Jump to content

Talk:Cornu aspersum

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. --Stemonitis 21:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Helix aspersa → Cornu aspersum – per The Cornu problem --Eleassar my talk 11:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read the link there, and it's very interesting. It seems there are at least four names out there for this mollusk. Helix aspersa seems to be the most common in English, occuring much more frequently in Google searches (incl. Google Books and Google Scholar) than Cornu aspersum, Cryptomphalus aspersus or Cantareus aspersus. Depending on which authority you go with, the name H. aspersa has been superseded by one of the other three; nevertheless, most people are still calling it Helix. I'm inclined to leave the article where it is per WP:COMMONNAME. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another applicable page is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna), which could support "Garden snail" or "Helix aspersa". -GTBacchus(talk) 02:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how much you're acquainted with taxonomy, but I prefer to trust referenced sources rather than Google tests. It's not only about name, it's also about classification. I don't object using the title brown garden snail, but do object replacing the view of the majority of malacologists with Wikipedia conventions. Nowadays malacologists view placing brown garden snail in the genus Helix as dubious and prefer to put it in the genus Cornu or Cantareus. And according to the source, dealing specifically with this question, Cornu is more appropriate.--Eleassar my talk 12:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to figure out just what that source was, and as far as I can tell, it's a personal website. On what grounds do you consider it reliable? Have you looked at the search results for "Helix aspersa"? There are lots of reliable sources using the old name. I'd rather wait until there's a consensus as to whether it's called Cornu or Cantareus (or Cryptomphalus), and see a lot of people actually start using the new name. We're not supposed to take sides in taxonomic disputes; we're supposed to reflect common usage. That's part of optimizing Wikipedia for general audience readers. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All right, you have persuaded me. Especially as I have found some sources (forum posts like this or this) discussing the very same matter from a different standpoint. --Eleassar my talk 20:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requset for more information

[edit]

If there are any experts as to the behaviors, feeding, or mating patterns of these little creatures, it would be wonderful for those people to add a bit to the page. Moreover, I'm wondering if there's a way to include some information as to their nutritional and environmental needs as well as (and in general relevant to all land-faring snails) what human behaviors have caused changes to the snails' patterns of habitation (for native snails as well as non-native). It would be a shame for the human race to start really threatening some species of these important animals and know it without informing the greater community. Dfruzzetti (talk) 05:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

[edit]

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 02:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I linked "NE" in the 'Conservation Status' box to IUCN Red List#Categories. Unless I'm especially stupid today, the link provided by 'Conservation Status' doesn't directly explain what NE was. I didn't know what it meant, so I put in a link. If this was the wrong thing to do, please let me know on my talk page. I'm still new at this. Chaotic42 (talk) 02:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

aspersa or aspersa?

[edit]

The species name appears on this page mostly as aspersa, sometimes as aspera; you can find the second spelling twice on the edit page, once in plain text, once in a link to an image. I presume the first is correct? Moremoth (talk) 16:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

aspersum or aspersum?

[edit]

As Moremoth more or less hinted, the article title should be Cornu aspersum. It currently is wrong. How do I get it changed? JonRichfield (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just made the move to Cornu aspersum (accepted name) JoJan (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cornu aspersum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cornu aspersum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subspecies maxima

[edit]

The following summarises some literature research on the status of the subspecies maxima. It was originally posted on the talk page of Chescargot, following some discussion of whether to change maximum to maxima when the genus changed to Cornu. Some of this probably counts as original research, which is why I present it here.

It is quite a mess!

