[Cz-biology] Species names

[Kim van der Linde]

John,

John Stephenson wrote:
> 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.

There is only one species of Giant Panda, with two subspecies. Both
subspecies have the same species name: 'Ailuropoda melanoleuca'. There is
no objection to clarify in the article that there are two subspecies,
stronger, the article should do that.

> 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.

Well, we seem to disagree here, because I do not think that this is an issue.

> 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.

I think that just adds to the confusion if you add the name of a group to
the species name.

>> 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.

Ok, that is a nightmare! Especially because we have a good solution.

>> 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.

Based on your subjective criterion above, I would use it for 'Drosophila',
as that is the most common usage.

> 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.

I am somewhat confused about this. The article of the giant panda should
cover that there are two almost identical subspecies, which differ
primarily in skull size and for many aspects are exactly the same. Just as
the article about cockatoos should cover that there are various species of
cockatoos. If there were two species of Giant Panda, one called Quiling
Panda and the other 'black and white Panda', the article about he genus
should cover that there is a genus with two species.

Kim




-- 
http://www.kimvdlinde.com