages. If the issue were "what was the original spelling" we could cite a reference, and reject an edit that didn't give the source, but this aspect of nomenclature (which is fortunately rare) appears to be fundamentally a matter of opinion. One of the commissioners told me that in the next version of the code they are planning to set more specific quantitative criteria for "substantial majority". But we don't have that yet, and even then there would be interpretation regarding the quality of sources. I guess this is an issue for taxonomy-involved Wikipedia super-editors to think about.

2. Personally I'm not that concerned about whether the title of the page uses cassini or cassinii (since searches on both end up there), and wasn't going to worry about it (in part however since I couldn't figure out how to change it). Especially if the main usage throughout is cassini. It is kind of messy, but so is the overall situation. Naturally I agree that since this is likely to remain contentious at least to the degree of having perhaps up to 10% of people who defer to priority no matter what the code says (or who actually interpret it that way) it's fine for the page to reflect this. Hopefully later this year we will at least have a published paper out on the issue, and the page can link to it.

3. I was the one who originally switched the page over to cassinii a few years back (under my old account Dmarshal which I lost due to lack of access to an old email) – it used to have the common spelling throughout. I had consulted Sanborn and Dmitry and it appeared clear that to follow the code we have to use cassinii. And I did so in one of my own papers. But eventually something brought me back to it, and upon looking through the code more closely I eventually realized that maintenance of cassini is called for in this special -i vs -ii case if the investigator believes that a substantial majority of authors are using it. Then I wrote to the email list to see if any objections arose. So I have felt some responsibility to fix what boiled down to a bad edit on my part. Even then I decided to formally review the literature before making a revert edit to Wikipedia, and this effort concluded a few weeks ago. I want everyone who comes to the page to understand that cassinii is not the Code mandated spelling – or at least that there is no conclusive case to that effect.

4. Just to clarify – I have not spoken directly with Dmitry since completing my literature review and manuscript draft (the last time was late 2020). He received a copy of my message to the listserv, but so far he has not seen my detailed arguments yet unless he has now received the ms following my inquiry with the Secretary.

4. Thanks for the discussion...apologies I was clunky at first since it took me a while to remember how talk pages work. I should have gone to this right after you first reverted the edit.

Dave Marshall Dmarshal2 (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmarshal2:, you should be able to move it back to cassini now. An user account needs to have 10 edits before moving pages is allowed. However, I'm surprised ICZN Art. 33.5 hasn't been brought up (which found favor cassinii). Plantdrew (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reason 33.5 doesn't apply is because 33.4 does. That is, 33.5 is the "backstop" for anything that isn't explicitly dealt with by prior Articles. Also, as I discovered while checking the details in this case (looking closely at the history of names given above), the first person to use "cassini" was in 1886, which - in effect - means that Alexander & Moore's act would be irrelevant, even if Art. 33.4 didn't exist. The 1886 misspelling was definitely a misspelling as traditionally understood under Art. 33, and very clearly is unavailable. Again, the details are certain, so 33.5 doesn't come into play. Dyanega (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dyanega – Yes I agree on your interpretation of 33.4/33.5. I am confused however about your last statement saying that the 1886 incorrect subsequent spelling is "unavailable". Once again 33.3.1 seems to say otherwise:

33.3.1. when an incorrect subsequent spelling is in prevailing usage and is attributed to the publication of the original spelling, the subsequent spelling and attribution are to be preserved and the spelling is deemed to be a correct original spelling.

Example. The specific name in Trypanosoma brucii Plummer & Bradford, 1899 is in prevailing usage but is spelled brucei; brucei is deemed to be correct and its use is to be maintained.

