Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 60

I've noticed some convoluted inconsistencies between the current taxonomy of certain ochrophyte algae so I'm summarizing my findings here.

• The page Ochrophyte states that the currently accepted name is Ochrophytina, instead of Ochrophyta. However, this is supported by nobody except Thomas Cavalier-Smith, and is therefore not the scientific consensus. Numerous papers between 2018 and now use Ochrophyta.
• In the same manner, there is exactly 0 support for Cavalier-Smith's classification of Dictyochophyceae. In his article, it is stated that Dictyochophyceae contains three different groups: Pelagophyceae (stated as a subclass, again not supported by anyone else), Olisthodiscus (which is a different class Olisthodiscophyceae) and Pedinellia (supposedly equal to the Dictyochophyceae that is supported by everyone else). It is true that Dictyochophyceae and Pelagophyceae are sister clades, but there is no scientific consensus that supports joining them both under Dictyochophyceae. For reference, this is the way it looks according to Cav.-Sm.:^[1]

And this is the way it looks according to the rest of sources:^[2][3][4]

These are the changes that I will be trying to implement on Wikipedia. —Snoteleks (Talk) 11:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Go for it. There are quite a lot of inconsistencies in the Stramenopiles classification. I balked at attempting to make the changes, partly due to lack of a clear taxonomic source. Is there one you plan to use or is a "consensus" of various phylogenetic papers? —  Jts1882 | talk  17:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh man, I wish there was one unifying taxonomic source. Sadly stramenopile classification is very spread out so right now I'm slowly gathering a consensus between many papers. Luckily, the ones that aren't from Cavalier-Smith seem to agree with each other 99% of the time. I basically use Adl et al. (2019)^[5] as the baseline and then build from there according to posterior studies. —Snoteleks (Talk) 18:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Speaking of stramenopiles, I just updated Template:Taxonomy/Oomycota to point towards Template:Taxonomy/Stramenopiles rather than Template:Taxonomy/Heterokonta. The latter, a less accepted synonym whose taxonomy template uses the outdated and paraphyletic Chromista instead of SAR, doesn't even give the correct color on taxoboxes, and I'm surprised there's such a widespread duplicate. Should Heterokonta be fully replaced by Stramenopiles in taxoboxes or is there still any use for it? ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 20:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

@Snoteleks:, you're the one who made the edits that changed the taxobox from displaying Ochrophyta to Ochrophytina. Many details of Cavalier-Smith's classifications aren't accepted by anybody. I agree with trying to find a follow a consensus source. Plantdrew (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that was me. And I wish I hadn't done it because it's become increasingly clear how unsupported the change was. —Snoteleks (Talk) 18:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

1. There is no problem to use the name Ochrophyta for the clade. But if you apply the standard taxonomical ranks, you also should apply the traditional endings of the taxon name according to this rank. For phylum it is -phyta, for subphylum -phytina, for class -phyceae. C.-S. applied the phylum rank for the stramenopile groups Gyrista and Bigyra (only Gyrista is a clade, Bigyra may be paraphyl. because of some basal heterokont lines); after moving the ochrophyte clade to the lower level, the change of the ending was necessary. So, the intro of the article is IMO O.K., I only miss the information that it is not only "a group" but a clade (named Ochrophyta). The name Ochrophyta shoul be also applied for the clade in section Phylogeny (in the cladogram) and everywhere in the article, where the "official" taxomical rank is not important (it is not possible in section Classification without changing the whole system either to a system, where the Ochrophyte clade is placed as phylum, or to a system without the taxon rank names phylum/subphylum).

2. I agree with the proposal to change the cladogram for the SIII clade (Olisthodiscophyceae and Chrysoparadoxophyceae outside it, and Pelagophyceae outside of Dictyochophyceae). (But I would not consider it as definitiv, changes of this are possible in next phylogenetic studies. We have to wait for solid references to comprehensive studies of stramenopile phylogeny.) --Petr Karel (talk) 05:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Grey Clownfish:, as a note I have reverted your Nov 5 edits to the ichnotaxa taxonomy templates, given that ichnotaxonomic classification is specifically ONLY used for paleontology that I am aware of. Can you provide sources that use it explicitly for modern cases. The KU ichnology page does not give any sourcing for its assertion, and the PBDB is not considered a reliable source for more then citations of taxa by WP:Palaeontology due to the high error rate in its data. While the car image is of modern feeding to which that ichnogenus resembles, that does not make the car image actually of the trace fossil.--Kevmin § 17:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I mean, whatever produces Paleodictyon is extant, so I guess that counts? Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

in a strict sense, the shapes are still being produced, but what sources USE Paleodictyon for modern, non-fossil impressions?--Kevmin § 19:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

It is regularly used for recent structures e.g Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

A difficulty for me is that the name applies to the trace, not to the organism that produced it. So, strictly speaking, Paleodictyon species can't be either extinct or extant. In the taxonomy templates I created I used |extinct=yes because that seemed the conventional approach. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

"Paleodictyon nodosum" was apparently described in 1977 on the basis of the work of an extant animal. Names published after 1930 based on the work of an extant animal are outside the scope of the ICZN. The ICZN defines an ichnotaxon as "A taxon based on the fossilized work of an organism." I guess that doesn't preclude associating a modern trace animal work with an ichnotaxon, but the ICZN does preclude post-1930 publications of modern "ichnospecies" in a (fossil) ichnogenus. "Paleodictyon nodosum" should not have a taxobox (and should not be driving Template:Taxonomy/Paleodictyon to display as extant). Plantdrew (talk) 02:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree that not being described under a taxonomic code means it shouldn't have a taxobox. The ICZN also doesn't apply to animal taxa above the family group. And the ICNP requires prokaryotes to be cultured to decribe them, but we have taxoboxes for Candidatus species and genera. --Grey Clownfish (talk) 02:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

As an ICZN Commissioner, I can assure you that some of the Articles in the Code apply to names above the family group ("1.2.2. The Code regulates the names of taxa in the family group, genus group, and species group. Articles 1-4, 7-10, 11.1-11.3, 14, 27, 28 and 32.5.2.5 also regulate names of taxa at ranks above the family group."); that includes Articles 1 and 2, which define what the Code applies to and what it does not. As Plantdrew correctly noted, taxa described after 1930 from "the work of extant animals" are expressly excluded, under ICZN Article 1.3.6. Strictly speaking, the name "Paleodictyon nodosum" should not even be italicized, because it is most definitely not a scientific name as defined by the Code. Dyanega (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

If they're neither extinct not extant, then they're not extinct. So why would you mark them as extinct?

Also, how is it the conventional approach? The fact that those ichnotaxa and ootaxa were not marked as extinct before suggests otherwise. Also, I have barely seen any source outside of Wikipedia calling ichnotaxa/ootaxa extinct, and when they did, it's likely that they were just blindly copying Wikipedia. --Grey Clownfish (talk) 03:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The traces are still being made, and I don't see any reasoning to say that they're extinct. There are, somewhere in the sea, Paleodictyon traces still being made by whichever creature has been making them for a while. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 20:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

How can an trace fossil that's still produced today be reasonably considered extinct? Just because it's a fossil? So if someone finds a fossil of a modern human, then modern humans are extinct?

