Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 61

Archive 55

←

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

Taxobox authority statements

What should the format be of the authority listed in taxoboxes? My understanding is that we follow how the authority is published, which is done in accordance to the industry standards for that taxon. For animals, that means "Name, Year", possibly in parenthesis. For fungus, that means "Name". Esculenta reverted my change on Architrypethelium submuriforme citing their own preference, while I cited industry standards. Which is correct? - UtherSRG (talk) 15:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Note GBIF and COL demonstrating the same format I used. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Also note the taxobox instructions, though it only lists plant, animal, and bacteria, and omits fungus, though there is no reason fungus should be non-standard. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Those were possibly intended to correspond to the 3 codes, even though it does say kingdoms. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

In the ICNafp (botanical Code, covering algae, fungi and plants, with a few "special cases"), the convention is to cite the author (full name or abbreviated form) with no year (https://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/pages/main/art_46.html), sometimes (for changed generic placement or new rank with an original author name given in brackets as per their example "Neotysonia phyllostegia (F. Muell.) Paul G. Wilson". However I have noticed a trend in some compendia such as Index Fungorum (for Fungi) to start appending the year as well, e.g. in example https://www.indexfungorum.org/names/NamesRecord.asp?RecordID=30415 although we have (at genus level) Sporites H. Potonié, Abh. preuss. geol. Landesanst. 9: 185 (1893)", at species level we have "Sporites papillatus (Dawson ex Schimp.) H. Potonié 1893", while in Algaebase (example: https://www.algaebase.org/search/genus/detail/?genus_id=43626_ we have at genus level, "Ceratium F.Schrank, 1793", while at species there is no year, just being "Ceratium tetraceras Schrank" in this instance. What this means, to me, is that the Fungi and Algae main compilers (also some other compendia, particularly in the area of plant microfossils, which also tend to include year as well as author name) are actually ahead of (or depart from) the Code in considering the year important as well as the author name, in line with zoological practices. I do the same (since 2006 in IRMNG, although only for the botanical genera, not species unless they come in with that info) although I am not a nomenclatural authority by any means; but to me it adds interest in being able to trace the history of use of names, as well as tabulate (for example) new taxa erected by year; and in cases of homonymy within the same Code, allows simple inspection of which is the earlier name.

Unfortunately in my view, Wikipedia probably should follow the Code at this time, jettisoning the potential useful information included in the year...Tony 1212 (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually I had not looked deeply enough into the present Index Fungorum conventions. It seems there are 2 separate but linked systems maintained by the IF guys, Index Fungorum and Species Fungorum. IF has moved (mostly) to including year as well as author; SF has (mostly) not at this time. Example current search result from IF (search term="Amanita", rank = genus) (start only):

Amanita Dill. ex Boehm. 1760, (also see Species Fungorum: Agaricus); Agaricaceae

Amanita Adans. 1763; Agaricales

Amanita Pers. 1797, (also see Species Fungorum: Amanita); Amanitaceae

Amanita 1 Vaginatae Quél. 1872; Amanitaceae

Amanita 2 Phalloideae Quél. 1872; Amanitaceae

Amanita 3 Muscariae Quél. 1872; Amanitaceae

Amanita 3 Validae Quél. 1872; Amanitaceae

Amanita I Vaginaria Forq. ex Quél. 1888; Amanitaceae

Amanita II Peplophora Quél. 1888; Amanitaceae

Amanita sect. Amanita Pers. 1797; Amanitaceae

Amanita sect. Amarrendiae (Bougher & T. Lebel) Zhu L. Yang, Y.Y. Cui, Q. Cai & Ling Ping Tang 2018; Amanitaceae

Amanita sect. Arenariae Zhu L. Yang, Y.Y. Cui & Q. Cai 2018; Amanitaceae

Amanita sect. Caesarae Singer 1943; Amanitaceae

Amanita sect. Mappae E.-J. Gilbert 1940; Amanitaceae

Amanita sect. Ovigerae Singer 1951; Amanitaceae

So with this as a possible "industry standard", maybe a case can be made for including year as well as author in Wikipedia (which would suit me fine). Tony 1212 (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Giving the year of publication (or transfer) after the authority still "follows the code", it just appends useful information onto it, rather than jettisoning it. We are creating an encyclopedia article to summarize useful or important information about a taxon. If some editors think we are "breaking the rules" (what rules, I'm not quite sure, it's never said anywhere explicitly that years cannot be included in this way) by adding this extra useful information, how do they think about adding a separate taxobar column for "year of publication"? Esculenta (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually this is what I do in IRMNG anyway, e.g. for Primulaceae (https://irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=113235) I give:

Primulaceae Batsch ex Borkhausen, 1797

1. Genus Aegiceras J. Gaertner, 1788
2. Genus Amblyanthopsis Mez in Engler, 1902
3. Genus Amblyanthus Alph. de Candolle, 1841
4. Genus Anagallis Linnaeus, 1753
5. Genus Androsace Linnaeus, 1753
6. Genus Antistrophe Alph. de Candolle, 1841
7. Genus Ardisia O. Swartz, 1788
8. Genus Ardisiandra J.D. Hooker, 1864
9. Genus Asterolinon Hoffmannsegg & Link, 1813-1820

(etc).

However I do not necessarily consider that this follows the Code examples, more adds useful information as discussed above, that I am loth to lose...

Also I do not really consider myself an "industry standard", unfortunately.

Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Personally I would establish both author and year a Wikipedia rule. Even though the botanical code does not deem it necessary, it is a minority of all the existing taxa. Both the ICNP and ICZN support it, and ICZN controls protozoa. Although there is no unified code for all protists (yet), there is a strong tendency among protistologists to treat them all the same, with author and year, regardless if they are algae. Also, for plant taxa we can easily add the year, since websites such as IPNI already display the required information, and even a link to the original description.

I think the entire ToL project should take a vote to establish a standard across all Wikipedia taxon pages. It would also be useful to vote on whether or not we should place a "," between the author and the year. —Snoteleks (Talk) 19:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

It's also possible to add this information through adding the appropriate category, but that doesn't exactly make it front and centre. YorkshireExpat (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

The first point I would like to make is that for names covered by the ICNafp whose authorities have standard abbreviations in IPNI or Index Fungorum we use the standard author abbreviation. So, for example, it should be Amblyanthus A.DC. and Anagallis L. There are no such standard abbreviations for names covered by the ICZN, so immediately there is an important difference.

The second point is that for names covered by the ICNafp, if we want more than just the names of the authors, we should follow the format that it uses. Consider this quote from Art. 11 Ex. 8: "Antirrhinum spurium L. (Sp. Pl.: 613. 1753) when transferred to Linaria Mill. is called L. spuria (L.) Mill. (Gard. Dict., ed. 8: Linaria No. 15. 1768)." Let me be clear that I don't advocate doing this; I strongly support our present approach with ICNafp names.

