Talk:Binomial nomenclature

Missing material?
One thing that seems to be missing from the article is what happens when a species is moved to another genus in which its specific name/epithet already exists. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

"Excellent reflection of underlying evolutionary patterns"
I've removed this recent addition to the lead, as it seems too narrow (and recent) a result for the lead: the paper addresses the concern that monotypic genera are an "artifact of human classification", saying that simulated phylogenies produce a similar distribution."Binomial systematics is shown to be an excellent reflection of underlying evolutionary patterns." I'm not sure if there's a good place for the reference in this article. Opinions? Nitpicking polish (talk) 15:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Our article is about binomial nomenclature, not about the distribution of the number of species in genera, which is a matter of how taxonomists use binomial nomenclature, not the nomenclature itself. So I don't see that the journal article is relevant. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

T. rex most well known
"Tyrannosaurus rex is probably the most widely known binomial.[1]" doesn't seem to be an important enough sentence to include in the first paragraph, and with only a single citation from a generation ago it may no longer even be correct. 199.212.55.162 (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, a Google search for the exact phrase "T rex" (Google ignores punctuation) gave me about 66 million hits as opposed to about 32 million for "E coli" which seems to me another well known abbreviated binomial. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * What about Homo sapiens? It results in 72 million hits in a Google search, compared to only 9 million for the fully written Tyrannosaurus rex. Should we change the text here? DKMell (talk) 06:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Definetly should CheeseyHead (talk) 20:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Question
Do the various naming codes adress how these names should be integrated into various languages? For example, I'm curious as to how the capitalization rules work in German. More interestingly, how should these names be written in languages which use non Latin scripts?

Is there an official international standard for "localization" to various languages? Or is officially it left up to local language authorities? Or do the codes not adress this issue officially at all?

If there is such a standard, it would be nice to mention it in the article. If not, it might be useful to add examples of how various languages adress this issue. JonathanHopeThisIsUnique (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Scientific names are treated as literal strings of characters. They are always written in exactly the way prescribed in the nomenclature codes. So if you look in Chinese or Russian botanical sources, for example, you will see the scientific names in the Latin script, although there may also be a transcription and of course a vernacular name. See, as just one example, this extract. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Image bug
That is not an image in the beginning, it's just text. Please change it to a proper image. 111.88.15.184 (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * It was caused by a bad edit. Now fixed. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Hemihomonyms
The text in the "Problems" section says "At least 1241 instances of such binomial duplication occur", but the paper by Shipunov cited in support of this apparently shows only genus-level name duplication, not duplication of both genus and species names. Other sources, although less authoritative, have only a handful (< 10) of known cases. I think there's a mistake here, but maybe I'm missing something. DKMell (talk) 06:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * you are quite right; well spotted! I've changed the text to
 * "Because genus names are unique only within a nomenclature code, it is possible for two or more species to share the same genus name and even the same binomial if they occur in different kingdoms. At least 1240 instances of genus name duplication occur."
 * I think this is more accurate (and avoids some false precision). Peter coxhead (talk) 09:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Too much explanation
In the end of the opening there's a part that reads ""binomi'N'al" with an "N" before the "al", which is not a typographic error, meaning "two-name naming system"." I feel it's explaining it too much. It's clunky and hard to read. Can we get rid of it altogether? CheeseyHead (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Clunky it is (I wrote that version), but for a reason. There is long history of the word "binominal" repeatedly getting removed from the lede. Allow me a few more days to research and elaborate. --Wotheina (talk) 08:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As a reader, I learned from this article that both "binomial" and "binominal" are legitimate terms. I appreciate that, and believe this information is worth kept on the lede. It is notable for being used by ICZN and other literature. The problem is that "binominal" has often been removed:


 * 2007-05-31: First mention of alternative terms, signifying the "n" with underscore. The system is also called binomi n al nomenclature (particularly in zoological circles) or binary nomenclature (particularly in botanical circles)
 * 2008-04-08: (First?) removal of underscore with no edit summary.
 * (2009-03-16: Vandalism replacing  with.
 * 2009-03-16: Revert)
 * "binomial" vs "binominal" war
 * 2009-09-07: Removal of "binomial nomenclature" from the lede. Edit summary: "General tidy. Limit bold to headwords in lead para as per WP:MOSBOLD."
 * 2009-12-16: "'Binomial' is... a misnomer" (unsourced). Edit summary: "Clarification of the terms 'nomial', 'binomial', 'nominal', and 'binominal'."
 * 2009-12-17: Reverted. Edit summary: "from Medieval Latin, neuter of binomius having two names"
 * 2010-02-24: Replacement of "binomial" to "binominal" in the whole main text, with no edit summary.
 * 2010-02-24: Reverted them back to "binomial", with no edit summary.
 * 2010-02-24: Replacement of "binomial" to "binominal" in the whole main text, with edit summary "It is Binominal Nomenclature - Binominal is the taxanomic naming system, a Binomial is a piece of math. This article should be named Binominal Nomenclature."
 * 2010-03-13...2010-03-18 : Replacement of "binominal" to "binomial" in the whole main text. Re-introduced the underscore to "binominal". Added citations. Now it is The formal system of naming species is called binomial nomenclature (especially in botany, but also used by zoologists ), binomi n al nomenclature (since 1953, the technically correct form in zoology ), or binary nomenclature.
 * 2010-03-18...2010-03-25 Talk:Binomial nomenclature/Archive 1: Proposal "Binomial nomenclature → Binominal nomenclature". The result of the move request was: Not moved 13:43, 25 March 2010
 * 2011-06-13, 2011-06-16: Moved the citations out from the lede into the #Codes section.
 * 2011-06-14: Major rewrite of lede. Binomial nomenclature (also called binomi n al nomenclature or binary nomenclature) is a formal system of naming species of
 * 2011-10-14: Removal of the underscore with edit summary "cl".
 * 2011-10-14: Reverted to restore the underscore, with edit summary "I see no reason to remove the underline, which is helpful in distinguishing "binomial" and "binominal", otherwise easily misread"
 * 2012-01-25: Removal of the underscore with edit summary "bold the subject please, no need to point out the n".
 * 2012-01-25: Restoring the underscore with edit summary "underlining the "n" was originally a response to people not noticing that these were 2 different words, so I think it's worthwhile".
 * 2013-02-20: "replaced n  with the unicode character ṉ". (also called binomiṉal nomenclature or binary nomenclature)
 * 2013-02-25: Replaced back to . Edit summary "rv to   because underline is for visual contrast in this context only, not generally accepted orthography".
 * 2014-05-27: (Case 1) Removed the underscored "n". No edit summary.
 * 2014-05-27 : Self revert.
 * 2017-07-30: Edit summary "removed spurious underline". (also called binominal nomenclature or binary nomenclature)
 * 2017-07-30: Reverted to restore the underscore. Edit summary "not spurious; clarifies not "binomial""
 * 2017-12-19: Unparethesized and added . Now it is, also called binomi n al nomenclature (note the letter N) or binary nomenclature,
 * 2017-12-20: Removed the underscore and, with edit summary "WP doesn't do either of those things. See MOS:UNDERLINE, WP:SELFREF. Our readers do not generally have severe brain damage, so we don't write as if they did."
 * 2017-12-20: Introduced the not-a-typo template with edit summary " This is the usual approach (binominal [sic] would also work). We have zillions of articles that start in "Foobar also called foobnar..." form, and we don't underline like this in them. Rv. if you must, but this does work ". also called binominal nomenclature or binary nomenclature,
 * 2017-12-20 and 2017-12-20 makes also called binominal nomenclature or binary nomenclature,
 * 2018-01-07 (Case 2): Removed the "n",  to , ignoring the whole template comments. Edit summary "Fixed a typo".
 * 2018-01-07: Reverted to restore "binominal"
 * 2018-01-07: Re-introduced underscore. Edit summary "as both previous and current experience shows, the underline is important in helping to stop 'corrections'; WP:IAR". Now it is also called binomi n al nomenclature or binary nomenclature,
 * 2018-03-30: Moved  to the tail of the phrase with edit summary "The word "binomium" was used in Medieval Latin to mean a two-term expression in mathematics. (It's not sure how this word was form'd.)" Now it is also called binomi n al nomenclature ("two-name naming system")
 * 2018-05-02 (Case 3): Zapped the whole phrase along with the template, with no edit summary.
 * 2018-05-02: Reverted to restore the phrase and template.
 * 2018-11-05: Removed the underscore but also removed the  template... Edit summary "Wikify, copy edit; he underscored n is not standard English and will mystify readers". Binomial nomenclature ("two-name naming system"), also called binominal nomenclature' or
 * 2018-11-05: Reverted to bring back the line and template.
 * 2019-02-14: Removal of underscore. Edit summary "Wikify: add comma, remove underscore"
 * (2019-02-19, 2019-02-19: test graffiti)
 * 2019-02-19: Re-adding underscore. Edit summary "yet another attempt to "correct" this word shows why the underline was useful"
 * 2020-01-07: Removed the underscore of the "n" with edit summary "No need for underline".
 * 2020-01-08: Reverted to restore the phrase.
 * 2021-03-09 (Case 4): Removed the "n" in  with no explanation. Now it is
 * 2021-03-09: Reverted to restore the "n". No edit summary.
 * 2021-03-18: Added  with edit summary "Made edit to inform users that the underlined N is not an error".
 * 2021-03-18: Reverted to remove the, with edit summary "non-constructive (RW 16.1)". Now it is binomi n al nomenclature ("two-name naming system")
 * 2022-04-04 (Case 5): Zapped the whole phrase and template with no explanation.
 * 2022-04-04: Reverted to restore the phrase. No edit summary.
 * 2022-06-12: In the #Codes' ICZN terminology paragraph, this edit rewrote "binominal name" to "binomial name" with the edit summary "(sp)".
 * 2022-06-12: Introduced the  template also to the #Codes section.
 * 2023-02-07: Removed the underscore of the "n" with no edit summary.
 * 2023-03-28 (Case 6): Zapped the whole phrase, including the  template. Edit summary "m I removed some text which was most probably accidentally written by someone."
 * 2023-03-28: Reverted to restore the phrase. Edit summary "removed text was quite correct".
 * 2023-03-29: Tried italicizing "n" to make it standout. Re-added citations right adjacent to the terms. Edit summary "Added extra deterrent against frequent removal of "binominal"". Now it is binominal nomenclature ("two-name naming system") or binary nomenclature
 * 2023-07-02: Removed italicization with edit summary "The word binominal (close to the beginning of the page) has an italicized n, that seems unintentionally placed.". Sigh...
 * 2023-07-03: Reworded inside the  template to be more specific. Edit summary "Another attempt to deter frequent removal of "binominal"". binominal nomenclature ("two-name naming system") or binary nomenclature
 * 2023-11-06 (Case 7): Zapped the whole phrase, together with the  template and citations. Their edit summary: "Repetition on the term "binomial nomenclature"".
 * 2023-11-06: Reverted to restore the phrase. Edit summary "Not a repetition, an alternate spelling (binomiNal)".
 * 2023-11-06 (by User:Wotheina): The current clunky version. Moved the mentioning far away from the main term "binomial", as it is less important, and to attract less attention from hasty zappers. More explicitly stated the spelling difference in the main text, and added detail embedded comments for editors to understand why it is written this way. Now it becomes: the system is also called binominal nomenclature, "binomi'N'al" with an "N" before the "al", which is a typographic error, meaning "two-name naming system".
 * 2024-03-16: This Talk page proposal "Too much explanation".


