Jump to content

User talk:Peter coxhead/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28→Archive 30

incorrect Latinization and the ICZN

Hi, Peter. You've hit upon a sore point, as it turns out. While the majority opinion among past and present Commissioners is that forming a name incorrectly (incorrect Latinization) is explicitly excluded from subsequent revision under 32.5.1, as you note, there are still a very small number of Commissioners (and some practicing taxonomists) who dispute this or are unaware of this exclusion. The majority of those in this latter camp are not native English speakers, and I believe this is not a coincidence. To me, the point of the matter is that when Article 31.1 says "is to be formed", that is simply giving instructions as to what constitutes correct Latinization. It is a procedural mandate only. Article 31 does not, itself, specify the consequences of failing to follow this mandate. What 32.5.1 then does is clarify the fate of (among other things) names that are not formed in compliance with 31.1. - they are to be left unchanged, even if formed incorrectly. This is, for most people, perfectly logical and not self-contradictory. One Article says what you should do, the other says what happens if you do not. Article 31 does not state that names formed incorrectly need to be emended, and Article 32 says exactly the opposite. There is no contradiction. That much, to the overwhelming majority, is cut and dry. The problem is that if enough people use an "emended" spelling, even if the emendment is unjustified, then it is potentially subject to preservation under Article 33.2.3.1: "when an unjustified emendation is in prevailing usage and is attributed to the original author and date it is deemed to be a justified emendation." This Article came into existence on 1 January 2000, and has to be taken into consideration as of that date. If, on 1 January 2000, the spelling "rallorum" qualified as being in prevailing usage, then the argument about justification is moot; it became the correct spelling on that date. If it was NOT in prevailing usage, then any author who used "rallorum" after that date was violating the Code, and I would personally interpret that such usage should not be taken into consideration in present discussions. Otherwise, you could have a perpetual battle between two opposing schools, each vying to count as a majority based on how many authors they could persuade to use their preferred spelling. That interpretation is, to me, patently absurd, and could NOT have been what was intended when those Articles were added in that edition of the Code. Yet, there are people who will vehemently dispute this point, so while I uphold the majority viewpoint (and would encourage you to do so), it is not universally accepted. The bottom line is that you can't decide between "rallorum" and "ralli" until and unless you have a solid and objective assessment of usage as of 1 January 2000, defensible relevant to the following definition: "usage, prevailing, n. Of a name: that usage of the name which is adopted by at least a substantial majority of the most recent authors concerned with the relevant taxon, irrespective of how long ago their work was published." That is, unfortunately, somewhat ambiguous, but hopefully in your case it will be clear as to which way the axe will fall. PEace, Dyanega (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dyanega: thanks for your very informative reply. I have to say that I do think this is an area where the Code is not clear. The contradiction seems to me to be that a spelling can be "incorrect" under the Code while not being an "incorrect original spelling". Based on Art. 31.1.2, ralli in Spintharus ralli Chomitz & Agnarsson, 2018 is clearly "incorrect" in the normal English meaning of the word. So if I read Art. 31.1.3 using this sense of "incorrect", then the original spelling is not to be preserved. On the other hand, if I note that Art. 31.1.3 says "... unless it is incorrect [Arts. 32.3, 32.4]", and read "incorrect" in all cases as defined by Arts. 32.3, 32.4, then ralli is not an "incorrect original spelling".
The name was only published in 2018, so usage as of 1 January 2000 is not an issue. As with doubtful English names of taxa, there's a danger that Wikipedia will spread whichever we use as the article title, and we have to choose one or the other. The World Spider Catalog is our usual source, as it's clearly well respected by arachnologists. But their 'correction' is disputable under the Code. Um... Peter coxhead (talk) 07:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, certain terms such as "incorrect", "valid", and "available" have very specific meanings in the legalistic jargon of the Code itself, that are not 100% aligned with vernacular use. More to the point, though, is that incorrect Latinization is not the same as incorrect spelling. If I publish a name "kansensus" and say it's named as such because it comes from Kansas, then I have incorrectly Latinized the name (it should be "kansensis"), but it is not an incorrect spelling, and cannot be emended. Had I published it as "karsensis", however, then it would obviously be an incorrect spelling, and subject to mandatory emendation. If the name "ralli" was published after 2000, then anyone who tries to emend it to "rallorum" has very much violated the Code, and should be discouraged from trying to perpetuate this misspelling. Dyanega (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

type_species keyword in an Automatic taxobox

Peter, I have a question about specifying the type species in an Automatic taxobox. The owl genus Ninox was erected in 1837 by Brian Houghton Hodgson for Ninox nipalensis which becomes the type species by monotypy. But Ninox nipalensis is a junior synonym of Strix lugubris Tickell 1833 which is now considered as a subspecies of the brown hawk-owl Ninox scutula lugubris. See H&M4 Vol 1 page 256:

NINOX Hodgson, 1837 F - Ninox nipalensis Hodgson, 1837; type by monotypy = Strix lugubris Tickell, 1833

which can be seen here. My understanding is that for the Automatic taxobox I should put: | type_species=Strix lugubris
| type_species_authority = Tickell 1833

Of course I can explain all this in the Ninox article but the taxobox with the above is opaque as it doesn't mention Strix nipalensis nor the brown hawk-owl (and our brown hawk-owl article doesn't list the subspecies). I could wlink Strix lugubris to the brown hawk-owl article but this would be rather easter-eggy. In such cases should I use an equals sign for example?
| type_species=Ninox nipalensis Hodgson, 1837 = Strix lugubris Tickell, 1833 (now a subspecies of the brown hawk-owl)
| type_species_authority = Tickell 1833

Your thoughts? - Aa77zz (talk) 12:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that it's tricky. The normal advice for zoological type species is to use ''[[CURRENT_ARTICLE_TITLE|ORIGINAL_NAME]]'' even though this is Easter eggy – the assumption is that the synonym will be clear in the wikilinked article. However, here there's nothing good to link to, as you say, because ''[[Brown hawk-owl|Strix lugubris]]'' isn't good. On the other hand, the ICZN is clear that the type species must be given using the basionym (to use the botanical term). So I think you could put
| type_species = Strix lugubris Tickell, 1833 (now regarded as a subspecies of the brown hawk-owl)
but the only visible binomial should be Strix lugubris, at least as I understand it.
An alternative is something like
| type_species = Strix lugubris Tickell, 1833 (see text)
where "see text" could be wikilinked to "#Taxonomy" where the explanation would be given. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks for your reply. -Aa77zz (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Note on revision

Hi Peter, I actually didn't notice that you had made some changes history, just compared the last revision to my own. I reverted to me because it is less broken, although there were improvements, and invited the new user to the talk. They may wish to go to another article, this one is part of a merge discussion. ~ cygnis insignis 10:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The contributor does not appear to have been discouraged from expanding the article, which doesn't bother me as that is what I am doing for all the dromornithid articles. The earlier content you edited was added by another, ill formatted but almost entirely correct, I hadn't got to that bit yet. ~ cygnis insignis 10:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Another matter, to distract me from this one. Did the mass creator respond anywhere, I peeked and could only see they were silent then active elsewhere. I thought your concerns deserved a response, maybe my own too. ~ cygnis insignis 06:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Cygnis insignis: I've been busy off-wiki, so I'm not sure if I would have noticed, but I certainly haven't seen any response. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Answering plant ID question from a while ago

Hi Peter. About your comment regarding Nematanthus fritschii in commons:Category:Specimens in the Botanischer Garten, Berlin-Dahlem. The Salvia looks to me like Scutellaria mexicana -I got that plant from a zoo, died last year. Probably have pics around here somewhere... I grew Nematanthus fritschii from seed from Brazil too, pretty easy species. Cheers, Leo 86.83.56.115 (talk) 09:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Leo, according to Calscape, Scutellaria mexicana has violet flowers. Good photos here too. Even if the colour was right, the mislabelled "Nematanthus fritschii" has a much longer floral tube. So I don't think it's this species. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Hmm. Right you are! Ha! But that's the name I had it under. I'm sure it's the same plant. Guess the ID got screwed up, and guess I never bothered to check! The story was that it was a new collection from Chiapas, Mexico (like 9 years ago). It was probably labelled "S. Mexico", and got accidentally misnamed. Check out Scutellaria incarnata though, that's gotta be it. It was a lot like S. costaricana, but less flowers and completely red. It died from mealybugs - I don't know, can't keep everything alive, wasn't really a houseplant. I still grow columnae, incana and indica. I like Scutellaria. 86.83.56.115 (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
You've got it! It's clearly Scutellaria incarnata. I've added this category to File:Berlin-Dahlem, botanischer Garten, Nematanthus fritschii.JPG and requested that it be re-named. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