The reality is that the nomenclature codes are different, and the sources that use those codes correctly therefore necessarily use different formats. We should follow the codes and the examples they provide. We shouldn't attempt to vote on a separate English Wikipedia code. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, I would like to at least see that whole format implemented in botanical taxoboxes, with the year and publication included. —Snoteleks (Talk) 08:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

One way of doing this is using the short ICNafp format and adding the OD as a citation. Although there could be a question of the citation being inappropriate, as the source for the author would be a secondary source and not the original paper. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually, there is one thing we should vote on, and that is where the limit between using the ICNafp format and using the [author, year] format. Most basal Archaeplastida groups, and most non-green algae I have seen, use the [author, year] format in their taxoboxes, although technically the ICNafp approach should be made. In the same manner, oomycetes and slime mold taxa have adopted the ICZN format both here and in the literature, although according to the ICNafp it should be their format. It is only in land plants and true fungi where I start to see the ICNafp format. I think we should at least come to a consensus on which WikiProjects should abide to the botanical nomenclature: only WP:Plants and WP:Fungi, or additionally WP:Protista (and WP:Algae by extension). —Snoteleks (Talk) 08:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I would add one qualification on what Index Fungorum does in a case like Amanita. The name is give as follows:

• Amanita Dill. ex Boehm., Defin. Gen. Pl.: 490 (1760)

I interpret this as following the ICNafp code in the bolded bit (the actual taxon with author) and then adding the citation which includes the date. This is different from adding the date to the author name. That said the same record has an editorial comment "Rejected against Amanita Pers. 1797" where the date is included with the author without the citation. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

That format with the author and date without the citation also appears when searching for a taxon. It seems like there is some sort of implicit consensus that the "abbreviated" version of a record is in the typical [author, year] format used outside botany. —Snoteleks (Talk) 10:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@Snoteleks: I'm not sure what you mean by "implicit consensus" above. Exactly the reverse is true. Go to Bellis perennis (because its taxonbar has a lot of entries) and then go to all the specifically plant taxonomic databases. Everyone I looked at either used just the author, i.e. "Bellis perennis L.", or gave a version of the full "Sp. Pl. 2: 886. 1753". Not one I found used "L. 1753" with or without a comma or parentheses. It's overwhelmingly the case that taxonomic databases for plants use just the authors or the full citation.

We could use the full citation, but this is a general encyclopedia, not a biology encyclopedia, so I don't believe the full citation is appropriate. As per Jts1882's comment above, the full citation could be expanded into a reference (it's not in any of our accepted citation styles as it is), but because it's primary, it can't substitute for a secondary reference.

Our current advice is, in my view, absolutely correct for ICNafp and ICZN names, but we need to say a bit more about names under other codes, e.g. bacteria, viruses. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

What's your justification for not allowing the appendation of the publication date onto the authority? We are a general encyclopaedia, and it seems to me that the insistence of following some rigid rules of displaying authority in a prescribed format reduces the information value of the taxon article. For a real-life example, sometimes I like to go to taxon pages and add the "year of publication" category. For many, many stub-class (or even higher-rated) plant articles I have to go to an external website to even find this information. How is this acceptable in a general encyclopaedia? Esculenta (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

There are no "year of publication" categories. If there were, that would make things simpler. There are "species described in year" categories. There have been multiple discussion about what exactly "described in year" means for plants that have lead to Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Description in year categories. Following that essay, a "described in year" category for a plant species is supposed to be the year that the taxon was first described and given a name in accordance with the ICNafp. That name under which a taxon was first described may not be the name that currently used (e.g. changes in rank from subsp. to sp. or vice versa, transferring species to a different genus, dealing with situations where a name needs to be replaced). The year of first description isn't necessarily relevant to taxonomist trying to determine which name(s) have priority; the year of publication of any subsequent combinations is what is relevant for determining priority

Under the ICZN, the "year of publication" is the same as year that is relevant for determining taxonomic priority, and is almost always the same year as the year of "first description" (barring cases of e.g. secondary homonymy).

Under the ICZN, epithets have priority. Under the ICNafp, combinations have priority. That's why ICNafp author citations including the combining authority; it is relevant to tracking down the publication where the combination was established, with the date of the publication being relevant for priority. And that's why ICZN author citation include year when the epithet was established, and not the name of the combining authority (the combining authority's publication is irrelevant to priority).

I think it would be nice if the ICNafp had a tradition of including the year relevant for priority in author citations. But it doesn't. What would somebody familiar with the ICZN make of Architrypethelium seminudum (Mont.) Aptroot (1991)? I think they'd associate 1991 with Mont.'s publication. And a Wikipedian adding "described in year" categories would likely go with 1991.

I think "described in year" categories are a waste of time and would be happy to get rid of them. What is relevant to a lay reader with an ordinary definition of "described" is what Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Description in year categories gets at (lay readers are mostly going to be interested in "how long have scientists known about this species", not "what year is relevant to determining taxonomic priority"). IF the "described in year" categories are supposed to be relevant to taxonomists interested in priority, the categories are poorly named. If it is desirable to give citations in a longer form such as "L. Sp. Pl. 2: 886. 1753", it's going to crowd taxoboxes, and is probably more appropriate for Wikispecies than a general encyclopedia. Plantdrew (talk) 02:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

We had the "Description in year" discussion a while ago, with it not getting resolved. You think these categories are a waste of time, that's fine, but my experience is different. I use them regularly to help organise my work and document progress, and am happy to "waste my time" maintaining them. You say "I think it would be nice if the ICNafp had a tradition of including the year relevant for priority in author citations. But it doesn't." So why does Wikipedia have to follow suit? You ask about the hypothetical ICZN person who gets confused the first time they see a year in a taxobox about a fungus; they quickly learn what it means and move on. Happens all the time. Wikipedians incorrectly adding categorizing year also happens sometimes, and I correct it when I see mistaken categorizations. It seems that this will keep happening until the entire categorisation scheme gets overhauled, but it doesn't seem like there's any real will to do that. In the meantime, I will continue parenthetically appending the year after the authority in fungus taxon articles I create, because I think it is more beneficial to the reader than without. Esculenta (talk) 03:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm OK with the years in the taxobox at Staurospora. But Staurospora purpurissata has Category:Taxa named by William Nylander (botanist), and Category:Lichens described in 1863, and Arthonia purpurissata has no categories for "taxa named by" or "described in year". Lichens described in 1863 for a species redirect (Staurospora purpurissata) to a monotypic genus is consistent with Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Description in year categories. I'm not sure that Category:Taxa named by William Nylander (botanist) is consistent with other ICNafp articles/redirects for subsequent combinations. Modeling taxa vs. names is not straightforward. Plantdrew (talk) 03:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I was pretty sure I was following the recommended categorization and redirect schemes, and am still not sure what was wrong with what I did after your explanation. If I'm messing this up, please leave a note on my talk and I'll correct my previous errors. Would like to know what I'm doing wrong before the next 1000s of articles I create. Esculenta (talk) 13:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Re: Architrypethelium seminudum (Mont.) Aptroot (1991). I don't think the 1991 should be in parenthesis in the abbreviated name (without journal). It isn't in Index Fungorum where the Architrypethelium record says:

Record Details: Architrypethelium Aptroot, Biblthca Lichenol. 44: 120 (1991)

Typification Details: Architrypethelium seminudum (Mont.) Aptroot 1991

If we don't use strict ICNafp for Fungi and follow Index Fungorum, we're force to interpret their use of dates in author naming (long and short form). I can't find a clear description. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I didn't mean "implicit consensus" in Wikipedia plant taxa, I meant in the search page of Index Fungorum for Amanita. —Snoteleks (Talk) 12:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Apologies if this has been mentioned already, but there's a fair amount here on the topic. YorkshireExpat (talk) 10:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I notice that there is no mention on how to display dates, or whether dates should be displayed at all. —Snoteleks (Talk) 10:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

It may be possible to infer from the examples, but yes, nothing explicit. YorkshireExpat (talk) 14:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Acaulis

I moved this from where it pointed before, but see it's a word used in systematics. I left a hatnote, but if anyone feels that's not sensible let me know and I'll put it back how it was. YorkshireExpat (talk) 19:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

My opinion is that epithets are almost never notable, except in the context of some other topic.

