Shortcuts: WS:V, WS:VP

Wikispecies:Village Pump

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

WikiSpecies notext-invert.svg Welcome to the village pump of Wikispecies.

This page is a place to ask questions or discuss the project. If you need an admin, please see the Administrators' Noticeboard. If you need to solicit feedback, see Request for Comment. Please sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~ or clicking the signature icon in the edit toolbar). Use the Wikispecies IRC channel for real-time chat.

If you're going to critique the work of fellow editors (blatant vandals excepted) in your post on this page, you should notify them, either by mentioning them with a {{Reply to}} template, or with a post on their talk page.

If you insert links to Wikipedia pages in your comments, don't forget the leading colon (:) before the wiki language code (including when you reference a remote user page instead of using a local signature), otherwise it will generate spurious interwiki links collected in the sidebar instead of in the expected location within the discussion. Thanks.

Village pump in other languages:

1 (2004-09-21/2005-01-05) 2 (2005-01-05/2005-08-23)
3 (2005-08-24/2005-12-31) 4 (2006-01-01/2005-05-31)
5 (2006-06-01/2006-12-16) 6 (2006-12-17/2006-12-31)
7 (2007-01-01/2007-02-28) 8 (2007-03-01/2007-04-30)
9 (2007-05-01/2007-08-31) 10 (2007-09-01/2007-10-31)
11 (2007-11-01/2007-12-31) 12 (2008-01-01/2008-02-28)
13 (2008-03-01/2008-04-28) 14 (2008-04-29/2008-06-30)
15 (2008-07-01/2008-09-30) 16 (2008-10-01/2008-12-25)
17 (2008-12-26/2009-02-28) 18 (2009-03-01/2009-06-30)
19 (2009-07-01/2009-12-31) 20 (2010-01-01/2010-06-30)
21 (2010-07-01/2010-12-31) 22 (2011-01-01/2011-06-30)
23 (2011-07-01/2011-12-31) 24 (2012-01-01/2012-12-31)
25 (2013-01-01/2013-12-31) 26 (2014-01-01/2014-12-31)
27 (2015-01-01/2015-01-31) 28 (2015-02-01/2015-02-28)
29 (2015-02-28/2015-04-29) 30 (2015-04-29/2015-07-19)
31 (2015-07-19/2015-09-23) 32 (2015-09-23/2015-11-21)
33 (2015-11-21/2015-12-31) 34 (2016-01-01/2016-04-17)
35 (2016-03-22/2016-05-01) 36 (2016-05-01/2016-07-12)
37 (2016-07-13/2016-09-30) 38 (2016-10-01/2016-12-04)
39 (2016-12-04/2017-01-17) 40 (2017-01-18/2017-01-28)
41 (2017-01-29/2017-02-13) 42 (2017-02-14/2017-03-21)
43 (2017-03-20/2017-08-11) 44 (2017-08-10/2017-12-07)
45 (2017-12-08/2018-01-08) 46 (2018-01-19/2018-03-11)
47 (2018-03-11/2018-09-11) 48 (2018-09-01/2019-02-17)
49 (2019-02-22/2019-06-18) 50 (2019-06-19/2019-10-06)
51 (2019-10-07/2019-12-23) 52 (2019-12-24/2020-04-03)
53 (2020-04-03/2020-07-16) 54 (2020-07-17/2020-09-05)
55 (2020-09-08/2020-11-27) 56 (2020-11-27/2021-06-21)
57 (2021-06-05/2021-xx-xx)

Name etymologies?[edit]

Should we put etymologies in taxa articles, or is it too late now since there are so many? DeanDingus23 (talk) 07:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Some users like them, others don't. We haven't got a strict policy or guideline about etymologies, so in that sense they have a similar status as the vernacular names. Quite frankly it's up each user whether to add them or not. However if you add etymologies they should always be placed in the "Name" section, more specifically after the scientific name and any information about type material and type locality, but before the list of synonyms (which is a subsection of the "Name" section rather than a section of its own).
For completeness: vernacular names should always be added to the very bottom of a page (if at all), below any list of names, synonyms, data about distribution, references, external links, etc. The reason is that information about vernacular names isn't particularly valuable in regards to the actual taxonomy, and therefore comes last. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC).[]
The etymology can have some uses and it is information that is recommended to be part of a species description, not compulsory. It comes in handy for determining the gender of names for the Principal of Coordination. So is not useless information. I am not going to go out of my way to add it myself but if its something someone wants to do it could reasonably go as the last part in the name block after the type data. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 09:47, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I would like to put etymologies at least when they are relevant to eponyms. I suppose these edits made by Andyboorman are based on the idea that Wikispecies should play a different role from Wikipedia, Wiktionary and other WikiProjects and it should be concentrated on taxonomic character. I accept Tommy Kronkvist's concept presented above that information about vernacular names isn't particularly valuable in regards to the actual taxonomy and then I will someday request extension of languages used for 'Vernacular names' sections. Even so, I do not know what Andyboorman thinks about eponym categories. If you tolerate them, don't you think that it is preferable that editor explains about etymology linked with any epithet? It is not likely that every reader would understand in a glance that the generic name Temochloa is taken after Thai botanist Tem Smitinand (source), so I think it is the most sincere way that we place explanation for etymology and source (like this) when we add eponym categories; category addition without any explanation may be indeed insincere. --Eryk Kij (talk) 10:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Personally, given there is so much taxonomic work to be completed, etymologies, eponyms, vernacular names and similar data is a waste of my time and knowledge and I will not be editing that data, except if I spot obvious errors. However, if fellow editors wish to contribute in this way then go ahead. In addition, WS is fundamentally taxonomic unlike WP etc. and aims at teasing through the minefield in order to produce robust scientific data that can be accepted by plant and animal students and scientists. We have a long way to go. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 13:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[]
These can be added at Wikidata. Here, I only add them - by way of an "Eponyms of..." category - when they honour a taxonomist, for whom we have a page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[]
A bit late to this one - but one reason not to include them, is that they are inevitably language-dependent. Take e.g. Chroicocephalus; of Greek derivation, in English it means 'coloured head'. But to a reader from Greece, the English translation is less comprehensible than the actual name, so is completely pointless. To a reader from Mongolia, both are equally obscure. So unless one includes the etymology in every language we support, why have it at all? It only makes sense in the individual language wikipedias. - MPF (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Naming scheme for homonyms[edit]