A note

Just to note that when I said I was disinclined to add nominate subtaxa that are not listed by POWO, that doesn't mean that I don't try to remember to do it. I should have said I was leery of doing it. Abductive (reasoning) 07:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Some tricky virusboxes

I've been working on updating virus articles for the most recent taxonomy release[1] and am mostly done but the following virusboxes have given me issues:

Well, it's ok by me, but I only edited the {{Virusbox}} template and the underlying support; I'm definitely not knowledgeable about viruses. If you want to show a hierarchy, it's possible to set up taxonomy templates such as Kolmoviridae – incertae sedis/Ribozyviria order – incertae sedis/Ribozyviria order – incertae sedis/Ribozyviria class – incertae sedis/Ribozyviria phylum – incertae sedis/Ribozyviria kingdom – Ribozyviria. See my general comment below. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not sure what you want do do here. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
  • 3. Strawberry latent ringspot virus, I haven't created a virusbox for this one but it's the same issue as Nimaviridae, in this case a species unassigned to a genus in a family (Secoviridae).
See my general comment below. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
I have now created a taxonomy template and updated the taxobox to use {{Virusbox}}. If you don't want to show the incertae sedis genus, just edit Template:Taxonomy/Strawberry latent ringspot virus and change the parent to "Secoviridae" instead of "Incertae sedis/Secoviridae". Peter coxhead (talk) 08:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
  • 4. Pea enation mosaic virus. This is two viruses in two different phyla that appear to share an article. I put the virusboxes up for both of them, but is there a way to do this with one virusbox? Note that there is a current discussion to split this article.
No, one classification hierarchy per taxobox is the strict rule. The article should be split. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
  • 5. Barley yellow dwarf. This is the same thing as Pea enation mosaic virus but on a disease article and more complex since it involves seven virus species (use the search feature on the ICTV's taxonomy page and you will see all of the Barley yellow dwarf viruses). Maybe the best approach here is no virusbox?
Well, it would be possible to set up a taxonomy template for Barley yellow dwarf with a rank like "informal group", but would there be a consensus to do this? Peter coxhead (talk) 07:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
  • 6. Vibrio virus K139. The virusbox here has the subdivision reading as "Subspecies" when I want it to read as "Strains" and I don't know how to fix this.
Obviously we both didn't at first notice that the parameter was spelt subdvision_ranks. Now corrected. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Can you help me with these? Velayinosu (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

General point

My recollection is that I just coded up {{Virusbox}} and the taxonomy templates as per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Viruses – I have no interest in viruses, as I noted above. Personally, I would omit incertae sedis lines in the classification when there are as many as there are at Template:Taxonomy/Kolmioviridae, but would show an incertae sedis genus for Strawberry latent ringspot virus.

But it seems to me that it's for the WikiProject to decide – assuming it's active. I'm very willing to help given clear instructions! Peter coxhead (talk) 07:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

This helps a lot. I was able to deal with Nimaviridae by looking at what you did with Strawberry latent ringspot virus. I'll leave Kolmioviridae as is and have done something for Barley yellow dwarf that might work. Thank you for the help. Velayinosu (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Image validation

Hi Peter, I hope you are well. I added a photograph of my spider species Atrax yorkmainorium as you suggested however I retrieved it from a website with a CC-BY-NC license and attributed the author. Just confirming that this image is eligible to use. Thankyou in advanceAvaPine123 (talk) 04:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@AvaPine123: sorry, no, the image isn't eligible to use – see commons:User talk:AvaPine123 – because the author didn't use a license that is acceptable to Commons. CC-BY-NC doesn't allow commercial use, but Commons insists that this must be allowed. It will be deleted by someone over there. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Banksia ser. Cyrtostylis and Banksia subg. Isostylis