Lavateraguy (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Candidatus taxa

Ran into this recently... I see some variance in how to handle these taxa. Very few are using the automated system. I started converting one... I ran into the family first, Methylomirabilaceae, which used plain text so I automated it as such, but the linked species Methylomirabilis oxyfera that isn't yet automated uses quoted text. What is the correct way to handle these? I was thinking of trashing and replacing everything above the species as incertae sedis, but given that the full hierarchy is proposed, that might be overkill. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is very inconsistent about how it handles Candidatus taxa. There are many articles for taxa that LPSN lists as Candidatus where Wikipedia has no indication whatsoever of that status (e.g. Magnetobacterium bavaricum). There at least a few articles where Wikipedia has a title that indicates the status but which are not in Category:Candidatus taxa (e.g. Candidatus Ulvibacter alkanivorans). There are several articles in the Candidatus category that don't have titles indicating that status (e.g. Borrelia texasensis) There are probably some that aren't in the Candidatus category, and which don't have Candidatus in the title but might indicate Candidatus status in a (manual) taxobox or elsewhere in the article.

The ICNP ([1]) wants Candidatus names to appear as :Candidatus Magnetobacterium bavaricum. Candidatus italicized, name in plain text. LPSN adds quote marks around these names:"Candidatus Magnetobacterium bavaricum".

Achieving consistency means addressing how to title articles (include Candidatus and/or quote marks?), how to present Candidatus names in e.g. lists of species, running text, taxoboxes (include Candidatus, italicization, quote marks?).

Implementing automatic taxoboxes for Candidatus taxa is a whole other thing that involves resolving the other questions I've raised. There are only two taxonomy templates with names beginning with Candidatus: Template:Taxonomy/Candidatus Phytoplasma and Template:Taxonomy/Candidatus Savagella. Frankly, these genus level templates don't work. Speciesboxes expect a genus template to be a single word that should be italicized (not two words with the first unitalicized and the second italicized). Candidatus Phytoplasma solani uses an {{automatic taxobox}} with |species_text= and |binomial_text= to specify the italics. Candidatus Brocadia anammoxidans use an automatic taxobox with no taxonomy template, but with |genus_text= to specify the italics. It is possible (as {{Automatic taxobox}} works now) to set up taxonomy templates for ranks at genus or higher that will display with italicized Candidatus followed by an unitalicized name, but it is pretty messy. It is impossible to set up taxonomy templates (as {{Speciesbox}} works now) that are formatted correctly for species. Using {{Automatic taxobox}} for Candidatus species with |genus_text=, |species_text= and |binomial_text= is a work around, but it's ugly.Plantdrew (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I was unaware of |genus_text=, |species_text= and |binomial_text=, which led me to look at Category:Automatic_taxoboxes_using_manual_parameters. There are a number of articles on undescribed species (based on museum vouchers), for example, ten articles of the form Bedotia sp. nov. 'Namorona'. These were created by PolBot based on IUCN assessments made in the early 2000s, e.g. archived here. I can't find them on the current IUCN site (see Bodotia - genus) and Fishbase doesn't mention them (see Family Bedotiidae). Should we have these stub articles? The previous justification was the IUCN asssessments, but if the IUCN no longer list them, should Wikipedia have articles or just restrict coverage to the list in Bedotia? —  Jts1882 | talk  10:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jts1882:, I don't think we should have articles on these undescribed species. A couple have been taken to AfD; e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aplocheilichthys sp. nov., where I supported deletion on the grounds that the IUCN record had been deleted. However, I'm now not sure that the IUCN records have actually been deleted (I PRODed a couple others a few months ago and then de-PRODed them myself). At Bedotia sp. nov. 'Ankavia-Ankavanana', the first link in the reference takes you to a live page for the undescribed species on the IUCN website. The third link (via DOI) goes to the IUCN homepage, and IUCN link in the taxonbar goes to an error page. Searching the IUCN website for "Bedotia sp. nov. 'Ankavia-Ankavanana'" gives no results. It is possible that the IUCN still has a page for "Bedotia sp. nov. 'Namorona'" somewhere that is difficult to accesss, but it is also possible that it has been deleted. IUCN citations from 2007 for undescribed species don't go anywhere, but IUCN citations that were updated in late 2021 go to live pages as far as I know. I'm not sure exactly what process was used to update the links in 2021; it might be the case that anything that didn't get updated then had the IUCN page deleted. I still think we should delete Polbot created articles for undescribed species (they fail WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES), but it is not straight-forward to say that IUCN no longer lists them. Plantdrew (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I think you may be right that the pages still exist but are hard to find. After I wrote that last comment I also found Bedotia sp. nov. 'Ankavia-Ankavanana' with a live link and a few others in other genera. When the IUCN changed their url format a few years ago, everything went dead and they slowly started adding the redirects until it seemed all worked. As their search system doesn't find the pages that do exist, it's possible the other pages were overlooked. The Wikidata formatter URL property used by the taxonbar uses the Redlist API to get the redirect, which is why you get the json error pages.

I don't feel strongly about deleting them. I would be against creating such articles, but as they exist they do no harm. If the consensus is to delete the articles, the IUCN statuses can be added to the lists in the genus articles and the pages left as redirects. Some of the pages aren't even mentioned in the genus articles and are orphaned. I did find the IUCN report on these assessments (the pdf is on their site) and added it to the Bedotia page.

Apart from the fish (about 40 articles) there are some similar articles on gastropods and plants (e.g. Helichrysum sp. nov. A (and B-E). —  Jts1882 | talk  07:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

We could make {{Candidatus speciesbox}} and {{Cadidatus autotaxobox}} as wrappers that use {{Automatic taxobox}} to set up the boxes properly, using the non-Candidatus names for the underlying taxonomy templates, and adding in the appropriate quotes and italics. [See my "Hrm..." below for later thoughts.] (Though, we may want something more than a wrapper so that we can suppress the "manual parameters" category... but at least a wrapper is quick and easy to implement) But yes, the main issue is how do we want things to look, and what standard do we cite to say "See, that's why we are doing what we are doing." *cough*See below*cough*. If ICNP and LPSN are the only two systems, I guess we just weigh their merits and pick. No others with any merit to speak of? And so the case I originally ran into that was using quoted text with no Candidatus is incorrect? Cool. Is Ca. an accepted abbreviation for Candidatus or no?

• ICNP: Candidatus Methylomirabilaceae and Candidatus Methylomirabilis oxyfera
• LPSN: "Candidatus Methylomirabilaceae" and "Candidatus Methylomirabilis oxyfera"

I thought I was going to like ICNP's system better, but frankly, since I'm so used to seeing bi- and trinomials in italics, the quotes in the LPSN system help to parse what's being said better than the plain unquoted ICNP system does.

And for the bolded lede usage:

• ICNP: Candidatus Methylomirabilaceae and Candidatus Methylomirabilis oxyfera
• LPSN: "Candidatus Methylomirabilaceae" and "Candidatus Methylomirabilis oxyfera"

Here, the bold sets things apart nice enough, though I think the LPSN has grown on me. The quotes bring this into some amount of alignment with the non-bacterial proposed taxa like "Jingia" dongxingensis, though not things like Commelina sp. Sandstone, not to mention the Bedotia articles you mention. (I say draftify all of the defunct Bedotia articles.) Why can't all these organizations discuss these things together and pick one common system. *sigh* Don't answer that... I don't want to hear about extra-organizational squabbles...