Oddly enough I've forgotten our preferred naming scheme for homonyms. We currently have three ways of doing this, favoured as well as unpreferable:

I looked in Category:Homonyms for hints, but it doesn't mention our preferred naming convention in this matter. I guess that our policy recommends "Taxon name (Author)" since the taxonomy may change—while a published scientific work is "forever" in that is doesn't suddenly get a new author. However I quite honestly can't remember which system we are supposed to use. Which one is it? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 07:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC).[]

Agreed Actaea (Xanthidae) can be moved to another family so such a name would become misleading for the laymen unless potential maintenance work and page renaming. "Taxon name (Author)" is the best IMO. Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I also agree that author is better, if you were going to use a parent taxon I would argue it would need to be at the level both are available, ie Kingdom level for example, a plant an an animal name. This would avoid rearrangements of families and genera. Author is the better way. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 11:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Looks like we don't have a preferred naming scheme for homonyms! Therefore, this discussion could be used to decide once and for all a standard scheme for homonyms. Would the author option be with or without parentheses? Burmeister (talk) 11:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I know that it's been up for discussion several times over last couple of years, but I'm not sure where… As for setting a standard I would personally prefer using parenthesis, whether we chose to use author (preferably) or parent taxon. In my opinion using a parenthesis would be clearer, and as an extra bonus also more in line with how its done in Wikipedia and other sister projects. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC).[]
Yes for me Name (Author, year) would be my preference, however I am not insistent on the date part so please see that is optional on my part just suggesting it. If no one likes it Name (author) is fine. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 14:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[]
The use of the date is likely a bad idea, i.e. for kingdom Animalia if you have a binomen being also an original combination you have the citation of name being: "genus epiteth author, year", now in case of homonymy if you name the page with author+date and parantheses you obtain "genus epiteth (author, year)" whitch would be the name citation of a recombination. Precise exemple: if you take Chelodina mccordi in the case of homonymy, with that system, the page name would become Chelodina mccordi (Rhodin, 1994) while that name is not a recombination. This is quite disturbing IMO. Forget the year. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Finaly, after what i just wrote above, I wonder if I don't prefer a differentiation at Kingdom level, e.g. "name (Kingdom)". Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[]
The year is essential for plants given the number of isonyms floating around. I hope we are not talking about a discrete taxon page for homonyms! These should be removed ASAP, as soon as the disputed status is cleared up. Why do zoologists wish to routinely retain these pages as the information can be presented on the valid/accepted taxon page, once this is established. Andyboorman (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I would hope we are talking about available (per zoology meaning, ie valid per botany) homonyms which generally means identical names from different codes, I have no plans to make a page for Chelus terrestris for example, and parentheses only mean recombination when used in the right context, which a page title is not, it is within the context of synonymy it matters. There is no homonym of Chelodina mccordi of course and if their were it would be unavailable hence not needed. On Andyboorman's point, one of the criticisms of Wikispecies is that we do not make pages for every name, rather than every species, then tie the juniors to the valid/ accepted name thus providing a database of names and nomenclature rather than a hybrid taxonomy/ nomenclature checklist. Its a fair point and is something we should be doing. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Apparently you don't understand my comment. You said "There is no homonym of Chelodina mccordi of course and if their were it would be unavailable hence not needed"→ don't you understand on purpose? it is just an exemple on how this construction of page name can lead to such situation, and yes of course I'm right and such situation can happen with valid homonyms, but I will not even try to provide to you a valid exemple, search it by yourself or remain convinced. You said also "when used in the right context, which a page title is not": I'm not sure it will be so obvious for all the potential readers what is the "right context", what the title mean and what the title don't mean. Also search engines such as Google and others may display the page titles without even less context, and regarding taxa, the web is already full of typos, mispellings and author citation mistakes, without we introduce additional misleading "taxon names". I will not be surprise if some misspelling of taxon names have more results in the web than the right spellings, just because one person have typed it in a database. Therefore I would not encourage anybody to read/re-write a wrong citation simply because they did not understand our "right context". But well, do as you want, I will follow . Regards,Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[]

───────────────────────── Please note in order to avoid misunderstanding such as the ones Christian Ferrer refers to, each page with an invalid homonym should be clearly marked as such. See for example Clarkiella (Sclerodactylidae) or Thylax. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk)‚ 22:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC).[]

I just lost my dad, my mind is confused and I have trouble concentrating. So take anything I may have said with caution, as I may had get mixed up a bit. I don't know. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[]
@Christian Ferrer: sorry to hear about your father, my condolences. I did get what you meant, I also had said date was an optional suggestion I could live without it. Main reason I liked date was because it can be made useful for both Botany and Zoology, it has issues as well as pointed out. We do have to weave a path between ICZN and ICBN at times. Its not always going to be successful. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 10:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Bit late to this discussion, but I thought I'd better add my thoughts here: I've somehow wound up using some kind of mix of both author and family as a means of disambiguating homonyms. In particular I tend to use "Taxon name (family)" for a valid name that is also a hemihomonym. For junior homonyms (for which I create redirects usually, unless there is currently no valid name), I instead use "Taxon name Author", sometimes with year if necessary to disambiguate. If the name is the senior homonym and is not a hemihomonym I tend to use just "Taxon name".
I'm not sure how I came to this system though, I think I must have followed others or read previous Village Pump discussions and mixed all this information up in my head resulting in this. So it would be nice to finally standardize homonym pages, though we should be wary of the kind of homonyms we're likely to get: I remember in a previous discussion it was pointed out even "Author, Year" would not be enough to disambiguate in an extremely rare case. Monster Iestyn (talk) 11:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Rebel, 1907[edit]

