Talk:Myrmica ruginodis

Unsourced and inaccurate phrasing
The text currently reads:
 * M. ruginodis is the only species of ant to have been recorded from all 152 of the Watsonian vice-counties into which the British Isles are divided,[4] and the only ant species present in Shetland,[2][4] where it is "locally common".[5]

This is unsupported by the source, and inaccurate to boot.
 * The source states: Myrmica ruginodis is the only species to have reached the Isle of Shetland to the north of Scotland; and so far, it is the only ant found in all 152 vice- counties in Britain.
 * There's currently a different but related discussion occurring at Watsonian vice-counties but the pertinent numbers are that there are 112 vice-counties for Britain, 40 for Ireland, and the Channel Islands are sometimes added when reporting over the entire British Isles. If all vice-counties are added up, we get 153. Since the source specifically states 152, it is inaccurate and incorrect to assert that the British Isles has 152 vice-counties. The source says "Britain", which is also incorrect. I suggest the phrase of either "Great Britain and Ireland", or "Britain and Ireland".


 * Elsewhere in the same source, the text reads This small red ant is found well dispersed throughout the British Isles.
 * I changed the article to read: M. ruginodis is abundant throughout the British Isles and is the only species of ant to have been recorded from all 152 of the Watsonian vice-counties into which Great Britain and Ireland are divided, and the only ant species present in Shetland,[2] where it is "locally common".[4] as being more accurate and supported by the reference. This was reverted as "contentious".
 * The main argument appears to revolve around the use of "Great Britain" as this does not include the "Isle of Man". But there are numerous references to support this usage.

As per WP:V, the edit I made (above) appears to be close to what is supported by sources. Comments are welcome. --HighKing (talk) 10:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Another argument is that it is a moot point whether the Channel Islands are included or not when using the term "British Isles". Leaving aside, for now, the fact that this is contentious, this argument fails to account for the difference between 152 vice-counties as stated in the reference, and the 153 vice-counties if counting all of the vice-counties of the British Isles.


 * What have you got against the Isle of Man? You keep suggesting phrasings along the lines of "Britain and Ireland", even though you know the Isle of Man (which is part of neither) is included. The usual phrase, possibly the only reasonable phrase, which covers the area we're talking about is "British Isles". This is not a question of nationalism and the term "British Isles" in no way implies sovereignty of one political division over any part of that area. All your edits fail to take this into account and are therefore misleading. There are 112 vice-counties in Great Britain and the Isle of Man, and a further 40 in Ireland (sensu lato). That makes 152, which matches the sources perfectly. 112 + 40 = 152. "Britain and Ireland" (your phrase) are not divided into 152 vice-couinties, but 151, but there's no point reporting that because it's a pointless subdivision of the 152, and either original research or at least undue weight (no-one uses that division, nor should they). Your attempts represent the truth and the sentiments in the sources considerably worse than the existing text, and are transparently part of an campaign to reduce usage of the term "British Isles" for, presumably, ideological reasons. That POV-pushing has no place here. You have not demonstrated any problems with the existing text, and are merely repeating old arguments which have been demolished before. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Stemonitis, please leave the personal comments aside and limit your responses to content. You've already been warned about bringing nationalistic personal comments into discussions. I resent those allegations and dismiss them entirely as untrue. If you have evidence that I am editing in a nationalistic manner, please point it out. I am not nationalistic in the slightest. Pedantic definitely. Let me add - if you actually look at the suggested text, I have not removed "British Isles", but moved it to be in line with the source.


 * What have you got against the Isle of Man? Absolutely nothing. It was Watson who originally created the system of vice-counties for Britain, and included the Isle of Man as vice-county number 71. It is commonly understood by everyone (without exception) that when referring to the vice-counties of Britain, the Isle of Man is included. It only appears to be you that is questioning this. If you like, the phrasing could be changed to vice-counties of Britain and vice-counties of Ireland to be extra clear as there is probably no definition for "Britain and Ireland" and seeing as how these are separate divisions produced at different times.
 * "Britain and Ireland" (your phrase) are not divided into 152 vice-couinties, but 151. That's an own goal on your part since using the same logic, it is equally wrong to use "British Isles since that would make 153 vice-counties, as the Channel Islands, if included, is counted as an extra vice-county.
 * But there are numerous verifiable references for using "vice-counties of Britain" (or Great Britain) to also include the "Isle of Man". Your suggestion that this represents Original Research on my part is not borne out by the facts, since this actually forms part of the original definition and subsequent usage.