Hrm... while my original thoughts on a wrapper for Candidatus boxes would be simple for just genus- and species-level taxa, I see it's going to be more difficult to do something like what is indicated as desired for Methylomirabilis oxyfera with using just a wrapper; the taxonomy templates would need to return the correctly formatted text for the higher-level taxa (as we already do with disambiguated taxa), and the wrapper can deal with the genus and species modifications.

Mockups to follow... - UtherSRG (talk) 13:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Some mockups

"Candidatus Methylomirabilis oxyfera" Methylomirabilis sp.. Scale bar; 200 nm. Scientific classification Domain: Bacteria Phylum: "Candidatus Methylomirabilota" Class: "Candidatus Methylomirabilacaea" Order: "Candidatus Methylomirabilales" Family: "Candidatus Methylomirabilaceae" Genus: "Candidatus Methylomirabilis" Species: "Candidatus M. oxygenifera" Binomial name "Ca. Methylomirabilis oxygeniifera" corrig. Ettwig et al. 2010 "Ca. Methylomirabilis oxyfera" Methylomirabilis sp.. Scale bar; 200 nm. Scientific classification Domain: Bacteria Phylum: "Ca. Methylomirabilota" Class: "Ca. Methylomirabilacaea" Order: "Ca. Methylomirabilales" Family: "Ca. Methylomirabilaceae" Genus: "Ca. Methylomirabilis" Species: "Ca. M. oxygenifera" Binomial name "Ca. Methylomirabilis oxygeniifera" corrig. Ettwig et al. 2010 Candidatus Methylomirabilis oxyfera Methylomirabilis sp.. Scale bar; 200 nm. Scientific classification Domain: Bacteria Phylum: Candidatus Methylomirabilota Class: Candidatus Methylomirabilacaea Order: Candidatus Methylomirabilales Family: Candidatus Methylomirabilaceae Genus: Candidatus Methylomirabilis Species: Candidatus M. oxygenifera Binomial name Ca. Methylomirabilis oxygeniifera corrig. Ettwig et al. 2010 Ca. Methylomirabilis oxyfera Methylomirabilis sp.. Scale bar; 200 nm. Scientific classification Domain: Bacteria Phylum: Ca. Methylomirabilota Class: Ca. Methylomirabilacaea Order: Ca. Methylomirabilales Family: Ca. Methylomirabilaceae Genus: Ca. Methylomirabilis Species: Ca. M. oxygenifera Binomial name Ca. Methylomirabilis oxygeniifera corrig. Ettwig et al. 2010

The Ca. abbreviation might be an invention of Wikipedia; I haven't found it anywhere else yet. NCBI uses quotes. I didn't realize we had List of taxa with candidatus status; links there omit Candidatus, so it could help to find article titles that omit Candidatus. That list hasn't been substantially updated since early 2018.

This 2017 publication is an initial attempt at compiling a list of Candidatus taxa. Candidatus names in running text are given in single quotes. In the table, names are not italicized, and Candidatus is omitted from the table rows.

I think this 2020 publication (by the same lead author) is the first "official" list of Candidatus names (but there are more recent updates). Names are given in running text without Candidatus, without quotes, and in italics. In the table, names are given in the same format (no Candidatus, no quotes, italics).

Both publications are in IJSEM which is the journal of record as far as the ICNP is concerned. I think it is understandable that Candidatus is omitted from the (hundreds of!) names in these publications, since the context is crystal-clear. I am surprised that the 2020 publication has italicized the names. My inclination would be to format names as: Candidatus Methylomirabilis oxygeniifera. Candidatus italicized and not abbreviated, name not italicized, no quotes. Plantdrew (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I saw in the definition of Candidatus in the IJSEN about the 2017 and 2020 lists, but I didn't go looking. It seems, then, that there's some wiggle in how to implement, based upon usage. Big list of only Candidatus taxa? List just the binomial. Running text? Be more formal in the usage. That's fine. It makes sense. I think that means we can be more flexible in how we construct the taxoboxes; as long as we make things adequately distinct, we are good. For instance, perhaps the title of the taxobox has "Candidatus Foo bar" in the title of the taxobox, and then just "Foo bar" in the taxobox listing. I'll make another example... - UtherSRG (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

More possibilities

Candidatus with no common name... "Candidatus Methylomirabilis oxyfera" Methylomirabilis sp.. Scale bar; 200 nm. Scientific classification Domain: Bacteria Phylum: "Methylomirabilota" Class: "Methylomirabilacaea" Order: "Methylomirabilales" Family: "Methylomirabilaceae" Genus: "Methylomirabilis" Species: "M. oxygenifera" Binomial name "Methylomirabilis oxygeniifera" corrig. Ettwig et al. 2010 ... Or perhaps.... "Candidatus Methylomirabilis oxyfera" Methylomirabilis sp.. Scale bar; 200 nm. Scientific classification Domain: Bacteria Phylum: "Methylomirabilota" Class: "Methylomirabilacaea" Order: "Methylomirabilales" Family: "Methylomirabilaceae" Genus: "Methylomirabilis" Species: "M. oxygenifera" Binomial name "Candidatus Methylomirabilis oxygeniifera" corrig. Ettwig et al. 2010 What if there's a common name... Methyl-eating critter Methylomirabilis sp.. Scale bar; 200 nm. Scientific classification Domain: Bacteria Phylum: "Methylomirabilota" Class: "Methylomirabilacaea" Order: "Methylomirabilales" Family: "Methylomirabilaceae" Genus: "Methylomirabilis" Species: "M. oxygenifera" Binomial name "Candidatus Methylomirabilis oxygeniifera" corrig. Ettwig et al. 2010

Could the |classification_status= parameter be of use, e.g. |classification_status=Candidatus taxa in quotes. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that might be a great way to key the format we settle on, though I think "Candidatus" is sufficient vice "Candidatus taxa in quotes". - UtherSRG (talk) 13:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposal about "threats" in the standard outline

Hi members of WikiProject Tree of Life! Greetings from WikiProject Climate Change where I spend most of my time. I came here through the issue of how climate change can impact biodiversity loss (e.g. this article, needs further work: Effects of climate change on plant biodiversity. My post here is prompted by a discussion on the talk page of flowering plant where I argued that a main level section on "threats" ought to be included (not hidden under "interactions with humans"). I compared it also with the outline of koala and dolphin. The dolphin article has a dedicated main level heading on "threats", the koala article doesn't but has some content under "conservation"; an approach which I find sub-optimal. I copy three pertinent talk page entries from the talk page of flowering plant below: EMsmile (talk) 10:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Housekeeping comment: I removed the comments that you copied from Talk:Flowering plant to this Talk page. That discussion does not make sense when taken out of the context of Talk:Flowering plant. The comments are still at Talk:Flowering plant#Conservation is certainly an 'interaction with humans'. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with that house keeping step because those discussions were actually not overly specific to flowering plant. That was the whole point: I had started the discussion there but was told to come here. Anyway, I'll leave it up to User:Chiswick Chap if they want to copy their comments across to here, or re-add them. EMsmile (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Further discussion

There is considerable variation in how this is handled so it might be difficult to get a consensus for how it should be handled. A quick survey found the following arrangements:

• Conservation section included in interactions with humans
  • Flowering plant (Conservation in Interations with humans, after Practical uses and Cultural uses)
  • Bear (under Relationships with humans)
  • Mammal (threats section as 4th subsection of Humans and other mammals
  • Insect (Populations declines as part of Relationship with humans)
• Conservation/threat separate from interactions with humans
  • Koala (Conservation section after Human relationship)
  • Dolphin (Threats section before Relationships wth humans
  • Bird (Threats and conservation after Relationship with humans)
  • Tiger, Lion, Polar bear (Conservation section before Relationships wth humans)
• Three sections
  • Orchid (sections on Uses, Cultural symbolism, and Conservation)
  • Oak (sections on Uses, Conservation, and Culture)
• other
  • Amphibian (conservation section only)
  • Reptiles, Bees (no conservation section, only Relations(hip) with humans
  • Fungus (no Conservations section, but has see also link to Conservation of fungi