If something is extinct, then no more fossils will be produced of it. Fossils may continue to be produced only if it's extant.

Also, it must be understood that trace fossils can be produced by extant species. The cut-off date for calling something a "fossil" is 10 000 years ago. There were many extant species around at that time, so trace fossils of extant species could easily be found. Especially with many being recent. Maybe that "Radulichnus" on the car wasn't really a Radulichnus as it wasn't a fossil yet, but if it fossilised, it would be one, formed by an extant land snail.

I really don't see how extinct vs extant for trace fossils is any different than it is for organisms. We call organisms extinct if there are no living members and extant if they are. There are never any new fossils formed of an extinct organism. Likewise, trace fossils are extant if they can be produced by extant organisms. In fact, given that ichnotaxa are defined by apperance, not the organism that produces them, maybe we should consider them all extant, even the ones that aren't being produced today, because they have the chance of being revived. --Grey Clownfish (talk) 01:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Grey Clownfish: "they" don't have the chance of being revived, if by they you mean ichnotaxa. Ichnotaxon names refer to the trace, not to the organism that produced them, which will be given its own name under the ICZN. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

What I mean is that if an ichnotaxon stopped being produced because the organism that produced it went extinct, there's a chance that another organism could convergently evolve to produce similar or identical traces. So the new traces would have to be classified as the ichnotaxon.

I've heard that the "work of an extant animal" is not under the scope of the ICZN. Well, species that produce the trace could go extinct. Then their traces would count. --Grey Clownfish (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Ichnotaxa are the bane of the ICZN, as well, with an absurdly large number of exceptions to standard rules, or special rules of their own, regarding how to name them and how to treat the names that are being used for them. They are paleontological by an overwhelming majority, and using extinct as the default is fairly sensible if one feels compelled to adhere to the "extant/extinct" dichotomy. Making exceptions for the few outliers like Paleodictyon seems like a fair bit of effort with little real benefit, given the state of ambiguity surrounding that and other ichnotaxa. Aside from giving them their own set of rules, it's very hard to fit them into anything conventional, either taxonomically or nomenclaturally. Dyanega (talk) 23:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• As ichnotaxa have their own special kind of taxobox template, {{Ichnobox}}, if there's a consensus not to display † in the taxobox, it would be easy to program the template to ignore |extinct= in the taxonomy template.

As noted above, ootaxon names offer another example of names not applying to organisms as such. There are also form taxon names in botany, including cases where the sporophyte and gametophyte of the same species have been given different names before the link was discovered (thus Lyonophyton rhyniensis is thought to be the gametophyte of Aglaophyton majus). Talking about things requires names, and in paleontology, names are needed for kinds of fossils or fossil evidence without the need to make unwarranted assumptions about identity. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd never considered this before (just assuming they are extinct), but it seems clear to me now that ichnotaxa are a product of a living form, which might be extant or extinct, and are not themselves either. So I'd support not displaying extinct in the taxobox. The ichnoboxes show the rank (e.g. ichnogenus) so there will be no confusion. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this perspective. Ichnotaxa are not living organisms, so therefore cannot be extinct/extant. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

just a general comment I have always found the concept of considering ichnotaxa as "taxa" problematic. No doubt it is something produced by a living organism, but it is not the organism. I mean the ludicrous end point is the pyramids are also produced by a living taxon. Are the pyramids taxa? No they are structures. As Dyanega said do not italicise them, and I add they are not taxa in terms of biology. Of course they need to be reported on, but we need another category for these. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 03:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@Faendalimas: are egg fossils (ootaxa) "taxa"? are morphotaxa (form taxa) "taxa"? Clearly not in the full sense, i.e. "nomenclatural taxa", but, like ichnotaxa, these concepts are needed in paleontology. A quotation from Taylor, T.N.; Taylor, E.L. & Krings, M. (2009), Paleobotany The Biology and Evolution of Fossil Plants (2nd ed.), Amsterdam; Boston: Academic Press, ISBN 978-0-12-373972-8, pp. 41-42 is relevant:

"A morphotaxon is a fossil taxon which, for nomenclatural purposes, comprises only the parts, life history stages, or preservational states represented by the corresponding nomenclatural type ... The first reason for naming parts is so that the fossils can be studied and referred to in publications and discussed with other paleobotanists. The other reason is that some identical plant parts may be attached to different plants ... and a name is necessary to describe and study the part."

As for styling, if we follow sources, for paleobotany it's clear that morphotaxa are styled in the same way as nomenclatural taxa. I'm not as familiar with paleozoology, but those sources I've seen (e.g. doi:10.3374/014.055.0210) also style ootaxa and ichnotaxa in the same way as nomenclatural taxa. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I suppose we will get to Coprolite soon enough. In saying no italics I am basically agreeing that under the code they are not zoological names. However, in the basic rules of writing language when you have a phrase in a language other than the main document you are supposed to italicise it. That has nothing to do with the rules of nomenclature thats just basic writing good practice. Same as italicising first person speech etc. Anyway I think we may need a set of rules for ichnotaxa that are unique, they may borrow significantly from the TOL taxobox etc but still be their own rules and may have parameters not present in the taxoboxes. There are fossil footprints of modern humans, we are certainly extant. You may want a parameter that identifies if the ichnotaxa is a trace from a living or extinct species. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 12:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

My perspective a non-specialist in this area (i.e. as just a random editor/reader) is that "Ichnotaxa are not living organisms, so therefore cannot be extinct/extant" is correct. Treating them otherwise is apt to be confusing for a lot of end users.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

While that line of logic is rational, we are constrained by what the literature itself actually does, so we should go with italics or daggers when the literature specifically does.--Kevmin § 18:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

WP is not in any way constrained to adopt styles and sigils from specialist literature when they do not signify anything meaningful to our readers.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with SMcCandlish here, we are responsible to convey the information of the source literature, how we do that ie the style, can be developed by us as long as it makes sense. The source literature in using italics or daggers is just following their own point of view, there is no standard on this for ichnotaxa. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 01:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

At MOS:ORGANISMS, we've spent years developing a one-stop shop for all biological taxonomic style matters as they seem to pertain to encyclopedic writing. And we've rejected an few non-mandatory divergences in some of the literature as not conductive to that goal and just introducing unnecessary reader and editor confusion. It doesn't presently address ichnotaxa at all (and arguably shouldn't since they're not life forms even in the broad sense that includes viruses), but if it did, I don't think it would advise using such markup that is easily mistaken for extinction declarations that pertain to organisms. Could be wrong of course; it's a dicussion not had yet. But it's what I would predict.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

