User talk:ChrisAndersonCham

Kinyongia dorjeesuni and Dorjee Sun

Hi Chris, and first, welcome to Wikipedia! I was wondering if you had a source for the Kinyongia dorjeesuni being Nomen nudum. In general, Wikipedia can't publish original research, so it would be good to add a source for that claim (other than the taxonomic rules). I realize the oddity of asking for a citation to demonstrate that something else has not been published, but I'm sure you can understand the project's rule on avoiding original research (which would require the expert evaluation). Thanks, --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi TeaDrinker,

Unfortunately anyone can call any animal a name that is intended to look like a scientific name and then post a press release about it on their website that can be picked up by obscure news blogs in foreign countries (no different than if I decided to call a chameleon I found a picture of Chamaeleo bullshiti and then posted a press release about it on my website that was picked up by some obscure news blog in Indonesia). These names, however, are not valid scientific names and the animals that they are associated with are not valid species because the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature has standards governing the naming of species that are not met in these instances. These names, designated as nomen nudum, are simply ignored by the scientific community because there is no validity to them and thus there are no primary scientific sources published that even mention them. While completely invalid, they unfortunately create a considerable amount of confusion because uninformed individuals see the name and think it is legitimate.

Unfortunately that leaves a situation where there is bogus press releases announcing a "new species" named for someone as a PR stunt by an NGO trying to encourage donations, but no published sources pointing out that the species and its name are not at this point legitimate. Perhaps to get around the issue of not publishing original research I could restructure the paragraph as follows:

In 2009 the African Rainforest Conservancy named a newly discovered species of blue spotted chameleon from the rainforests of Tanzania after Sun. The species has been called Kinyongia dorjeesuni. The validity of this species and its name, however, have been drawn into question due to the lack of a valid scientific description in a peer reviewed journal. Lacking a formal species description stating those characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon would fail to conform by Article 13 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, thus designating the species name Kinyongia dorjeesuni as a nomen nudum

I would appreciate your thoughts as it is completely unacceptable that such a bogus mockery of the scientific process is perpetuated.

Best,

Christopher Anderson
Ph.D. Candidate
Department of Integrative Biology
University of South Florida

It is a curious problem, one I have not encountered before. Indeed, I have a background in ecology and understand the issues with nomenclature. And I am completely in agreement about your assessment of the taxonomic status of the name. However Wikipedia has to base everything on what's published, rather than what's true (the result of being edited by amateurs who can not be expected to make professional judgement on what is and is not true, merely whether or not we faithfully replicate the published source). This may sound a bit pedantic, since we're in agreement, but it does head off some serious problems. The issue here is your claim centers on the non-publication of the description. I have started a discussion on the Original Research Noticeboard to see what others think. I do apologize for the extra hoops. --TeaDrinker (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand the necessity of the rule in most circumstances but clearly this is an odd case (how do you provide a source to prove that no source exists). I have emails from the African Rainforest Conservancy (ARC) about the validity of Kinyongia dorjeesuni that confirm the name is a nomen nudum but obviously private emails aren't published sources. In these emails, however, the ARC President copied the scientist who discovered the species in his response to me and that scientist then replied to us both stating that "Kinyongia dorjeesuni is, at present, a nomen nudum." I'll be interested to see what the discussion on the Original Research Noticeboard comes up with, however.

A page you started (Palleon nasus) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Palleon nasus, ChrisAndersonCham!

Wikipedia editor I dream of horses just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Nice article. :-)

To reply, leave a comment on I dream of horses's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Cut & Paste Moves

I recently noticed that earlier this year, you performed cut and paste moves for two articles which I created, Brookesia lolontany and Brookesia nasus. Evidence for this is the creation of both new pages without using the standard Wikipedia process for moving articles, which can lead people to think that the article was of your work. Doing this is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution, and I would recommend that next time you wish to move an article, click on the dropdown menu near "Edit" and move the article. Thanks, Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)