On balance I think separate sections are better, but it will depend on the amount of material. Articles on charismatic species have more conservation and have multiple conservation sections. And when there is less information, a single section may be better. —  Jts1882 | talk  11:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Jts1882 speaks my mind here. I think it really depends on the article. For some taxa, reliable sources have a lot to say about conservation and threats, and for other taxa reliable sources say much less. The extent and angle of the coverage should reflect other how other reliable overviews of the topic cover it. Articles like Zebra mussel shouldn't say anything about conservation at all. I don't think it's wise to try to standardize this across a wide swath of articles. (P.S. I'm responding to a post on the Wikiproject climate change talk page). Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for these responses. Yes, for sure, it will be rather variable. But that's the whole point of having a template: it helps people to remember which aspects may or may not be relevant for that particular species. At the moment the template, as set up by this WikiProject, looks like this and doesn't mention the possibility of having "threats" as a main level heading. In fact, threats are not mentioned explicitly and only in passing in the explanation for the "conservation" section. I think this can be improved upon. I don't even think that "conservation" as a main level heading is more relevant than "threats" as a main level heading.

At the end of the day, the editors can decide how they want to do it for each article but the template could provide guidance. Do we think "threats" are important for some/many of these species? I think so. I don't think that threats ought to be hidden below something like "interactions with humans" or below "conservation" as is the case in the flowering plant article. And I don't think that it would add too much bloat or lead to WP:COATRACK which is what User:Chiswick Chap had said on the talk page of flowering plant. (I think that comment should have stayed here because it was not specific to flowering plant). EMsmile (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

"Rhyphelia variegata" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Rhyphelia variegata has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 9 § Rhyphelia variegata until a consensus is reached. Kk.urban (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Taxonomic changes by 172.243.157.124

The following discussion 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.

---

The IP 172.243.157.124 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been making dozens of taxonomic changes over the past few days. However, a number of their edits have been previously been reverted for being incorrect. For example, in one recent edit they claimed that the clade "Panartiodactyla" exists [2], when as far as I can tell, it has never been used in the scientific literature by anyone ever [3]. This makes me suspect that some of their edits may be deliberately introducing errors, and I am tempted to mass revert all of their changes, but I wanted to get feedback here before doing so. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I have the impression that there is a proposal/practice of using X for the crown group and PanX for the total group. (Panaves fits this convention; Panarthropoda and Pancrustacea do not.) Under that convention Panartiodactyla would be the artiodactyl total group. This particular example, depending on context, could be WP:OR (a web search found one use of the term, not in the formal scientific literature) rather than deliberate disinformation. Lavateraguy (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

They've made other edits that are just outright wrong as far as I can tell. Take this edit to Star-nosed mole (Condylura cristata) where they change the original binomen listed in the synonyms section from Sorex cristatus Linnaeus, 1758 to Talpa cristata Linnaeus, 1758. However "American Recent Eulipotyphla Nesophontids, Solenodons, Moles, and Shrews in the New World" states that Sorex cristatus Linnaeus 1758 is the original binomial combination, while the combination Talpa cristata was made by Zimmermann, 1777. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

As another example, back in November, the IP removed Elephas ekorensis from Elephas and instead placed it in Palaeoloxodon [4] [5], despite no scientific literature having ever done this. [6] I originally thought this was something that this person made up, but this is apparently an error that has been made on various non-academic amateur taxonomy websites going back to at least 2009. [7] At the very least, it demonstrates the judgement of this user regarding taxonomy is extremely questionable, and having to manually check if every one of their changes is correct will be a labourious process. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually, it's been used once in passing in a 2022 book chapter, but there's no discussion behind the reasoning of this. [8]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Or conceivably it could be the PhyloCode equivalent to autonyms in the ICNafp. One would need to refer to PhyloCode to investigate that possibility. Lavateraguy (talk) 00:23, 10 March 2024 (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.

is Picozoa monotypic?

I can only find one species in the phylum 122.56.85.105 (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

If you search the literature you'll find several papers mentioning a diversity of picozoan lineages. (On paper has cladogram with Picomonas judraskeda and Picozoa spp. 1-6. By that standard they're not monotypic. But there may well be only one species formally described - it's not done to erect a species solely on the basi of a DNA sequence. By that standard they are monotypic. Lavateraguy (talk) 00:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

It all depends on the classification adopted for the new species when they are described. As far as I can see the Picozoa contains a single class (Picomonadea), single order (Picomonadida), single family (Picomonadidae) and single genus (Picomonas), with a single formally described species. It's monotypic all the way down. When they describe the new species, will they all be placed in Picomonas or in new genera. Will they all belong to the same family, order and class? I suspect a new class is unlikely so Picozoa would remain monotypic in a rank-based classification. However, if they adopt a phylocode classification without the redundancy, it won't be monotypic if there are new genera. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to homogenize the phylum-level incongruence in protists

So once again I have to battle the mess of a classification that the late Cavalier-Smith arranged and kept modifying year after year. There are many taxa that were at first introduced (many by himself) as phyla, but that later he changed in rank to subphyla or infraphyla, but every author retains them as phyla. Here is a handy comparison I made:

Comparison between the two systems

Group	Cav.-Smith			Other authors (incl. earlier Cav.-Smith)
	Phylum	Subphylum	Contains	Phylum
Stramenopiles	Gyrista	Bigyromonada	Developea & Pirsonea	Pseudofungi
		Pseudofungi	oomycetes & hyphochytrids
		Ochrophytina	heterokont algae	Ochrophyta/Heterokontophyta
	Bigyra (no conflict)
Alveolata	Ciliophora (no conflict)
	"Miozoa" (obsolete)	"Protalveolata"	colponemids	obsolete (paraphyletic)
		Myzozoa	dinoflagellates	Dinoflagellata
			perkinsozoans	Perkinsozoa
			chrompodellids	Chromerida/Chromeridophyta
			apicomplexans s.s. (Sporozoa)	Apicomplexa

Since his classification is unsupported outside of his sphere, and it's not even being followed consistently in Wikipedia (Miozoa is nowhere to be found and many of these are already referred to as "phyla" within the article text), I propose we adopt the following system in our taxoboxes (deviations from the current taxoboxes are in bold, changes already implemented are underlined):

• Clade Stramenopiles
  • Phylum Bigyra
  • Clade/Superphylum Gyrista
    • Phylum Heterokontophyta/Ochrophyta
    • Phylum Pseudofungi (classes Developea, Pirsonea, Oomycetes, Hyphochytrea)
• Clade Alveolata
  • Order "Colponemida"
  • Phylum Ciliophora
  • Clade Myzozoa
    • Phylum Apicomplexa
    • Phylum Chromerida
    • Clade Dinozoa
      • Phylum Dinoflagellata
      • Phylum Perkinsozoa

I know it seems like a Frankenstein monster-type mixture of classifications, but I cannot think of a better way to deal with this until a single unifying revision changes it all. The current unifying revisions have dropped taxon ranks entirely, but that doesn't seem like something other wikipedians would like. This is my attempt at condensing the currently accepted ranks of very different organisms. So please, show support for this new system or argue against it. —Snoteleks (Talk) 13:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

It's a tricky one, coming up with a classification that can be sourced and can't be considered original research. Michael Guiry of AlgaeBase has a recent article on diversity of algae and uses Heterokontophyta, Chromeridophyta (Chromerida) and Dinoflagellata (as well and Cryptophyta and Haptophyta) as algae phyla, which can be used to support the photosynthetic part of your scheme. The AlgaeBase classification also treats Bigyra and Ciliophora as phyla , but uses Oomycota instead of Pseudofungi. The higher classification on AlgaeBase is a bit scrambled, but the phyla seem clear there and in the J. Phycology article and can support much of your scheme.