The ICZN Code is very clear on the point that any "names" given to the works of extant animals after 1930 are not scientific names at all. If the people studying ichnotaxa are ignoring the Code (whether intentional or not), it's still a violation of the Code, and I don't think Wikipedia editors are compelled to adhere to such practices, even if they are in the literature. The only real difficulty I see here is whether we can clearly distinguish between those ichnotaxon names that are governed by the Code, and ones that are not. While Paleodictyon nodosum very clearly is not a scientific name, it gets much harder to know what to do about other names. My inclination would be to restrict the use of italics to ichnotaxa that are actual fossils, but that is a complicated and obscure rule for editors to follow, so unless one person is overseeing the whole assemblage, the ichnotaxon articles collectively are likely to be inconsistent. Dyanega (talk) 16:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm very confused by this template. How can something have an uncertain position in something that is unranked. I think logically any group could be described this way. Does anyone have a reasonable explanation? YorkshireExpat (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Rank doesn't really have anything to do with it. The lead of Bilateria says it is a clade/infrakingdom. ITIS has it as a subkingdom. What would change for you if the Bilateria taxobox had infrakingdom or subkingdom instead of clade?

Incertae sedis means that the parent/child relationship between taxa is uncertain at some level. Most bilaterians can be classified as prostostome or deuterostomes. A fragmentary fossil might not have the characters needed to classify that fossil as a protostome or a deuterostome. A living organism (or a fossil) might have some characters that are consistent with one parent taxon and other characters that are consistent with a different parent taxon. Incertae sedis means we don't know for sure if the parent is A or B (or C...). If it is known for certain that the parent is neither A nor B, any ranks (or clades) needed to integrate it into the tree of life can be named (in such a case, newly named ranks might be monotypic). Plantdrew (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, think I see now. No, it wasn't the clade that was bothering me. I now see it as it has an unknown position, and that position could be one of several different ranks, maybe clades, Phyla, or Superphyla, or something else. I have been seeing incertae sedis at a given rank, suggesting that the child group is most like a member of something that would be at that rank, but that isn't the case here. Thanks. YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Now I get why you were confused. Taxonomy templates deal with incertae sedis situations in two ways (and don't seem to be particularly consistent). Either an incertae sedis template is created for a particular rank, or the taxonomy template skips any incertae sedis ranks and has a higher taxon as the parent. I don't think I've ever created an incertae sedis template for a particular rank; I stay away from articles where major ranks are incertae sedis, and I've omitted incertae sedis minor ranks in taxonomy template I've edited (e.g. Template:Taxonomy/Apluda, where the subtribal placement is noted as incertae sedis in the source).

The template you've noted is useless. I don't think we should be creating incertae sedis templates when a taxon is incertae sedis at multiple major ranks. I think incertae sedis template should only be created for a single major rank, and should only be created following a source that explicitly says something is incertae sedis at that rank. I think it is probably OR to say that Keurbosia in incertae sedis in Bilateria. There's one source that says it might be a vertebrate or an arthropod, and while Bilateria is the lowest clade that includes vertebrates and arthropods, the source doesn't mention Bilateria (and there's another source that mentions Bilateria without mentioning vertebrates or arthropods).

Now I'm noticing that incertae sedis templates do not permit references; Template:Taxonomy/Incertae sedis/Bacteria has a reference in the code, but it isn't displayed. I not sure how I feel about that. An incertae sedis template could have multiple children (as the Bilateria and Bacteria ones do) with different sources for each child (e.g. one source deals with a fossil that might be an arthropod or a vertebrate, while another deals with a fossil that might be echinoderm or a mollusc). Plantdrew (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Would the incertae sedis ref be the same as its child though? I'm not sure what extra information having that ref would convey.

I've noticed some inconsistency about when incertae sedis is applied on taxoboxes. I guess it comes down to if it adds any information for the reader, and this is a judgement call for the editor. In all the cases where the Incertae sedis/Bilateria template is used, I think it has the potential to cause confusion. I suppose I would though as it confused me, but I would see myself as the man on the Clapham omnibus in this context. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, The pop-up that a mouseover causes when over a link to a taxon-article, shows a necessarily short preview of that article (I am using the "Vector(2022)" skin). This is wonderfully useful. Unfortunately that pop-up cuts away (!) the scientific name from the preview-text. To get now at the scientific name, you /still/ have to click the link, /and/ then go back again. This makes the feature much less useful than it would otherwise be. Is there a workaround (css, javascript)?
Random example:: White-eared jacamar
Text on the page: "The white-eared jacamar (Galbalcyrhynchus leucotis) is a species of bird in the family Galbulidae. It is found in Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru."
Text on the preview: "The white-eared jacamar is a species of bird in the family Galbulidae. It is found in Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru."
Apologies if this is the wrong place for this - but where if not here?
Kweetal nl (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Weird, this also happens on Vector 2010. Sub31k (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I can't speak as to Vector 2010, but it happens in the hovercard view because the binominal is in parentheses (round brackets), and hovercards drop all such material.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Parenthetical binomials display for me (Vector 2010, Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups enabled), but they didn't always and I don't think I've changed any of my settings that would be relevant. Plantdrew (talk) 01:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Displays for me on these settings as well, although I can't recall if/when it did earlier. CMD (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm using Vector Legacy (2010) and not using the navigation popups feature found under Preferences: Gadgets. I'm using the hovercards provided by the mw:Page Previews feature which has been enabled at en.wikipedia for some time, even for non-logged-in users. Might switch to nav popups, but I had some issue with that last time I tried it a couple of years ago. I just turned it on, and can confirm that the missing binomial problem is not an issue in that form of hovercard. So, users who don't have an account, those who do but are not logged in, and those who are but don't have navigation popups turned on in prefs, are all going to get a hovercard without the binomial.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Checking "Gadgets/Navigation popups" does indeed solve my problem (and it has more info/features too) - Thank you. - Kweetal nl (talk) 06:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I do not think that switching to the gadget is a reasonable long-term solution, considering that the mw feature is the global default. Instead we should be pestering the page preview people at phabricator to try and find a midground between wasting 20% of the preview card on parenthesized other-language names and having the binomial name cut off. Huh, there actually is a ticket for that. Adding the "tracked" template. --Artoria2e5 🌉 15:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion about the presence of dinosaur clades in taxoboxes for birds has gotten an article about it from Atlas Obscura a week ago. https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/column-are-birds-dinosaurs Sub31k (talk) 07:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

What a mess. I didn't know it was reverted. Still, I find it incredible that just because the taxobox is shortened people end up thinking birds aren't dinosaurs. The article itself elaborates on exactly why birds are undeniably dinosaurs, and yet here we are at Wikipedia not being able to collectively solidify this fact. —Snoteleks (Talk) 08:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I've recently come across two (maybe I've forgot some?) bacterial articles in need of some major change due to taxonomy updates and general historical sloppiness.

