744:
which, although published in 1970, carried an imprint date of 1969; Anomalopus truncatus (Peters, 1876 ) was established in a different genus from
Anomalopus in a work which, although published in 1876, carried an imprint date of 1877." If that were the example being followed, a name saying "Moore, " would imply that the publication says 1885, but there is reason to believe it is some other, unspecified year. I think that that's not what is happening here, so it has nothing to do with what the Code recommends. As for determining what the actual date is in the first place, the ICZN is a little complicated, but basically it's "the earliest day on which the work is demonstrated to be in existence as a published work", meaning multiple Code-compliant copies that have been distributed, similar to the ICNafp.
166:
422:
135:
215:
197:
475:
381:
in the context of "medusoids". "Medusoids" does appear in quotation marks in the paper, suggesting that the authors are hedging their bets a bit; i.e., they are discussing fossils that have been classified as medusoids, but aren't definitively taking a position on whether the fossils mentioned are or
328:
listed it as in
Animalia, then incertae sedis from there down to the genus itself. I put the existing "Animalia/incertae sedis" claim in the new taxonomy template. However, some of the theorized possibilities listed in the main article for the genus are not actually animals. Should its parent perhaps
346:
2. I wasn't sure what to do about the taxonomy template's "extinct" field. I guess at least the species is almost certainly extinct, since we apparently haven't kept finding these things, but the genus? Again, I'd guess extinct, but... what if it's just some jellyfish (I know that's not a genus, but
563:
Square brackets around a date in a taxonomic authority citation, like "Moore, " typically indicates that the actual date of publication is different from the date printed on the publication itself. So "Moore, 1885" and "Moore, " convey different information. Not sure what the
Knowledge standard is
396:
For taxa known from fossils, you can pretty safely set "extinct=yes". If a genus is known from fossils as well as extant species a quick check on a search engine should turn up sources discussing the extant species. The absence of a † in a manual taxobox shouldn't be taken to indicate that extinct
743:
to give the date specified within a work in brackets, but the actual date outside of the brackets: "Examples. Ctenotus alacer Storr, 1970 ("1969"), or
Ctenotus alacer Storr, 1970 , or Ctenotus alacer Storr, 1970 (imprint 1969), or Ctenotus alacer Storr, 1970 (not 1969), was established in a work
697:
According to the archive.org version Parts II and III are dated Nov. 28, 1881 and Sept. 5, 1887 (see bottom of pages 89 and 199). Assuming those are manuscript dates, this is consistent with the titles pages dated 1882 and 1888 on pages 340 and 342. When Part II was actually published is another
540:
In the preexisting
Taxobox, the authorities in the "Genus" and "Species" sections were both given as "Moore, 1882", but the one in the "Synonyms" section was given as "Moore, ". I don't know what the square brackets mean there, so I went in search of information about it. I found something about
713:
For ICNafp names, it's definitely the date it was distributed. For printed matter, the Code says "Art. 29.1. Publication is effected, under this Code, by distribution of printed matter (through sale, exchange, or gift) to the general public or at least to scientific institutions with generally
382:
are not actually medusoids. The source currently in the article for the statement "jellyfish (although this is considered unlikely)" actually says "not considered by
Glaessner (1979) to be undoubtedly a jellyfish", which is not at all the same thing as "considered unlikely to be a jellyfish".
347:
that doesn't mean that its genus would necessarily be extinct)? Or even some weird mark left by a jellyfish? But as far as I can see from the documentation, "extinct" is just yes/no; I'm not sure if it's appropriate or even possible to instead set it to "probably" or "unknown" or whatever.
646:
I'm not at all sure where the 1882 (instead of 1879) date comes from, but I'm pretty sure the 1894 date can not be correct, and given the uncertainties around the date of one of Moore's publications I'm not surprised there may be uncertain about another one of them (the one where
350:
For what it's worth, I'm thinking "Incertae sedis/Life" and "extinct=yes", but instead of making it that way, I decided to just keep things as close as possible to the way they were in the pre-automated article, and raise my questions here. -
301:. It's a genus defined by a fossil from hundreds of millions of years ago, and apparently there's not even a remote consensus about what it is (jellyfish? trace fossil? microbial colony? etc. etc. etc.). There was no
98:
275:
This talk page can be used to discuss issues with the automated taxobox system that are common to the entire system, not just one of its templates. Discussions of this nature prior to 2017 can be found at
292:
545:, but nothing about having them around the date. So, I guessed that maybe it was just a stylistic choice by some previous Wikipedian, and removed them, leaving just "Moore, 1885".