These sources:

appear to be the same work, albeit with overlapping page numbers. How should they be resolved? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Going by Zobodat and its PDFs of this issue, 31–130 are the correct pages, while 1–30 are for an unrelated article by another author about Orthoptera. What is strange to me though is that Zobodat says this issue was published in 1931 rather than 1907, while it says 71(1) was published in 1907. Mistake on Zobodat's part, or something else? Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Additionally, the correct title appears to be "Zoologische Ergebnisse der Expedition der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften nach Südarabien und Sokótra im Jahre 1898/99. Lepidopteren." The one used on both templates looks like it may have been mixed up with the title of the Orthoptera article. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[]
probably same work and yeah I agree pagination is likely wrong as pointed out above. The journal in question does however publish in themed series, so it can theoretically have two papers from same volume with different pagination. Though I do not think this is the case here. Volume 71 is 1907, so if someone is referencing it as 1931 for volume 71 then the date is wrong, plus I think 1931 may be after Hans Rebels death, but I am not sure of that, he was publishing close to that period still (1925).. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 16:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[]
According to a 2015 thread on Taxacom, "Rebel initially published this as a free-standing pre-print in 1907 [...] but it was republished in 1931" The thread suggests that the page numbers for the reprint were different. "Lepidopteren aus ... Insel Sokotra" is the title given in that thread. I have now written to the author of the thread, to see if he can shed any light on the matter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[]
AfroMoths ([1]) has 'Rebel 1097' as " Lepidopteren aus Südarabien und von der Insel Sokotra. — Denkschriften der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien 71(): 31–130, pl. 1." and 'Rebel 1930' as "Zoologische Ergebnisse der Expedition der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften nach Südarabien und Sokotra im Jahre 1898/99, Lepidopteren. — — —Verbatim reprint of Rebel 1907, Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien 71(2): 31–129. (): 31–129." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[]
A preprint would definitely explain it. they can thoroughly fuck up the record for a citation, especially if there is some subtle difference between the publications, as with Bonelli, 1810, where the preprint alone must be consulted for most new generic names, as the Tabula Synoptica is not in the reprint. Circeus (talk) 12:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[]

I have a reply from Donald Hobern (the originator of the 2015 thread on Taxacom). He says:

I can't add very much to what you see in that thread. The result of it was that Zobodat added a copy of what is presumably the 1931 (re-?)print. A couple of people said they'd take a look for the 1907 copy but I never heard of one. I believe someone suggested to me verbally (so perhaps someone at the museum in Copenhagen) that these volumes had a complex history, where they were planned as a set of papers which were initially published loose and then bound together as the volumes and that the massive delay in finalising this volume was an oddity - but I'm not sure how much this was speculation.

Is "preprint", in the modern sense, the correct term in this case? Either way the question remains: how should we resolve this, on Wikispecies? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[]

I would not use the term preprint as it has specific meanings in the code and a pre 1930 publication is excluded from it. As Donald said a lot of this may be speculation we can really only judge what we see. If the new nomens are in these papers I suggest using the first date as the available date, hence Priority, and making sure the template refers as best as we can to the 1907 publication. Which being a pre 1930 publication is published as it is not required to meet any of the main code requirements for publication. It may not be completely resolvable until someone really looks at the issue from a date perpective, which will likely only happen if there are contested names with Priority. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 13:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[]
According to Lepidopterorum Catalogus the "preprint" (or "reprint", as it is called here) has 100 pages and 1 plate, which would explain the page details of the first template at the start of this discussion. The way it is cited here could also be suitable for Wikispecies I think, if the 1907 and 1931 prints are found to be identical. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like the 1907 one is available online to check this... Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[]

I have now combined these sources into one template, {{Rebel, 1907}}, which renders as:

and I have replaced and deleted {{Rebel, 1907a}}.

Two points: note "[not seen]" for the 1907 version, as no-one seems to have found a copy, and given that I have doubts that "71(2)" and even "Denkschr. K. Akad. Wiss. Wien" are correct for 1907.

Are any further changes needed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:27, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[]

I have modified it to match the information from Lepidopterorum Catalogus, which seems to indicate the 1907 version was not published in that journal at all before 1931, but rather as a separate/offprint. Monster Iestyn (talk) 12:14, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I'm unclear why you have removed the title "Lepidopteren aus Sudarabien und von der Insel Sokótra". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[]
That does not appear to be the actual title of the article, unless I'm mistaken? Though, that is used as a short title at the headers of some of its pages in the 1931 print, then again. Revert that if you think it's wrong, I was just copying Lepidopterorum Catalogus which stated that as the title. Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Surplus linespaces[edit]

There's a couple of surplus linespaces appeared in all Pinus pages above and below the Subsectio line (see e.g. Pinus banksiana); I can't work out where they've come from or how to get rid of them. Can anyone deal with them, please? MPF (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[]