• Lacticaseibacillus casei is probably the easier one. The issue is that a good chunk of information either concerns a strain now identified as paracasei or something else, or generally applies to not just casei (or the species complex for that matter). I don't have the guts to empty out this article despite a kind of-roadmap on the talk page.
• Mycoplasma is a bigger overdue mess. Even more of the article apply to Mollicutes in general (or at least, Mollicutes is often the highest common taxon node among what's being talked about). And then there are a bunch of new pages to create.

I don't want to leave the templates up there forever, but every time I look at them I shake my head and decide that it's too much for me. Help. Artoria2e5 🌉 04:46, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Just came across the Mytella stub. The WoRMS page for this genus has a different species list, with two of the current species on our article considered synonyms for a currently unlisted species, and WoRMS having one species not listed on our article. As part of this, it considers our Mytella charruana article to be properly named Mytella strigata. Would it be appropriate to make that page move and adjust the species listed per WoRMS, or is there another source that should be considered here? Thanks, CMD (talk) 12:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

WoRMS is variable as a source, depending on the taxon and its editors, but molluscs are usually reliable and up to date. The bivalve section is edited by Philippe Bouchet, who is highly respected in the field and author of a widely used classification. So unless there is a new source, more recent than the last update to that page (Sept 2020), I would follow WoRMS, and even if there was a new source with a revised classification I'd look for it to be used elsewhere before making changes. In short, your proposed changes look sensible. —  Jts1882 | talk  12:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much, changes made on en.wiki. I note that the species name was already changed on nl.wiki and pt.wiki. The exact process for adjusting wikidata:Q13871656 is slightly beyond me right now. CMD (talk) 10:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Someone's doing rather drastic overhauling there; here's multi-edit diff span . Some of it may be needed, but much of this was done by copying material over from Binomial nomenclature, which may result in a lot of duplicate wording. My personal take is that the lead may be reduced too much, and the tone seems wrong, leaning toward but not quite directly addressing the reader, though that may be reparable. Maybe something between the two versions would be a good compromise.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your concern. I've long thought that there's confusion and overlap among the articles concerned with biological nomenclature. The issue with the Nomenclature codes article is to decide what is sufficiently top-level to go here and what should be at the articles about the individual codes. I think Nomenclature codes should be quite a short article. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, it's about the codes and what spheres they cover, and perhaps some differences between them, but not about binomial nomenclature in general (especially given that the codes cover much more than that).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I think it ought to give some history. Formal codes didn't exist until the 20th century, although there were recommendations of best practices in the 19th century. It ought to discuss the commonalities in the codes; e.g., priority and typification which are concepts that developed after Linnaeus. The "differences between codes" section is poor. The biggest difference between the ICZN and the ICNafp is how they handle priority (by epithet in the ICZN, by combination in the ICNafp). Differences in starting dates and treatment of tautonyms are rather trivial. Plantdrew (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

See Talk:Cone_snail#Proposal_to_merge_Conidae_into_Cone_snail. Please participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians! I have just created a new WikiProject, WikiProject Fossorials. If you can, please join, as we are in desperate need of members! Fossorials are animals that spend much of their time underground, so if you are interested, please join!

Thank you, UserMemer (chat) Tribs 00:36, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Long lists of synonyms for species or genera in taxoboxes are often best set up to be initially hidden. To make this simpler, I have now added the necessary code to {{Species list}} (of which {{Genus list}} is a synonym). Basically it only requires adding |hidden=yes before the list of taxon name/authority pairs. See Template:Species list#Hiding the list. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Appreciated. Will be nice not to have to look up the "collapsible list" syntax every time I want to do that, and then usually getting the double-wrapping wrong in some way. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Elmidae: that's exactly why I did it! Peter coxhead (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Same problem here, too. —  Jts1882 | talk  17:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

For example, at Peregrine falcon:
<!-- FieldianaZool114:1. FieldMusNatHistZoolSer18:343. Forktail16:147. Micronesica37:69. RevBrasOrnitol14:101. -->

A search for comments starting with each of those 5 returns 761 results.

Is this information useful enough to keep? If so, can/shouldn't it be incorporated more formally into the article, either as a citation, a reference template, as a property at Wikidata to be used in {{Taxonbar}}, or some other way?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  19:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe all of these short journal citations as hidden comments were added by User:Dysmorodrepanis~enwiki. I've been removing them as I come across them. I haven't bothered to look up most these publications, but the ones I have looked at don't have anything useful to add to Wikipedia articles. Forktail16:147 can be seen here (the article is "The ornithological importance of Thrumshingla National Park, Bhutan"). It's mostly a checklist of birds found in the park, with detailed accounts about the presence in the park of some threatened species, and just a line in the checklist for non-threatened species. Go ahead and get ridden of these hidden citations. Plantdrew (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

 Working - will point edit summaries back to here.

I think I've found at least the vast majority of, if not all, variants with this search that returns 1236 results, a small # of which contain extra text like URLs and prose that I'll save for others to manually review.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I've found ~200 comments that are at the end of specific entries in species lists, like on Eulamprus:

*''[[Concinnia tenuis]]'' <small>([[John Edward Gray|Gray]], 1831)</small> bar-sided forest-skink, barred-sided skink<!-- ZoolMedLeiden82:737. -->

or kind of everywhere like on Aceria, which are both unlike the bulk of the comments, which are vaguely tacked on to the references section. Should these line-specific comments be removed semi-automatically as well, or be kept for manual review?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  18:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Those are probably safe to remove. I expect that these citation will probably not be very relevant to the genus as a whole (but may be relevant to individual species in the list). The one in Eulamprus says "Hinulia elegans...may be a synonym of Eulamprus tenuis". That's specifically relevant to the species Concinnia/Eulamprus tenuis, not to either genus (that source is cited conventionally at Concinnia, although I don't think it really belongs there either).

I haven't found a non-paywalled version of the source in Aceria. It does describe 5 new species, so would be very relevant in articles about those species, and it may have some relevant information about some previously described species (e.g. new records of host plants).Plantdrew (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done-ish ~1150 trivial comments removed.

I kept running into more and more journals until I didn't (i.e. there might be more out there), and ended up with a grand total of 26 unique search-prefixes (≲ 10 false positives creep in due to trying to keep the beginning of the search as cheap as possible):

AmMusN|AnnalenDes|CanJEarth|Condor|Cytogenet|Fieldiana|FieldMus|FolHist|Forktail|Geobios|JOrnith|JSyst|JTrop|JVert|Micronesica|Notornis|OrgDivers|Palaeontology|ProcCali|RafflesBull|RevBras|Revista|Waterbirds|WilsonBull|Zool|Zootaxa

The insource search with all 26 times out of course, so split into chunks that don't tend to throw a timeout warning: 28 + 48 + 19 + 38 + 17 + 13 + 44 + 35 + 163 = 405, which boil down to 362 unique pages.