[I must admit that the example they give is confusing to me. The wording of the article seems clear.]

ps Incidentally, Butler 1886 remains the earliest example of cassini after my literature review. Dmarshal2 (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just made one small change at the start to acknowledge to the spelling issue. Assuming this holds, the Wikispecies page for cassini will need editing, and ideally the page move from cassini should be reverted. But I will hold off a bit until hearing back from the ICZN, and this will give time for others to comment as well. Dmarshal2 (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was speaking in terms of the principle, namely that all incorrect subsequent spellings are unavailable using that author and date. Since the case for "cassini" being in prevailing usage appears solid, then yes, that spelling becomes correct, and therefore available and valid, but it literally doesn't matter who first used it, since it must be attributed to Fisher. That is, the name "Cicada septendecim cassini Butler, 1886" is still unavailable, even after the spelling change is accepted. That is, there is a distinction drawn by the Code between the name (which has authorship) and the spelling (which does not, strictly speaking). Dyanega (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation – I think I follow you now. Dmarshal2 (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Sorry about the Magicicada cassini edit. If I would have read the paragraph below I wouldn't have made my change. Along with that, should the Magicicada cassinii page be moved to Magicicada cassini? Invinciblewalnut (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I would be fine with that. I was the one who put in the original page redirect to cassinii (as user Dmarshal, back when I incorrectly thought that the Code mandated that spelling). I am not sure how to reverse the redirect. 184.91.246.67 (talk)

Wasn't logged in...the above comment was mine. Dmarshal2 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dyanega,

you have Reverted my Edit, a Citation request, made at 16:38, March 15, 2022, on Honey bee page, the reason you gave was "these sentences are absolutely correct, accurate, and easily verifiable" however if you read my Edit Summary you will see that I am not referring to sentences but only one singular sentence - the one preceding the Source request; I'll paste it below for ease of reference:

"The different species of honey bees are distinguished from all other bee species (and virtually all other Hymenoptera) by the possession of small barbs on the sting, but these barbs are found only in the worker bees."

As you are clearly very knowledgeable on this subject (compared to me), can you please provide me a link so I can add a Source for the claim "(and virtually all other Hymenoptera)", I am not aware of other Hymenoptera that have barbs; I have read that some have very small barbs when examined closely, but they do not cause the same effect as Honey bees barbs (attaching to skin). I would be very interested in reading about other insects that possess these barbs? Thanks.

Also I have added a Source for the claim that the Queen Honey Bee does not have barbs, however I am not happy with this source, as the claim that Queens do not have barbs is explained by beekeepers in that the queens have been observed stinging multiple virgin queens in quick succession, I have not seen a photo of their respective barbs, but if you cannot provide me with a better source then I will arrange for a photo of one of them to be taken by a beekeeper that I know that does Instrumental Insemination. But you did say that this would be "easily verifiable" so it shouldn't take you long to Link it to me. Thanks.

It was my understanding that when a Citation request is made, the person writing the original sentence(s) would provide the Sources, as they would be notified of a change to the page. Failing that other Wiki Editors would jump in; I did not have time to search for Sources, so I decided to flag the sentence by a Citation request, and come back to it later when I had time (like now). The length of time you have spent reading this Posting is likely longer than it would have taken you to add the respective Sources for these easily verifiable claims.

Glad we are working together to be able to improve Wiki. Bibby (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. So, I recently learned that just a week ago a new major beetle phylogeny came out in the journal Royal Society Open Science: [2]. Included with it is supplemental material containing an updated complete higher classification for beetles down to subfamily, including some new names (not just for above superfamily though, I also spied at least a replacement name for an extinct family) as well as other taxonomic changes. It even contains a ZooBank ID for the article (visible in the first page of the supplemental material). So, this would be very useful for Wikipedia and Wikispecies once it is clear the classification is accepted (it may be way too early to update everything right now probably).

The only trouble is, the ZooBank ID doesn't appear to have been activated yet, and according to the journal's "About" page it is electronic-only... so is this new article available at all for nomenclatural purposes under the ICZN? I have a horrible suspicion that it is not precisely because of these facts, which would be a real shame I feel, but I'm checking with you just in case. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting. I'd seen the paper, but also decided it was premature to make any classification changes here. As far as the ICZN goes, the Code only applies to names at superfamily rank and below. The Code's provisions regarding ZooBank registration of e-only publications are a little convoluted, and maybe worth checking, especially 8.5.3.3:

8.5.3. be registered in the Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature (ZooBank) (see Article 78.2.4) and contain evidence in the work itself that such registration has occurred.

Examples. Evidence of registration is given by stating information that would be known only if the registration has occurred, such as the exact date of registration or the registration number assigned to the work or to a new name or nomenclatural act introduced in the work. A work issued as a PDF may contain the registration number as an embedded hyperlink. Even if the registration number is not visible in the normal viewing mode of the file or when the work is printed from the file, it is deemed to be cited in the work itself because the text of the hyperlink can easily be revealed using standard software for viewing PDFs.