What has happened, I think, it that a <br> has been added to famlast, glast, splast, sectlast and so on. If you look at templates, such Pinus sect. Trifoliae you will see a <br> as well as sectlast. This seems to result in a double line break. It can be edited out by not using sectlast etc. in the templates. Hope this helps Andyboorman (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[]
@Andyboorman: Thanks! I guess it'll mean a lot of minor edits to remove the "br"s. Can a robot be set to deal with it? - MPF (talk) 16:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[]
@MPF: not a bot expert, but it looks feasible. I will put a request on the Admin Board. Andyboorman (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[]
@Andyboorman: Excellent, thanks! - MPF (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I believe Tommy Kronkvist added line breaks to some of these templates recently, had been meaning to ask him about that since, apart from the added whitespace already mentioned, it now makes all the taxa link documentation pages a little inaccurate. Additionally, it makes templates like {{Gbr}} redundant? Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I find the {{Gbr}} works just fine as I just use the genus name. I have not noticed the inaccuracies in the taxa link documents, but this can be edited out. I am happy with the improvements, but it needs publicity in order to remind editors not to add a br after a list of genera, species and so on. Incidentally I have never used the template format found in the Pinus pages what is wrong with embedding the taxon name works fine for me? Andyboorman (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[]

───────────────────────── @MPF, Andyboorman, and Monster Iestyn:

Yes, it was me who added the recent line breaks to for example the {{splast}} and {{glast}} templates. I feel this is correct since the information about the line breaks for the "-last" templates was added to the templates' help pages already in October 2015 (Template:Splast/doc) and January 2016 (Template:Glast/doc). In other words, both templates (or their documentation) has been wrong up until recently. Some of the other "-last" templates have had this line break since I created them in 2015/2016, hence in accordance with their documentation; see for example the revision history of the "Ordolast" template.

As for the {{gbr}} and {{fbr}} templates I was under the impression that they were supposed to be exclusively used in Taxonavigation templates (e.g. {{Quercus}}) and not added inline to the actual Taxonavigation sections. And reversely, I've always only used the {{splast}} etc. templates in the Taxonavigation sections, but never in the Taxonavigation templates (i.e. not like this). Instead I simply embed the taxon name link, as Andy suggests above.

I'll have a thorough look at the "splast and <br>" situation later today or tomorrow, however my herniated disc is acting up again (was at hospital yesterday) so it may take some time. I'm sure the line break issue can be mended by the use of a bot though. Please give me a day or so and I'll have it fixed. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC).[]

@Tommy Kronkvist: - excellent, thanks, and hope you're well soon! - MPF (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Hope you get well soon too, sounds awful. That said, {{Glast}} and {{Gbr}} for instance are now identical character-for-character as of writing, if you look at the wikicode for both. There is no difference between the two templates anymore. That is what I meant when I said the latter kind of templates are now redundant. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks all. I think Pinus and its daughter taxa are now corrected, though I opted for +80 manual edits rather than a bot solution, since many of the taxon pages also needed a lot of other fixes (mainly in regards to references such as this example or author names like here). However for the future we need to agree upon a guideline for how and/or where to use the two types of templates. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC).[]

Duplicate author pages with different official IPNI forms[edit]

How should we best handle the cases where we have duplicates of author pages, where the authors are identical but the author abbreviations differ? See for example Betsy Rivers Jackes (Jackes), née Betsy Rivers Paterson (B.R.Paterson). Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC).[]

My personal view is we should make the page under their most recent, and possibly preferred, name as complete as possible. If there are other names, eg under maiden names or other reasons for changing ones name, these could be redirects and make sure the details are in the main page. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I agree with Scott. Andyboorman (talk) 19:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[]
That's my view as well, however also means we'll lose some of the Wikidata auto-functionality, for example the {{IPNI standard form}} (for the redirected page). I was thinking we might try to find a way to stick to our present system (the one suggested by Scott and Andy) while still keeping the Wikidata-connectivity intact. Perhaps by altering or creating a new, complementary {{IPNI standard form}} template. Today the template fetch the author abbreviation by use of the P428 Wikidata property, but I don't know if it's possible to use the same WD property in one Wikispecies template for fetching two values from separate Wikidata items (Jackes and B.R.Paterson, respectively) and merge them into one Wikispecies' author page. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC).[]
It is possible (for someone with Lua skills) to code the template to fetch multiple values. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks. I will have to brush up on my Lua skills and get it done. It isn't assembler after all... Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC).[]

The 2022 Community Wishlist Survey will happen in January[edit]

SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 00:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]


Wiki looks interesting, if I want to start a new page what do I need to do? Thank you. 15:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]

There are several ways to start a new page. See Help:Starting a new page at MediaWiki for examples. Please also see Help:Contents and its sub-pages for information about the scope and preferred format for the Wikispecies project. Note that Wikispecies is a wiki specifically and exclusively encompassing the taxonomy (i.e. description, identification, nomenclature and classification) of biological organisms. Wikispecies is not a general encyclopedia such as for example Wikipedia – for more information about this please see Wikispecies:What Wikispecies is not. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC).[]

Call for Candidates for the Movement Charter Drafting Committee ending 14 September 2021[edit]

Movement Strategy announces the Call for Candidates for the Movement Charter Drafting Committee. The Call opens August 2, 2021 and closes September 14, 2021.

The Committee is expected to represent diversity in the Movement. Diversity includes gender, language, geography, and experience. This comprises participation in projects, affiliates, and the Wikimedia Foundation.

English fluency is not required to become a member. If needed, translation and interpretation support is provided. Members will receive an allowance to offset participation costs. It is US$100 every two months.

We are looking for people who have some of the following skills:

  • Know how to write collaboratively. (demonstrated experience is a plus)
  • Are ready to find compromises.
  • Focus on inclusion and diversity.
  • Have knowledge of community consultations.
  • Have intercultural communication experience.
  • Have governance or organization experience in non-profits or communities.
  • Have experience negotiating with different parties.

The Committee is expected to start with 15 people. If there are 20 or more candidates, a mixed election and selection process will happen. If there are 19 or fewer candidates, then the process of selection without election takes place.

Will you help move Wikimedia forward in this important role? Submit your candidacy here. Please contact strategy2030(_AT_) with questions.

