Talk:Kathablepharis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Requested move 20 March 2026
 | It has been proposed in this section that Kathablepharis be renamed and moved to Katablepharis. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. |
Kathablepharis → Katablepharis – Almost no recent paper uses the zoological name (Kathablepharis), almost all recent papers use the botanical names (Katablepharis for the genus, Katablepharidaceae for the family etc.). See these sources: https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4002423, https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.14219, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2022.867695, https://doi.org/10.1134/S1995082924010140, https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.70190, https://doi.org/10.1002/lno.70263, https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10112119, https://doi.org/10.3390/biology12071010, https://doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.04160-23, https://doi.org/10.3390/d15030454, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-30228-4 (these sources all follow this 2005 work: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protis.2004.12.003) and AlgaeBase: https://www.algaebase.org/search/genus/detail/?genus_id=45699 Jako96 (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose for these reasons:
- As outlined in the project guidelines, ancestrally non-photosynthetic ambiregnal groups should maintain zoological names whenever possible.
- The name Kathablepharis is valid, non-controversial, and does not come into conflict with a different code. The only reason botanists use Katablepharis is due to an early dispute about Latin that no longer applies for new botanical names.
- Those sources you provided are not taxonomic, and are exclusively algae-focused. All of them deal with population monitoring, and by default their authors do not interpret the taxonomy of the algae themselves but rely on external databases such as AlgaeBase, which also evidently will treat all taxa by their botanical names due to their algal bias (WP:NPOV). As such, they are not relevant sources for this matter. The 2005 paper describes both zoological and botanical names.
- AlgaeBase is not a reliable taxonomic source, it is simply a database that reflects some info from taxonomic sources.
- For these reasons I also oppose your undiscussed recent edits to the kathablepharid taxonomy templates, mass-deleting them and replacing them with their botanical counterparts. "Almost no recent papers use the zoological names" is also false for the higher taxa: in Google Scholar (as of right now), from 2020 to 2026, "Katablepharidaceae" has 39 results, "Kathablepharidae" has 57 (sidenote: as you pointed out earlier, perhaps that should be the name used here instead of "Kathablepharididae" which yields no results). I hope you revert those changes — Snoteleks (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose - if the genus name was published as zoological, then its spelling is not subject to arbitrary change. Any family-rank names based upon it and used in zoology would likewise need to adhere to the ICZN, and use the "Kath-" spelling. I would want to see a clear statement from someone who is an authority on the botanical Code as to what their policy is regarding spelling changes and high rank names, AND whether the taxon is now considered to fall solely under the botanical Code. I can say, for certain, that what was done in 2005 does not comply with the zoological Code. Dyanega (talk) 20:31, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Katablepharis is valid under the botanical code, and Kathablepharis is valid under the zoological code, are you still sure that is a valid reason to just oppose the move? Jako96 (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Otherwise, we'll have to use the Kathablepharida phylum, which is monotypic and has the class Kathablepharidea, which is also monotypic and has the order Kathablepharidida, which is also monotypic and has the family Kathablepharididae, and Kathablepharididae is invalid under the ICZN, per ICZN rule 29.3.1.1. Kathablepharidae has prevailing usage. Jako96 (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- We already discussed this but ICZN 29.3.1.1 is simply a recommendation to save letters, it does not imply that names that do not follow it are invalid. There is also no reason why we cannot use Kathablepharidae under Kathablepharidida, as names of ranks above family are not regulated AFAIK. — Snoteleks (talk) 23:24, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Otherwise, we'll have to use the Kathablepharida phylum, which is monotypic and has the class Kathablepharidea, which is also monotypic and has the order Kathablepharidida, which is also monotypic and has the family Kathablepharididae, and Kathablepharididae is invalid under the ICZN, per ICZN rule 29.3.1.1. Kathablepharidae has prevailing usage. Jako96 (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Katablepharis is valid under the botanical code, and Kathablepharis is valid under the zoological code, are you still sure that is a valid reason to just oppose the move? Jako96 (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2026 (UTC)