 * Watson originally divided Britain into 18 provinces, subdivided into 82 counties. The Province "Lakes" included the "Isle of Man" along with Westmoreland and Cumberland. In Volume 3, a folded "Map of Britain" was included, showing for the first time, 112 vice-counties of Britain. In the Chapter "Map of Britain", he lists the Divisions of Britain, and names each of the 112 vice-counties of Britain. It was Watson who originally counted the Isle of Man as a vice-county of Britain.
 * A subsequent revision by J.E. Dandy on the Watsonian Vice-county system uses the same terminology, and retains the division of Britain into 112 vice counties (including the Isle of Man).
 * The reference provided A biogeography of the British Isles lists the Isle of Man as a vice-county of Great Britain.
 * See this map from the BSBI of the Vice Counties where the Channel Islands is given the designation "C" and is the 153rd vice-county of the British Isles.
 * Similarly, this map from the Botanical Collection Managers Group (BCMG) website shows a map of "Watsonian Vice-counties of Great Britain and Ireland", but in the subsequent list, the Channel Islands is given the assignation of "VC113/VCS/VCI".
 * The ferns of Britain and Ireland chapter headed "Subdivisions of Britain and Ireland" states "In this system, Britain and Ireland are divided into numbered vice-counties (usually abbreviated to 'v.c's') of which there are 113 for England, Wales, Scotland and the Channel Islands, and 40 for Ireland." On page 20, it lists the vice-counties of "England and Wales" and includes the "Isle of Man" as 71. It lists Channel Islands separately, as vice-county 113.
 * On page 5 of Distribution of Bryophytes in the British Isles it states "For the purposes of botanical recording, Great Britain is divided into 112 vice-counties; Ireland is divided into 40 vice-counties, The Channel Islands, though geographically part of Normandy, are conventionally considered also as a British vice-county." On page 14, the Channel Islands are included as a vice-county with a designation of C.
 * A recent publication into the ladybird lists, under "Great Britain and the Channel Islands", that by mid-2007, H. axyridis was recorded in 88% of English and 38% of Welsh vice-counties. It was also found on the island of Jersey, Channel Islands.
 * I could go on with more references, but the purpose of producing the above references is to show that "Vice-counties of (Great Britain)" is commonly used as a term to include the "Isle of Man". It is not original research on my part. It is also commonly understood therefore, that there are 112 vice-counties of Britain. Stating that there are only 111 vice-counties is original research on your part, and a willful disregard of WP:COMMON usage and reputable sources. Also, stating that there are only 112 vice-counties in the British Isles is also WP:OR as the Channel Islands are sometimes included as a 113th vice-county of Britain, or given a separate designation and not regarded as a vice-county of Britain - but either way, including the Channel Islands provides us with 113 vice-counties.


 * You have not demonstrated any problems with the existing text, and are merely repeating old arguments which have been demolished before. Maybe I've missed it, but where has this "old argument" been demolished before? On the one hand, you're complaining that I'm stirring it by opening this discussion, but elsewhere I'm being told to open discussions at Talk page (and let's face it, you haven't opened any discussions on any Talk pages, but you're very quick to revert). --HighKing (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I haven't seen a rebuttal for the arguments put forward above. Does there still remain any objection then to the changes? --HighKing (talk) 00:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are very strong objections to your edits, as you know. They misrepresent the sources. There is no consensus for your view. I merely stopped responding, because you appeared not to be taking the criticisms on board. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Great. So can you answer the points rather than just telling me I'm wrong. Using references, not your opinion. How have I misrepresented the sources? --HighKing (talk) 12:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would if I could see any reasonable complaint in your comments. Your comments all seem to be based on the idea that there are (always) 153 vice-counties, which is (a) untrue, and (b) irrelevant. The intention of the sources is abundantly clear: Myrmica ruginodis is found throughout the British Isles (including, as it happens, the Channel Islands, but most biogeographers do not include them in the British Isles), but no other species of ant is. Your attempts to change it to say "Britain and Ireland" do not express this any better than the original text, but add potential ambiguity, since a casual reader may not be aware that you have redefined "Britain" in this context to include some, but not all, crown dependencies. No source states that M. ruginodis is missing from any vice-county (because it isn't), even if they sometimes fail to express it well (it is indeed unfortunate that people still use "Britain" to refer to more inclusive regions; let's just chalk it up as a lapsus calami on their part). You should only consider changing the text if you have reason to believe that M. ruginodis is absent from any of the n vice-counties, where n is whatever number you want it to be. You have no reason to believe such a thing, because multiple sources indicate that M. ruginodis is present in every vice-county of the British Isles, which is why the article states that M. ruginodis is present in all of the vice-counties into which the British Isles are divided. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying your objections. My objection is based on numbers and terminology. We've been banging heads on this simple issue - and it really is a simple issue to do with the statement and the source.
