Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life

WikiProject Tree of Life

Main pageTalkArticle templateTaxonomic resourcesTaxoboxesParticipantsArticle requests

RFC Notability (species) re monotypic taxa

After some discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (species) § Monotypic taxons regarding adding something in the recently-accepted notability guideline for species, a request for comments on an addition to the guideline has been posted at Wikipedia talk:Notability (species) § RFC monotypic genera. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

PetScan question

I'd like to perform PetScan searches using the "categories" of the WikiProject quality/importance table. For example, sorting by size the lichen task force articles that are "stub" & "mid"-importance. Is such a thing possible with PetScan (or any other tools)? If it is, what do I enter in the "Categories" box? Esculenta (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Esculenta: I don't think you can do exactly what you want. Go to PetScan and put "Stub-Class Lichen task force articles" and "Mid-importance Lichen task force articles", without the quotes, on separate lines in the Categories box, with Combination set to Intersection. Then move to the "Page properties" tab and tick the "Talk" box – this is important because by default PetScan only finds articles in mainspace; without this box ticked you get 0 returned. Then click "Do it!". I got 684 results. BUT this won't tell you the size of the articles, only the size of the talk pages. The problem is that the class/importance categories are on the talk pages, not the articles. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Link to the search described above Peter coxhead (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for trying; looks like I'll have to write a script to get these results. Esculenta (talk) 19:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, PetScan can be used to search talk page categories, but then you only get properties (e.g. size in bytes) of the talk pages, not of the articles themselves. I guess you could do it in multiple steps; Petscan the talk pages you're interested in, copy those results into a text editor, and do a find/replace to turn the links to the talk pages into links to articles. Then copy the text with the links to the articles onto a Wikipedia page (a sandbox of yours) and do a Petscan for "Linked from" with your sandbox page as the page they are linked from. Plantdrew (talk) 19:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Subgenera in article titles?

Hi all, just wondering if we have any existing guidelines on the use subgenera names in the titles of species articles - that is to say, should we include the subgenus a species is placed in (when applicable) in the title of its article? I had a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) but didn't see anything relevant. It certainly doesn't seem to be a widespread practice, but I do believe I've seen articles titled in the "Genus (Subgenus) species" format before and was curious if there's any consensus about it. Cheers, Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 04:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

It's unnecessary in the title, which would be covered by the general article naming guidelines The binomial species name is concise and unambiguous. It would be harmless of add something to the naming convention guidelines, but doesn't seem an issue that needs dealing with when there are few articles so named.

This search finds over 600 such titles, but they are nearly all redirects. According to the stub articles Mispila (Dryusa) coomani and Mispila (Mispila) coomani are different beetles. Can this be correct? Another beetle example is Cadmus (Brachycaulus) colossus, where the subgenus is included in the title and not the taxobox.  —  Jts1882 | talk  08:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, that's an interesting little mess! The names Mispila (Mispila) coomani and Mispila (Dryusa) coomani cannot coexist as valid names, regardless of subgeneric classification. It appears that M. (M.) coomani was moved to that title from Mispila coomani to disambiguate it from M. (D.) coomani, presumably because the mover did not realise that these names cannot both be valid. M. (D.) coomani appears to be a synonym of Souvanna signata (recombined in this recent paper, recognised by Lamiinae of the World), while M. (M.) coomani appears to represent the "real" M. coomani (see Lamiinae of the World). I'm heading to bed now, but if no one else fixes those two pages before I wake up, I'll make the necessary changes tomorrow. I certainly agree that it's not necessary in the title, and can see how encouraging the use of subgenera in article names might lead to problems like this when editors aren't taxonomically savvy. I do think there would be some benefit to discouraging the use of subgenera in article names in the naming conventions to avoid further issues of this nature, but as you say, not exactly a high priority issue. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 13:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I've fixed Mispila (Mispila) coomani (now a redirect to Mispila coomani) and Mispila (Dryusa) coomani (now a redirect to Souvanna signata) - cheers for bringing that to my attention. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 02:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

And YorkshireExpat has moved Cadmus (Brachycaulus) colossus to the binomial so there are no more non-redirect titles, assuming my search picked them all. However, that might not be the case as the search timed out, but I could work out one that didn't.  —  Jts1882 | talk  11:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Found another: Nephus (Scymnobius) sordidus. In 2019, Dyanega moved page Nephus sordidus to Scymnobius sordidus because it's "not in Nephus any more". Then in 2022, Spiderbean moved page Scymnobius sordidus to Nephus (Scymnobius) sordidus with edit summary "corrected genus name". It's not clear from the references which is best supported. Any move will need to be made over a redirect.  —  Jts1882 | talk  16:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Two recent papers back Dyaneda's move to Scymnobius sordidus: doi:10.1649/0010-065X-78.4.467 and doi:10.21829/azm.2024.4012632. —  Jts1882 | talk  17:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Scymnobius is a valid genus, not a subgenus. None of the species in it should be placed in Nephus at this point. As for the topic of this thread, including subgenera in article titles is a very, very bad idea: (1) readers searching for the binomial will not find the expanded-title article unless there is also a redirect - and if there is a redirect, it should be the primary target, since that's what more readers will enter in searches (2) existing direct links will get turned into redirects (3) subgeneric placements change more often than generic placements, meaning article titles including subgenera will be more prone to change, and necessitate a llonger list of redirects to track the history. Subgenera, if they appear at all, should be kept exclusively in the taxobox. Dyanega (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

