Talk:Anthrenus goliath

Authority
04:34, 25 June 2024‎ @Classicwiki (in error @Ipscaij?)

The source specifically says:

Anthrenus goliath Saulcy in Mulsant & Rey, 1868

Which means the work was authored by Saulcy, however published only by (or in) work of Mulsant & Rey

@Classicwiki what do you think? Are there any rules about this e.g. disregard the detail about the name being published by Mulsant & Rey? Ipscaij (talk) 04:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Any guidance @UtherSRG and @Plantdrew? --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 04:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Additionally:
 * "...of Anthrenus goliath Saulcy in Mulsant & Rey, 1867" and mentioned as such throughout the paper: Anthrenus goliath Saulcy in Mulsant & Rey, 1867
 * https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377951300_Neotype_designation_of_Anthrenus_goliath_Saulcy_in_Mul-_sant_Rey_1867_Coleoptera_Dermestidae_Megatominae Ipscaij (talk) 04:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I prefer just plain Saulcy (as GBIF has it), but I'm more zoologically inclined than botanically... - UtherSRG (talk) 11:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And here's the opposite case (Anthrenus goliath Mulsant & Rey, 1868):
 * https://www.biolib.cz/en/taxon/id259130/
 * https://observation.org/species/601292/
 * Quite confusing. That's probably not big of a deal to leave this detail in, I think. So I'd personally go with Saulcy in Mulsant & Rey. Doesn't omit any information and doesn't particularly hurt any aspect of the article Ipscaij (talk) 11:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Biolib is known to have errors.
 * ICZN recommendation 51E says: "If a scientific name and the conditions other than publication that make it available [Arts. 10 to 20] are the responsibility not of the author of the work containing them, but of some other person(s), or of less than all of joint authors, the authorship of the name, if cited, should be stated as "B in A", or "B in A & B", or in whatever form is appropriate to facilitate information retrieval (normally the date should also be cited).
 * That's a "should", not a "must", but there's no certainly harm in including the names of the "in" authors. And it does help to resolve discrepancies (such as the authorship that Biolib provides). Plantdrew (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what to make of the 1867/1868 discrepancy. The code is concerned with the actual publication date, which can be different than the claimed date printed on the title page of a work. I'm more inclined to trust the paper designating the neotype as having gotten the date correct than the Megatominae checklist. But I also expect actual publication dates to usually be later than claimed dates if there is any discrepancy. Plantdrew (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * >1867/1868 discrepancy
 * Thank you for pointing out. I actually didn't notice.
 * I think this might be a mistake from author of the Neotype designation paper as he mentions "...pattern resembling A. corona is A. goliath Mulsant & Rey 1868" in his other paper.
 * https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352723660_Anthrenus_s_str_corona_Coleoptera_Dermestidae_Anthrenini_a_new_species_in_the_A_pimpinellae_Fabricius_1775_complex_from_Turkey
 * I think, let's keep year 1868 for now. I will ask the author of the new paper if that was a mistake or not as I have contacts with them. Ipscaij (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)