Talk:Specific name (zoology)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | On 24 April 2026, it was proposed that this article be moved from Specific name (zoology) to Specific names in zoology. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
Formal name
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Requested move 24 April 2026
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 07:08, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
Specific name (zoology) → Specific names in zoology – I'm not 100% committed to the suggested title or even sure if we need this article at all, but NATDAB seems preferable here. This article discusses zoological rules and conventions for specific names, contrasting them with those in other areas of biology. It would make it clearer to readers that this article is not about specific names in general (for which information can be found at binomial name). — An anonymous username, not my real name 00:09, 24 April 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 04:54, 1 May 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 09:00, 8 May 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 05:55, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
- Comment It's a short article and I think would be better merged to become a section in Binomial nomenclature. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:19, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
- Hm, yes, it does seem like this could be handled at Binomial nomenclature, with discussion of the differences between this and botanical name. The current set index article Specific name should then redirect to the appropriate section of Binomial name. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 14:29, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
- Merging seems okay. It's probably worth noting that Specific name (botany) is a redirect to a section of Botanical name, while Zoological name is a redirect to International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. I'm not sure how best to sort this out, but I think some consistency here would be ideal. — An anonymous username, not my real name 22:04, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
- I think Specific name can point to a brief summary of the different meanings, with links to the more detailed coverage for plants and animals. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
- A couple of additional notes: for one, Specific epithet is currently a non-anchored redirect to Binomial name. I assume it should match Specific name. Secondly, this page (zoology) currently has, excluding redirects, nearly 10,000 incoming links. I'm assuming most were intended to explain the general concept of a specific name/epithet and not specifically the differences between zoology and other branches of biology. If this proposal does work out, then "specific name/epithet" should probably be the preferred redirect in these instances, but it would take a lot of manual cleanup. — An anonymous username, not my real name 15:35, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
- That's an important point. I haven't looked at incoming links and while I would be happy to review some ahead of any change, it will not be feasible to review thousands of them to determine the best target in context. One option is to redirect Specific name and Specific epithet to a section of Binomial name with subsections for zoology and botany. Specific name (zoology) could then redirect to the zoology subsection. Another option is to merge this article's content to a section of Binomial name but make Specific name (zoology) redirect to International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. I know that we typically redirect to the page where content was merged, but we also retarget redirects all the time when the content is better covered somewhere else. A third option is to merge this instead to International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, or simply blank and redirect. I'd need to look more closely at the two articles, and don't have time to do so right now, but I'm not sure there's any content here that's not already covered at International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
- Whoops, I hadn't looked at the number of wikilinks, which does create issues with any move or merge. Maybe leave well alone? Peter coxhead (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
- The problem is, the content that currently exists here does not match what (I assume) was intended when these links were created. An editor linking Specific name (zoology) in running text to say something like
the specific name of Xyz abc is Greek for 'X'
probably just wants the reader to get some general information about what specific name means in this context, without special emphasis on the fact that Xyz happens to be an animal and that zoological names happen to have some rules that don't apply to other branches of biology. However, that is what the reader will find when they click the link. Frankly, the damage has already been done on the editor side, and sorting this out somewhat would at least help readers and editors going forward (I don't think it's unreasonable to say that these links could be gradually fixed over time). — An anonymous username, not my real name 16:18, 26 April 2026 (UTC)- Or perhaps the editor did intend a more focused discussion of zoological nomenclature, but this is already covered at International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and Binomial name (including, but not limited to, Binomial name § Codes). The current situation is a bit of a mess and warrants clean up. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, I don't think we should have a standalone article here. The Specific name set index article seems rather unhelpful. There are several species/specific redirects to "Binomial name" and a few to
"Species name""Specific name". These targets should be aligned. I realize this is veering off-topic but these are related issues and the resolution might depend in part on how we deal with this page. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2026 (UTC)- @Myceteae: can you explay why the Specific name set index article is "rather unhelpful"? How could it be made more helpful? Peter coxhead (talk) 06:16, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
- A few reasons. The biology meaning is the primary topic for "specific name". Rather than take readers directly to an overview, they have to choose between the particular botanical and zoological meanings or database management system. "Specific name" isn't even mentioned at database management system. I suppose WP:DABMENTION doesn't technically apply since an SIA is not a DAB page, but I'm inclined to remove that entry from the list if this remains a separate page. I skimmed the list of articles that link to specific name or one of its redirects and every single one appears to be an organism or taxonomy article. Most are plants or animals but two fungi jumped out at me—Cryptococcus neoformans and Psilocybe mairei. Someone clicking from these fungus articles may be confused by the options. Then there are the redirects. For example, Psilocybe mairei uses species epithet, a redirect to Specific name, while specific epithet redirects to Binomial nomenclature. Strictly speaking, redirects are a separate issue that is easily resolved by retargeting, but having this extra page in the mix is the genesis of the problem. Readers would be best served by an overview of species/specific names/epithets with a summary of key differences between the codes and links to more detailed articles, regardless of which term they have clicked or searched. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
- Specific name was a DAB for most of its existence. An IP editor changed it to a SIA in 2022. I'm a big advocate of having SIAs as distinct from DABs (although I think the unhelpfully minimalist interpretation of MOSDAB that made SIAs necessary is not very prevalent anymore).