I decided to err on the side of caution for now, and not remove the line-specific comments, and not remove those on pages at least somewhat outside WP:TREE, which are ~24% of the original total pre-run. Can revisit later when more of them have been checked.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  20:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@Pvmoutside: I just noticed Western Balkan barbel from 2017. What's your opinion re keeping/removing these comments?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  20:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

See Talk:Elasmobranchii#Merge_Neoselachii_into_this_article. Participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

See Talk:Eukaryote#Eukarya or Eukaryota? for a discussion to change from using Eukaryota to Eukarya. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I was having a discussion on my talkpage with @Ucucha: User_talk:Hemiauchenia#Authority_for_Amphioxiformes regarding the authority of the order Amphioxiformes, the order used for lancelets. The taxonomic authority of Amphioxiformes also seems obscure. It's not listed in academic papers nor in ZooBank . The earliest usage Uchucha could find is Berg, 1937 . During the discussion, it came up that WoRMS doesn't even recogise Amphioxiformes, only the class Leptocardii. Should Amphioxiformes be removed from the taxobox? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Found this with a couple of references to 'Ordo Amphioxi' if that's any use? It has Branchiostomidae listed as a child. YorkshireExpat (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Bonaparte's classification (1846 I think) was influential but is not what we should use to decide on taxonomy in 2024. I've seen both "Amphioxi" and "Branchiostomiformes" for the order in various places. Ucucha (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, was just the earliest thing I found, so thought it might give some pointer towards the authority. YorkshireExpat (talk) 09:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

A related question: We have two separate articles Cephalochordate and Lancelet. Ostensibly the former covers the subphylum Cephalochordata and the latter the class Leptocardii and order Amphioxiformes, the only extant cephalochordates. There are some contradictions about whether there are one or two families. There are some poorly known and questionable fossil stem cephalochordates, but for almost any practical purpose "cephalochordates" and "lancelets" are the same. Should the two articles be merged? Ucucha (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Both articles should be merged Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Update: Hemiauchenia dropped the name "Amphioxiformes" from lancelet and redirected cephalochordate to lancelet. I also merged in Branchiostomatidae, since only one family is usually recognized, and added some taxonomic history to the lancelet article. Ucucha (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

FotW5 uses order Amphioxiformes, with two families: Branchiostomatidae and Epigonichthyidae. The edits on WoRMS date back to 2011-2013, so why should we follow WoRMS over FotW5? Even if lancelets aren't considered fish, FotW5 is a more recent taxonomic work covering lancelets. Is there something more specific or recent that supports the WoRMS treatment? Treatment as one article on lancelets is fine, though. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Their family Epigonichthyidae is paraphyletic according to recent molecular phylogenies; the topology is (Asymmetron, (Branchiostoma, Epigonichthys)). Few sources focused on lancelets talk explicitly about family names, though. Ucucha (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Ugh... References on the article spell it with only one "l". IRMNG uses the second "l", and puts a note that says the one "l" spelling in incorrect. What to do? Here we have tertiary source explicitly saying primary source is incorrect. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Unlike with correcting the spelling of the species name to match gender, there's rarely a good reason for changing the spelling of a genus name unless it is preoccupied, which as far as I can tell is not the case for Duplapex. The original describing paper very clearly uses the "Duplapex" spelling, and in the absence of a ZooBank entry for this taxon , I think we should default to the original description. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. I wonder if the IRMNG entry updater meant to fix the entry, but just left a note for it to be fixed later? *shrugs* Ah... if only we have perfect data entry... - UtherSRG (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

One can only dream! IRMNG in particular seems to be inconsistent in a lot of things, even moreso than WoRMS, at least from my experience. —Snoteleks (Talk) 19:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Really bogs down my groove in cleaning up taxobox/taxonbar-related issues... XD - UtherSRG (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The last person to update the IRMNG record for this genus (3 months ago) was Tony Rees, who edits Wikipedia as User:Tony 1212. And IRMNG, as I understand it is largely a single person effort by Tony Rees, and he does not want it to necessarily continue to be a single person effort (see Vision section here) IRMNG is, as denoted by the first letter of the abbreviation, an "interim" database and not the last word on anything. I find it to often be a useful resource. Can we not shit on people who are maintaining databases (mostly) single-handedly?

I've contacted Tony1212 via his Wikpedia talk page over issues I've found on IRMNG, and he has made changes based on my concerns. Talk to him. Plantdrew (talk) 03:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I've asked questions and he's made changes. It's very useful as it covers things other sources don't. The problem is this huge scope and some taxa are based on older classifications. Other aggregator sources like ITIS also have this problem and even WoRMS, which has active curators for some sections, or CoL, which uses third party specialist databases, have some taxa with very dated information. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Does the paper give an etymology for the name? If it's based on a folded pair of something (dupla- and -plex), then I believe the name would be correctable under the ICZN code as it would be a spelling change based on the Latin. We can't do that for Wikipedia, but IRMNG could. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The paper is available on Researchgate and has the following explanation for derivation of the name:

Duplus means double, apex means peak, referring to the two unique doublure spines.

Not sure the Latin is correct or if it should use a genitive (-apicis or -apicum), but it's not -plex. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, the ICZN does not correct spellings based on their etymology - Article 32.5.1 explicitly prohibits corrections to spelling based on incorrect Latin usage by an author. There are, accordingly, a lot of malformed names that have never been corrected - like "nigrus" or "pulchrus". They're like nails on a chalkboard, but they can't be touched. As an aside, a friend published a species named "tolkeini", which would have been correctable if he had said in the paper that it was named after J.R.R. Tolkien, but he did not, so it's not possible to correct it, because Article 32.5.1 prohibits the use of external sources of information. Dyanega (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Article 11.8 of the ICZN says that generic names are nominative singular, i.e. Duplapex would be correct. Lavateraguy (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Just found this paper that uses both spellings, so perhaps that's what Tony 1212 meant at IRMNG... - UtherSRG (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

This paper was published about a month before the latest update to the entry at IRMNG, so is quite possibly the origin of the misspelling. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks guys / guyesses (if any) for the above comments and alert. Yes, the IRMNG record was wrong, now fixed ("Duplapex") and no, I did not previously spot the error (just noted the discrepancy) when adding a reference for the family placement as my more recent edit last November. All good now I hope, also a note added RE the recent (unrelated/coincidental) single-place misspelling in another paper. Multiple pairs of eyes are good!! The only issue being that at present, IRMNG does not have a system to alert "power users" of the downstream package when a name (spelling) as recorded by IRMNG has been changed i.e. corrected - users have to discover this for themselves (a bit sub-optimal) - something to think about down the track. And yes, previous comments are correct, once a name is published in whatever form, that form stands, unless changed by an ICZN Opinion (cannot be emended for grammatical or other reasons, species gender agreement excepted). (May not apply to families, where the termination is formed separately from the stem, and is sometimes published incorrectly). Thanks all, happy to be in the loop regarding any other IRMNG issues spotted (no system is perfect, but I/we do our best). Note also that comments can be added to https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tony_1212 where I will hopefully be alerted to them automatically. Regards, Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