 * The *source* says it is found in all 152 *Watsonian* vice-counties of *Britain*. We can agree that this is incorrect in two places. We are assuming that the "Britain" term is wrong, based on the number 152. There's another argument that the "152" number is wrong, based on the use of "Watsonian".
 * No, we cannot agree this. Some people use the adjective "Watsonian" to refer to the entire system, including Ireland; other people may use other names, but that really doesn't matter. The best option would be to wait until that naming discussion has ended rather than trying to pre-empt it here. The number is not wrong. There are indeed 152, even if the extent was poorly explained. Which is more likely – that someone was slipshod in their geographical terminology of a complex area, or that they can't tell the difference between 112 and 152? There is no other interpretation than that the author used "Britain", either unthinkingly or accidentally to mean "British Isles". --Stemonitis (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * since a casual reader may not be aware that you have redefined "Britain" in this context to include some, but not all, crown dependencies. Please stop saying that *I* have redefined Britain. I haven't. It's a simple fact, (references above), that the "Vice-counties of Britain" includes the Isle of Man. Indeed, it is probably more true to say that a casual reader may not be aware that your definition of the "vice-counties of Britain" excludes the Isle of Man.
 * The text doesn't say "vice-counties of Britain" (even in your version, where it had, misleadingly, "the 152 Watsonian vice-counties into which Great Britain and Ireland are divided"), so the interpretation of that phrase is neither here nor there. "Vice-counties of Britain" may include the Isle of Man, but without that direct context, it is misleading. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * most biogeographers do not include them in the British Isles) - Really? If true, I understand (and accept) your argument. Have you any references for that? The sources and references I have found (above) don't agree with this assertion.
 * Again, see the discussion elsewhere, and worry about it there. It doesn't affect the text here, because M. ruginodis is also present in the Channel Islands, and is the only species in all the vice-counties, regardless of whether or not the Channel Islands are included. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * which is why the article states that M. ruginodis is present in all of the vice-counties into which the British Isles are divided. The article states "all 152 of the Watsonian vice-counties into which the British Isles are divided". There are many factual problems with this sentence.
 * No, there aren't, as I have repeatedly tried to convey. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The British Isles are not divided into "Watsonian" vice-counties.
 * I don't think that's true. Certainly, your flawed version of the article does nothing to alter that point. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The source you are using is in error - which error, we don't know. Is the error "152" or "Britain"?
 * Actually, we know exactly which error it makes if we have read the sources. I have even explained it above. Twice. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Many sources state there are 153 vice-counties in the British Isles, a point you haven't acknowledged.
 * Many do, and many others don't. I ackowledge this, but it is irrelevant. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt that the ant is found throughout the British Isles. If we can agree to use a different source, we can make that point. You say because multiple sources indicate that "M. ruginodis" is present in every vice-county of the British Isles - well that's even better - what is the alternative source? Can't we just use that instead? --HighKing (talk) 14:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have no doubt that what the article states is true, then I see no reason for further discussion here. The article is fine, so let's move on. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * For readability, I'll keep the responses separate. I'm sure you're aware of Verifiability not Truth.  It's largely irrelevant what you or I believe to be true, there must be references.  So far, you're making lots of statements to create an argument based on the following pieces of logic, but failing to produce anything, at all, to back up the statements:
 * The source is a good source - even though the source is a website of a self-professed amateur.
 * You know what the author meant when he says "it is the only ant found in all 152 vice-counties in Britain." You know which error is being made based on your reading of the source.  Unfortunately, I see nothing in the source that indicates he was specifically talking about every vice-county in the British Isles, and the text could easily be referring to every vice-county in Britain.  We also don't know if the author is one of the "most biogeographers" who doesn't include the Channel Islands in the British Isles.
 * most biogeographers do not include the Channel Islands in the British Isles - there's nothing here or in the other discussion that backs you up there, and several references I've included above that show you to be wrong. If you like, I'm happy to have that discussion elsewhere.
 * Some people use the adjective "Watsonian" to refer to the entire system, including Ireland - we can leave that to the other article too, as per your suggestion.
