Talk:Meterana pascoei

Lectotype?

In the protologue of the name, Howes mentioned 2 specimens collected by himself in 1910, and "about twenty, taken at "treacle" at Queenstown in October" of "this year" (1911), sent to him by Mr. M.O. Pasco. The specimen that is shown in the infobox is labelled "19 September 1911" and the collector is "C.E. Clarke", so this cannot be one of the syntypes mentioned by Howes: it was collected in another month, and C.E. Clarke was not mentioned by Howes. If this specimen was later selected as the type, it is at best a neotype, as a lectotype can only be selected from the syntypes, see ICZN Art. 74.  Wikiklaas  17:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

And as I just found, in the same collection another specimen is mentioned as the "holotype": it is the first specimen collected by Howes, on 1 September 1910 in Orepuki. This of course is not the holotype either, as Howes did not select a holotype, but it has a far better chance of serving as a lectotype, if the selection as such has been published. As at least one of the syntypes is still existent, a specimen that was not mentioned in the protologue cannot be selected as a "type".  Wikiklaas  17:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Name

This article was just moved to Meterana pascoei from Meterana pascoi. While it's true that the species was named M. pascoei in 1912, all the current sources, from Landcare Research to Auckland Museum and Te Papa collections to the multi-authored NZ Inventory of Biodiversity (see below, the published basis for NZOR) all prefer M. pascoi. I've also found a McGregor paper in NZ Entomologist in 1987. Perhaps the name is in violation of ICZN rules; perhaps it was declared a synonym long ago, I don't know – I can't find a reference establishing that.

Macfarlane, R.P.; Andrew, I.G.; Berry, J.A.; Johns, P.M.; Hoare, R.J.B.; Lariviere, M-C.; Grenslade, P.; Henderson, R.C.; Smithers, C.N.; Palma, R.L.; Ward, J.B.; Pilgrm, R.L.C.; Towns, D.R.; McLellan, I.; Teulon, D.A.J.; Hitchings, T.R.; Eeastop, V.F.; Martin, N.A.; Fletcher, M.J.; Stufkens, M.A.W.; Dale, P.J.; Burckhardt, D.; Buckley, T.R. "9: Phylum ARTHROPODA subphylum hexapoda: Protura, springtails, Diplura, and insects, Checklist of New Zealand Hexapoda." In: New Zealand Inventory of Biodiversity Volume 2.

M. pascoi is certainly the name in common use, and Wikipedia policy I believe states that's what the article should be titled. Anyone who disagrees would need to produce evidence that the "correct" spelling is also the dominant one. I don't think Wikipedia is the place to legislate name changes as unjustified: better to appeal to the ICZN for that! Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Where did you find the information on "pascoi" being the name in common use? Both spellings are used, both in literature, in museum collections, and in databases, and in that case the spelling in the protologue is deemed to be the "correct" one. Remember that chosing "pascoi" as the correct spelling when both spellings are in current use is also a choise, but in that case not one based on any existing rule or regulation.  Wikiklaas  02:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I explained that in my first para; both spellings are used but "pascoi" the name most commonly used – by far. Even the holotype is classified by Auckland Museum as "pascoi". Could you come up with examples that show that "pascoei" is the dominant name in use, not just the correct one according to the regulations? You would have to do that, to justify moving the article. That's the "rule or regulation". Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The original spelling of the name is quite clear: pascoei. I have no idea why the article was titled "pascoi" in the English language version. It's not up to me to demonstrate that the original spelling is to be used, it is up to those who advocate the use of the "emendation" to demonstrate its prevailing usage; not by citing a certain number of publications in which the "emendation" is used, but by citing an expert author on this subject (i.e. an entomologist) who states that this name is the one in prevailing usage, and should be used according to ICZN Art. 33.2. So far, you stated: "I can't find a reference establishing that".  Wikiklaas  21:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I've added in some more detail on taxonomy and articles and book discussing this species. I've also added in links to the New Zealand institutions using the epithet "pascoi". It may be that this use is unjustified, however I have added a request for a citation from a published source supporting that statement.Ambrosia10 (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Giantflightlessbirds @Wikiklaas

I've been contacted by Dr. Robert Hoare, a lepidopterist and taxonomist at Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research. He emailed me regarding the name of this species. He is aware I am a Wikipedian who is a keen editor of New Zealand moth articles in English Wikipedia and reached out to me to correct several errors he had come across while reading Wikipedia. In his email (the below portion he has given permission for me to share) he states:

"Meterana pascoi. Though rather insistent on the point, Wikipedia is wrong about the name in my view. The emendation to pascoi is a justified emendation according to article 32.5.1, because there is clear evidence of a copyist’s or printer’s error in the original publication. Howes clearly states he is naming the species after M.O. Pasco (no ‘e’), so the spelling with an ‘e’ is incorrect, and probably came about because an editor or proof-reader thought that ‘Pascoe’ was likely to be the correct name of the person (without looking at the etymology given). It conforms rather exactly in my view to the example given under Article 32.5.1 where a species name appears as ninnaei when it is stated the species is being named after Linnaeus. The ‘e’ cannot be construed as an inappropriate connecting vowel (which would not need correcting) since formation of genitives does not involve any connecting vowels: they are not compound words."

I have explained to Dr Hoare there is a disagreement amongst editors regarding the correct name of this species, and now raise this issue again with you both to attempt to resolve this issue to his satisfaction. In light of his communication and that I believe Meterana pascoi is most common species name used in New Zealand for this New Zealand endemic species, I am of the opinion that this article ought to be renamed Meterana pascoi. Ambrosia10 (talk) 03:12, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear to me. Thank you for clearing this up. There are quite a few cases in Wikipedia where the original published Latin name has been amended, and the technical paper that did it is hard or impossible to find. But that doesn't matter, because we use WP:COMMONNAME here, and trust that the reliable sources are, well, reliable. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 08:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Mr Hoare has a very peculiar view on ICZN article 32.5.1. It literally states: "Incorrect transliteration or latinization, or use of an inappropriate connecting vowel, are not to be considered inadvertent errors." If there is "a publisher's or author's corrigendum issued simultaneously with the original work or as a circulated slip to be inserted in the work" (art. 32.5.1.1) where the original spelling is corrected, then that would constitute evidence for an incorrect original spelling that is to be corrected. The single fact that the species was named after Pasco doesn't make the name 'pascoei' incorrect. Although Howes stated it was named after Pasco, he just added an inappropriate connecting vowel (and it was not the only occasion in which Howes showed his total lack of knowledge of the Latin language). But based on the ICZN, 'pascoei' is the correct name.  Wikiklaas  10:36, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Since you have an issue with Dr (not Mr) Hoare's view, feel free to take it up with him (https://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/about-us/our-people/robert-hoare). I would also suggest writing a short correction for the New Zealand Entomologist (https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/tnze20/current), perhaps in collaboration with Dr Hoare. Then we'll have this issue published in a reliable secondary source and can amend the article accordingly. Journals are the place to sort out nomenclature disputes, not Wikipedia talk pages. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)