This message may have been sent previously - please note that the deadline for candidate submissions was extended and candidacies are still being accepted until 14 September 2021. Xeno (WMF) 17:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Server switch[edit]

SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Talk to the Community Tech[edit]

Magic Wand Icon 229981 Color Flipped.svg

Read this message in another languagePlease help translate to your language


As we have recently announced, we, the team working on the Community Wishlist Survey, would like to invite you to an online meeting with us. It will take place on September 15th, 23:00 UTC on Zoom, and will last an hour. Click here to join.



The meeting will not be recorded or streamed. Notes without attribution will be taken and published on Meta-Wiki. The presentation (first three points in the agenda) will be given in English.

We can answer questions asked in English, French, Polish, and Spanish. If you would like to ask questions in advance, add them on the Community Wishlist Survey talk page or send to

Natalia Rodriguez (the Community Tech manager) will be hosting this meeting.

Invitation link

See you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 03:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Repositories with the same combination of letters[edit]

Hello, a quick question: is there a preferred way of disambiguating repository links? The holotype of Mesodermochelys undulatus is in the Hobetsu Museum ("Institutional Abbreviation: HMG"), but HMG is already occuped by the Hunterian Museum, Glasgow. Would HMG (Japan) or Hobetsu Museum or something else again be better? Thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 13:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Hello Maculosae tegmine lyncis. No, unfortunately we don't have a set system for disambiguating repository links/pages. It's been discussed several times before, but the talks have sort of dried out without the community coming to any conclusion. I'll copy this discussion to the Village Pump, in order to again raise this question to the community as a whole. Please continue the discussion there. Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC).[]

───────────────────────── The above discussion was copied from User talk:Tommy Kronkvist#Repositories with the same combination of letters. Please continue the discussion below.

Though we tend to be a bit loath to them. This is one issue where either a category or a list may be helpful. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 01:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
…Or both, actually. A list of all repositories listing where they're situated etc. (like the author disambiguation pages) would be helpful when users need to do a quick search for a specific repository page, while the category is useful in a broader spectrum, for example when doing Wikidata-, tech- or bot related tasks. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC).[]
This is surely a wider problem than just for wikispecies? I'd assume priority applies; whichever of the institutions was HMG first should keep it (Her Majesty's Government? ツ), and the other(s) should select, or be allocated, a different acronym? - MPF (talk) 10:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I agree Tommy, at the least this could be initialised as a list of all repositories, a Cat can then be done that would be most beneficial to various tasks as you say. MPF, In regards to priority of acronyms, for major institutions I believe these are registered by the Institution and in general are their preferred acronym. I believe they are checked against an international database when created. I could be wrong on that just I do recall several museums being made to change their over the years, some were voluntary. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 10:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
FWIW, Evenhuis has HMUG for the Hunterian museum, but does not include Hobetsu. The official ASIH list uses HMG for Hobetsu and GLAHM for the Hunterian Museum. Circeus (talk) 11:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
In regards to priority of acronyms we should also remember that many repositories use several acronyms depending on faculty etc. For example the Swedish Museum of Natural History use NHRM, NHRS, NRM & SNHM; here at Wikispecies they're all redirected to the main one, SMNH. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC).[]
Yes. Acronyms have also varied over time for many institutions (Indeed, Hobetsu Museum's official name isn't even that anymore: it changed in 2006!), and the literature is full of adhoc usages because unless a journal editor mandates use of a standard, everyone remains free to abbreviate however they want. While Index Herbariorum, Evenhuis and the ASIH standards are convenient, they are only partial and ad hoc to their specialties. The early 2010s efforts at standardizing never really took off because very few projects actually need to handle collection acronyms across many specialties. Unfortunately, we're one of those! Circeus (talk) 14:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]

───────────────────────── "This is one issue where either a category or a list may be helpful". Don't we have Repositories already? Though it doesn't look like either of the two subpages have been updated very often in the last two years. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Yes, I had forgotten about the Repositories pages. However as you say they haven't been updated for a long time: you'll have to be familiar with Akkadian cuneiform to decipher some of it... Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC).[]
We basically stopped supporting that page when we stopped using it as the linking atrget for all repository acronyms. Circeus (talk) 02:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
You're right. It would be easier to update/support it (and of more value to the community) if there where categories to back it up. Right now it's only a somewhat misplaced page in main namespace that feels a bit too "autonomous" from a wiki structural point of view. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC).[]

New replacement names[edit]


For a new replacement name (Nomen novum) is it possible to modify the the old name page (if pre-existing) or is necessary to create a new independent page for each name?

If you need to modify an existing page, are there any examples?

Many thanks

Best wishes – Eve Hutch (talk), 11:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC). — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eve Hutch (talkcontribs) 09:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)‎.[]

Hello Eve Hutch, as Wikispecies has pages for taxa (not for names, unlike Wikidata), an existing page should be moved to the new replacement name. The move can be done by all experienced editors. For an example of a page with a nom. nov., see Neothomasella. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks a lot. What do you mean by "moving" an existing page? If you explain this to me, I can then modify an existing page for testing. Thanks again. Kind regards, Eve Hutch (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
He is referring to what is basically renaming a page. In the case you are mentioning the page would be renamed from its old taxon name to the new replacement name. First thing you should do is run the Special:WhatLinksHere tool to be sure of what pages would be affected by the move. If its a species page then the genus page will link there and needs to also be modified to direct to the new name. However, there may also be redirects from other unused names to the name you are replacing, to avoid double redirects these also need to be updated to point to the new name. So have a list of these before you move the page, the tool will help.
Once all this is sorted in the top right next to the search box is a dropdown box that says More, under this is a link for Move. Click on that from the page you intend to move and you can place a new name in for the page, you must give a reason, I suggest you do leave a redirect which it will ask you. Then you can move the page once you action this page. The page will now have a new Mainspace Name, so any pages that direct to it have to be updated to reflect this.
This is all logged in the recent changes that admins watch so if their is a problem we will see it immediately, so do not worry too much there will be people who see and can fix mistakes. Take care with spelling, as if you move the page and have made a spelling mistake you may need an admin to untangle that. So double check everything before you accept the changes. I would suggest you include in the references on the page the citation that makes the move in the literature, in your comments be explicit as to why your moving the page.
If you need more help feel free to ask, Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks for the walk-through, Scott! @Eve Hutch: The dropdown menu with the "Move" link is called "Page" rather than "More". Other than that Scott's explanation is excellent. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC).[]
Thank you very much for the explanation! Eve Hutch (talk) 14:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Tedicpus puiramis[edit]