As a general comment on ranks, I think the major ones (phyla, classes, orders and families) are useful for the lay reader as the give some idea of where the taxa fit on the tree. The intermediate ranks like subkingdoms and infraphyla are less useful and become even harder to source for a consistent treatment. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I have cited Guiry's paper in that table above. It's the paper that prompted me to notice this issue, actually. I also noticed the Oomycota, but then again all fungi-like protist groups have their phylum label: Plasmodiophoromycota, Hyphochytriomycota, Labyrinthulomycota... I agree with your comment about ranks, and the fact that they are so superfluous that they change so often inside Cav.-Smith's classification makes them even less useful. —Snoteleks (Talk) 13:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion about whether Heterokontophyta is a synonym for Stamenopiles or Ochrophyta. In part this because some sources are only treating Algae where the two have the same algal contents. The use in the Hoek, Mann and Jahns system includes the non-algal classes (Bicocoecida, Labyrinthulomycetes, Hyphochytridiomycetes, Oomycetes), although Hoek's 1978 description only includes algal classes. According to Guiry et al (2023) the definition by Moestrup (1992) includes the "the heterokont water moulds (Oomycetes, Hyphochytriomycetes), the labyrinthulids and thraustochytrids” and that "Moestrup’s (1992) concept of the name Heterokontophyta is the closest to today’s concept" (i.e. the one they are describing). Other parts of Guiry et al (2023) give the impression the Heterokontophyta only includes the algae classes (e.g. the table says current classes implying it is inclusive). The AlgaeBase entry for Phylum Heterokontophyta has a note saying 'Botanical name for the clade informally called "stramenopiles"', although it treats Bigyra, Oomycota and Heterokontophyta as phyla. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

According to the Guiry et al. (2023), it seems very much like a synonym of Ochrophyta, with only the algal classes included. They also talk about the convoluted history of the phylum name, which is why they validly publish it in that year, without recognizing any previous publication which would be more vague in definition and include other heterokonts. I think maintaining Ochrophyta in our taxoboxes is better, since it is less convoluted, but in the Ochrophyte article I mention the Heterokontophyta Guiry, Andersen & Moestrup 2023 as validly published too. It seems to be preferred among phycologists. —Snoteleks (Talk) 13:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The AlgaeBase note must simply not be up to date, or perhaps taken from the context of previous uses of the Heterokontophyta name that are not the same as its 2023 diagnosis. —Snoteleks (Talk) 13:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The note is dated 12 November 2023 and the entry cited Guiry et al. (2023), which is dated 11 October 2023. There is also a clear statement that Moestrup’s (1992) concept is closest to the one they are describing. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, well... more reasons to prioritize Ochrophyta, I suppose. —Snoteleks (Talk) 13:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Authority of Megalonyx

@Al2oh3: has changed the authority of Megalonyx to Jefferson, 1799, over Harlan, 1825 The vast majority of the literature I have seen uses the Harlan authority (e.g.) [9] [10] [11], though I have managed to find one use of the Jefferson authority in the literature ([12]) Al2oh3's justification for doing this in the edit summary is The authorship of the genus Megalonyx was corrected to Jefferson, 1799 (rather than Harlan, 1825). The description in Jefferson's 1799 paper fully meets the standards for availability of a genus-group name according to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (2000). Harlan (1825) respelled the genus as "Megalonix," but also clearly attributed the genus-group name to Jefferson. Harlan's name, "Megalonix" is an "incorrect subsequent spelling" (ICZN, Article 33.3), and therefore invalid. To be honest, I am not a massive fan of this. This seems like WP:OR to me without an ICZN petition on the matter, and we should actually prefer what the majority of actual researchers are using over our own interpretations of the code. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Corrected by whom? YorkshireExpat (talk) 09:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

We need a secondary source saying it has been corrected. The argument may well be correct, but Wikipedia guidlines don't allow us to make that determination. A primary source saying it is wrong is not sufficient, when the majority of sources use that authority. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

If it helps at all, I've found more instances of "Megalonyx Jefferson, 1799" in the literature: [13] (from 1904), [14] (from 2007, page 609), [15] (2010 thesis, page 37), [16] (from 1995). The last one in particular in passing claims that "Megalonyx Jefferson, 1799" was non-binomial though, which may have some relevance to why Harlan, 1825 is used instead by some authors? "Jefferson, 1799" is also the authority used in Nomenclature Zoologicus (see page 71). Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Its a strange one in a way. Both are listed in ZooBank, however, Megalonyx Jefferson 1799 has no type species listed whereas Megalonyx Harlan 1822 does, that being jeffersoni. If no type has ever been added to the Megalonyx Jefferson 1799 then the name is unavailable and hence the correct name would be that authored by Harlan in 1822. After such a considerable amount of time I would say the ICZN would have to wiegh in on that and its likely that the older name would be deemed nomen oblitum in the absence of any other ruling. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 20:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually... the obligatory validation of a genus with a type species only applies to genera described after 1930. This case would not need a type species to be considered valid. —Snoteleks (Talk) 23:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes that is true, but to use the genus now requires a type species to be subsequently applied which does not seem to have ever been done. As such, and considering the the significant amount of subsequent usage of the Harlan name would require the type species to be applied. It would no doubt be challenged with the ICZN at this point as the Harlan name clearly has stability which is a major consideration in the code. Without the subsequent designation of a type and the consideration of stability I would consider the Jefferson name nomen oblitum. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 07:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia another point here is that at least the Amson et al. 2014 paper you link that uses Jefferson does so without comment or justification, to be fair the paper is largely about another genus Thalassocnus hence they did not need to spend much time on that, but the point is this is not a primary revision of the issue at hand here and hence should not be used as an authority on the issue of authorship of Megalonyx. To make this change we need an accepted by revision publication that explains why they are resurrecting the Jefferson name. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 08:22, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it is best to indicate the authorship of Megalonyx as disputed. That approach does reflect the recent literature. Al2oh3 (talk) 20:19, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Al2oh3 What recent literature has made a nomenclatural assessment that resurrects the name under the authorship of Jefferson? If there is no analysis then they could just be wrong for all we know. In general all recent lit has had the name under Harlan, those acceptions I have seen make no justification of this. You cannot just use an alternative nomenclature without justification, doing so is usually ignored, not deemed disputed. Please cite the paper that has the justification for using Jefferson. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 03:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

There are certain things like gender agreement which - being automatic and mandatory under the ICZN - do not constitute "original research" and do not require a citation to be included in Wikipedia. The issue of Megalonyx is a little bit more iffy. I can say, however, that the point above about Jefferson's work being non-binominal is false. Having read the work in question (linked twice, as references 4 and 6 in the WP article) it is a Code-compliant pre-1930 description. Note in particular the following Code Article: "11.4.1. A published work containing family-group names or genus-group names without associated nominal species is accepted as consistent with the Principle of Binominal Nomenclature in the absence of evidence to the contrary." There is no evidence that Megalonyx was not proposed as a Linnaean-concept genus name. As such, I personally do not see anything that would refute using Jefferson 1799 as the author of the name. Yes, the name was treated only once as a capitalized name, and subsequent uses in the paper used "megalonyx" or "magalonyx", but that is not evidence for non-binominality. More to the point, perhaps, is that it seems that historically Jefferson was accepted as the author (e.g., in Neave), and then at some later point someone argued to change the authorship, and this act was apparently done in contravention to the Code. If it's a matter of Code-compliance, which is objectively determined, then I don't think we're dealing with an OR issue at that point. One can always cite the Code, and then state which of the two alternatives in in compliance, much as one would cite the dictionary for the definition, pronunciation, or etymology of a word. Dyanega (talk) 19:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