I just wanted to drop you a note as I have revert changes to these two articles. In both case the changes left the article with cite errors as half a reference was deleted. Both changes reference autoed, maybe something went wrong.92.5.2.97 (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I think this was an error on my part, because the intended edits were only the previous ones changing the taxoboxes. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

picture deletion

I see you deleted my picture File:Calla lily -- Zantedeschia aethiopica.jpg

I take pictures of flowers but am unable to identify them. I put some effort into trying to identify this flower. You believe I still have it wrong. I have no quarrel with that. But, since you know about identifying plants, can you help me correctly identify this flower? -- Jim Evans (talk) 13:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Jim Evans:
  1. Why would you name the file incorrectly on purpose?
  2. From a simple visual inspection of the pictures already on Zantedeschia aethiopica, it's obvious they are different.
  3. This is bordering on WP:Disruptive editing.
~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
@Tom.Reding: I think you are being a bit unfair to Jim Evans. His picture is a Zantedeschia, but probably one of the many hybrid cultivars, not the species he thought. When I looked at the category on Commons, it included a Hippeastrum cultivar!!! (Which I moved of course.) Jim at least had the right genus. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
@Jim Evans: I think all that can be said is, as above, that it's one of the many Zantedeschia cultivars. Apart from the flower colour, the white marks on the leaves are characteristic, and not found in pure Z. aethiopica.. I grow several cultivars, but at least in the UK they aren't labelled with a cultivar name at the point of sale, so it's a matter of guesswork in most cases to say which cultivar. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
By the way, the English name "calla" or "calla lily" is widely used for these plants, but the botanical genus Calla now has only one species; the others were moved to Zantedeschia. The Commons category for Calla is out of date. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I think Jim Evans' naming methodology can be improved in this case by:
  1. naming the file by stopping at the highest-confidence rank, "Zantedeschia", omitting "aethiopica", or
  2. adding "?" to the uncertain part of the name, "Zantedeschia aethiopica?", and then
  3. adding the species/removing the "?" once the species is confirmed
Doing the above (or similar) would be akin to placing a {{citation needed}} tag in an article. Not doing the above (or similar) would be akin to adding uncited text in an article. Having a bunch of misidentified photos, whether or not they were taken in good faith, is counter-productive. Care should be taken when straying beyond one's competency. Identifying uncertainty is more transparent, in alignment with, and more beneficial to, the wiki.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead: Thank you -- Jim Evans (talk) 16:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Taxonomic standards on WP

I continue to be surprised by the poor standards of taxonomic description for common plants on WP (maybe the old botany for and by botanists phobia?).

Anyway, seeing your recent footprint on an Iris page, I thought you might like this howler (which I revised) -

- Iris was classified by Linnaeus and revised by Brian Mathew in 1981

From what I know of him, Brian would be flattered, then amused, then exasperated! --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 02:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Michael Goodyear: well, I find myself more and more exasperated, rather than amused. Even GAs aren't immune from often well-meant but incompetent edits. The distinctions between 'naming', 'circumscribing' and 'describing' are lost on many editors. Sigh... Peter coxhead (talk) 05:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
It would take more than Shakespeare's monkeys to fix it - unravelling taxonomic revisions takes a lot of time and one frequently has to go back and reread a lot of primary sources to make sure they were not being misquoted, so dug out Cronquist's book from 1988 - yes he was. Case in point, Primulaceae which has gone from lumping to splitting and then back to lumping! --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 01:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Odd autotaxobox error message

Good morning Peter,

I wonder if you could tak a peek at User:Kevmin/sandbox/Florissantia (plant) the draft article I have going here. I seem to have gained a Lua error message in the past week or so that wasn't there before.--Kevmin § 14:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Kevmin: my guess is that you need to create the appropriate {{Taxonomy/<taxon>}} template. {{Taxonomy/Florissantia}} exists, but it should be formatted like {{Taxonomy/Filozoa}} to be recognized by {{Automatic taxobox}}.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Tom.Reding you were close, I did move Taxonomy/Florissantia to Taxonomy/Florissantia (plant) a few weeks back to allow me to create Taxonomy/Florissantia (planthopper). plantdrew later removed the redirect that was at Taxonomy/Florissantia with the summary "unnecessary" breaking the taxobox in my sandbox. I updated the taxobox toTaxonomy/Florissantia (plant) and its cleaned up the Lua error.--Kevmin § 14:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
@Kevmin: just a general note, since the problem had been solved before I came online: because taxonomy templates are transcluded (in effect executed) in a somewhat complicated fashion, they should not be redirected. If you need the effect of a redirect, temporarily or permanently, create a taxonomy template with a "same as" parameter. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Carex taxonomy

