Talk:Specific name (zoology)

Animals Low‑importance

Specific name (zoology) is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Animals To-do:

Here are some Open Tasks :

Copyedit:
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Improve: Photoperiodism, Tool use by non-human animals, Omnivore, Animal suicide, Sphaerium beckmani (a species in family Sphaeriidae),
Requests:
- Mammals:
- Invertebrates: Campocraspedon
- Fishes: Zaniolepis frenata
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Expand: Junqueira cow, Atka mackerel
Nominate and vote: Science collaboration of the month, Article Improvement Drive, WikiProject Animals Collaboration

Tree of Life Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree of life 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.Tree of LifeWikipedia:WikiProject Tree of LifeTemplate:WikiProject Tree of Lifetaxonomic articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Formal name

It seems like a number of formal references use "species epithet" - is there a source for this being informal and "specific name" being the preferred term ? Shyamal (talk) 13:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Species epithet" is indeed another correct way of referring to the specific name. I have included it in the first intro sentence. Invertzoo (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed

Contrary to what is said above, "species epithet" is not "another correct way" of referring to the specific name. In botany, it is the only correct way. The species name consists of the genus name + the specific epithet. This is very clearly stated in the Code. Article 23.1: "The name of a species is a binary combination consisting of the name of the genus followed by a single specific epithet". The article is seriously wrong as regards botany; I don't know about zoology. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a split is in order for this article, with titles Specific name (botany) and Specific name (zoology) (if there is enough variance between the two). Or just make the article into two separate over-arching sections (one for each), having subsections where appropriate. I'm not sure the article can be said to be 'inaccurate', so much as substantially incomplete - I'd even go as far as to say misleading, without covering botany. I would write it/them myself, but lack the necessary expertise. Hamamelis (talk) 09:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only mention of botany is relegated to a note: 'Note that in botanical nomenclature, "name" always refers to the whole name (of a species or otherwise), whereas in zoological nomenclature it can refer to either part of the binomen.' Everything else seems to apply fairly strictly to zoology, yet is written as though it covers all. Hamamelis (talk) 09:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is the right way forward (just as we now have Infraspecific name (botany)). A good project would be to work on getting correct, consistent and well-referenced articles on botanical and zoological nomenclature separately, and then construct some overview articles based on now reliable sources. At present it looks as though there are some articles in this broad area which were written by zoologists with a nod to botany, and some the other way round.

"I would write it/them myself, but lack the necessary expertise." I used to think this, but got so annoyed by a couple of articles that I launched in anyway. Most of the ICBN is actually much easier to understand than it at first looks! See Infraspecific name (botany) which I've just recently revised; no expert has yet objected... Peter coxhead (talk) 10:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually on looking again at the article, I think I'll be WP:BOLD and move it to "Specific name (zoology)", since it is actually almost all about zoology and may well be correct in that regard. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Put an end to all my stressed

I do needs back my privacy 💯 105.112.61.237 (talk) 10:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]