One final point: Article 12 states that a description, definition, or an indication are required to make a name available prior to 1930. The inclusion of a known species is one of the methods of indication, and is not a general requirement for pre-1930 genus-rank names. Many genus-rank names prior to 1930 had no originally included species, but they are still available names. Further, the type species of Megalonyx is M. jeffersoni, as it was the first included species; this is made explicit in Article 69.3: "69.3. Type species by subsequent monotypy. If only one nominal species was first subsequently included in a nominal genus or subgenus established without included species, that nominal species is automatically fixed as the type species, by subsequent monotypy." Please also note that this Article explicitly states that a genus can be established without included species. Again, I see no reason not to accept Jefferson as the author of the genus. Dyanega (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you Dyanega and it would seem that the Jefferson description is valid, my issue is one of stability and that it should not be for us to change the status quo, I asked for a primary pub that has recognised this then I am fine to follow it. I agree the Jefferson description meets the code from what I can gather and monotypy is a valid species designation, the second species was added 1832 I believe. I have been seeing it as oblitum ie forgotten due to the subsequent overwhelming usage of the Harlan name. I would rather that was corrected in valid literature so we do not end up with a dual nomenclature and the vast majority of publications and checklists use Harlan and have done so for a long time. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 01:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Having read the account, it was light on descriptive details relative to modern scientific papers, though given that the three word phrase "Cornibus deciduis palmatis" (literally "palmate deciduous antlers") in an auction listing was enough to validate Megaloceros [17], I can certainly see why Dyanega thinks its enough to validate Megalonyx. My concern, like Faendalimas, is that this feels like something that should be resolved by ICZN petition, and that's not Wikipedia's purpose to correct authorites that are widely used the scientific literature. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Wether or not it went to a petition would be up to the workers on that group, I work with reptiles so its not one I would likely weigh into at that level if it came up. However, my gut feeling is that push comes to shove someone working on mammals would probably put in a case requesting authorship be stabilised under prevailing usage. If that happened under Art 82.1 it is probable that the Harlan name would stand until the ICZN made their decision which can take some time. This is why I would prefer to see this reviewed and accepted in the Primary Lit before we make the change. Which will affect us at Wikispecies too as we are using the Harlan name there too. GBiF has both names as valid which is doubly unhelpful. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 04:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have stated this more clearly: Jefferson's authorship is cut-and-dry. The ICZN generally does not accept a case unless there is some question about the correct application of the Code. That is, formal applications to the Commission generally involve setting aside the rules of the Code in order to achieve a desired outcome that is otherwise contravened. In this specific case, only if everyone wanted Harlan to be the author would there need to be a formal application and vote and ruling, because Harlan is not the author under the Code. An application sent to the Commission to "fix" Jefferson as the author would be rejected without review, because the Commission would not need to intervene at all. However, if what you want is simply a published statement that Jefferson is the author, then anyone can publish a very short opinion piece (one page, maybe two) in the BZN that says "The correct authorship and date of Megalonyx is Jefferson, 1799". Dyanega (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree, it is, as I was getting at we are an encyclopedia, not a journal article. But my worry is someone may try to conserve the Harlan usage. Not the other way around. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 02:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I got here late but perhaps have a little to add. I believe acceptance of Harlan (1825) as the authority stems from George Gaylord Simpson's 1945 classification of mammals (Simpson, George Gaylord (1945). "The principles of classification and a classification of mammals". Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 85: 1–350. hdl:2246/1104.) which states (p. 70, footnote 4): "The supposed genus "Megalonyx Jefferson, 1799," long sentimentally cherished by American palaeontologists, is non-existent. Jefferson definitely did not establish such a genus in zoological nomenclature, but it can be ascribed to Harlan."

When I reviewed this problem some time ago for my nomenclatural database, I came to the same conclusion: there is no indication in Jefferson's paper that he is creating a scientific name. He uses the word "Megalonyx" together with "Lion", and never mentions any formal scientific name. I see that Dyanega came to the opposite conclusion though, and he surely knows more about the Code than I do.

In any case, I don't think it should be Wikipedia's business to decide which interpretation of the Code is correct. The article Megalonyx now says that authorship is disputed, and I think that's the right call until someone publishes a paper explicitly arguing for one author or another. Ucucha (talk) 06:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Also getting here a bit late, but no matter. I checked for "Megalonyx" in my own holdings and it is under authorship of Jefferson, 1799, per Neave (Nomenclator Zoologicus); also per Harlan's 1825 work, visible at https://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=coo-AAAAcAAJ. I also noted Simpson's remark "The supposed genus "Megalonyx Jefferson, 1799," long sentimentally cherished by American palaeontologists, is non-existent. Jefferson definitely did not establish such a genus in zoological nomenclature" as stated above, and then reproduced verbatim in McKenna & Bell, 1997, who accordingly ascribe the genus to Harlan. However checking the original work by Jefferson, like Doug Yanega I see no reason why the name should not be available ("established" in the statement by Simpson): the article is accessible at https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/12181210, wherein Jefferson names the animal "the Great-Claw or Megalonyx" on p. 248, which certainly looks like a genus-level nomenclatural act to me, in direct contrast to Simpson's assertion (which is not accompanied by any further evidence); the lack of an included species being no barrier to effective publication at that time. So in contrast to Hesperomys project / user Ucucha, I think I will add in a record for "Megalonyx Harlan", attribute it to McKenna & Bell ("basis of record" in my database terminology), but make it a later usage of Megalonyx Jefferson, noting also that Harlan (mis-)spells this name Megalonix when first encountered (p. 201), but does spell it correctly in the index (pp. 316, 317) and also on pp. 202 and 203 of the main text.

What this means is that (in the absence of further arguments to the contrary) IRMNG will continue to presume that Jefferson's paper is the available source for this name, and that Simpson/McKenna & Bell, and others who have followed them, are following a fallacious statement backed by no stated reasoning. Maybe I am wrong on this, but it seems logical to me at the present time - although any more recent published clarification from someone "in the know" would certainly be helpful. Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 02:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, I have cited this discussion on the Wikispecies talk page for Megalonyx, see https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Megalonyx , with a recommendation that authorship for the genus is changed there from Harlan to Jefferson, as per Doug Yanega's statement above "Jefferson's authorship is cut-and-dry...". In case anyone wishes to comment further in that location... for consistency, I would also propose that authorship for this taxon be changed here as well (there could still be a statement regarding the variation found in the literature, and its probable source). Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 02:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, PrimalMustelid joining here. I'm not completely sure of who has taxonomic authority by definition, but we're leaving out one particular source by George Gaylord Simpson. In 1942, he argued that referral to Thomas Jefferson as holding taxonomic authority is erroneous, pointing out that apparently, "Harlan may have been the first to use the name in a valid Linnaean form and hence may be its technical author." Another author of "Prehistoric Monsters: The Real and Imagined Creatures of the Past That We Love to Fear" in 2009 argued, "Until 1820, Jefferson's name Megalonyx was used in the vernacular, rather than as a scientific name selected in a valid Linnaean fashion. Then, French zoologist Anselm Desmarest (1784-1838) honored our third president by assigning remains of a species to Megalonyx jeffersoni. Thereafter, American paleontologist Richard Harlan (1796-1843) formally renamed the animal Megalonyx jeffersoni in volume 1 of a work titled "Fauna Americana; being a description of the mammiferous animals inhabiting North America" (1825). Therefore, Harlan (and not Jefferson, Wistar, or the others) is cited as the first technical author of the genus and species Megalonyx jeffersoni." PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