386:
360:
39:
910:
126:
914:
122:
118:
114:
110:
106:
102:
684:
666:
565:
949:
903:
899:
753:
808:
557:
974:
930:
873:
855:
836:
727:
74:
501:
969:
964:
660:
466:
343:, e.g. "mud volcano or other sedimentary structure", but the article reads like those theories are now thought to be very unlikely.
608:
The first source in the article (Hewitson & Moore) has a title page with a publication date of 1879, and on page 186 the genus
285:
692:
678:
573:
406:
238:
620:
at archive.org gives the publication date as 1879-1888. 1882 appears on page 340 (apparently the title page for the last? part).
772:
708:
548:
Was this correct of me, or should it have the square brackets around the date? If the latter, what do they indicate? Thanks. -
508:
454:
333:
80:
134:
683:
It means the work was actually published in 1885, but the date printed on the publication is different (often earlier).
222:
202:
24:
798:. The taxonomy is discussed in the various articles. Is there somewhere where it is mentioned without explanation? —
926:
768:
412:
616:
are being presented as newly described. Hewitson & Moore is a 3 part publication; the version linked from the
277:
714:
accessible libraries." The printed date is often earlier, particularly for older works bound in multiple parts.
20:
669:, thanks, but: Which is which? That is, does mean "published in 1885", or "publication itself says 1885"? -
69:
922:
861:
820:
764:
312:
177:
860:
Sorry, my mistake; I didn't "create" the taxonomy template as I wrote above, I corrected the version that
824:
632:
315:, but ran into a couple things that I'm not sure I did correctly, and don't know how to "really" handle.
60:
599:
521:
389:(questionably a jellyfish), but "Animalia/incertae sedis" works as well. The non-animal hypotheses for
93:
937:
498:
432:
237:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
945:
869:
832:
723:
428:
234:
149:
373:, "Animalia/incertae sedis" seems appropriate. The Paleobiology Database lists the parent as
183:
885:
485:
8:
698:
matter. What is the crucial date, when the work is printed or when it is distributed? —
688:
656:
589:
569:
402:
50:
841:
Ah, that would make sense, although I'm puzzled by the timeline. I'm sure I checked the
397:
status is uncertain for a taxon that the article describes as being known from fossils.
941:
865:
828:
719:
65:
851:
804:
749:
704:
305:
46:
791:
531:
322:
297:
I've recently been updating things to the automated system, and today I dealt with
674:
553:
356:
339:
instead? I should note here that some of the theorized possibilities aren't even
652:
462:
398:
227:
145:
958:
795:
605:. That aside, there is something funky going on with the dates for this moth.
231:
847:
815:
800:
758:
745:
715:
700:
787:
783:
936:
This is more usefully raised at the
Pyrosome article, so I've posted at
623:
GBIF (and
Lepindex) give "Moore, 1894" as the authority for the species
385:
Based on what I've seen I think you could set the parent template to be
150:
670:
580:
549:
377:(i.e. Animalia) citing a 2004 paper. The 2004 paper actually discusses
368:
352:
298:
842:
779:
514:
458:
284:
Those familiar with the system prior to mid-2016 are advised to read
895:
845:
article and find it hard to believe I missed the taxobox error. —
739:
What the ICZN says is not exactly what people typically do. You're
147:
374:
293:
Template/Taxonomy for something about which very little is known?
493:
763:
So the UTC clade is a clade of algae but there’s no taxonomy?
416:
214:
196:
151:
890:
In
English Knowledge they don’t do the taxonomy right.
631:
as "Moore, 1882". So something is probably wrong there.
643:(which is obviously an error in some way at LepIndex).
537:, and there's a bit that I'm not sure if I did right:
226:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
15:
25:automated taxobox system as a whole – not just one
956:
827:, when the taxobox in the article didn't work.
541:having square brackets around the authority
639:, while treating it as a junior synonym of
823:may have been commenting before I created
894:There are 3 genera in the Pyrosomatidae (
718:is better able to comment on ICZN names.