does anyone want to make a stab at redoing the prose article at Tedicpus puiramis before I delete it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Looks like the text has been cribbed from, with names changed to a genus and species that do not exist, for a reason that is not explained - perhaps someone is trying to legitimise in advance a planned change of name, but they are not doing it well at all. Delete as junk, maybe with an explanation as to why? Cheers Tony Rees Tony 1212 (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Also found this, at "The discus fish has attracted a cult following of collectors and has created a multimillion dollar international industry complete with shows, competitions, and reputed online breeders." So maybe there is some additional shady backstory here, just guessing... Tony 1212 (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Thanks all; deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Thank you. As a final side note the taxonomy of the Symphysodon i.e. Discus genus has always been a mess, but it's never encompassed a species named "Symphysodon puiramis". Furthermore I don't think there has ever been a genus named "Tedicpus" (fish or not) nor a specific name "puiramis" for any fish; the only fairly similar I can find is the saltwater blenny Enneapterygius pyramis Fricke, 1994, which is unrelated. Also and for what it's worth a Google search for "Tedicpus puiramis" renders zero hits. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC).[]

Circumscriptional names[edit]

Please have a look at Rhabdura (06:22, 19 September 2021 version). Ideas and thought about how we should best handle and format these kind of issues/taxa are welcome. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC).[]

By definition, circumscriptional name are unregulated under either botanical or zoological codes (though they are under the bacteriological code). Aside from the their form (which must be in -ales for plants), it's 100% dependent on whatever source has been selected as a valid classification by Wikispecies. There's literally nothing more we can use to guide us that wouldn't be original research. Circeus (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
In addition, WS pages are for taxa not names. By regulation names for taxa must conform to botanical or zoological codes, therefore WS pages for circumscriptional plant or zoological names are not allowed. Am I right or wrong? Andyboorman (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
A similar note is on the page for Dicellurata, the only other suborder in Diplura listed on Wikispecies. These notes were added by Nikita J. Kluge, who edited both of the pages back in 2013. Not sure if this helps at all or not. Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
EDIT: Ah hang on, he also added similar notes to other pages such as Insecta in 2013 (see here), only to be reverted by Stho002 later on (see here). It looks like there are only 6 pages altogether that Kluge edited that Stho002 didn't later revert: Dicellurata, Entomobryomorpha, Holodonata, Metapterygota, Odonatoptera and Rhabdura. I'm not sure what to make of this. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Andyboorman: ICZN doesn't regulate names higher than family-group (superfamily, family, subfamily, tribe, subtribe), so all names for higher ranks like order and suborder are therefore circumscriptional names, so far as I understand. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Monster Iestyn: ICN Chapter 1 Art 1-5 deals with taxa and ranks, including higher than family, for algae, fungi, and plants so circumscriptional names do not apply for these organisms. I am not sure of the value of adding them or creating a taxon page for them. Andyboorman (talk) 07:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Andyboorman: Hm, I don't these names are invalid by being circumscriptional names, otherwise that would mean we couldn't use "Insecta" or "Animalia" surely? In any case it's obvious to me that the term "circumscriptional name" itself is misleading us to think they're invalid names. It confused me too initially until I looked further into what Kluge was doing across Wikispecies. I think this was just Kluge attempting to put his own extended nomenclatural system on the wiki, as well as adding links to his own "Nomina Cicrumscribentia Insectorum" website with his own interpretations of the taxa. (If you saw Kluge's notes for Insecta for instance, he claimed it's not valid and it should be called Amyocerata instead?!?) Therefore I think we should keep these pages, but we should remove Kluge's interpretations of the taxa, because only Kluge seems to use them so far as I know (unless I am mistaken). Stho002 already reverted most of Kluge's edits to these pages years ago, but not these last six for some reason. Maybe he missed them? Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Monster Iestyn: Agreed remove. WS is not a personal domain. I did not say invalid, perhaps just advising that we be more circumspect in their use. We do occasionally use clade names as well, after all. Andyboorman (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Andyboorman: Ah, my mistake. In that case, I will remove Kluge's changes then. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
 Done Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]


The past month there's been quite a lot of activity on the Leucadendron page, where a total of 38 species were added by the same unregistered IP editor. Please have a look at this diff for an overview of the latest 18 edits from August 27 up until the day before yesterday. (Two edits by me, and 16 by the IP.) I'm not saying that the page now includes any errors, but perhaps a botanist with a registered user account should have a quick look just to verify? Thanks beforehand, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC).[]

Not in my area of particular expertise, but Wikipedia says there are "about 80 species" and there are over 100 names (including synonyms) in Tropicos, from which one could potentially obtain a list of current names. The genus is also treated in Plants of the World Online. (source for the data in CoL) has a long list, some valid, some synonyms... BTW there are three different genera named "Leucadendron" according to ING and Tropicos, all listed in fam. Proteaceae, the earliest (Linnaeus, Sp. Pl. 1: 91) is a nom. rej. for some reason... Tony 1212 (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
OK, the type species of Linnaeus' (1753) genus, now rejected, Leucadendron lepidocarpodendron Linnaeus, is now treated as a species of Protea, see . Tony 1212 (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I have adjusted the species list using Plants of the World Online. This will need cross checking with South African Flora, but on the face of it looks much better. (sorry now signed) Andyboorman (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
For completeness, Kuntze's 1891 genus of the same name (attributed therein to "Linnaeus, 1840"), is now Leucospermum, refer ING. Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 20:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Ilove Wikipedia simple[edit]

Ilove Wikipedia simple so much that I can't have enough — The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2021‎

Please note however that this is Wikispecies, not Wikipedia Simple. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC).[]

Movement Charter Drafting Committee - Community Elections to take place October 11 - 24[edit]

This is a short message with an update from the Movement Charter process. The call for candidates for the Drafting Committee closed September 14, and we got a diverse range of candidates. The committee will consist of 15 members, and those will be (s)elected via three different ways.