8.5.3.1. The entry in the Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature must give the name and Internet address of an organization other than the publisher that is intended to permanently archive the work in a manner that preserves the content and layout, and is capable of doing so. This information is not required to appear in the work itself.

8.5.3.2. The entry in the Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature must give an ISBN for the work or an ISSN for the journal containing the work. The number is not required to appear in the work itself.

8.5.3.3. An error in stating the evidence of registration does not make a work unavailable, provided that the work can be unambiguously associated with a record created in the Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature before the work was published.

Examples. The following are examples of admissible errors: In preparing a manuscript an author accidentally deletes the final digit of the registration number. An author states the wrong date of registration forgetting that ZooBank uses Coordinated Universal Time rather than local time. An author registers two works that are in review for publication and accidentally uses the same ZooBank number in both published versions.

The following are examples of inadmissible errors: An author, in preparing a manuscript for publication, states that day's date for the registration date, intending to register it later that day but forgetting to do so. The author discovers the omission after the work is published and immediately registers it; because registration occurred after publication, the work is not available. A publisher discovers errors in a work and reissues it to correct those errors, but instead of registering the new edition, uses the original ZooBank number; the revised edition is not available because it was not separately registered.

So, the question is whether the work does appear as properly registered in ZooBank, and the link in the work is bad, or did it really never get registered? If it isn't registered, any new names proposed for superfamilies or lower ranks are unavailable, and the authors need to be notified ASAP. Dyanega (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I cannot find the article registered under any other ID on ZooBank, while the ID provided in the article's supplement materials ([3]) currently leads to an apparent blank page at least on Firefox. I've seen this result numerous times in other ZooBank IDs linked by publications, but I do not know if this means if it has in fact been registered or not. Though, reading ZooBank's Help page I see it says you can register content before publication, but it will not be visible except to certain users. Monster Iestyn (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

heya Royal Society Open Science is [4] start there I guess. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 22:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, the "blank page" thing was what I was referring to by not being "activated" earlier, for some reason I believed being "activated" was a term used for ZooBank IDs that worked... I'm not sure I came to believe this if I'm being honest, it would be nice to have an explanation for the blank pages on ZooBank though. Monster Iestyn (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've contacted one of the authors, and he says he is looking into the matter. Even if it turns out that the work was properly registered, the fact that the given URL does not connect to anything is a serious matter, and will require an explanation and remedy. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Dyanega (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, glad to help. Monster Iestyn (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reply came back - "After a bit of digging I found out that the beetle phylogeny publication had been entered/registered properly but the status in ZooBank had to be switched to “published” for all of the information to appear publicly. You should be able to see the details now." Apparently ZooBank hides registered works until they are published, and this one never got flagged correctly as such. Dyanega (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, glad that's sorted then. For future reference though, can we consider this an "admissible error" with ZooBank registration? Monster Iestyn (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i am user:Mammoth500, I would like to thank you for cleaning up my edits on syllipsimopodi and gasteranthus extinctus. Thank you Mammoth500 (talk) 03:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, this time I'm asking you a taxonomy/systematics question rather than a nomenclature question! I've come to ask you about your thoughts on the current consensus of the taxonomy of the fly superfamily Tipuloidea, particularly since you edited all the relevant articles to follow Petersen et al. (2010) back in 2014, recognising only two extant families Pediciidae and Tipulidae and treating both Cylindrotomidae and Limoniidae as subfamilies of Tipulidae. I ask this because Wikipedia is not internally consistent here: Tipuloidea once again lists all four of the extant families as valid, Cylindrotomidae's article treats it as a family again, but Limoniinae's article still treats it as a subfamily of Tipulidae and Tipulidae's article itself still lists both Cylindrotomidae and Limoniidae as subfamilies after your changes. On top of this Tipulomorpha's article lists all four of these families as valid as well, but Template:Diptera families lists only Pediciidae and Tipulidae. Obviously this must be fixed, but which classification should be used? Two families or four families?