- However, with the inclusion of the DBMS term, specific name should not be a SIA; it is not a set of things in a single domain (taxonomy). Incoming links to specific name can be resolved to the botany or zoology terms, and would be caught more readily if it were turned back into a DAB. Plantdrew (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and removed database management systems. It doesn't fit whether we treat this as a DAB or SIA. We could resolve the 50 incoming links to specific name but this is more work than just sending readers somewhere that describes all these related terms more completely. This also requires ongoing maintenance as new links to specific name are added to articles. It's not clear where we should point the uses in fungus articles, or the many uses in articles about dinosaurs, pterosaurs, and other ancient reptilians. I'm not sure if dinosaurs, etc. are covered by the zoology codes but they aren't discussed in this article. Bacteria, archaea, and non-plant, non-animal eukaryotes also aren't addressed on the Specific name page. I don't think readers or editors expect to arrive at different pages if they write, click, or search species name, specific name, species epithet, specific epithet, etc. We should strive to use these terms precisely and accurately in articles but our content and redirects should be organized to anticipate reader and editor behavior and sometimes-inconsistent real-world usage. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
- Fossil taxa are covered by the relevant codes. The International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes uses the term "specific epithet" (terminology and concepts in the prokaryote code generally are in alignment with the botanical code). You do have a point about it being potentially unclear that "botany" covers fungi. Other eukaryotes are covered by the botanical code or the zoological code (or both: see ambiregnal protist). But I'm not sure how to address the other eukaryotes well; the botanical and zoological codes aren't actually explicit about what other eukaryotes they govern (which is why ambiregnal protists are a thing). Plantdrew (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
- I think a single page that describes, at least, the most common meanings of species/specific name/epithet would be most helpful. That could be an expansion of the
Specific epithetSpecific name page but that would duplicate content that already exists at, or should be added to, one or more other pages including Binomial nomenclature, Nomenclature codes (I didn't even know we had this one!), Botanical name, Species all the pages for the individual codes, and probably others. I think Binomial nomenclature § Codes is the natural place for this even if it does not cover all the minutiae. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 01:31, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
- I think a single page that describes, at least, the most common meanings of species/specific name/epithet would be most helpful. That could be an expansion of the
- Fossil taxa are covered by the relevant codes. The International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes uses the term "specific epithet" (terminology and concepts in the prokaryote code generally are in alignment with the botanical code). You do have a point about it being potentially unclear that "botany" covers fungi. Other eukaryotes are covered by the botanical code or the zoological code (or both: see ambiregnal protist). But I'm not sure how to address the other eukaryotes well; the botanical and zoological codes aren't actually explicit about what other eukaryotes they govern (which is why ambiregnal protists are a thing). Plantdrew (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and removed database management systems. It doesn't fit whether we treat this as a DAB or SIA. We could resolve the 50 incoming links to specific name but this is more work than just sending readers somewhere that describes all these related terms more completely. This also requires ongoing maintenance as new links to specific name are added to articles. It's not clear where we should point the uses in fungus articles, or the many uses in articles about dinosaurs, pterosaurs, and other ancient reptilians. I'm not sure if dinosaurs, etc. are covered by the zoology codes but they aren't discussed in this article. Bacteria, archaea, and non-plant, non-animal eukaryotes also aren't addressed on the Specific name page. I don't think readers or editors expect to arrive at different pages if they write, click, or search species name, specific name, species epithet, specific epithet, etc. We should strive to use these terms precisely and accurately in articles but our content and redirects should be organized to anticipate reader and editor behavior and sometimes-inconsistent real-world usage. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
- A few reasons. The biology meaning is the primary topic for "specific name". Rather than take readers directly to an overview, they have to choose between the particular botanical and zoological meanings or database management system. "Specific name" isn't even mentioned at database management system. I suppose WP:DABMENTION doesn't technically apply since an SIA is not a DAB page, but I'm inclined to remove that entry from the list if this remains a separate page. I skimmed the list of articles that link to specific name or one of its redirects and every single one appears to be an organism or taxonomy article. Most are plants or animals but two fungi jumped out at me—Cryptococcus neoformans and Psilocybe mairei. Someone clicking from these fungus articles may be confused by the options. Then there are the redirects. For example, Psilocybe mairei uses species epithet, a redirect to Specific name, while specific epithet redirects to Binomial nomenclature. Strictly speaking, redirects are a separate issue that is easily resolved by retargeting, but having this extra page in the mix is the genesis of the problem. Readers would be best served by an overview of species/specific names/epithets with a summary of key differences between the codes and links to more detailed articles, regardless of which term they have clicked or searched. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Myceteae: can you explay why the Specific name set index article is "rather unhelpful"? How could it be made more helpful? Peter coxhead (talk) 06:16, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