The 15 member committee will be selected with a 3-step process:

  • Election process for project communities to elect 7 members of the committee.
  • Selection process for affiliates to select 6 members of the committee.
  • Wikimedia Foundation process to appoint 2 members of the committee.

The community elections will take place between October 11 and October 24. The other process will take place in parallel, so that all processes will be concluded by November 1.

For the full context of the Movement Charter, its role, as well the process for its creation, please have a look at Meta. You can also contact us at any time on Telegram or via email ( (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Henry James Clark[edit]

Hi all, the author name Henry James Clark presently in Wikispecies (presumed surname=Clark) is also spelled H. James-Clark in some (all?) relevant pages, for example on the same page (publication list), and taxon names such as Bicosoeca - with authorship given as "James-Clark, 1866". I checked a sample original work, , and the running header is "H. J. Clark on Anthophysa Mulleri", while the actual article is prefixed "On the structure and habits of [...]; by H. James-Clark, A.B., B.S." Nevertheless various sources of his protist/sometime algal names use "H.J.Clark" as a botanical abbreviation (AlgaeBase, WoRMS), as does VIAF , incorrectly in my view?? Even Index Nominum Genericorum uses "H. J. Clark". IPNI/Plant Name Authors index has no entry for him.

I am thinking all instances of his name should be standardized on Wikispecies to "James-Clark", but would welcome other input. If this is agreed, then most likely the present page Henry James Clark should be maybe renamed (moved), or possibly kept as a redirect?? Cheers Tony Rees Tony 1212 (talk) 05:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]

FYI A posthumous publication of some of his work, along with a biographical sketch, calls him "Mr Clark"... - more confusingness :) Tony 1212 (talk) 05:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
On Wikipedia he is "Henry James Clark" as well ( with DEFAULTSORT:Clark, Henry James, however the facsimile signature included is hyphenated: Signature of Henry James Clark.png
I will copy the gist of the question also to the Taxacom mailing list, in case resident wisdom resides there as well :) Tony 1212 (talk) 06:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
In his publication Mind in nature, or, The origin of life, and the mode of development of animals (BHL), he is called Henry James Clark. And in his biographical memoir by A.S. Packard, too (PDF). --Thiotrix (talk) 06:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Dear all, (text below is copied from a post just now to the Taxacom mailing list)
OK, I have been doing some more digging. As Valéry Malecot states in an earlier post, Henry James Clark/Henry James-Clark was born to the Clark family, thus it is presumed that originally his surname was Clark, however he seems to have adopted "James-Clark" for his professional surname most (but perhaps not all) of the time; nevertheless in the posthumous biographical memoir by A.S. Packard, he is referred to as "Clark".
However, the clear majority of his authored taxa are in papers under the stated authorship of "[Professor] H. James-Clark", as also per his signature reproduced on the cited Wikipedia page. These cover the following taxa (possibly a few missed) :
"Lucernariae H. James-Clark", 1863 [1]
  • "Cleistocarpidae H. James-Clark", 1863 [1] - elsewhere given in text as "Cleistocarpidæ H. J. C."
  • "Eleutherocarpidae H. James-Clark", 1863 [1] - elsewhere given in text as "Eleutherocarpidæ H. J. C."
  • Bicosoecoidae [H. James-Clark, 1868] [5]
  • Codosigoidae [H. James-Clark, 1868] [5]
Genera: as per Nomenclator Zoologicus entries:
  • Calvadosia James-Clark 1863 Boston J. nat. Hist., 7, no. 4, 556. Coel [1]
  • Craterolophus James-Clark 1863 Boston J. nat. Hist., 7, no. 4, 539. Coel [1]
  • Haliclystus James-Clark 1863 Boston J. nat. Hist., 7, no. 4, 559. Coel [1]
  • Halimocyathus James-Clark 1863 Boston J. nat. Hist., 7, no. 4, 536. Coel [1]
  • Manania James-Clark 1863 Boston J. nat. Hist., 7, no. 4, 541. Coel [1]
  • Bicosoeca James-Clark 1866 Proc. Boston Soc. nat. Hist., 11, 16. Prot [2]
  • Codonoeca James-Clark 1866 Proc. Boston Soc. nat. Hist., 11, 16. Prot [2]
  • Codosiga James-Clark 1866 Proc. Boston Soc. nat. Hist., 11, 16. Prot [2] (**Amer. J. Sci. 92 in ING [4])
  • Salpingoeca James-Clark 1866 Proc. Boston Soc. nat. Hist., 11, 17. Prot (Flag.). [2] (**Amer. J. Sci. 92 in ING [4])
  • Heteromastix Clark 1865 Mind Nat., 146. Prot [3]