PrimalMustelid - None of the sources you are citing made reference to the ICZN, which is the final arbiter of the authorship of names; under the ICZN, Jefferson was the author. A genus name does not have to be published originally in a binomial ("a valid Linnaean form") in order to be made available. As I quoted earlier in this thread: "11.4.1. A published work containing family-group names or genus-group names without associated nominal species is accepted as consistent with the Principle of Binominal Nomenclature in the absence of evidence to the contrary." Many genera originally coined prior to 1930 had no included species, and Megalonyx is one of these examples. Dyanega (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I am aware of that rule, but I find it questionable that Jefferson's work contained "genus-group names" at all. He uses the word "megalonyx" in virtually the same way he uses the word "lion" (for example, in table headers). Would you say that Jefferson also introduced a generic name Lion? If not, what is the principled difference between the words "megalonyx" and "lion" in Jefferson's article? Ucucha (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Jefferson did more than provide a name, spelled "Megalonyx", he provided a Latin description that accompanied the name. For names coined prior to 1930, that is all the Code requires. Again, there are hundreds of genus names, of some incredibly well-known taxa, that have been recognized as valid for well over 100 years that have no more evidence than this to back them up, but the Code not only allows us to recognize these poorly-proposed names, it compels us to accept them. Again, the Code explicitly says you have to provide evidence if you wish to claim the name was NOT proposed as a genus name, and you would need to submit a formal application to the Commission if you wanted to give the authorship to Harlan by setting Jefferson's name aside. The Code in its present form (i.e., a published book) did not exist in 1942 when Simpson made his claim that Jefferson was not the author, so his personal opinion (and that of any other taxonomist prior to the compilation and widespread acceptance of the Code in 1961) is irrelevant. The authorships of names change all the time, when scrutinized. Case in point: for decades, the overwhelming majority of genus names published by Dejean were treated as unavailable, thanks to Neave publishing a catalog in 1940 that said they were all unavailable. Then, in 2013, two taxonomists, one of them an ICZN Commissioner, reviewed all of these names and determined that nearly 1000 of these names were actually available, and suddenly Dejean became the author of all of those names, when someone else had previously been credited with authorship for over 70 years. Neave was wrong, and didn't have the Code to consult in 1939 when he wrote his catalog. All it takes to set aside a mistaken authorship is the evidence from the original work by the actual author, and proper application of the Code. This case, regarding Megalonyx, is trivial by comparison. Dyanega (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I have read the original descriptions of most existing scientific names for mammals, so I know that many old descriptions don't comply with today's standards. The Code is rightly very permissive for names published before 1930, because otherwise many prominent names would become unavailable. But there is a flipside, which is that being too permissive may mean making too many names available, and that also leads to instability. For example, I still don't see why your argument would not imply that Lion Jefferson, 1799, is also an available name. Contrary to what you wrote above, Jefferson did not provide a formal Latin diagnosis for "megalonyx" (unless I missed it), and in any case such a diagnosis is not a requirement under the ICZN, only under the botanical code.

Article 1.3.5 of the ICZN excludes names used "as means of temporary reference and not for formal taxonomic use as scientific names in zoological nomenclature". My contention is that Jefferson used "megalonyx" in that way: he did not use a formal system of scientific names. Ucucha (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the Latin description refers to this ... I will venture to refer to him by the name of the Great-Claw or Megalonyx, to which he seems sufficiently entitled by the distinguished size of that member. Jefferson is providing a Latin name and its basis on the properties of the animal.

What other animals were described by Jefferson? If there are others, were they accepted and what type of description is there? —  Jts1882 | talk  15:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Jefferson's work contains an extensive table (pp. 249-250) of the dimensions and characteristics of the bones, which is - quite frankly - better in many respects than most of the contemporary descriptions then being published by "real" taxonomists. Not only that, these characters were presented in direct comparison to the same bones of a lion, and thus indisputably qualifying as a formal diagnosis (my insertion of the word "Latin" above was a brain fart). He even stated the type depository! Again, something that "real" 18th-century taxonomists hardly ever did. For a paper published in 1799, the taxonomic content of Jefferson's work was exemplary, even if he was skimpy on the nomenclatural aspect. Ucucha, I'm quite serious - if you feel so strongly that Jefferson's authorship is wrong, and that you can provide evidence that he was not using Linnaean nomenclature, then please go ahead and submit a petition to the ICZN to suppress that work and give the authorship to Harlan. If your case is compelling, then you should have your proverbial "day in court", but until then, no one has ever formally contested Jefferson's authorship, so it stands. Frankly, if a cranky pre-ICZN pedant like Neave saw fit to acknowledge Jefferson as the author, I think that convincing even more pedantic active ICZN Commissioners to deny Jefferson's authorship is going to be very difficult. A final minor point: the ICZN does not apply the concept of "stability" in certain contexts, such as dates, authorships, and gender agreement. These parameters can and do change without affecting nomenclatural stability, as in the case I mentioned above where several hundred genera changed authorships and years due to a single publication validating Dejean's authorship. That same publication DID point out the few cases where the valid name of a genus would change due to Dejean's name having seniority over a name in use, and they DID point out that these few cases threatened nomenclatural stability - not because of the change in authorship, but because of the change in the validity of a name. The Code, and Commission, are very clear on the distinction between what affects stability and what does not. Dyanega (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I should say something briefly about Wistar. Since Wistar authored a second description of Megalonyx, using the same bones, and in the same publication as Jefferson, an argument could possibly be made that the name should be considered as having competing simultaneous authorships, but this would be a little tricky to justify under the provisions of Article 50. While both authors provided Code-compliant descriptions, the thing is that Wistar cedes authority to Jefferson (admittedly in a subtle way, but it is clear enough), and that skews the interpretation of authorship in Jefferson's favor. It would be difficult to justify applying Article 50.6 here, giving authorship to Wistar rather than Jefferson (this would also require a petition to the Commission). One of the very minor differences between the two works, and one of the reasons to point to Wistar's paper, is that towards the end, on p. 531, he makes reference to "the megatherium" and "the megalonix". It's worth pointing out, in the context of the argument regarding whether or not he and Jefferson were treating these as names in the Linnaean sense, that the name "megatherium" was in fact a Linnaean-system name published and made available by Cuvier in 1796, and the observation that Wistar de-capitalized it cannot be construed as evidence that he was rejecting the Linnaean nomenclatural system. The more obvious conclusion is that people were not, in 1799, in the habit of always capitalizing Linnaean names, even when they were in fact being recognized as Linnaean names. The other thing is, Jefferson and Wistar used different spellings: "-onyx" versus "-onix" (the latter also used by Harlan). If there is ever a petition to grant Wistar (or Harlan) authorship, that changes the original spelling, and that would possibly threaten stability. Dyanega (talk)

A paper has recently come out in Zookeys supporting Jefferson as the authority of Megalonyx, which was reviewed (and presumably approved) by many of the authors that have historically used the Harlan authority. [18] I think this settles the issue. I wonder if this paper was prompted by this discussion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

References