- Or perhaps the editor did intend a more focused discussion of zoological nomenclature, but this is already covered at International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and Binomial name (including, but not limited to, Binomial name § Codes). The current situation is a bit of a mess and warrants clean up. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, I don't think we should have a standalone article here. The Specific name set index article seems rather unhelpful. There are several species/specific redirects to "Binomial name" and a few to
- The problem is, the content that currently exists here does not match what (I assume) was intended when these links were created. An editor linking Specific name (zoology) in running text to say something like
- Whoops, I hadn't looked at the number of wikilinks, which does create issues with any move or merge. Maybe leave well alone? Peter coxhead (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
- That's an important point. I haven't looked at incoming links and while I would be happy to review some ahead of any change, it will not be feasible to review thousands of them to determine the best target in context. One option is to redirect Specific name and Specific epithet to a section of Binomial name with subsections for zoology and botany. Specific name (zoology) could then redirect to the zoology subsection. Another option is to merge this article's content to a section of Binomial name but make Specific name (zoology) redirect to International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. I know that we typically redirect to the page where content was merged, but we also retarget redirects all the time when the content is better covered somewhere else. A third option is to merge this instead to International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, or simply blank and redirect. I'd need to look more closely at the two articles, and don't have time to do so right now, but I'm not sure there's any content here that's not already covered at International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
- A couple of additional notes: for one, Specific epithet is currently a non-anchored redirect to Binomial name. I assume it should match Specific name. Secondly, this page (zoology) currently has, excluding redirects, nearly 10,000 incoming links. I'm assuming most were intended to explain the general concept of a specific name/epithet and not specifically the differences between zoology and other branches of biology. If this proposal does work out, then "specific name/epithet" should probably be the preferred redirect in these instances, but it would take a lot of manual cleanup. — An anonymous username, not my real name 15:35, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
- I think Specific name can point to a brief summary of the different meanings, with links to the more detailed coverage for plants and animals. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
- Merging seems okay. It's probably worth noting that Specific name (botany) is a redirect to a section of Botanical name, while Zoological name is a redirect to International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. I'm not sure how best to sort this out, but I think some consistency here would be ideal. — An anonymous username, not my real name 22:04, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
- Hm, yes, it does seem like this could be handled at Binomial nomenclature, with discussion of the differences between this and botanical name. The current set index article Specific name should then redirect to the appropriate section of Binomial name. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 14:29, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
- Note: WikiProject Animals has been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 09:01, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
- Note: I previously notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life on April 24: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Requested move at Talk:Specific name (zoology) § Requested move 24 April 2026. (I suspect TarnishedPath saw that which is why they did not repeat the notification.) I chose TOL because that page is highly active and focused on taxonomy, and I explicitly referenced the wider discussion about a potential merger. Anyway, just documenting this here for the record. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 14:39, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
- @Myceteae, you are entirely correct that I saw it. TarnishedPathtalk 11:19, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
- Note: I previously notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life on April 24: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Requested move at Talk:Specific name (zoology) § Requested move 24 April 2026. (I suspect TarnishedPath saw that which is why they did not repeat the notification.) I chose TOL because that page is highly active and focused on taxonomy, and I explicitly referenced the wider discussion about a potential merger. Anyway, just documenting this here for the record. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 14:39, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.