Trying to answer this question for myself by looking around for articles on the subject, the impression I get is that most people since Petersen et al. (2010) don't follow their proposed classification at all and instead continue to recognise all four of Cylindrotomidae, Limoniidae, Pediciidae and Tipulidae as families, even if they actually cite Petersen et al. (2010) itself. For example, Pape et al. (2011) and the more recent Diptera of Canada and Catalogue of Diptera (Insecta) of Morocco articles seem to recognise all four of these families (the Morocco one doesn't list Cylindrotomidae, but I assume it probably would if that family was recorded in that country). In addition there is the Catalogue of the Craneflies of the World website, which also recognises all four of them (and is cited by the Diptera of Canada article). Meanwhile, the only article I've found so far that states it follow Petersen's classifcation is Gelhaus and Ruggeri (2012).

My thoughts are that, even if Petersen et al. (2010)'s proposed Tipuloidea classification could become more generally accepted in the near future, the current consensus to me appears to be to recognise all four of Cylindrotomidae, Limoniidae, Pediciidae and Tipulidae as valid for the time being, and Wikipedia should probably reflect this (even if Limoniidae is also generally recognised as paraphyletic). Does this sound right to you? Did I overlook something?

(Apart from anything else, I've learned that the two fossil families originally listed at Tipuloidea, Architipulidae and Eolimnobiidae, are no longer recognised as far as I've been able to tell; the former has been considered a subfamily or synonym of Limoniidae since Blagoderov et al. (2007), and the latter has been implied to be a synonym of Ptychopteridae since Lukashevich (2008) (I say this because it treats Eolimnobia as a synonym of Eoptychoptera, though it doesn't state what happens to the included species of Eolimobia.). I've already dealt with the latter on Wikipedia, but I've done nothing about the former yet thanks to the issue of Limoniidae/Limoniinae. On Wikispecies I've already put these two families in synonymy.)

(Sorry for the wall of text, by the way)

Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that as of 2014, resistance to the conservative classification had not yet become obvious. I don't have time to look more closely at this particular case, but my general approach when dealing with establishing a "consensus" classification for WP/WS pages is to see if there's evidence of an active rejection of a new classification. I don't generally place much weight on catalogues; what I mean by an active rejection is a paper with a cladogram, or any sort of analysis of characters, that presents actual evidence that refutes a proposed classification. I also take into consideration who the authors are. Among the references post-2010 that do not use the conservative classification is only a single tipulid researcher, Pjotr Oosterbroek, and I can find nothing he has published that states why he insists on using the 1992 classification scheme rather than the newer scheme. Gelhaus & Ruggeri are tipulid experts. In that respect, this appears to be an actual ongoing controversy, rather than a consensus that runs against the new scheme. Unfortunately, that makes things much harder, and short of consulting a tipulid expert, can't offer good advice. It may boil down to a very stereotypical cladist/non-cladist debate, given that the old scheme is adopted by non-cladists, and the new scheme by cladists. I'm very strongly biased in the latter camp (I don't like any classification not supported by a phylogeny), so not an entirely neutral source of opinion. Dyanega (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see... unfortunately I haven't found anything that actively rejects the new classification either. Best I've been able to find are the Finnish lists Salmela (2011) and Salmela and Petrašiūnas (2014), which both seem to justify using the old classification but only because the new one has some problems yet to resolve (?). But those don't seem to actively reject the classification, only avoid it. Cylindrotomidae's article apparently cites Zhang et al. (2016) as a reason to reject Petersen et el., but oddly enough I don't any outright rejection in here either (if anything they seem to confirm Petersen et el.'s findings, while quietly avoiding use of their new classification even though they mention it??). I have no idea if any of the authors of these particular articles are specialists in tipulids anyway. Thanks for explaining your position on this though. Monster Iestyn (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have some changes I want to make about the Monarch's conservation status, but I want to be sure I won't conflict with your edits. Thanks, Dan Bloch (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm done - it was imperative to distinguish that the IUCN has two separate status designations for two separate subdivisions within the species - so long as that's clear, we should be good. Thanks. Dyanega (talk) 16:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My take is that that's mostly but not completely right. The IUCN deals in species and subspecies, not populations. You can see my changes and comment soon. Thanks, Dan Bloch (talk) 16:13, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The Starfish Barnstar
		For User:Dyanega and their proofreading & citation-checking efforts on pages related to the Lycorma genus. User has consistently made quality edits to biology related articles with an eye for detail that we can all aspire to. Etriusus (Talk) 17:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see you reverted my good-faith edit. Why remove it and not offer a clarification of your own? The word is likely not known to most readers of Wikipedia, and the article would benefit from it. DeeJaye6 (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Editor,