 * The number is not wrong - saying it over and over doesn't make it so.
 * Which is more likely – that someone was slipshod in their geographical terminology of a complex area, or that they can't tell the difference between 112 and 152? There is no other interpretation than that the author used "Britain", either unthinkingly or accidentally to mean "British Isles". Ah.  The mind-reader conundrum again.  I don't know.  Based on your own responses regarding the extent of "British Isles" to include the "Channel Islands" or not, and your response that "Watsonian" can be used for varying areas, I can't see how you know either.
 * Calling my version a "flawed" version is your opinion. Can I suggest we leave off the name-calling and labelling?  Several sources refer to vice Counties of Great Britain, there is nothing flawed about it unless you'd like to take issue with authors of several respected and published books.
 * there are 153 vice-counties in the British Isles -> I ackowledge this, but it is irrelevant. I understand your response in connection with your assertion that most biogeographers do not include the Channel Islands in the "British Isles".
 * But you can't just decide what is relevant, and what is not. You can't decide that your opinion on interpretation overrides everyone else's, or what a source intended to say but didn't.  Your statement have been recorded from all 152 of the Watsonian vice-counties into which the British Isles are divided is currently problematic in light of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:OR.
 * What information exactly are you trying to get across in the article?
 * That the ant is widespread throughout the British Isles? (easy to find references)
 * That the ant is the *only* ant to be found in all vice-counties of the British Isles? (currently no references other than this website, and the current reference is arguably not reliable for such a claim)
 * That the ant is found in every vice-county in the British Isles? (same as above, arguable that "British Isles" excludes the Channel Islands or that the author of the website intended this usage)
 * That the ant is found in 152 vice-counties in Britain and in Ireland? (easier to make this claim. We are closer to the actual text of the reference, and the 152 is the simple addition of the number of vice-counties of (Great) Britain and the number of vice-counties of Ireland).
 * I appreciate your responses and thank you. Perhaps it would make more sense to finish the discussions at the other article first, seeing as those responses will more than likely have a bearing on this discussion.  --HighKing (talk) 17:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah. So you haven't read Urbani & Collingwood (1976). No wonder we're having such trouble. Perhaps you might do so before making any more inadvised comments. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that reading Urbani & Collingwood is a prerequisite for understanding the article? For the common reader?  If so, can you add references as to what we're all missing.  --HighKing (talk) 17:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying that if you had read Urbani & Collingwood (1976), you wouldn't have made some of the mistakes you have made in your preceding comment. The information given to the reader is unambiguous and correct. If the reader wishes to check anything, the references are provided to allow the reader to do so. It is a shame that you did not do so. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What mistakes were made in the preceding comment (that a read of Urbani and Collingwood should have prevented me from saying)? If the reference is supporting a claim, it should be clear in the article.  It certainly didn't stop you from asserting that there's 152 vice-counties in the British Isles, this map has 157.  It also doesn't assert that Myrmica ruginodis is found in every vice-county, or that the amateur website is a reliable source for such claims.  --HighKing (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I get the impression that you're not even trying now. You listed four pieces of information, and that source backs up all four. It doesn't matter if they split up the Channel Islands into four "vice-counties". It demonstrates that the ant occurs there (which, you'll recall, is irrelevant). It demonstrates that it occurs in all the other vice-counties. It states that it's the only species to do so. It does everything you wanted, and you wouldn't even read it to find that out. If you're not prepared to read the sources, then I don't see why I should have to continue refuting your misinformation. You are wasting my time without there being any likelihood of any improvement to the article resulting from it. I ask you here and now to stop and let other people get on with making substantive edits. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I get the impression that you're dodging reasonable questions, and reasonable requests for references. Although perhaps we're making progress - you appear to be finally conceding that the amateur website doesn't back up the statement. You state that the source backs up all four (and, of course, ignored the rest of the post pointing out the problems with the statement).  I'm a scientist.  I like things in black or white, I like facts to be backed up with references.  So, as I've been asking from the very start, simply provide a reference.  If you're saying all four points above are contained within Urbani, simply provide a direct quote from Urbani that backs up the statement that you are insisting is fully supported.  It'll then be simple to see who's providing misinformation. Or not reading sources. Or likely to improve the article.  Or any other deflections from actually, simply, producing a reference for your statement.  --HighKing (talk) 00:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have conceded no such thing. The statement is referenced, and you cannot apparently be bothered to read the reference. I am tired of playing your games. You have already accepted that the article is correct. Your requests are no longer reasonable, by force of repetition and an unwillingness to consider the responses. All your "problems" are based on nitpicky overinterpretations, when the meaning of the references is entirely clear to any reasonable person. If nothing else, you should have realised by now that you are not going to gain consensus by this approach. Please leave this article alone, where you can only now be wasting people's time, including your own. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you're simply wrong. Urbani does not provide It's noteworthy that you have never demonstrated that your statement is referenced.  It's noteworthy that you've also failed to provide any sources for your many woolly statements such as the one about "most biogeographers".  