Talk:Tibicen

Hi everyone. The ICZN ruled last year to suppress the generic name Tibicen for the purposes of the principle of priority, which means that the species previously classified under Tibicen are now species of genus Lyristes Horvath, 1926.

Here is the Opinion reference: https://www.biotaxa.org/bzn/article/view/70708

What is the best way to handle this? Create a new Lyristes page that more or less duplicates this (with some appropriate edits), and set the Tibicen page to redirect to the new page?

Dmarshal2 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have set things up for now with a blank Tibicen page that redirects to Lyristes. But Tibicen is not a rejected name, so alternatively this stub could be expanded with an included link to Lyristes. This may be more desirable, especially if the history of the debate around its origins were to be discussed, such as the old arguments over the type species. Will probably make that change soon.

Dmarshal2 (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmarshal2:, nice work. While it is pretty unusual, Wikipedia does sometimes have articles for names (taxa?) that aren't accepted/valid. This seems to me to be a case where an article is appropriate; the taxonomic history of Tibicen is complex and controversial and deserves some explanation. I've added Category:Obsolete arthropod taxa; articles of this type should be categorized in some way, but there's some disagreement about what to call the categories. I work primarily on plants, and similar categories for plants (and spiders) use "Historically recognized" rather than "Obsolete". At some point it may be splitting out an obsolete insect category from the obsolete arthropod category. Plantdrew (talk) 05:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...yes I was motivated by the sense that many who are interested in cicadas might wonder what had happened to the name, and why, because it was so widely used so recently and is still found in many databases and websites that will presumably take time to catch up. Also, the problems surrounding Tibicen/Tibicina/Lyristes have been a notable part of the history of Cicadidae taxonomy for the better part of a century. I'm glad you have given the article a categorization and fixed the italic title problem, which I was unable to figure out. Dmarshal2 (talk) 05:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmarshal2:; a taxobox usually takes cares of italicizing the title for taxon articles. But in spite of disagreement about obsolete vs. historically recognized for the category, there is agreement that articles of this type should not have a taxobox. So you got that bit right already. Plantdrew (talk) 05:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]