I am contacting you to ask Nothorhina punctata page you made. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothorhina_punctata

On the thread, you put "This species is native to Europe, but has been introduced to Japan." I am wondering the backup reference for the below phrase. Any remark of INVASIVENESS of this species to Japan was found in GBIF. Look forward to getting your reply!

Seunghyun Chiyark (talk) 13:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The host plant of this beetle does not naturally occur in Japan, so the records in Japan are on an introduced host, and I've clarified that and given a cite. It's not possible to find a cite specifically stating that Pinus sylvestris is introduced in Japan, but there are references to the tree's natural distribution in the article about that species, and Japan is clearly outside of that range. Dyanega (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you wrote that statement only based on the host plant? Japanese friends collect the beetles mostly on Pinus densiflora, which is native tree, and that's the same in Korea. We were confusing about this statement because most of the Japanese entomologists consider the beetle native to Japan. Chiyark (talk) 01:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for editing the thread Dr. Doug Yanega! It looks way better and more neutral. Sorry recognizing your ID too late! I am Seunghyun Lee, we talked via email a few years ago when my Cerambycinae paper published in MPE! I am preparing the new report of Nothorhinini in Korea and found out this thread is a bit confusing. Thanks again Doug. Seunghyun. Chiyark (talk) 03:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware that this species was found on a different host in that region; I could not find any reports to that effect. To be honest, that suggests that it might be a different species; this will possibly require DNA sequencing to determine. Be that as it may, I will change the wording of the article slightly to reflect this new information, and would be grateful if you are aware of a published record of P. densiflora as the host. Dyanega (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dyanega. Do you know what wasp species the video I posted is? A local expert referred to it as "avispa cartonera", which is Spanish for paper wasp. And I now notice that I wrongly edited the specific European Paper Wasp, because in Spanish wikipedia we don't have an entry for the general "paper wasp", but only for the european one. Jackbravo (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind me responding here rather than on that other editor's talkpage. Seemed a more appropriate location, though.

Anyway, as far as monotypic taxa goes, I agree when it comes to articles that just happen to be the wrong way around--genus redirecting to species--though every once in a blue moon I'll take my time to fix a few of those when I'm doing wider updates on that particular taxonomic area (e.g. if I'm updating the entirety of a tribe or subfamily, I may as well swap the pages around so they're in compliance with WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA). Used to do it more systematically, but yeah, there's more important stuff to focus on. However, when we end up with two separate pages on essentially the same thing--like someone creating a species page when the monotypic genus already has an article, like was the case here--I may as well redirect it immediately. One fewer article to keep up-to-date, and articles that are pretty much duplicates help no one, anyway. (Even worse when it's one of those genera/species where just about the entirety of available knowledge is "it exists, according to someone". We certainly don't need two articles to say "this is a taxon in higher taxon" with basically no further information and quite possibly outdated taxonomy to boot.)

As far as prioritization goes, I agree in principle. However, I often use my bursts of constructive-but-low-prio work to find what areas need desperate (well, pretty much all of it, but some of it is in even worse shape than other areas) attention. For example, diffusing stubs and categories is a great way to get a view of what areas have an above-average amount of stubs that boil down to "this exists, probably (but without any refs, who knows, it might be a junior synonym or a typo or a misunderstanding or who knows what else)" or with taxoboxes that conflict with the actual prose or categories (yay for partially-implemented taxo-revisions...), or so on. Tagging redirects is a good way to get a feel for what areas haven't seen much if any attention for years (because most of the areas that do see some attention have up-to-date redirect categorization) and thus are quite probably massively outdated (or have been flat-out wrong from the beginning). And so on.