There isn't any convention to write species names governed by the ICNafp with an interpolated subgenus. There is a convention to interpolate a subgenus in ICZN-governed names, but it is entirely optional to do so. Omitting the subgenus from the article title better aligns with the WP:AT criteria of CONCISION and NATURALNESS. Plantdrew (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, and one person's subgenus is another's species complex! Quetzal1964 (talk) 13:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Species inquirenda

What is the policy regarding these in species lists? When I find a species marked as being of doubtful validity in Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes it is usually not found within the species list in the article about the genus. Would it no be better to include the species in the list and add the note Sp. inq.? Quetzal1964 (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I've always left off doubtful species of plants off lists except where different reliable sources disagree about if it is accepted. For example on the List of Penstemon species I included species listed as accepted by World Flora Online, but put them at the bottom in a separate table to make it clear there is still work to be done to establish if these are valid taxa. It is probably best to use your best judgement to if readers will confused more by the lack of a doubtful species or its inclusion. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

For a large (over 80 species) plant genus, I only listed species that appeared as accepted in at least three of the five databases I consulted, and noted which species were accepted in less than four of the databases. If reliable sources disagree, we should tell the reader so, if only in a footnote. Donald Albury 19:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Sortkeys for genus categories

As far as I can tell, there's an unspoken consensus to use sortkeys for genus categories on species articles (under binomial name titles). For example, Laemostenus terricola should have [[Category:Laemostenus|terricola]]. I've been adding many sortkeys with AWB, and I'm considering making a bot for it, so I just want to check that this is backed by consensus. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Type species of the pigeon genus Columba

I've been searching and can't find a clear answer to this question. An IP user (who has been blocked for disruptive editing) is insisting that the type species of Columba Linnaeus 1758 is the stock dove (Columba oenas) Linnaeus, 1758. While the article currently says that the type species is rock dove Columbia livia. The article incorrectly gives the authority of Columbia livia as Linnaeus 1758, but the authority of Columbia livia is actually Gmelin, 1789. However according to a 2015 paper, Columba domesticus Linnaeus 1758 is a senior synonym of C. livia. [1] Obviously the wood pigeon Columba palumbus is also Linnaeus 1758, so you can't just assume that the stock dove is the type species just based on priority. I've been doing a dive in the literature, and I'm not finding any a clear answer on what the type species of Columba actually is. Any help resolving this question would be appreciated. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

It seems that Linnaeus did not designate a type for the genus when he described it. The Columba article itself states that The type species was designated as the stock dove (Columba oenas) by Irish zoologist Nicholas Aylward Vigors in 1825, citing Vigors' publication[2] which states Columba, of which genus the European species C. œnas, Linn. may be considered to form the type. I also found this article in the Bulletin of the British Museum[3] which refers to C. oenas as the type species of Columba (p. 10), and this article in The Condor[4] that states Columba Linnaeus, Syst. Nat., ed. 10, 1, 1758, p. 162. Type, by subsequent designation, Columba oenas Linnaeus (Vigors, 1825) (p. 71), backing Vigors' designation. Given that I haven't found any publications disputing C. oenas as the type, I would be happy to list that in the taxobox with the article in The Condor as the citation.

And you're absolutely correct about the authority for C. livia being Gmelin and not Linnaeus. Not sure how that mistake was made. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 05:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Columba oenas is Columba's type species, according to BOW's The Key to Scientific Names (search ZZY to get a list of type species with genera names).

(btw, C. livia as Gmelin as authority but it's not so strange that someone thought Linnaeus: Gmelin's work is an edition of the Systema Naturae) Kweetal nl (talk) 08:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing this up. The IP had been making dubious claims about the taxonomy of fossil camels, so I wasn't sure to trust them on this. They've made various other taxonomic corrections (see 2605:59C8:D0:AA10:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) that have been reverted due to being unsourced. These should be reimplemented if they are correct. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

C. oenas also supported by Howard and Moore v4.1, which says COLUMBA Linnaeus, 1758 F - Columba oenas Linnaeus, 1758; type by subsequent designation (Vigors, 1824, Trans. Linn. Soc. London, 14 (1825), p. 481)..  —  Jts1882 | talk  08:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

In the Columba article I've add cites to Peters and H&M4 for the type. -Aa77zz (talk) 08:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I hadn't realised that H&M4 was available on loan thought the Internet Archive Library. All 18 volumes of HBW and Bird Families of the World are also available, as are the three Sibley and Monroe books (1990-1993).  —  Jts1882 | talk  16:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)