 * Since 2011, as far as I could find, "binominal" was removed 7 times (excluding apparent graffiti). The "n" is particularly hard to recognize, requiring particular emphasis. Most of the time it was emphasized with an underscore. But this underscore too is a frequent target of removal (at least 9 times since 2007), on the grounds that "the underscored 'n' is not standard English and will mystify readers". A typical pattern goes
 * Someone adds (re-adds) "binominal" with an underscore.
 * A copy editor removes the underscore.
 * A novice mistakes it as redundant and zaps it.
 * To me, as a reader, the underscored version was helpful and worked well. I understood that it is a plain emphasis and did not mistake it as an "n" with a macron below or a hyperlink. Anyway, even the underscore is insufficient to deter removals. Of the 7 cases,
 * 3 cases were when the word was without the underscore (Case 2,6,7).
 * 4 cases were when the word had the underscore (Case 1,3,4,5). One soon self reverted (Case 1).
 * I suspect there are people who do not see that there are people who do not see the "n". This makes things even more difficult. All other ideas to date also failed, so the current version became clunky like designed by committee. Now the conditions we need to meet are:
 * Inform that "binominal" is also a legitimate term.
 * Prevent it mistakenly labeled or removed as "wrong spelling".
 * Prevent it mistakenly removed as "duplicates".
 * Robust against people who don't read citations, templates, and embedded comments.
 * Comply with Manual of Style/Text formatting.
 * Avoid WP:SELFREF such as "note ...", "see ..."
 * Not too clunky
 * --Wotheina (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)