Plus I just don't always have the kind of focus/mindset to work on the "most useful" edits, and I figure that when I'm choosing between "lower priority but someone should eventually do it" or "nothing", the former's still a more constructive use of my time. For many of those tasks, particularly the burst-of-repetitive-uncontroversial-edit tasks, it's not like anyone else actually wants to do them, anyway, even if no one disagrees it should eventually be done. (And halfway implemented categories are a mess that often leads to worse messes down the line to sort out, in my experience. Better spend an hour here and there to keep the categorization tree in more-or-less good shape than weeks repairing it afterwards. Good categorization structures make things easier to sort out when there's been major taxo-revisions, too.)

But yeah, "not a lot of us" and "staggering amount of articles" is absolutely right, unfortunately. There's days where it all feels like "this. never. ends." and things like coming back from two-year-breaks and finding that about 99% of what was on my lists of "needs to be done" still is on my list of "needs to be done" certainly doesn't help any there. Or finding old lists of stuff to be done in my userspace from like 2014 and realizing that yup, eight years down the line, still no one has gotten around to it. AddWittyNameHere 16:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. thank you (from a non-specialist) for very quick reaction!
2. I feel that the comparisons between these three species represent an American point of view, as do some of the texts (for example referring to common pests et al.) what say you?
3. on a different tack: what do you think of the naming of Planuncus (Ectobius) tingitanus and Planuncus vinzi cf. articles in [en] [de] and [fr]

jw (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(1) You're welcome. (2) Articles tend to reflect the selected sources. For these articles, most of the sources seem to have American authors. (3) "vinzi" is not a valid name; it is a junior synonym of Planuncus (Planuncus) tingitanus. See species Planuncus (Planuncus) tingitanus (Bolívar, 1914) Dyanega (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3. I hear you; but in [fr] there is no page at all for tingitanus, nor redirect :) I shall eventually find time to do something about this, un jour, dans un avenir pas trop lointain jw (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Autohaemorrhaging, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tiger moth.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comment on the Anophthalmus hitleri page wrt the lack of any evidence of an ICZN ruling. I was the person who added the better source needed tag and I was really glad to see that a domain expert had weighed in! Thanks! After reading your comment, I took a better look at that source and, after trawling through the footnote trail, it seems to me that what happened was this:

1. In 1934, a completely different species of insects is named Rochlingia hitleri.
2. In 1949, an entomologist named Hermann Haupt attempts to synonymize the genus with an older one, effectively renaming it Scepasma europea and declaring Rochlingia hitleri a nomen nudum.
3. This doesn't catch on, possibly because Hermann Haupt's argument was incorrect.
4. rosegeorge.com recounts this story (possibly sourced from Buzzwords: A Scientist Muses on Sex, Bugs, and Rock 'n' Roll?) in an article about the Anophthalmus hitleri in a way that suggests Hermann Haupt attempted to change the name on the basis that it was offensive and failed, and then mentions that ICZN rules probably don't allow changing a name for that reason.
5. strangeanimals.info misses that the story isn't about the Anophthalmus hitleri and also assumes that Hermann Haupt's name change attempt was taken up with the ICZN and was denied, despite the fact that the article quotes someone as saying "if people really object, they could bring it to the Commission."