Species: (possibly not all located)
  • "Calvadosia campanulata H. James-Clark" [1]
  • "Craterolophus tethys H. James-Clark" [1]
  • "Haliclystus auricula H. James-Clark" [1]
  • "Haliclystus salpinx H. James-Clark" [1]
  • "Haliclystus octoradiatus H. James-Clark" [1]
  • "Halimocyathus platypus H. James-Clark" [1]
  • Heteromastix proteiformis Clark, 1865 [3]
  • Bicosoeca gracilipes H. James-Clark, 1868 [5]
  • Bicosoeca laustris H. James-Clark, 1868 [5]
  • Codosiga pulcherrimus H. James-Clark, 1868 [5]
  • Monas neglecta H. James-Clark, 1868 [5]
  • Salpingoeca gracilis H. James-Clark, 1868 [5]
From the above I would infer that the "correct" authorship for the majority of the above taxa would be "James-Clark", not "Clark" (or H.J. Clark); the exceptions being Heteromastix (genus) and Heteromastix proteiformis (species), both published under the authorship "Clark" (or H.J. Clark).
What do folk think of the above conclusion?
Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 04:08, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Here are the relevant references, with authorship as printed i.e. [sic]:
[1] "Art. XII - Prodromus of the History, Structure, and Physiology of the Order Lucernariæ". By Prof. Henry James-Clark, of Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.

Boston J. nat. Hist., 7, no. 4: 531-567 BHL: Includes: "Lucernariæ H. James-Clark" (new order) - elsewhere given in text as "Lucernariæ H. J. C." "Cleistocarpidæ H. James-Clark" (new family) - elsewhere given in text as "Cleistocarpidæ H. J. C." "Eleutherocarpidæ H. James-Clark" (new family) - elsewhere given in text as "Eleutherocarpidæ H. J. C." "Halimocyathus H. James-Clark" (new genus) - includes H. platypus H. James-Clark (new species) "Craterolophus H. James-Clark" (new genus) - includes C. tethys H. James-Clark (new species), "?C. convolvulus H. James-Clark" (new combination)* "Manania H. James-Clark" (new genus) - includes "M. auricula H. James-Clark" (new combination)* "Calvadosia H. James-Clark" (new genus) - includes C. campanulata H. James-Clark (new species) "Haliclystus H. James-Clark" (new genus) - includes H. auricula H. James-Clark (new species), H. salpinx H. James-Clark (new species), H. octoradiatus H. James-Clark (new species)

[2] Proc. Boston Soc. nat. Hist., 11: p. 16 et seq:

In "[Society Proceedings] June 20, 1866" (Pp. 15-25) BHL: Text reads: "Professor James-Clark stated that he had lately been engaged upon an investigation of the nature of Sponges..." Bicosœca, Codonœca, Codosiga and Salpingœca are described as nov. gen., with "species to be described in a forthcoming memoir"

[3] Henry James Clark: "Mind in nature, or, The origin of life, and the mode of development of animals". Appleton & Company, New York, 1865.

BHL: includes: "Heteromastix proteiformis, nov. gen. et sp."

[4] James-Clark, H. 1866 "Conclusive proofs on the animality of the ciliate sponges, and their affinities with the Infusoria Flagellata". American Journal of Science November 1866, s2-42 (126) 320-324; DOI:

"by H. James-Clark, A.B., B.S." On AJS website: Mentions in passing: "new genera" Bicosœca, Codosiga and Salpingœca (no species given)

Reprinted: Annals and Magazine of Natural History Ser. 3, vol. 19:

[5] H. James-Clark A.B. B.S. (1868) "XXII.—On the Spongiæ ciliatæ as Infusoria flagellata; or observations on the structure, animality, and relationship of Leucosolenia botryoides Bowerbank". Mem. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. 1: 305-340. BHL: Title says: "By H. James-Clark, A.B., B.S., Professor of Natural History in the Agicutural College of Pennsylvania"; running title: "Prof. H. James-Clark on the Spongiæ Ciliatæ"

Reprinted: Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 1:2, 133-142, ... includes: "Monas neglecta, nov. sp." "Bicosœca, nov. gen." - includes "B. gracilipes, nov. sp." Salpingoeca gracilis Bicosœcoidæ and Codosigoidæ are mentioned in text (?= established as new families) "Codosiga, nov. gen. (C. pulcherrimus, nov. sp.)" "Bicosœca lacustris, nov. spec."

The utter inability for English-language journals and databases of handling foreign names that do not confirm strictly to the structure [singular given name] [optional middle name or names] [singular family name] with any sort of consistency and without mangling them becomes extra amusing/frustrating when it affects the name of an English-speaking person. Circeus (talk) 11:57, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Well, I did wonder whether in the publication [3] under the name "Henry James Clark", "James Clark" might still be intended as a 2-part surname... when I worked for CSIRO, for a while our Divisional Chief was F. R. ("Roy") Harden Jones; Harden Jones being the surname. You can imagine that name giving indexers a bit of grief, and indeed it did, e.g. see ... Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 18:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Update on the taxon list above: I have just found via IRMNG/Nomenclator Zoologicus indexing, that there is another genus and species to add to the list: Clark/James Clark/James-Clark also described another new genus and species in reference [3], a freshwater sponge christened "Siphydora echinodes, nov. gen. et sp."" (no self-indicated authority, unfortunately), page available at . It is in Nomenclator Zoologicus as "Siphydora Clark 1865". It is included in at least one subsequent work ( as "Siphydora James Clark". Tony 1212 (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
An "Aha!" moment perhaps... Heteromastix (genus) and Heteromastix proteiformis (species), both published in the sole work listed above that is under the authorship "Henry James Clark" (thus previously suggested by me to be treated as "Clark") are listed as "Heteromastix, Jas.-Clk." and "Heteromastix proteiformis, Jas.-Clk." by the author himself, in publication [5]. Thus, I feel that this justifies citing the authorship of all taxa by the author in question as James-Clark. Thoughts? Regards - Tony Rees Tony 1212 (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]


When will the get a new theme/look? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by June627 (talkcontribs) 10:50, 25 September 2021.

This is Wikispecies. Questions regarding Wikipedia should be asked at the Wikipedia Village pump. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC).[]