From a comment above: "IRMNG in particular seems to be inconsistent in a lot of things". Well, the species treatment/s can become out of step with the genus treatments - the latter are updated semi-continuously as resources permit, the former are "frozen" as at 2014 and unlikely to be changed in the future (resources are concentrating on the genus level and above these days). And yes, the higher taxonomies can have inconsistencies, which have generally been inherited from the multiple (and sometimes now outdated) sources used, and I try to address as discovered, but sometimes when it is a big task it gets shelved. But happy to take on notice, any specific issues, unless they concern species of course! Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello! Trying to do some cleanup at Category:Taxa that may be invalid, and while most are fairly easy to resolve, I was wondering how we should treat taxa inquirenda. Do they get the same free notability pass that an accepted validly described taxa does, or should they be redirected to a parent taxon? Or is there a secret third thing I should do for these? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Taxa inquirenda are generally not be considered notable and should be deleted if possible. Unfortunately, this is often more trouble than it is worth and if we wait long enough they may be able to be either sourced as accepted, or redirected to a senior synonym. Loopy30 (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

At least as far as fossil genera are concerned, dubious taxa are considered equally notable as valid ones. Ornithopsis (talk) 01:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Loopy30, thanks. My usual practice for unaccepted species is to redirect to the parent taxon since they can be easily resurrected if they are accepted later, so in the future I'll treat inquirenda species in the same way.

Is there a discussion to that effect somewhere, @Ornithopsis? I usually don't deal with fossils anyway, but just so I know for future reference. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure whether there has ever been a formal discussion of it, but it is an accepted standard on our side of things. For instance, pretty much every dubious non-avian dinosaur genus has an article (e.g. Ponerosteus, Iuticosaurus, Walgettosuchus), and quite a few non-dinosaur taxa as well (e.g. Leogorgon, Barracudasaurus, Tontoia). Ornithopsis (talk) 01:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense. Like I said, I don't usually deal with fossils - mostly the invalid ones in that cat are snails - but if I do, I'll know to leave it be. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I think many of us have encountered several taxa whose description date jumps between two years, because we either display the first date of publication of the reference, or the date of the volume/issue to which the article belongs. For example, many taxa can be assigned either to "Cavalier-Smith 2017", because the paper was published in December 2017, or to "Cavalier-Smith 2018", because it belongs to a 2018 volume or issue within the scientific journal. Could we reach a consensus? Do we prefer the volume date or the first publication date? —Snoteleks (Talk) 12:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

It used to be that the date of physical publication is the one to use. In older works this sometime meant the authority date was several years after the work was completed. For electronic journals, the information must be deposited at Zoobank. Not sure if deposit at Zoobank would take precedence over physical publication if both were done. —  Jts1882 | talk  12:48, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

We shouldn't make this decision and we should report what the third party sources report for authority dates. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

At the risk of being perceived again as an unwelcome authoritarian voice: the question is about what to do when third-party sources do not all agree. Here, again, the nomenclatural Codes have explicit rules for determining the correct date of publication. In the case of the ICZN, this is regulated under Articles 21 and 22, and a distinction is made between the actual date (determined by external evidence) and the imprint date appearing in the work itself. For example: "Ctenotus alacer Storr, 1970 ("1969"), or Ctenotus alacer Storr, 1970 ["1969"], or Ctenotus alacer Storr, 1970 (imprint 1969), or Ctenotus alacer Storr, 1970 (not 1969), was established in a work which, although published in 1970, carried an imprint date of 1969; Anomalopus truncatus (Peters, 1876 ["1877"]) was established in a different genus from Anomalopus in a work which, although published in 1876, carried an imprint date of 1877." Realistically, the only "wiggle room" offered here that can lead to non-erroneous discrepancies in external sources is (1) that new evidence can be found regarding actual dates, so you can have a body of literature citing a name as being from year X, and then after someone publishes new evidence, subsequent literature may all use year Y instead, and (2) citing two dates is optional, so you might have one source that says "Peters, 1876 (1877)" and another that says "Peters, 1876" and those are not actually different from one another. It's the responsibility of WP editors, unfortunately, to determine which third-party sources are reliable, and which ones are not - but the nomenclatural Codes do give guidance, and I would urge editors to know those rules and only cite sources that are compliant. Dyanega (talk) 16:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

As for the "deposit in ZooBank" question, that's not enough, in and of itself, to make a name available. For digital publications under the ICZN, the date of publication of a nomenclatural work is the date the work fulfills ALL of the criteria of availability, of which ZooBank registration is just one. Works published digitally and also in print take the date of whichever form of the publication was issued in a Code-compliant manner first. It's happened quite a few times where a digital publication was not Code-compliant, but the print version of the same work WAS, and if they happen to be in different years, then it is the year of the print publication that is correct under the Code. Dyanega (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

So it seems that the year of print publication would be correct in most modern cases. In fact, I do see third party sources report the print date and not the digital date. —Snoteleks (Talk) 17:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

By the way, most of the time third party sources do not mention the year at all. That is why I'm asking this. —Snoteleks (Talk) 17:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

If none of the sources prints a year in the authority, it is not our job to research what the ICZN would have prefered. We should follow suit with what the third party sources have done. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hypothetical case, then: suppose there are three sources each with a different date. One of those three sources cites the ICZN. Do you cite all three sources and say, in Wikipedia, that the date is disputed, or do you ignore (and not cite) the two sources that don't cite the ICZN? Dyanega (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Snoteleks said: "So it seems that the year of print publication would be correct in most modern cases." Well in my experience, not necessarily (maybe 30%, maybe 50%...) Let us say the official issue of a journal volume is dated for 2024, but the work appeared online first in 2023. Them if as Doug says all the criteria for effective e-publication were fulfilled in the online version (including an included ZooBank identifier), the nomenclatural acts in that work would correctly date from 2023. Otherwise, they would date from 2024, other fulfilled criteria for print publication being equal; but if that work was actually available in print form in 2023 (irrespective of the imprint year) then the names contained would date from 2023 as well. How one would cite the article could also be different from how one would cite the authorship for the names; would it be e.g. Jones & Smith, 2024, Jones & Smith, 2023, Jones & Smith, 2023 ("2024"), or other, I am not sure... Tony 1212 (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

There's also a provision in the ICZN that when the date is not specified or demonstrably incorrect that "the earliest day on which the work is demonstrated to be in existence" is the date to be adopted.

