Talk:Halichondria papillaris
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Halichondria papillaris article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Reviewer Note[edit]
It appears that there has been a paper published which may suggest that Halichondria papillaris and Halichondria panicea are among up to 56 names assigned to what is actually a single species. Since the species has been documented since 1766, it warrants its own stub article even if it is disputed. However, the facts of any dispute should be properly documented. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- User:Calliopejen1, User:Loopy30, User:Looplips: It appears that H. papillaris and H. panicea have been defined as distinct species since 1766, but that there has been a recent paper published saying that multiple species have been identified when there is only one species. If the specific name has been in use since the eighteenth century, even if it is now questioned, then an entry is probably appropriate, but the controversy should be documented. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- The modern comparative and DNA analysis conducted in the research of leading to the database entry published in 2007 confirmed what had already been published by Johnston in 1842, that these are two names (synonyms) for the same species. This species, as classified by Wikipedia's standard reference (WoRMS) is given the accepted name of Halichondria (Halichondria) panicea (Pallas, 1766), of which Halichondria papillaris is one of its many junior synonyms. The species, and there is only the one according to the references, already has its own article which includes a list of synonyms in the taxobox and a discussion of the many synonyms in a separate section. Former names of a species do not warrant their own article, but should be noted as a synonym in the taxobox and when exceptionally noteworthy, mentioned in the article text. The current classification of this species, including its junior synonym is not disputed by anyone. However, if there did remain some ongoing use of this junior synonym it could then be mentioned in the accepted species article, and not in a separate stub article for the alternate name. This is precisely why redirects for junior synonyms to the accepted species name should be created and maintained, in order to avoid this situation of the creation of duplicate articles using alternate (and unaccepted) names. Loopy30 (talk) 14:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'm confused by the WoRMS entries. The genus page for Halichondria Fleming, 1828 lists Halichondria (Halichondria) papillaris (Pallas, 1766) as a species and both pages seem to indicate it is an accepted species. On the other hand the page for Halichondria (Halichondria) panicea (Pallas, 1766) lists Halichondria papillaris (Linnaeus, 1791) as a synonym and its page gives the status as "alternate representation (junior synonym)" and gives Halichondria (Halichondria) panicea (Pallas, 1766) as the accepted name. There seems to be some confusion for the species when given as member of the genus or of the subgenus. A right can of WoRMS. — Jts1882 | talk 15:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Good observation, I will contact the WoRMS database to sort out the discrepancy. They have been very responsive in the past. Loopy30 (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)- On closer inspection, it appears that it is Halichondria papillaris (Linnaeus, 1791) that is a junior synonym for Halichondria (Halichondria) panicea, and not the description of Halichondria (Halichondria) papillaris (Pallas, 1766) which is still a valid species. Therefore, the article can be kept with the references adjusted. Loopy30 (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'm confused by the WoRMS entries. The genus page for Halichondria Fleming, 1828 lists Halichondria (Halichondria) papillaris (Pallas, 1766) as a species and both pages seem to indicate it is an accepted species. On the other hand the page for Halichondria (Halichondria) panicea (Pallas, 1766) lists Halichondria papillaris (Linnaeus, 1791) as a synonym and its page gives the status as "alternate representation (junior synonym)" and gives Halichondria (Halichondria) panicea (Pallas, 1766) as the accepted name. There seems to be some confusion for the species when given as member of the genus or of the subgenus. A right can of WoRMS. — Jts1882 | talk 15:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- The modern comparative and DNA analysis conducted in the research of leading to the database entry published in 2007 confirmed what had already been published by Johnston in 1842, that these are two names (synonyms) for the same species. This species, as classified by Wikipedia's standard reference (WoRMS) is given the accepted name of Halichondria (Halichondria) panicea (Pallas, 1766), of which Halichondria papillaris is one of its many junior synonyms. The species, and there is only the one according to the references, already has its own article which includes a list of synonyms in the taxobox and a discussion of the many synonyms in a separate section. Former names of a species do not warrant their own article, but should be noted as a synonym in the taxobox and when exceptionally noteworthy, mentioned in the article text. The current classification of this species, including its junior synonym is not disputed by anyone. However, if there did remain some ongoing use of this junior synonym it could then be mentioned in the accepted species article, and not in a separate stub article for the alternate name. This is precisely why redirects for junior synonyms to the accepted species name should be created and maintained, in order to avoid this situation of the creation of duplicate articles using alternate (and unaccepted) names. Loopy30 (talk) 14:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- User:Calliopejen1, User:Loopy30, User:Looplips: It appears that H. papillaris and H. panicea have been defined as distinct species since 1766, but that there has been a recent paper published saying that multiple species have been identified when there is only one species. If the specific name has been in use since the eighteenth century, even if it is now questioned, then an entry is probably appropriate, but the controversy should be documented. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Genus List[edit]
The article on the genus, Halichondria, has a very large number of red links for species. Many of them appear to be former names as a result of the modern DNA analysis. Should they be included in a list of former names rather than as species? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)