[Cz-biology] Species names

[John Stephenson]

Hi,

OK, I can see the merit to having both common and scientific names in 
the title. However, in some cases this will entail a rewrite. If we 
assign 'Ailuropoda melanoleuca' to the 'Giant Panda' article, that 
suggests it will only be about that species, when in fact the article is 
an introduction to pandas generally. It suggests that we must exclude 
the (sub)species, A. melanoleuca qinlingensis.

Also, if I saw the Latin name in an article title, I would be expecting 
a fairly technical resource about the biology and evolution of that 
species - when CZ articles are actually introductions for 
nonspecialists. If I didn't know anything about Latin descriptions, I 
might think the article were in a foreign language, or on some other 
subject.

Kim wrote:
> 1. We have (multiple) common names for the fluffy and the furry and the
> beautiful stuff, but there are many many without a common name:
> 1a. What about those without a common name?
 > 1b. What about those with a very uncommon used common name?

You'd have to use the scientific classification, plus some general name 
in the brackets: e.g. 'dfdfffgtfhgf refrdgfd (beetle)'. For those with 
an uncommon name, maybe the same.

> 1c. What if one species has two or more common names (for example: Monk
> parrot (British) versus Quacker Parrot (parts of the US); Cougar or
> Mountain Lion or Puma)

Same rules as for other articles. Take the commonest, or the person who 
starts the article determines it.

> 1d. What about common names used for multiple groups (for example: are
> the Drosophilidae or the Tethritidae the fruitflies)?

I would recommend a disambiguation page for this.

I think using the scientific terms as primary would make things too 
specific, as well. For example, it implies an article on every species, 
even closely related ones.

John.