Under the botanical code, it's not just the date that something was actually printed, but the date that the work was distributed "to the general public or at least to scientific institutions with generally accessible libraries". There was a case where a a self-published journal wasn't distributed to libraries until many years after the imprint date. In the time between the imprint date and the the distribution to libraries, several taxa named in the self-published journal were named separately by other people. The names published by the other people were deemed to have priority, with the publication dates for the self-published journal being set to when libraries received it (there is pretty strong evidence that the claimed imprint dates for the self-published journal are completely fraudulent, but the researchers who determined that the library reception dates should be used avoid accusing the self-publisher directly of fraud and treat the situation as if he had actually printed the journal on the claimed dates and then left the printed copies in a box in his house for several years). 19:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC) Plantdrew (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

For this specific question, I'd go with the paper that cites the ICZN and cite that paper. Barring the ICZN support of one possibility out of three, I'd probably would question including the year at all. For something less small, I may include some discussion on how there is some disagreement, include the information from all reputable (ie IS, RS) sources. Multiple data points that contradict yield a discussion in the article as to the disagreement, and data supported by multiple sources and multiple types of sources will get more weight. This may seem contradictory for an encyclopedia, but it is not our job to get the facts straight; it is our job to report information that can be verified (WP:V). Correct data that is unable to be verified is worthless to the encyclopedia. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how a citation to the ICZN helps. The ICZN defines the rules, but unless it manages a database (which could be cited directly) I don't see how a paper citing the ICZN identifies the date of a particular publication. For plants we have IPNI (which isn't necessarily right, but tries to record the dates of publication) and Taxonomic Literature (Stafleu and Cowan) and its supplement (Stafleu and Mennega). Lavateraguy (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

To be straightforward, I do not like the idea of not using dates. I would prefer if, when no clear option available, we had a consensus to use either the volume date or the online published date —Snoteleks (Talk) 20:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/Archive_57#Authority_dates, I think the actual date of online publication should be taken as the authority date, regardless of when the volume is dated. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Excellent, as long as we are all in agreement. I for one think it makes more sense. —Snoteleks (Talk) 22:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

> I think the actual date of online publication should be taken as the authority date

Only if the online version contains all the requisites for effective e-publication as defined in the Code (talking zoology here BTW). Otherwise, the name is not published (for nomenclatural purposes) until the print version appears... Tony 1212 (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Here are the criteria for acceptable e-publication as set out in the ICZN Code at the present time: (from https://code.iczn.org/criteria-of-publication/article-8-what-constitutes-published-work/?frame=1#art-8-5):

8.5. Works issued and distributed electronically

To be considered published, a work issued and distributed electronically must

8.5.1. have been issued after 2011,

8.5.2. state the date of publication in the work itself, and

8.5.3. be registered in the Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature (ZooBank) (see Article 78.2.4) and contain evidence in the work itself that such registration has occurred. [My bolding - Tony: this is an occasional failing; a more common failing is no ZooBank registration at all]

8.5.3.1. The entry in the Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature must give the name and Internet address of an organization other than the publisher that is intended to permanently archive the work in a manner that preserves the content and layout, and is capable of doing so. This information is not required to appear in the work itself.

8.5.3.2. The entry in the Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature must give an ISBN for the work or an ISSN for the journal containing the work. The number is not required to appear in the work itself.

8.5.3.3. An error in stating the evidence of registration does not make a work unavailable, provided that the work can be unambiguously associated with a record created in the Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature before the work was published. Tony 1212 (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Tony here, sorry but although this can work in the majority of cases it does not in all. Some journals are substandard when it comes to publishing and keep the initial date of upload as the visible date of the publication, these pre-prints are not available for nomenclature, its not until the final and stable version is published online that the work meets the code and is considered published for the purposes of nomenclature. Failing that it waits for the printed version to come out, even then I know of cases that are extremely difficult. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 07:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

<--- Previous issue | Next issue ---> | Tip Line SYMBIOSIS: The lichen task force newsletter — November 2023 A look at what we've accomplished, working together
Our tiny task force is working to improve coverage of the world's lichens – unique symbiotic organisms composed of one or more fungal partners with one or more photosynthetic partners. They're found around the world, covering more than 7% of the earth's surface – from frigid polar areas to the steamy equator, from the edges of lapping seas to the highest mountains, and from city walls to the most pristine wilderness areas. They provide food and nesting material for myriad animal species, may be major players in the creation of soil from rock, and produce substances which may prove beneficial in our fight against pathogenic organisms. Want to learn more? Join us!	Articles of note New featured list: Outline of lichens (October 29) New good articles: Teloschistaceae (9 September) – a large family of mostly lichen-forming fungi Elke Mackenzie (18 October) – a noted British lichenologist who was also part of a secret WWII mission to Antarctica
Project news Esculenta has been on a tear recently and now has six articles under consideration for good article status: Anaptychia ciliaris, Buellia frigida, Chrysothrix chlorina, Placidium arboreum, Pulchrocladia retipora, and Punctelia. Esculenta has also submitted Teloschistaceae (which received its GA star in September) for consideration as a featured article. We now have articles about two additional noted lichenologists: Vitus Grummann and Oscar Klement. "Year of description" categories have been added to all genus and species articles. The number of genus and species articles continues to grow. We now have 935 articles about lichen genera and more than 2100 (including redirects) about lichen species. It's not all good news: The number of articles on our cleanup listing has also grown, with 5% of the task force's articles showing some sort of potential issue. These range from missing or unreliable sources to dead external links and orphaned articles. Some of these could probably be sorted relatively quickly, if you're looking for a fast way to help the project improve the quality of its coverage.
Newsletter challenge The "Phytochemistry" section in our Stereocaulon ramulosum is convoluted and virtually unreadable – and has had a "clarification needed" tag since July of 2022. The editor who whips this short section into shape (and the one who cleans up the associated references) will get public kudos in the next newsletter.
Got a suggestion? A correction? Something you'd like to see included in a future issue? Drop a note at the Tip Line with your ideas!

Delivered by MeegsC (talk) 09:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

So there are two claims for Mereschkowsky's description year of the euglenid genus Urceolus, and I do not know which is correct:

• Mereschkowsky 1879. Appears as such in AlgaeBase. Sources supporting this point towards an article titled "Studien über Protozoen des nördlichen Russland" (in German), published in the journal Archiv für Mikroskopische Anatomie 16: 153-248, which is available at the Biodiversity Heritage Library and apparently published at Springer too, including a DOI identifier (10.1007/BF02956383). All in all, seems pretty reliable, and you can literally see Mereschkowsky write "Urceolus Alenzini, nov. genus et nova species" in page 188. However I found no scholarly article that backs this year.
• Mereschkowsky 1877. Appears as such in ToLweb. According to the scholarly articles,^[1][2] this is the correct date, and the 1879 one is a misquote. These sources cite an article with the same title, "Studien über Protozoen des nördlichen Russland", but published in the rare journal Trudy Imperatorskago S. Petersburgskago Obshchestva Estestvoispyatatelei 8: 203-376. This journal seems to have lasted until the early 1900s, and I couldn't find any English record of it online, or trace of this article at all. In addition, the wikispecies page for Urceolus leads to an article by Mereschkowsky with a different title, "Etjudy nad prostejsimi zivotnymi severa Rossii" (in Russian), but same year and journal. When searching online for this title, I encounter nothing except other articles citing it instead of the 1879 one. Sources^[2] say this is the correct date, and that the other is a misquoting, and that if 1879 was the correct date, the junior synonym Phialonema (by Stein 1878) would have preference over Urceolus.

