Talk:Cromwell chafer beetle

Insects Low‑importance

	Insects portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New Zealand Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Further work on referencing required. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct Latin name vs one in widest current use

Although the original specific epithet given to this species was lewisii (which is the correct Latinisation of Lewis), many references use lewisi, which is quite possibly just a spelling mistake, as it matches the more common form of a Latinised male surname. It's not Wikipedia's job to overturn a widely-established name, so the question is:

When did the other spelling arise, and was it based on a nomenclatural decision, or just an accident?
what is the relative prevalence of each form, especially in current literature?

Ideally we would move this page to Prodontria lewisii and set up a redirect from lewisi (the opposite of the current arrangement), and note that lewisi is a common spelling in the literature. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The answers to these questions are a grey area in zoological nomenclature. The short answer is that the issue just isn't worth wasting time on. In practical terms, the important thing is just that a search for either form of the name points to the same taxon ... Betweenfootandshoe (talk) 02:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correct common name

Since the term chafer is straightforwardly derived from the German käfer (beetle), I'm pretty sure that the common name should be just 'Cromwell chafer', as adding beetle is redundant ... Betweenfootandshoe (talk) 02:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should be, but it's not. "Cromwell chafer beetle" is the predominant form of the common name as you can see from the publications list, and you can see from the photo that reserve is even called the "Cromwell chafer beetle reserve". Maybe it will gradually change, but at the moment I guess most New Zealanders don't know what a "chafer" is, or they don't speak German. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 07:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Cromwell chafer beetle reserve" should be parsed as "Cromwell chafer: beetle reserve", not "Cromwell chafer beetle: reserve"! It is a beetle reserve for the Cromwell chafer, not a reserve for the Cromwell chafer beetle! Betweenfootandshoe (talk) 09:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the photo? The Department of Conservation, who set up the Cromwell Chafer Beetle Nature Reserve (its full name), consistently refer to the species as the "Cromwell chafer beetle" in their conservation plan, and so do most others, as you can see from the references cited. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DoC may well be responsible for this error, but proper entomologists in N.Z. have always referred to it as the Cromwell chafer, e.g. https://newzealandecology.org/nzje/1445.pdf

I suggest you also consult this publication on common names for N.Z. insects, published by the Ent. Soc. of N.Z.: https://www.worldcat.org/title/standard-names-for-common-insects-of-new-zealand/oclc/3836294 Betweenfootandshoe (talk) 07:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh man, I have no energy to have a fight about something as trivial as whether to use "beetle" in the article title! If you want to move it, move it and clean up the article. And add some more references while you're at it. Note by the way that Emma Curtin did her Masters on it and calls it "Cromwell chafer beetle"; go tell Emma she's not a proper entomologist, and let me know how that goes. About half the publications in the references use "beetle", as do all the news and radio sources, and as per WP:COMMONNAME we'd usually go with prevailing usage, not scientific usage, and not what Dave Ferro recommended in 1977. But go for it. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not fighting, I'm just pointing out that the addition of "beetle" to "Cromwell chafer" is just some sort of recent change by some person or persons who did not really know what they were talking about. It is a shame to see such an ignorant move perpetuated. It makes about as much sense as calling a mountain lion a "mountain lion cat"! Betweenfootandshoe (talk) 04:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]