It's noteworthy that you've been dodging, since the start, all calls for a reference.  You've not provided one.  You make numerous untrue accusations, claim mind-reading powers over authors, and me, over intentions, meanings, and what I have thought or what I have read, or what I can be bothered to do.  And you return to your argument that "the statement is referenced" and that my call for accuracy is "nitpicky overinterpretation".  I've tried to reach a compromise in the past.  I've tried to show which parts of the statement can be referenced, and which parts can't.  You've adopted a confrontational attitude, and refuse to accept that anything is wrong with the assertion.  What's the next step?  --HighKing (talk) 09:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The statement in the article which you find troubling has an inline reference. That reference backs up the assertion made. I am not therefore "simply wrong". I have not dodged all calls for a reference; an additional reference was, indeed, provided. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's disagree on that. Call it what you will, but the pattern of dodging clarification and references is obvious.  I've no doubt that if is was possible for you to provide a quote, you would.  I've also no doubt that anything you provide will easily be shown to not, in fact, back up the statement in the article as it currently stands.  It won't back up your usage of "Watsonian".  It won't back up your assertion of "152 ... vice-counties into which the British Isles is divided".  I suggest the statement M. ruginodis is potentially the sole species distributed in every vice-county in the British Isles, from the Channel Islands to the Shetlands is supported.  --HighKing (talk) 11:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Potentially"? Why "potentially"? Where are you getting this stuff from? And how can you possibly "disagree"? I have stated the straightforward truth. There is an inline reference. It does back the statement up. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Drop the "potentially" if you like, I was merely suggesting a sentence based on text in the source:
 * Distribution type C (Fig. 9) comprises the highest number of species (28) and includes all the commonest species of ants of the British Isles. The species pertaining to this group are the sole potentially distributed on the whole territory from the Channel Islands to the Shetlands (Myrmica ruginodis only).  But, of course, their maximum concentration occurs in S.England and in a number of vice-counties partly similar to those of distribution type B.
 * So the sentence would then become M. ruginodis is the sole species distributed in every vice-county in the British Isles, from the Channel Islands to the Shetlands. The problem with that sentence is that there is no agreement as to what constitutes "every vice-county in the British Isles", and this source uses a system of 157 vice-counties, and the map clearly shows M.ruginodis missing from one of the Channel Islands, so the sentence is not supported by this source.  By using "potentially", it's supported at least.  --HighKing (talk) 11:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, by using "potentially", you make the whole sentence meaningless, since any species is potentially the only one to be so distributed. I am not aware that any of the sources discuss the "potential" for species to be distributed in particular ways. Just because that one source used a non-standard set of vice-counties (and it is non-standard; this merely emphasises how poorly the Channel Islands fit into the system), that doesn't mean that it can't be used to make statements about the standard vice-counties. That's why the text of the article explicitly mentions the 152 vice-counties, so that there would be no confusion. From Urbani & Collingwood, we know that M. ruginodis is found across all the 152 standard vice-counties (for want of a better phrase), and is also present in the Channel Islands. Also from other sources, we know that there is only one species in Shetland (not "the Shetlands"); this shows that any species which is not present in "all vice-counties" is not falling short only by its absence in the Channel Islands, but by at least one other vice-county. Straightforward logic (this is a perfectly safe deduction from that source, and is also explicitly claimed by other sources) shows that "M. ruginodis is the only species of ant to have been recorded from all 152 of the Watsonian vice-counties into which the British Isles are divided". Bicker about the use of the adjective "Watsonian" if you will (ideally elsewhere), but the meaning of the sentence is (a) clear, and (b) right. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You can't decide to hand-pick which pieces from which sources suit whatever point you want to make. You also continue to attribute mistakes or inaccuracies to me - can you stop doing that.  Look at WP:OR.  This source - the one *you* want to rely on for the statement in the article - uses the word "potentially".  If it makes the sentence meaningless, then take it up with Urbani or pick a different source, I didn't just invent it.  Although I can understand why you're reluctant to provide direct quotes if you admit that they're meaningless.  And by leaving it out, you're not accurately reflecting the source.  It's very unscientific and nonacademic to mix-and-match different factoids from different sources to reflect a point that neither on their own support.  Your opinion, and mine, isn't worth tuppence.  The discussion elsewhere on the adjective "Watsonian" isn't reflecting your opinion.  The discussion elsewhere on the number of vice-counties in the British Isles isn't reflecting your opinion either.  Your opinion that "most biogeographers exclude the Channel Islands" isn't borne out by the references you've chosen, or the discussion elsewhere.  None of your references can back up the claim, and you refuse to provide any quotes.....  --HighKing (talk) 12:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not "hand-picking". I am showing how the various sources corroborate each other and the text. You said before that you were convinced that M. ruginodis is distributed in all 152 vice-counties in the British Isles (ex. Channel Isles), and that is what the article says. If you cannot find any substantive (as opposed to terminological) problems with the text, I suggest you move on. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Um... Splendid as the above argument is as a spectator sport, I'm not sure that it hasn't reached the point of producing only heat and not light. In the hope of increasing the proportion of the latter and trying to avoid the former, I'll make a few points.