I could help with the Carex taxonomy cleanup, but what source do I use? Is it corrected on Wikispecies? Abductive (reasoning) 20:40, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Abductive: the issue that concerned me was the division of the genus into sections. I basically just reproduced, using Speciesbox, the sections and subgenera present in the manual taxoboxes for each species with an article, but this meant some species were placed in a section, but most(?) were not. I don't know whether there is a recent reliable source that lists all the species in sections. Wikispecies doesn't appear to include sections, and in any case can't itself be used as a source. Sorry, I can't be more helpful. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
My first stop for finding sources for classification at minor ranks (infrafamilial or infrageneric) is the Angiosperm Phylogeny Website. Recent sources suggested on APWeb are Global Carex Group 2016, and Villaverde 2020. Global Carex Group has cladograms with many species, including their traditional sectional placement (which is highly polyphyletic). I've found a PDF of Villaverde, but their classification down to subgenus is in a supplement that is behind a paywall for me at home.
iNaturalist is apparently following traditional morphological sections (see here), drawn from Flora of China and Flora of North America, among other sources. A competent caricologist (which I am not) should be able to identify a plant to a traditional morphological section. There doesn't seem to be any phylogenetic classification that has tackled tribes.
I think the choice at this point is either to go with phylogenetic subgenera, or polyphyletic morphological sections following older sources (morphological sections are still useful to some degree for identifying species). Plantdrew (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I can't access the Villaverde source either. There is no reason to do anything reinforcing a polyphyletic system. Also, one must consider that it is very, very unlikely that a reader is looking to exactly identify a species of Carex using Wikipedia. They should be directed to a source that will help them, in the main Carex article and/or the List of Carex species article. Abductive (reasoning) 22:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
@Abductive: if by "I can't access the Villaverde source either" you mean the paper, it's available here, but, as Plantdrew notes above, it excludes the all important table S10 that lists species by the paper's subgenera. You could request the table through the ResearchGate entry, I suppose.
@Abductive and Plantdrew: without the complete classification, I would, I think, abandon the infrageneric classification of Carex in our articles. It's very patchy anyway. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Have you seen [2] yet? —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 13:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I wasn't aware of that (it's not cited at APWeb yet). That's exactly what is needed. Plantdrew (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Hyperik! However, looking at their species list, the classification doesn't seem to be to be very "user friendly", since below subgenus, there's a confusing mixture of sections and clades. So should we just use the subgenera for now? Peter coxhead (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

You reverted this edit adding a wikilink to an article saying it was "not really useful". However, I made the edit precisely because I had looked up a former Sansevieria species and was unable to locate the Sansevieria genus article via wikilink. The Sansevieria article has several sections of information on the description and uses of these plants that do not appear in any other article. However, without links, this useful info is effectively cut off from readers arriving via link.

Wikipedia is a general reference (not a scientific journal) and should be of use to a general readership. The Sansevierias are very commonly sold in the houseplant trade and are almost always sold under that name.[3][4] I have seen hundreds of Sansevierias sold in the past few years and not one under the name "Dracaena". As the Sansevierias have only been in Dracaena for four years, the information on the former genus is still highly relevant. Provided it is not overlinking, merely linking a term that is already in the text is rarely counterproductive and almost always helpful.

Somewhere in the article, these former genera should be linked to better serve Wikipedia's general readership. Thanks. —  AjaxSmack  14:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@AjaxSmack: yes, on reflection I think you're right, at least as the articles stand right now (though the links shouldn't be in bold), and I have restored them. What we usually do is to merge the content of articles about genera no longer accepted into the article about the accepted genus, and then redirect. However, as this hasn't (yet) been done, wikilinks are indeed useful. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Considering that it refers only to the Sansevierias, if material is merged e.g. from Sansevieria to Dracena, would there be a "Sansevieria" section or how would this work? I'm not volunteering; just curious. —  AjaxSmack  13:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
@AjaxSmack: it would depend on the details of the genus merge, which I haven't looked at. In a 'clean' merge, a former genus might become a taxonomically recognized group within the new genus, so the article could be kept, but moved to this title: Scilla sect. Chionodoxa is an example. If the species of the new genus are more mixed up, then a section in the new genus article would be indicated. I don't have time to investigate the taxonomy right now unfortunately. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. —  AjaxSmack  19:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Time for a truce?

