Category talk:Taxa named by Bryan Alwyn Barlow

Contested deletion
This category should not be speedily deleted as being unpopulated. According to the botanical naming code, which applies to plants, fungi and lichens, the binomial authority may look something like this: Muellerina eucalyptoides (DC.) Barlow. This means that the taxon was first described by Augustin Pyramus de Candolle and later redescribed (by changing its genus) by Bryan Alwyn Barlow. For some time this mistletoe was categorised as Category:Taxa named by Bryan Alwyn Barlow, as were many other mistletoes. Indeed, there may well have been up 168 taxa in this category. See the wikidata query "Find Taxa named by Bryan Alwyn Barlow". The category has been systematically depopulated by someone who seems to believe that the zoological naming code applies, and not the botanical code, where both have participated in the naming. (I intend to find a reference for this, but haven't yet) MargaretRDonald (talk) 04:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think a rename counts as a description, but I have found some plants he described and begun stubs. I think this is the safest way to go until there is a more structured discussion on the topic. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that But note too that the category up for deletion is Taxa named by Bryan Alwyn Barlow. And on this score the author who creates a comb. nov is surely renaming (naming) the taxon. And this is an ordinary English sense of "naming" which should apply. MargaretRDonald (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There needs to be a proper discussion on the issue to achieve consensus, as clearly you and have differing interpretations. I am undecided about it actually, though possibly lean the other way. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We've been through this all before; read User talk:MargaretRDonald/Archive 10. Esculenta (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Just three people discussed the issue at User talk:MargaretRDonald/Archive 10: Peter Coxhead, Esculenta and myself. One of those three, Peter Coxhead, suggested the issue needed to be discussed more widely. Three people (now four) scarcely makes a "wide" discussion. IPNI considers that a botanist who create a comb. nov. is an author, so  perhaps the category should be changed to: "Category:Taxa authored by x".  This failure to supply information that IPNI supples, would be a failure of wikipedia to be the encyclopaedia it should be.  MargaretRDonald (talk) 06:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As I have pointed out before, if we are going to included the transferring author, then there must be separate categories for botanical (ICNafp) and zoological (ICZN) names, because the ICZN is very, very clear that transferring a species from one genus to another does not create a name. In zoological nomenclature, the specific name is the second part of the binomial; the entire binomial is only a combination. It's different in botanical nomenclature. This must be discussed more widely.
 * consider carefully your argument above: the author who creates a comb. nov is surely renaming (naming) the taxon. And this is an ordinary English sense of "naming" which should apply. If we are considering the ordinary English sense of "naming", then why aren't we including authors who gave species ordinary English names, especially when the article is at the English name? What about pre-Linnaean names? But of course we are not considering the ordinary English sense of naming, we are considering naming which is governed by the nomenclature codes, which (unfortunately) have a deep philosophical difference in the way that they treat binomials. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The comparison with animals swings it (for me ) to a stricter rather than laxer intepretation I'm afraid. I think it is important that it is internally cohesive across all organisms, so agee with Esculenta. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for your help and opinions. Peter quite rightly said, that the discussion requires a much broader dissemination: It effects every (plant) taxonomist  from the 18th century onward, together with every species they have authored, which covers an enormous breadth of our encyclopaedia. Personally, given the difference between the two codes, I would like to suggest (as earlier, so that we might at least have some of the breadth of IPNI) that we change these plant categories to, for example,  MargaretRDonald (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes - or Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "described" has no technical sense and would be open to the same objections as "named". It would include to my mind anyone who wrote a synonym" description too, and that would be far tod difficult to maintain as synonyms can change with later circumscriptions. The only thing tying the whole thing together is the original type. So I would at like to go with "authored by" It won't capture all the names of authors, but will capture names of author of accepted names. MargaretRDonald (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)