 * 1) It's clear that Watson divided what he called "Britain" into 112 vice-counties, which included the Isle of Man but not the Channel Islands.
 * 2) The term "Watsonian vice-counties" occurs in the literature but it's not always clear to me what is meant. The concept of vice-counties was clearly Watson's, so in this sense, "Watsonian vice-counties" can mean "the kind of geographical units which Watson introduced and which are called vice-counties". This sense of "Watsonian vice-county" is equivalent to "biological vice-county", which is another term found in the literature, and so when used this way can legitimately include those of Ireland. However, there is another possible meaning of "Watsonian vice-county", namely those specific 112 vice-counties which Watson introduced.
 * 3) It seems to me that although both uses can be supported from the literature (I repeat that I find quite a bit of it unclear between these possible meanings), there is a case that in the specific context of this article when supported by the Urbani & Collingwood (1976) reference, the second sense is more appropriate, since on pp. 51 and 68 they use the term "Watson-Praeger vice-counties", suggesting they think of one set as "Watson vice-counties" and another as "Praeger vice-counties". On the other hand, they then include in their list of "Watson-Praeger vice-counties" the separate Channel Islands as 5 "vice-counties", which aren't derived from either Watson or Praeger.

Given the confusion in their article, it's not obvious to me what to say. If you just report what they say, you end up with something like "Urbani & Collingwood (1976) divide the British Isles into 157 of what they call Watson-Praeger vice-counties. They report that M. ruginodis is the only species of ant to have been recorded from all of them."

This can't be faulted, but I don't actually suggest saying it! Personally I would write:
 * M. ruginodis is the only species of ant to have been recorded from all of the vice-counties into which the British Isles are divided for the purposes of biological recording, including the Channel Islands, and the only ant species present in Shetland, where it is "locally common".

This is a bit evasive, but not inaccurate. It will effectively be better when the vice-counties article is improved so it explains more of the issues. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Peter, thanks for that. A small point relating to the "if you just report what they say" - they don't say that M.ruginodis is reported in all 157 of their vice-counties, because their map (pg 88) shows them absent for at least one of their Channel Islands vice-counties.
 * Whoops, yes, an error on my part. Actually this is an example of the confusion their usage causes me (and would cause anyone else used to the 'standard' definition of vice-counties) because their treatment of the Channel Islands as more than one vice-county is odd – does any other source do this? I don't know of one. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That suggested sentence is fine by me. Stemonitis? --HighKing (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's fine by me, but then it's almost exactly what I wrote, albeit with the additional parenthetical text "including the Channel Islands" (which was not stated by my previous sources, but happens to also be true). Was all this trouble seriously just about the word "Watsonian", which – let's face it – was mostly included to make the link work simply? I wouldn't have guessed. Now we can all move on. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh? It rewords to remove my two objections - "Watsonian" and claiming that there's only 152 vice-counties in the British Isles.  You rejected an extremely similar suggestion I made earlier - M. ruginodis is the sole species distributed in every vice-county in the British Isles, from the Channel Islands to the Shetlands.  Why couldn't you simply have agreed to that earlier instead?  And then claiming that it's almost exactly what you wrote....  Anyway, at least we've agreed.. --HighKing (talk) 11:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)