Talk:Faxonius limosus

Page name
Why is the page name the outdated scientific name "Orconectes limosus"? It is important to keep it in the article as a invalid synonym but not as the title. In my opinion the article should be either called "Spiny-cheek crayfish" or "Faxonius limosus".

I tried to change it but couldn't figure out how. 2003:DC:DF13:7071:34DB:5274:DF60:8D31 (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Here is the doi of the article that reclassified the genus Orconectes as belonging to Faxonius. Because of the priority rule and Faxonius being the older name all Orconectes species are now Faxonius species and the genus Orconectes is invalid as a whole.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2420820 NotImportant-Biology (talk) 07:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)


 * it's not quite so simple. The primary source you reference above is dated to 1942, and expresses the author's opinion. What we need is evidence that this has been taken up by secondary sources. If you look at the major databases linked in the taxonbar in the article, you'll see that practice varies. Some sources (of which this is just one example) seem to be using both genus names for different species within the family Cambaridae. So I'm not (yet) convinced that the article should be moved. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Google Scholar searches show a strong preference for Orconectes limosus. A search for "Orconectes limosus" but not "Faxonius limosus" gives me about 5,890 hits, whereas a search for "Faxonius limosus" but not "Orconectes limosus" gets 156 hits, although if I restrict the search to, say, the last 10 years, the results are more equal. (There's also the complication of Faxonius apparently being used as a subgenus name.)
 * I'm not arguing that it should not be moved, just that we really need more recent reliable sources that support the 1942 view. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I was I contact with a crustacean researcher who told me about the change. I overread the year of the source I gave here. I thought it is the the underlying source for the change. I will search for a better source. Thank you for the notice. NotImportant-Biology (talk) 08:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I asked what paper lead to the current name change and it seems to be this one: https://academic.oup.com/jcb/article/37/5/615/4060680?login=false

"As the type species of Orconectes, Orconectes inermisCope, 1872, belongs to the cave-dwelling group, the genus is herein restricted to just those taxa. The surface-dwelling taxa now excluded from Orconectes sensu stricto are herein placed in the resurrected genus Faxonius Ortmann, 1905a, the oldest available name previously considered to be a synonym of Orconectes Cope, 1872." Citation from this paper. NotImportant-Biology (talk) 12:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ah, right. So it's not that all species of Orconectes should be moved to Faxonius, but that Orconectes has recently been split, with Orconectes limosus moved to Faxonius. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I misunderstood the situation at first. My bad. Also, another good source for currently accepted taxonomy is WoRMS. Orconectes limosus has there also been changed to Faxonius limosus and on the page on the genus Faxonius this paper is also cited. NotImportant-Biology (talk) 08:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Also: you keep writing "Fraxonius" but it is "Faxonius". Just a little note to be sure that we are understanding each other. NotImportant-Biology (talk) 08:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Whoops, all now fixed. (Crustaceans aren't my area of interest!) Peter coxhead (talk) 09:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Move made. See the species list at Faxonius – many more need moving. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I saw it and made some more additions to other articles moved by you to from Orconectes to Faxonius as you may have noticed. NotImportant-Biology (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Synonyms
Where is "Cambarus affinis" from? In the cited source I can only find "Cambarus Pealei Girard, 1852" or "Astacus affinis Say, 1817". But not this combination of the two. NotImportant-Biology (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * GBIF has it; reference added. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)