Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods

Hello all, it seems Template:Bythinellidae-stub is being redirected to Template:Truncatellidae-stub. Any reason for that?

On a tangential note, some Bythinellidae are marked as Amnicolidae stubs (and also described as Amnicolidae in the lead despite the taxobox placing them within Bythinellidae). Examples are Bythinella austriaca and Bythinella bavarica. I assume there's been a recent taxonomic rearrangement? Barbalalaika 🐌 20:03, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I've made the necessary changes. JoJan (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Pusia vassardi needs to be moved if the accepted name is now Eupusia vassardi as the article has recently been edited to say. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:21, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I tidied up the refs in the article and created the Eupusia template, but since I'm not experienced with taxonomy templates someone should double-check before using it. Barbalalaika 🐌 08:12, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I have made the move. JoJan (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

The article Cryoturris albida has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Both Polystira albida and Cryoturris albida are synonym to Pleurotoma albida, they are equal. The former should be kept. (World Register of Marine Species & bagniliggia.it)

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Labratscientist (talk) 09:33, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

No, they are not all synonyms but rather homonyms. Pleurotoma was used in the 1800s as a massive "catch-all" category for hundreds of different sea snails. George Perry described in 1811 Pleurotoma albida in the family Turridae. This later became a a direct synonym of Polystira albida.

In 1845, Charles Baker Adams described a completely different, much smaller snail also belonging to the family Turridae and also named his new shell Pleurotoma albida. This has now become an invalid junior homonym of Cryoturris albida, but WoRMS still regards it as an unsettled issue and gives it the status "uncertain - unassessed". This is adding to the confusion.

Cryoturris albida is therefore, in my opinion, a distinctly separate, valid species. It is not a synonym of Polystira albida. JoJan (talk) 12:28, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I see. My original reasoning was definitely wrong, but I still think it should be removed. Based on my understanding now, the three most accepted database for gastropods should be WoRMS, WMSDB and GBIF. And WoRMS is generally regarded as more reliable. However, someone else should be making these decisions. I am surprised there's not a detailed WP:NSPECIES I can refer to.

• "WoRMS や WMSDBの記載に違和感を覚えた時は、GBIF で最終的な判断を下した。"[When I felt something was inconsistent or strange in the descriptions on WoRMS or WMSDB, I made the final judgment using GBIF.] Labratscientist (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@Labratscientist: Whenever I felt something was inconsistent or strange in the descriptions on WoRMS, I contacted WoRMS by email, as I have done numerous times. Only after having received their answer, I make a final judgment. JoJan (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Sure, sounds good. Labratscientist (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey, I tried making a taxonav classification over at wikicommons, Korshunova et al. (2025). Since the paper cited is behind a paywall I opted for making a template page with the full taxonomy, but I’m still new to this so it’s a little bare bones for the moment. I’ll be improving it in the coming days, but thought I would drop it here in case folks more experienced than me are interested in improving it. Feedback and corrections are also very welcome, as I’m happy to do the work myself rather than force someone to clean up my own mess.

I have the taxonomy from Korshunova et al. 2025 down to the genera. I wanted to include the discussed species as well, but wasn’t sure how to do so without misleading via omission, as not every species of every genus is discussed. Also, I wasn’t sure how to format it with species included without it becoming a visual nightmare. Input on these issues would be very welcome.

I’m using this classification for Aeolideacean taxonav boxes, so no need to panic about the whole dorid dilemma. I’ve been in the process of recategorizing a lot of outdated taxa over at commons (I’m updating the taxonav ranks themselves as well) so don’t be alarmed if things are out of sorts over there—I should have Aeolideacea categories straightened out in a couple days or within the week.

Last thing—if any of this is a breach of etiquette or policy, it was not intended. I’m still very new, and am trying to balance “editing boldly” and being proactive with treading cautiously and being filled with anxiety. Please correct my behaviour kindly. Snapplejackalope (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@Snapplejackalope:, welcome to Wikipedia. I don't see any breach of etiquette or policy on your part. Gastropod taxonomy was never completely updated to Bouchet&Rocroi2017 (although I think it is pretty close, there are still articles missing for some higher level taxa in Boucher&Rocroi2017). If there are good sources post-2017 that you think should be followed, just bring them up here to see if anybody has an objection (Korshunova 2025 is already being discussed at Talk:Nudibranch). Plantdrew (talk) 02:05, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Proposal here. Please comment there, as you see fit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:42, 19 March 2026 (UTC)