Given this lineage, I think it's safe to say that the source claiming that this has been brought before the ICZN is unreliable and that that section can safely be rewritten to remove the claim. I'll probably do so soon, unless you have any objections. Cuniiform (talk) 06:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just did so. Feel free to check it out to make sure I didn't get anything wrong. Cuniiform (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing the recent Trigonalidae/Trigonalyidae discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life, I'm wondering now: does Article 29.4 not even allow for authors of family-group names published after 1999 to later correct their spellings to be correctly formed in accordance with Article 29.3? The example I'm thinking of right now is the extinct beetle family Coleopsidae Kirejtshuk & Nel, 2016 (based on the genus-group name Coleopsis Kirejtshuk, Poschmann & Nel, 2014), which was later emended to "Coleopseidae" by Kirejtshuk, 2020 (which declared the original name to be a "lapsus calami"). I get the feeling the answer in this case is a hard no and it should be the original spelling, which is Coleopsidae, but I just want to make sure. Monster Iestyn (talk) 13:47, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it had been published before 1999, Art. 29.5 would apply, and this would depend on the Code glossary definition: "usage, prevailing, n. Of a name: that usage of the name which is adopted by at least a substantial majority of the most recent authors concerned with the relevant taxon, irrespective of how long ago their work was published." However, as you correctly note, this name was published after 1999, so Article 29.4 explicitly prohibits anyone from changing the spelling. Coleopseidae is not a valid name, Coleopsidae stays. Dyanega (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks, that means I will have to update Wikispecies accordingly (I see you already updated English Wikipedia, thanks). Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Ongoing disaster: a heads-up. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should respect that there is an existing community whose input you have deliberately avoided. Dyanega (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please edit your notices to comply with WP:CANVASS, particularly the aspects based on "Message" and "Audience". BilledMammal (talk) 00:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into this when I'm back online, I have to leave now. In the meantime, if you're going to accuse me of bias, then maybe you can explain why you have not attempted to carry out mass merges of stub articles involving birds, or fish, or mammals, or reptiles. Insect taxonomy is an easier target? You'll also note that I did not selectively target the "TOL: Insects" groups, or "TOL: Beetles" groups, but the primary group, as the principle you are promoting, of mass merging of taxonomy stubs, affects the entirety of the taxonomic hierarchy. Or are you saying that I should include all the sub-groups of TOL in my posting? Dyanega (talk) 00:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal:, Dyanega could very well have have started this by initiating a thread at ANI. That wouldn't be canvassing (ANI isn't going to have a partisan POV about the having stubs for species versus having redirects). Dyanega is a long-time editor (longer than you or I); Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. I've never initiated a thread at ANI, and I'm fairly certain Dyanega hasn't done so either. Many productive Wikipedia editors aren't interested in stirring up formal (ANI) drama. BilledMammal, you didn't consult anybody before deciding to convert a large number of species articles into redirects. WP:TOL would be an obvious place to have consulted about that. Dyanega notified TOL about your edits, and another editor brought that to ANI. BilledMammal, would you specify which other pages Dyanega should have notified about your actions in order to avoid your templated accusation of canvassing? Plantdrew (talk) 02:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All but two of the linked species in Batillipes are redirects back to that page (one has an article, one is a red-link). These were created as redirects (not as articles) by User:Galactikapedia who created several thousand redirects for species across various obscure corners of the tree of life (they've expressed regret for these creations, there's no need to bring it up again). I've made a little bit of an effort to tag their redirects with {{R animal with possibilities}} (or {{R taxon with possibilities}}), but the majority are untagged (if I worked on it further, I'd also add {{R from species to genus}} which didn't exist when I worked on it before).

Stemonitis had several bouts over a period of years of converting species/genus sub-stub articles to redirects. Many of these have been spun back up to articles. Affected areas I'm aware of are freshwater crustacean species (Stemonitis has some expertise in this area), Diptera genera, and Carex species. Here's a link to their contributions at a time they were redirecting species. I see there are talk pages for species, and redirects for vernacular names and synonyms that still point to genus articles even though the species articles have been reinstated. Eiconaxius still has many of it's species redirecting there (but the redirects aren't linked). List of Carex species has more than 100 species redirecting there, and is a terrible target for those redirects (people searching for the species might find the Carex article somewhat useful), but Wikipedia practice says redirects should target a place where they are mentioned, and the genus article for Carex doesn't mention the species.

Of course, standard practice here is to have the species in a fossil genus redirect to the genus article. Sometimes articles have been created for species and subsequently redirect. I've seen a few cases (gastropods if I recall correctly) where a genus has both fossil and extant species, and redirects have been created for the fossil species, with many of the extant species appearing as red-links.

There are a handful of small genera where each species is discussed in some detail in prose (not a table), and the binomials redirect to the genus article. Apororhynchus is one of these. Two Apororhynchus species once had stand-alone articles that were redirected, the other four species were created as redirects.

I find taxonbars immensely useful. The primary reason I visit Wikipedia articles in my professional life is for the taxonbar, which has links to all but one of the online resources for plants that I regularly consult. I don't really find any fault with the way ''Apororhynchus species are being covered; there a so few of them, that taxonbars for each could just be added to the genus article. But Apororhynchus approach is definitely not something that would work for a genus with dozen or hundreds of species.