The research group centred on Annie Guiller and Luc Madec have published many good-quality papers in very respectable journals on Cornu aspersum using genetic, shell and anatomical characters and including populations from Algeria amongst many others. In some of these papers they refer to Helix aspersa maxima (in later papers, Cornu aspersum maximum) as a distinct subspecies (e.g. Madec & Guiller 1993 https://doi.org/10.1093/mollus/59.4.455, Guiller et al. 1994 https://doi.org/10.1093/mollus/60.3.205 , Guiller et al. 2001 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-294X.2001.01145.x , Guiller et al. 2012 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0049674). In Madec & Guiller (1993) they give the taxonomic authority as Taylor (1883). Taylor's description is available here https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/31571517, and it refers to the variety maxima from Algeria; Taylor mentions various other large specimens from elsewhere although it is not absolutely clear that he includes them in this variety. The description is just "shell larger", with some measurements. Under Article 45.6.3 of the Code, for a publication before 1961, a variety name like this is considered a subspecific name.

The Guiller-Madec group are inconsistent in what they mean by maxima. Sometimes they seem to mean a local geographic form from Algeria (e.g. Madec & Guiller 1993), and sometimes they clearly mean the large variety found in snail farms (e.g. Guiller et al. 2012). Their genetic results imply that the snail-farm form is not the same as the forms so far known from Algeria (Guiller et al. 2001).

There are two problems with using Taylor's (1883) maxima name for the snail-farm form. One is that none of the specimens that Taylor mentioned in his description was from a snail farm. If the snail-farm form is genetically distinct, then maxima cannot be used to describe it. Taylor's name could be considered a synonym of the normal form or could be applied to a large Algerian variety, and it would be up to someone to write a paper that designates a lectotype to decide this.

However, it seems that this issue is mute because, when Taylor wrote, the name H. aspersa maxima had already been published by Parfitt in the "The Fauna of Devon. Part X. Conchology", Transactions of the Devonshire Association 1874 p.634. This is not online, but presumably it describes a large variety from Devon, which would make the name maxima a synonym of the usual form, H. aspersa aspersa. As one expects, if you look at MolluscaBase (http://www.molluscabase.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1380657 ) you find that Parfitt's maxima is indeed considered there a synonym of Helix aspersa (they do not recognise any subspecies). Significantly, that would mean that any subspecies named after 1874 as Helix aspersa maxima was not given a valid name. There is evidence that both the snail-farm form and one or more Algerian races may deserve separate subspecific status, and possibly there are some names already published that may be applied to them (I am not going to research that), but maxima is not such a name.

So what to do? One might copy Guiller and Madec's "bad behaviour" and use the subspecies name as though it were a valid scientific name and apply it both to the Algerian subspecies and the domesticated gros-gris. In that case the gender of maxima/um must match that of Helix or Cornu. Or you can say that this is not a valid name under the ICZN rules, and treat the name maxima just as a vernacular name. In that case there is no need to change the gender to match the genus. But it would be desirable to format it so that it did not look like a scientific name. I am not sure if there is an established way to do so (it is not covered by ICZN rules). The botanists write cultivars in inverted commas and not italicised. What do you think?

It is a bit different for C. aspersum aspersum. The nominotypical subspecies is considered to exist automatically as soon as someone describes another subspecies. It is the subspecies of the specimen described as C. aspersum. So aspersum is a valid subspecies name, and should agree with the gender of the genus. Jmchutchinson (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Synonomy list

[edit]

@YorkshireExpat recently added a very lengthy synonomy list based on the one in MolluscaBase. One had to click to reveal it, but then it was so long that the formatting broke down on my screen, with the taxobox overlapping the main text. In any case it seemed to me too long to be useful to our readership. Those folks that might really need the fuller version will already know to go to MolluscaBase (or its mirror Worms). I have been bold and cut out entries that deal with subspecies of species already listed (they are just statements that the subspecies are not distinct) and also cut out entries that concern just the placement within a different subgenus (since nowadays subgenera are rarely used). It is still quite a long list and my own preference would be to cut further, but this is perhaps a reasonable compromise. It may be worth noting for those not familiar with published taxonomic articles, that it is quite usual to provide partial synonomy lists that include only the important synonyms; not producing an exhaustive list is not sloppiness but being helpful in concentrating on what is most relevant! Jmchutchinson (talk) 09:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough! YorkshireExpat (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cornu_aspersum&oldid=1194970063"