Talk:Marron

Name change
Apparently, the name is C. cainii from Cherax tenuimanus. The latter is a redirect to this page. I gave a citation on the page. Moving a redirect is tricky, so let me know if I'm wrong, I'll be glad. BTW, I prefer species names, common ones are often ambiguous. - Fred 18:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems I was wrong. Further reading reveals that the species was indentified as two separate species in 2002. I did a quick update of the article. I'll add some more to the the two genera of SW fresh water crays. Any help is greatly appreciated. - Fred 11:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Marrons glacés
I note from the history that a bot edit linked the japanese site on chestnuts. The link above may explain that. Marron ice cream - Yum! - Fred 11:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Marron
This is from Stemonitis's user page;

Would you mind going and having another look at the edits you removed. It is not my field but your revert was illogical, if the citation is true. - Fred 13:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * All the text in the citation you added (including in your chosen quotation from it) referred to Cherax quinquecarinatus, the "gilgie". If it turns out that there are two or more species each referred to simply as "marron", then the best response would be to move the existing article to Cherax tenuimanus, and make marron into a disambiguation page. For the moment, though, it doesn't seem necessary; it seems that the unqualified term "marron" generally refers to C. tenuimanus, fairly unambiguously. --Stemonitis 13:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Slow down please. The reference is authoritative and happens to be about the sp. I am working on User:Fred.e/Cherax quinquecarinatus. I realised that the other pages needed work when I discovered the fact - in the citation you have removed. I have found others since. It remains true. I have been fixing these in my own slow way. I have always left the articles better than when I found them. If you had taken twice the time to look into the articles progress, you would have noticed this. I was going to seek advice about the best way to handle the two genera of the Southwest of my state. Your removal was rash. I was already doing what you have reflexively suggested I should do. Please undo your edit. Thankyou - Fred 13:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * An article should never attempt to be about two topics. I prevented one article from trying to cover both C. teniumanus and C. cainii, and took out references that made no mention of either species. I fail to see what the problem with that is. Could you explain? The article on your sub-page looks excellent, by the way, and I look forward to seeing it in the main namespace soon. --Stemonitis 14:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the encouragement with the subpage article. I try to be careful what I push into main space. I agree with your first point, obviously the species need their own page. The Marron article was there first. The margaret river variety kept the old name (teniumanus. 1912), cainii is the wider spread model named in 2002. Until a few years ago, people who ate them thought they were the same species. I will produce the taxon determination soon. This was done some few hours ago and I wanted to give the creators of that article to opportunity to reach the same conclusion.  I will ask you to retract your statement that the article does not mention the "marron"(as they are both called) species, it does. This was my original lead. Have you considered putting any 'damned data' onto the talk page. At least others will see what is going on. Cheers - Fred 14:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * For some reason, the search function isn't working in Abode Reader on this computer, which led me to believe that neither "tenuimanus" nor "cainii" appeared in that text, falsely as it turns out. Certainly, the quote given in the reference was misleading, since it didn't mention the marron at all. If C. cainii is the widespread species (split from the formerly slightly larger C. tenuimanus), then it would be reasonable to change the names in marron to "cainii" from "tenuimanus", and perhaps make a new article for C. tenuimanus. Have you got the citation for the original (2002?) split of C. cainii from C. tenuimanus? It would make an interesting read. --Stemonitis 14:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I meant to add in my last comment that the quote should have been changed. But I intended to get the papers on my hunt for the two genera. This will probably have to be a physical search, but
 * Nominations


 * will give you another pdf. I tried pasting the quote for you and it would not work for me either. Austin (2002) C. cainnii is as far as I got with this. It appears in various updated sites, but not in the 'red list'. As I said I am slow, but I will get there. All the species will get articles. Marron or marroning may remain for the local tradition and to disambiguate for the readers coming from that direction. Gilgies are also a well known and misidentified species.  I have the ear of a couple of very experienced editors who will guide me on the finer points of all this. I will send you anything I find on the new species id. Ta. - Fred 15:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. and this secondary source gives:

"The marron was split into two distinct species in 2002, when it was realised that some individuals were hairy (Cherax tenuimanus) and others were smooth (now known asthe smooth marron, Cherax cainii). The newly-named hairy marron is endemic to the Margaret River in southwest Western Australia (4)."