There are a couple different ways to make redirects stand out visually, see Wikipedia:Visualizing redirects. I find this very useful for taxonomy related editing. Plantdrew (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't tables; I used the word table very explicitly in this sentence, for that very reason. There are lots of lists, but BilledMammal is not proposing using lists, he is proposing putting most of the existing species article content into tables (as in [5]), and then deleting/redirecting the sources. This wipes out the taxonbars and all connections to Wikidata, among other things. The Apororhynchus example is interesting, and the species list could made targetable if "===" subheaders were used. However, again, those species don't have their individual taxonbars. Dyanega (talk) 21:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m happy to consider alternative ways to present the content, and if you can propose a suitable way I’m also happy to include taxonbars. My goal is to increase the utility of these articles for average readers, and I don’t mind what format this takes. BilledMammal (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you're sincere about engaging in a dialogue as to alternative approaches, I am happy to do the same, and I do have ideas. However, (1) I would request that the discussion be with other WP:TOL regular editors, which was the primary source of distress right from day one, that we were left out of the loop. Open up a new thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life and I will gladly take part in the discussion. (2) until the discussion at WP:TOL comes to a consensus, would you be willing to refrain from deleting or merging taxonomy articles in the meantime? We have examples of some of your attempts that we can link to for discussion purposes, but the AfDs and such are a distraction at the moment. It seems to me that those two steps would be genuine gestures of good faith, and I would reciprocate, and other TOL editors would also appreciate it. Dyanega (talk) 22:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dyanega, Stemonitis produced tables for freshwater crustacean genera they worked on. I'd have to dig through their edits quite a bit to find out if there are any current cases where species are still redirects and there is a table in the genus article. Orconectes has a table, and at one point the species were redirects, but the species articles have now been restored.

BilledMammal, thank you for being willing to discuss. One suggestion I'd make regarding your version of Bothriospilini is to include the taxonomic authority in the same column as the species name (the authority isn't necessarily the first person to describe a species, although it often is). That would save some space which could then be used for an additional column for other data.Plantdrew (talk) 03:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Orconectes table is problematic; it does not indicate recombinations, which are essential even on forked content. It lacks synonymies, as well, but if the species have their own articles, then synonymies can be listed there. It's very similar to BM's early attempts, and needs rethinking. Dyanega (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By "does not indicate recombination" you're referring to authorities that should have parentheses but lack them? That's a problem on Wikipedia in general, not just the Orconectes table (we've discussed this on my talk page before). But it does highlight why TOL should be consulted (not to get TOL's "permission", but to get advice about what is important to preserve).

As designed, taxonbars don't work well in tables. They are intended to be very wide, which is fine when they're placed at the bottom of an article. If taxonbars are going to be included in tables, a variant would be needed, something like {{taxonbar_table}}. I'm not sure what is possible, but if a table contains images that increase the height of a row, it would be pretty awesome if the taxonbar could dynamically decrease width and take advantage of the increased height. There are some links displayed by regular taxonbars that could be excluded to keep a table variant smaller (we probably need to have some ongoing discussion and review about which links regular taxonbars should display anyway, and which new Wikidata properties need to be supported by taxonbars). Regular taxonbars are highly customisable in which links are displayed. A variant taxonbar for tables might include switches (e.g. |beetle, |plant) that could be set to exclude Wikidata links with low value for a particular group of organisms. Plantdrew (talk) 03:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One suggestion I'd make regarding your version of Bothriospilini is to include the taxonomic authority in the same column as the species name (the authority isn't necessarily the first person to describe a species, although it often is) That makes sense; I will do that.

Your comment about taxonbars also make sense; removing barriers to their inclusion in tables will help. I'll see if I can come up with anything, but I'm not experienced at editing templates. BilledMammal (talk) 08:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My original plan was to open a discussion in my user space, once I have produced several examples of species articles merged to their genus parents within the Asteraceae family (initial example of a first draft can be found here), and invite editors from TOL whose comments suggest that would be open to considering the idea to workshop the proposal before taking it to the village pump to determine if a consensus exists for it.

However, I'm willing to try holding that discussion at TOL instead if you believe that to be a better idea. I also have no plan to boldly merge or delete any taxonomy articles without consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 08:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]