Can anyone help with finding out which one is correct? I can't seem to get a hold on the 1877 paper.—Snoteleks (Talk) 17:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you see this Google Books page? It gives a different journal for the 1877 paper (Travaux de la Soc. des Naturalistes de St. Pétersburg vol. viii.), and a bit of contextual information about the early circumscription of the genus. Esculenta (talk) 18:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Just for information, Neave (Nomenclator Zoologicus) gives Mereschkowsky 1879, Arch. mikr. Anat., 16, 188 for Urceolus, as does ING, from which I presently have it in IRMNG, however for Phialonema Stein, 1878. ING says:

"According to Buetschli (Mastigophora in Bronn's Klassen Ordn. Thier-Reichs 1(2): 825. 1884) the type is referred to Urceolus Mereschkowsky 1877." So there is an inconsistency there, possibly leaning towards an 1877 date for Urceolus. Happy to change my info in IRMNG if the earlier date comes through as believable... Tony 1212 (talk) 18:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Esculenta the journal Travaux de la Soc. des Naturalistes de St. Pétersburg is the same as Trudy Imperatorskago Sankt Petersburgskago Obshchestva Estestvoispyatatelei, it's just the French name, at least according to wikidata:Q107567684. I think your Google Books finding solves the issue, since it is Mereschkowsky's own explanation. I find it believable. —Snoteleks (Talk) 19:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

By the way, I found the free access version on BHL. —Snoteleks (Talk) 19:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

That being Ann. Nat. Hist. 5, 7: 209-280 (1881), which is the English version, which has the species under question on page 219 with a citation back to the original Russian work of 1877. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

You seem to have resolved it. However it this helps, I'd interpret the 1879 paper as being a republication in translation of the 1877 paper. You've found the journal name in Russian and French, and the article title in Russian and German. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I definitely suspected that it was a translation to German. However I did not want to assume this since it is not explicit anywhere. I guess it's not wrong to assume it? But it would help to have the original Russian ver. —Snoteleks (Talk) 14:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

It's certainly desirable to confirm the hypothesis; I've found errors in taxonomic databases by going back to the original source before. (I've just reported a couple of spurious records to IPNI - cases where the author was citing a prior name, not publishing a new one.)

I note that republication, for different audiences, was considered more acceptable in the 19th century that it is nowadays.

The problem I'd have here, assuming I could find the papers, is that I can only get a vague sense of the meaning of German text (Google Translate is better than me), and I couldn't make any sense of transliterated Russian, never Cyrillic. I've run the first paragraph of the 1879 paper through Google Translate, and it contains the statement "In the VIII B. of the Works of the St. Petersburg Natural Scientists' Society I have described all the already known and new freshwater and marine infusoria that I have found, a total of about 150 species. In this work I want to describe almost exclusively the new forms I have found and then share the general conclusions I have come to." (infusoria is an old term for microorganisms).

The first sentence looks like a reference back to the 1877 paper - right volume (I think the "B" is an abbrevation for Band, meaning volume) and the German version of the journal name (translated into English by Google Translate, though I had to capitalise Works myself). So the second half of the first sentence combined with the second sentence seems to say that it is a publication of parts (new taxa descriptions and general conclusions) of the 1877 paper. Nowadays I'd expect an explicit additional preceding paragraph of the form "This paper is a translated extract of material previously published in Russian in Trudy Imperatorskago S. Petersburgskago Obshchestva Estestvoispyatatelei 8: 203-376 (1877)", but things were sloppier back in the day. People remain inconsistent on whether the titles of articles and name of journals are translated or not (never mind that many Latin American journals publish papers with both English and Spanish titles for each paper).

I'm in two minds as to whether he "should" have cited the original publication for each new taxon, rather than denoting then as new taxa. Most of the time you wouldn't change the main text to cite the original publication when reprinting or translating a work (I might add footnotes to a translation), but in this instance I can see an arguable case for making the change.

So we have a provisional conclusion that the novel taxon descriptions were published in the 1877 paper. With the Ann. Nat. Hist. text it's pretty much a conclusive conclusion.

Lavateraguy (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The russian description can be found on GoogleBooks here. As far as I understand it (my Russian is poor), it really seems to be the original text of the German translation of 1879 here. (I'm a native German speaker). Thiotrix (talk) 11:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Elsewhere I've seen the Russian work cited as pp. 1-299, which doesn't seem to match the actual text (56-385?) Lavateraguy (talk) 12:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The article begins on page 203 and ends p. 385. Thiotrix (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Just noting that there are 2 other names ascribed to that 1879 Mereschkowsky work in Neave (Nomenclator Zoologicus), as follows:

• Haeckelina Mereschkowsky 1879 Arch. mikr. Anat., 16, 211.
• Merotricha Mereschkowsky 1879 Arch. mikr. Anat., 16, 186.

Possibly these should also date from 1877 as per Urceolus, but I am not in a position to check right now... Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

From the copy Thiotrix found

• • Merotricha Mereschkowsky 1877 Travaux de la Soc. des Naturalistes de St. Pétersburg 8: 291
  • Merotricha bacillata Mereschkowsky 1877 Travaux de la Soc. des Naturalistes de St. Pétersburg 8: 291
  • Haeckelina Mereschkowsky 1877 Travaux de la Soc. des Naturalistes de St. Pétersburg 8: 333
  • Haeckelina borealis Mereschkowsky 1877 Travaux de la Soc. des Naturalistes de St. Pétersburg 8: 335

If you're feeling keen you could work through the document; one can pick out the new taxon names since they're in Latin script, and explicitly denoted as new. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Haeckelina is on p. 211 (1879, German) and p. 336 (1877, Russian). Merotricha is on p. 186 (1879) and on p. 291 (1877). Kind regards, Thiotrix (talk) 12:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, all! Interestingly, ING had the "correct" 1877 date and work for Merotricha, an alga (does not hold Haeckelina, a heliozoan). The latter is in fact a preoccupied name, its replacement name is Servetia Poche, 1913 which is in Clathrulinidae according to Adl et al., 2019. Interestingly again, both these taxa seem to be freshwater; from the radiolarian element, I was rather presuming that the results of this "plankton expedition" were exclusively marine... Tony 1212 (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Speaking of Haeckelina, apparently that name was also used as Haeckelina Bessels 1875 (a foraminifer) and later substituted by Astrorhiza. WoRMs only has that record of Haeckelina, without the heliozoan. —Snoteleks (Talk) 19:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh I just realized that was the original Haeckelina, because it was created two years earlier than the heliozoan. So both Haeckelina names have been rejected, meaning there isn't any organism named Haeckelina now. —Snoteleks (Talk) 20:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)