Talk:Plasmodium achromaticum

Junior synonym
Babesia vesperuginis is the valid name for P. achromaticum. I believe the editor who created this article misunderstood or misread the source. Apart from the reference used on the page, [my mistake: not cited here] the infrequent online mentions all seem to trace back to the WP article and generally mention the supposed host, a bat Achromaticum versperuginus. There is no such bat species. There is no genus Achromaticum. The specific name of the "host" seems to be a mash-up from B. vesperuginis, the correct name of the parasite, and the invalid name of the piroplasm. See also, the page Vinckeia and my edit here.

In fact, B. vesperuginis "is the only piroplasm known to infect bats."

I intend to edit the page to reflect the above. I suggest a page move to Babesia vesperuginis may be in order. [emphasis, underlined text and strike throughs added after reply from Invasive Spices received AukusRuckus (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC) update AukusRuckus (talk) 09:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Achromaticum vesperuginus is not a bat. It is in fact the original name published by Dionisi 1899 for a microbe – perhaps this one. Perhaps not. It is possible that User:DrMicro deliberately introduced errors of fact into pages in addition to his known, extensive copyright violations.
 * I find your statements hard to understand. Two of your sources (Edwards & Hood and Levine) do agree with you but are too ancient and Levine is not as you say cited by this page at all. The third (Corduneanu) does not contain the string "is the only piroplasm known to infect bats" or any other statement to that effect that I am able to find. Even more damning Corduneanu is WP:PRIMARY research with no significant citations.
 * Your proposed page move requires more recent and more credible citations. Invasive Spices (talk) 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oops! That's what I get for editing when half-asleep. No wonder you could not understand what I what I was saying.
 * Nevertheless, could I ask for slightly less confrontational approach, despite my errors? I'm only trying to discuss what is an apparent error—accidentally or deliberately—introduced in 2006, which seems to have been propagated online from this article. I have corrected my cite from whence the quotation comes. I included the wrong article in error.
 * You say "Achromaticum vesperuginus is not a bat". I agree. Nor is it the name of the parasite described in this article; not even according the the original creator of the article. [?] ...[I am confused. The article name is: Plasmodium achromaticum, not Achromaticum vesperuginus (the alleged host bat, mentioned last sentence in article).]
 * My tentative contention is that the accepted name for the parasite (the one this article is about) is actually Babesia vesperuginis, the "microbe" Dionisi described in 1899. My understanding is that Yakimoff redescribed and republished the same parasite as P. achromaticum in 1912. The 1899 description has precedence and was B. vesperuginis, I . Happy to accept I am incorrect, if that is the case. But why would I need more recent cites for a question of a valid name?
 * My intention with the sources was to provide evidence to initiate a discussion. "Even more damning" is a little OTT in this context. I'm glad that the page move would not occur just on my say-so. I had hoped for a collegial discussion, but if wishes were horses, etc. AukusRuckus (talk) 09:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You say: The name in contention is Plasmodium achromaticum. You say that name published 1899. This WP article (and a source) say: P. achromaticum described, Yakimoff 1912; the same source says: published as Babesia vesperuginis  by Dionisi, 1899. Again, I may have wrong end of stick, I concede, but is that not at least a basis for doubt? AukusRuckus (talk) 12:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


 * There is nothing wrong with my response. Please provide RS and please stop altering your comments. That has made it even harder to understand the conversation.
 * This entire question will be resolved by resort to WP:RS. Does any current taxonomic authority synonymise them? Because 1976 and 1971 agree that does seem the most likely outcome and yet there is almost no mention of this species anywhere in the literature. It is difficult to sustain any position with so few sources – reliable or unreliable. Invasive Spices (talk) 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I am sorry you find it difficult to understand my comments. "Please stop altering your comments", is an example of the "nothing wrong with" your "response"(s). In response to that needling, I will echo your own words back to you: There is nothing wrong with response. If I was being unclear, it's nothing to do with me applying bold, correcting cite, etc. All done entirely in line with WP:TALK, btw. I would normally try to express myself better if someone let me know they could not follow what I said, but I get the feeling that's not really what's being asked for here. (Instead, "please shut up" is the subtext that comes across.) To mangle an immortal quote: Don't do your business on me and then tell me it's a brown kitten.
 * I agree that the question will be resolved by resort to WP:RS. Does that make me mentioning the issue—even without yet being able to find a source—somehow disallowed? You're not compelled to reply to me. If you don't find my openers germane, or my queries around it worthwhile, don't trouble yourself to reply. I'm patient; I can wait for another editor to stumble upon the talk page.
 * I can't understand your attitude. I just thought I was opening a discussion. Being peremptorily ordered to provide a RS (as if I was the change, rather than merely raising it!)—when I was expecting to talk about whether my idea was on the right track—is beyond the pale.  I do appreciate your edits on Vinckeia, though. (And on the talk page of that article, your comments are really very approachable and kind: thanks for that, but colour me "puzzled".) AukusRuckus (talk) 07:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)