 * Thanks for the links; I haven't looked at them yet, but I will. I should probably point out that Wikipedia uses only genuine common names — i.e. those that are actually used by authors and others. A species cannot therefore be simply "newly named", but a new name can gain acceptance among users in general. A lot of scientists like to impose "common names", unfortunately, but if fishermen (is that the right word? "marroners"?) call them all "marron", then so should we, probably, or use the scientific names to disambiguate. --Stemonitis 16:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have a fairly clear idea on naming and, as I said, the ear of very experienced and critical editors who will determine the "genuine common names". We will sort it out. However, I have to confess to being interested in one thing at the moment. I will thank you for that now. - Fred 16:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been following this conversation with some interest and may contribute following documents/links: Lycaon 17:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Cherax tenuimanus-listing
 * Standard Fish Names in Australia (commercial species)
 * ICZN - BCN Case 3267
 * chapt. 5.3.5 (about Marroning)


 * Thank you that man. I'll act on them tomorrow. - Fred 17:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC) "It is proposed that all previous type fixations for the names Cherax tenuimanus Smith, 1912 and Cherax cainii Austin in Austin & Ryan, 2002 be set aside and neotypes designated for both species to maintain the accustomed usage of the name Cherax tenuimanus. ICZN - BCN Case 3267" Shall I leave it to you sort out, or can I have a short while to continue with this? Fred 17:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, Fred 02:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Parking this here
Until we sort this out.
 * - Fred 03:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

More of the same
Thanks, Lycaon, for the links. It looks like the names may be changing as we speak, so this may not be the best time to be making changes. I still think that the article should deal solely with the widespread species and not both, making only passing reference to the more narrowly-distributed species (which would get its own article). However, since an application was made in December 2006 to swap the names (see link to BZN above), this is likely to change. I would suggest that until it is clear which scientific name will be applied to which species, we should probably continue to lump them together as C. tenuimanus, as is still done in many works. --Stemonitis 06:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is the quote from iczn: Case 3267

Cherax tenuimanus Smith, 1912 (Crustacea, Decapoda, PARASTACIDAE): proposed conservation of usage of the specific name

Brett W. Molony1, Brian Jones, Craig S. Lawrence and Vicki A. Gouteff Research Division, Department of Fisheries, Government of Western Australia, West Australian Fisheries and Marine Research Laboratories, PO Box 20, North Beach, Western Australia, 6920 Australia (e-mail: clawrence@fish.wa.gov.au)

1 Present address: Oceanic Fisheries Programme, Secretariat of the Pacific Community, BPD5 98848 Noumea Cedex, New Caledonia (e-mail: BrettM@spc.int)

Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 75.6 of the Code, is to conserve the specific name Cherax tenuimanus Smith, 1912 in its accustomed usage, for a species of freshwater crayfish or ‘marron’, important in the aquaculture industry, particularly in Australia. It has long been recognised that there are two subspecies of C. tenuimanus; in 2002 Austin elevated these to species level and proposed the name Cherax cainii for one. Based on the supposed location of Smith’s (1912) type series of C. tenuimanus, Austin applied the name C. tenuimanus to geographically isolated marron found only in a small catchment in Western Australia, and applied his new name C. cainii to all other marron in Australia and elsewhere. This switching of names is causing confusion since almost all usage of the name C. tenuimanus refers to marron occurring outside the area of Smith’s type series. It is proposed that all previous type fixations for the names Cherax tenuimanus Smith, 1912 and Cherax cainii Austin in Austin & Ryan, 2002 be set aside and neotypes designated for both species to maintain the accustomed usage of the name Cherax tenuimanus.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Crustacea; Decapoda; PARASTACIDAE; Cherax; Cherax tenuimanus; Cherax cainii; freshwater crayfish; marron; aquaculture; Australia.