Hello Peter,

I think this "herb" thing has already gone on too long. Nobody else seems interested anyway. I agree with most of what you say, but see no point in further argument. I think I will dig my heels in if anybody attempts to change "herb" in an Australian orchid article to "herbaceous plant", but other than that I'm happy to cool them (my heels). I'm having flashbacks to a year ago when neither of us made any progress with a third party. My sincere best to you. [insert "smiley" emoji here] Gderrin (talk) 10:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

omg dont even invoke the memory you gentlemen - there's a lot worse about the world since then, and really, one should wish for better higher than that crap you folks had to endure . JarrahTree 05:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
@Gderrin: I hope that a "truce" isn't needed; I think it's been a useful discussion rather than a "war". The facts seem to be agreed: "herb" is widely used in reliable sources; "herb" is a variably defined term. Whether any action is required in the light of these facts is a matter of opinion, which is being explored – I'd certainly like some more of the professional botanists who belong to WP:PLANTS to comment. The main outcome, I hope, will be to improve Herbaceous plant, clarifying its relationship to the botanical sense of "herb". Peter coxhead (talk) 06:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Salix x fragilis

Please see my points on the S. fragilis move https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Salix_%C3%97_fragilis If the article described what was commonly known as Salix fragilis, then it describes Salix euxina. Salix fragilis is now the legal name of what used to be commonly known as Salix rubens.

The article purported to describe the widespread naturalized taxon known as "crack-willow", now agreed to be a hybrid, but wasn't entirely consistent because the sources used weren't. See my comments at Talk:Salix × fragilis – Belyaeva is clear that herbaria mostly had the hybrid labelled as "Salix fragilis", so in reality what was known by this name was the hybrid, whatever botanists thought they were describing.
Anyway, there are now two articles, one at Salix × fragilis and one at Salix euxina, which is what matters. Both need some more work. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Dioicy

A tag has been placed on Dioicy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

to make way for new article

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Theroadislong (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Pygmy hippo

Thanks a lot for helping with the taxonomy template on the pygmy hippo page. Even if I had access, I don't think I would've figured it out. If you need help getting anything done let me know on my talk page. 74.68.117.176 (talk) 07:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

My apologies for initially misunderstanding what you were doing. Mammal articles aren't an interest of mine – I just try to keep taxoboxes in order – so I've finished with this article for now. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Not a problem. Thanks for coming out of your comfort zone 74.68.117.176 (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

ICZN Question

Hi, Peter. Sorry for the long delay responding. You are correct in one major respect: this is incorrect latinization, and not correctable. So, "rallorum" is an incorrect subsequent spelling. However, if the majority of print sources (i.e., "published" in the sense of the ICZN) use "rallorum" then under Art. 33.3.1 that becomes the correct spelling. Dyanega (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Taxon name used in monotypic genus speciesboxes

Hi Peter, regarding the name given in speciesboxes of monotypic genera (eg. Pseudodiphasium), I must confess that is first time that I have seen the (default) genus name substituted in for the species name at the top of the taxobox. I have however, frequently seen the species name used as the taxobox "name". Do you (or @Plantdrew:?) have any numbers on the actual practice across all domains on Wikipedia? 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@Loopy30: all I can say is that long ago it was set up as the default for an article at the scientific name that the name (i.e. title) of the taxobox should match the title of the page, in the absence of a supported vernacular name. Personally, I'm not aware of any articles not following this convention in the areas in which I work, Plantdrew may know more. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
What domains are you working on, Loopy30? I don't notice many monotypic genera with a binomial displayed at the top of the taxobox in domains I've worked on the most (plants, algae, bivalves). Birds and mammals would usually have a vernacular name. There are a lot of monotypic fish genera at binomial titles (contrary to general practice), so those would default to displaying the binomial at the top of the taxobox.
I have seen a few monotypic gastropod genera that display the binomial, but it doesn't seem to be the norm. There are a fair number of monotypic crustaceans that display the binomial; this appears to be entirely the work of Stemonitis, but he wasn't consistent; I've found some cases where Stemonitis's most recent edit didn't display the binomial. If displaying the binomial is the norm in any domain, I'd guess it's due the idiosyncrasies of a single editor who didn't engage much with the community of ToL editors (the major gastropod editors have several idiosyncrasies and don't engage with the community; Stemonitis did engage with the community, but insisted on some idiosyncrasies).
I don't know how to get any numbers on this. I'm not sure how to identify articles as being about monotypic genera if they are not categorized as such, and these categories are often severely underpopulated (Wikidata has a monotypy property, but that is also severely underused). Plantdrew (talk) 01:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Although I have encountered many examples across a range of domains, I also do not know how to search for or calculate the frequency of these occurrences but would be interested to know.
Using the article name as a default for the name of the taxobox makes sense for most taxa, because for most articles, the taxobox contents will also match the article title. When we have a species-level article at the common name, the taxobox title will automatically match the article title. But for articles of monotypic genera placed at the scientific name, the taxobox contents and the majority of the article are still written at the species level. For consistency across articles, then those articles should have a speciesbox with the binomial name included at the top.
Alternatively, if we must insist that taxoboxes should always match the article title, then for monotypic genera placed at the scientific name we should use a genus-level automatic taxobox instead of a speciesbox. Loopy30 (talk) 03:21, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
@Loopy30: well, the article should be written to describe both the genus and the species. Similarly, although the taxobox has the species as the lowest level, it will also treat the genus specially, since it will be in bold with its authority given. So I think there's a case to be made either way, but I can only repeat that the long-standing convention, embedded in the code that generates the default taxobox name, is to match the page title. Thus in the documentation at Template:Speciesbox#Monospecific genera, the example given does not have |name=, so the default genus name will be used as it is at Aphyllanthes. If you think the convention should be different, then by all means open an RfC and advertise it widely across the tree of life wikiprojects. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Goliath birdeater