635:does have "Moore, " as the authority for
176:does not require a rating on Knowledge's
957:
938:Talk:Pyrosome#Family is not monotypic
778:I don't understand the question. The
585:for monotypic genera, you should use
517:(a monotypic genus of moths) to use
165:
163:
159:
627:, and GBIF gives the authority for
182:It is of interest to the following
23:for discussing improvements to the
13:
509:Authority date in square brackets?
247:Knowledge:WikiProject Tree of Life
14:
986:
975:WikiProject Tree of Life articles
250:Template:WikiProject Tree of Life
220:This page is within the scope of
970:NA-importance taxonomic articles
965:Project-Class taxonomic articles
921:so we need to fix the taxonomy.
473:
420:
393:don't seem to be well supported.
213:
195:
164:
133:
40:Click here to start a new topic.
278:Template talk:Automatic taxobox
950:06:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
931:01:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
874:06:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
864:had created that didn't work.
856:16:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
837:16:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
809:06:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
773:02:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
754:14:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
728:09:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
709:06:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
693:03:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
679:01:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
661:01:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
574:00:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
564:for instances like these ...
558:00:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
311:template for it, so I created
1:
502:20:19, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
467:18:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
457:to the module in production.
413:Edit request 9 September 2024
407:21:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
387:Template:Taxonomy/Scyphozoa/?
361:18:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
241:and see a list of open tasks.
37:Put new text under old text.
334:Taxonomy/Incertae sedis/Life
313:Template:Taxonomy/Mawsonites
7:
909:there is also 2 subfamily (
825:Template:Taxonomy/UTC clade
447:to reactivate your request.
435:has been answered. Set the
45:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
10:
991:
208:
190:
75:Be welcoming to newcomers
433:Module:Automated taxobox
223:WikiProject Tree of Life
911:Pyrosomatinae (animal)
70:avoid personal attacks
286:Notes for "old hands"
127:Auto-archiving period
453:Hello, please apply
637:Corcobara thwaitesi
923:Atlas Þə Biologist
862:Atlas Þə Biologist
821:Atlas Þə Biologist
782:is a group within
765:Atlas Þə Biologist
280:
253:taxonomic articles
178:content assessment
81:dispute resolution
42:
886:Pyrosome taxonomy
651:) was desribed).
600:Automatic taxobox
522:Automatic taxobox
504:
451:
450:
274:
269:
268:
265:
264:
261:
260:
158:
157:
61:Assume good faith
38:
982:
915:Pyrostremmatinae
854:
819:
807:
792:Trebouxiophyceae
707:
612:and the species
604:
598:
594:
588:
584:
536:
530:
526:
520:
500:
496:
488:
481:
477:
476:
442:
438:
424:
423:
417:
372:
338:
332:
327:
321:
318:1. The existing
310:
304:
255:
254:
251:
248:
245:
217:
210:
209:
199:
192:
191:
169:
168:
167:
160:
152:
138:
137:
128:
16:
990:
989:
985:
984:
983:
981:
980:
979:
955:
954:
888:
846:
813:
799:
761:
699:
641:C. angulipennis
614:C. angulipennis
602:
596:
592:
586:
578:
534:
528:
524:
518:
513:I just updated
511:
494:
486:
474:
472:
440:
436:
421:
415:
366:
336:
330:
325:
319:
308:
302:
295:
252:
249:
246:
243:
242:
154:
153:
148:
125:
87:
86:
56:
12:
11:
5:
988:
978:
977:
972:
967:
953:
952:
919:
918:
907:
887:
884:
883:
882:
881:
880:
879:
878:
877:
876:
760:
757:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
695:
663:
644:
621:
606:
510:
507:
506:
505:
487:P.I. Ellsworth
449:
448:
425:
414:
411:
410:
409:
394:
383:
294:
291:
271:
267:
266:
263:
262:
259:
258:
256:
239:the discussion
218:
206:
205:
200:
188:
187:
181:
170:
156:
155:
146:
144:
143:
140:
139:
89:
88:
85:
84:
77:
72:
63:
57:
55:
54:
43:
34:
33:
30:
29:
28:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
987:
976:
973:
971:
968:
966:
963:
962:
960:
951:
947:
943:
942:Peter coxhead
939:
935:
934:
933:
932:
928:
924:
916:
912:
908:
905:
901:
897:
893:
892:
891:
875:
871:
867:
866:Peter coxhead
863:
859:
858:
857:
853:
849:
844:
840:
839:
838:
834:
830:
829:Peter coxhead
826:
822:
817:
812:
811:
810:
806:
802:
797:
796:Chlorophyceae
793:
789:
785:
781:
777:
776:
775:
774:
770:
766:
756:
755:
751:
747:
742:
729:
725:
721:
720:Peter coxhead
717:
712:
711:
710:
706:
702:
696:
694:
690:
686:
682:
681:
680:
676:
672:
668:
664:
662:
658:
654:
650:
645:
642:
638:
634:
630:
626:
622:
619:
615:
611:
607:
601:
591:
582:
577:
576:
575:
571:
567:
562:
561:
560:
559:
555:
551:
546:
544:
538:
533:
523:
516:
503:
499:
497:
491:
490:
489:
480:
471:
470:
469:
468:
464:
460:
456:
446:
443:parameter to
434:
430:
426:
419:
418:
408:
404:
400:
395:
392:
388:
384:
380:
376:
370:
365:
364:
363:
362:
358:
354:
348:
344:
342:
335:
324:
316:
314:
307:
300:
290:
289:
287:
281:
279:
272:
257:
240:
236:
233:
229:
225:
224:
219:
216:
212:
211:
207:
204:
201:
198:
194:
193:
189:
185:
179:
175:
171:
162:
161:
142:
141:
136:
132:
124:
120:
116:
112:
108:
104:
100:
97:
95:
91:
90:
82:
78:
76:
73:
71:
67:
64:
62:
59:
58:
52:
48:
47:Learn to edit
44:
41:
36:
35:
32:
31:
26:
22:
18:
17:
920:
889:
762:
740:
738:
649:C. thwaitesi
648:
640:
636:
628:
625:angulipennis
624:
617:
613:
609:
547:
542:
539:
512:
484:
483:
478:
452:
444:
429:edit request
390:
378:
349:
345:
340:
317:
296:
283:
282:
273:
270:
244:Tree of Life
235:tree of life
232:phylogenetic
221:
203:Tree of Life
184:WikiProjects
174:project page
173:
130:
92:
19:This is the
904:pyrosomella
900:pyrostremma
788:Ulvophyceae
786:comprising
784:Chlorophyta
527:instead of
959:Categories
590:Speciesbox
437:|answered=
391:Mawsonites
379:Mawsonites
329:be set to
299:Mawsonites
843:UTC clade
780:UTC clade
759:UTC clade
685:Esculenta
667:Esculenta
653:Plantdrew
629:Corcobara
618:Corocbara
610:Corcobara
566:Esculenta
515:Corcobara
479:Completed
399:Plantdrew
341:organisms
131:41.5 days
83:if needed
66:Be polite
21:talk page
896:pyrosoma
741:supposed
633:Lepindex
455:this fix
306:taxonomy
230:and the
228:taxonomy
94:Archives
51:get help
848:Jts1882
816:Jts1882
801:Jts1882
746:Dyanega
716:Dyanega
701:Jts1882
532:Taxobox
375:Metazoa
323:taxobox
595:, not
180:scale.
913:and
671:Rwv37
581:Rwv37
550:Rwv37
441:|ans=
427:This
369:Rwv37
353:Rwv37
172:This
99:Index
79:Seek
27:page.
946:talk
927:talk
902:and
870:talk
852:talk
833:talk
805:talk
794:and
769:talk
750:talk
724:talk
705:talk
689:talk
675:talk
657:talk
570:talk
554:talk
543:name
463:talk
459:Od1n
403:talk
357:talk
68:and
495:ed.
439:or
431:to
961::
948:)
940:.
929:)
898:,
872:)
835:)
790:,
771:)
752:)
726:)
691:)
677:)
659:)
603:}}
597:{{
593:}}
587:{{
572:)
556:)
535:}}
529:{{
525:}}
519:{{
492:,
482:.
465:)
445:no
405:)
359:)
337:}}
331:{{
326:}}
320:{{
309:}}
303:{{
129::
121:,
117:,
113:,
109:,
105:,
101:,
49:;
944:(
925:(
917:)
906:)
868:(
850:|
831:(
818::
814:@
803:|
767:(
748:(
722:(
703:|
687:(
673:(
665:@
655:(
583::
579:@
568:(
552:(
461:(
401:(
371::
367:@
355:(
288:.
186::
123:6
119:5
115:4
111:3
107:2
103:1
96::
53:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