Thanks for the advice and sorry for making such a rookie mistake. I appreciate anything that can make me a better editor. Regards, MattSucci (talk) 09:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Maureen Wroblewitz

Hello. Help improve and copy edit. Thanks you. Kolpb (talk) 09:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, not an area of interest to me. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Clymenia

PotW seems confused about this genus, listing both synonyms, Citrus polyandra Tanaka and Clymenia polyandra (Tanaka) Swingle as if separate species, plus Clymenia platypoda. GBIF has them both under Citrus, as does EOL. (GBIF and EOL also both have Citrus brevipes (the former Oxanthera) as a recognized species.) Agricolae (talk) 23:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Agricolae: yes, it is confused. I have a spreadsheet showing the acceptance and placement of Rutaceae genera in Appelhans et al. (2021), which is what I'm using to update to automated taxoboxes, and in APweb (which accepts the Appelhans classification), and also the Rutaceae genera accepted by PoWO, which is overall more up-to-date in my experience than the other online taxonomic databases (some genera have cycled between acceptance and sinking, so some sources are using the latest view, but only because it has returned to an earlier one!). Clymenia is one of the 'problem' genera. See User:Peter coxhead/Work page#Rutaceae genera issues and the discussion at User talk:Plantdrew#Rutaceae manual taxoboxes, where Clymenia is mentioned at the very end. I thought I would deal with the straightforward genera first, and come back to the problem cases afterwards. Maybe I'll contact PoWO now. Peter coxhead (talk) 05:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out Appelhans. Don't know how this fits into your plan for 'issues to be addressed' among the Rutaceae general issues, but Appelhans concludes Feroniella does not fall within the Citrus cluster, retaining it as a separate genus clustering with Limonia. Though there is no page for the genus, it would affect Citrus lucida. Agricolae (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
@Agricolae: whoops, glad you spotted this. For some reason, Feroniella is missing from my spreadsheet. I've added it to the list at Aurantioideae and will add it to the 'issues' to be looked at. It seems that Citrus lucida should be moved to the monotypic Feroniella to follow Appelhans et al. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
I would favor such a move. Agricolae (talk) 18:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
@Agricolae:  Done. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

"Funnel-web" in the Cotswolds?

Is here. Any idea what this might be? It doesn't look anything like a funnel-web.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ianmacm: well, "funnel-web" has several meanings. The apparent location, the nature of the web, the size and the ratio of leg lengths to body length all suggest Agelenidae, particularly Tegenaria/Eratigena, but assuming that 8 in = 20 cm is the leg span, the body length appears to be about 4/5 cm, which is very large. The text says that it's a male because of the thickened pedipalps, but they don't look very thickened to me. A male spider that size in the UK would be very surprising! Peter coxhead (talk) 08:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Mispila

As I said on my talk page, your understanding is correct. Breuning's 1968 Dryusa name is a junior secondary homonym, and can't be used as a valid name so long as it is placed in the same genus as Pic's 1934 name. Evidently, the last revision of the genus was in 1968, by Breuning, so it's been sitting unresolved for 53 years. That's a very old unresolved homonymy! If the subgenera are raised in rank, the homonymy would go away, so maybe people have been aware of the problem but hoping it would vanish on its own. Hard to say. But, thanks for bringing it to my attention, I do know just the people who would take action on this. Dyanega (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peter_coxhead/Archive_26&oldid=1055675258"