Template talk:Taxobox/Archive 18

Cladobox
I've nominated a fork of this template, Cladobox for deletion; see the deletion discussion. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Broken taxobox colours
Taxobox colours for high level taxa do not appear to be working. See for example Rhizaria or Animal. mgiganteus1 (talk) 03:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This can be fixed like this. I hope admins who like to make bold changes to highly used templates make sure in the future that everything still works. Ucucha 04:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've fixed all instances of this that I could find (articles linking to Taxobox color). However, there may be others doing the same trick with Taxobox colour, which I can't easily find.
 * Do we prefer articles to load the color using something like |color= (like at Archaeplastida) or |color=lightgreen (like at Plant)? Ucucha 05:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

editprotected The problem seems to be that Taxobox was made to refer to Taxobox colour/sandbox, rather than to Taxobox color, and at least the color for Fungi in the "sandbox" version is wrong. I could fix that one myself, but the whole point of fully protecting Taxobox as a high-risk template is sort of defeated, if it relies on an unprotected auxiliary template. Could this be fixed quickly, please, before someone makes a WP:POINT of it by setting all taxobox colors to black, or worse? Thanks, Hqb (talk) 08:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Reset to using Taxobox colour now. Ucucha 09:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There are similar issues with Template:Paraphyletic group. Examples: Reptile and Dicotyledon. mgiganteus1 (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ucucha 16:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Additional classes
editprotected Please implement the changes in, which add to the existing 'Species' microformat HTML classes emitted by the template, in the same manner. No changes will be visible on articles using the template. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Completed - note that there were two errors in brackets around subgenus and subtribus which I have added back in. My initial review of the changes looks fine, but please review.   7  01:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Marking both (botanical) divisio and zoodivisio up as class "division", even though their semantics are completely different? Hesperian 03:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How do you suggest that these should be handed? Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Synonyms
A recent discussion at Talk:Snow Leopard has raised the question of what kind of synonyms the taxobox should include – should they be restricted to species synonyms, or should they also include combinations (in the case of snow leopard, which is usually Uncia uncia, do we include only Felis irbis in the synonym field, or do we also include the most common other combination, Panthera uncia, which is the same species epithet but a different genus.). My own feeling is that the inclusion of synonyms is to tell readers alternative names for the species, and omitting some of these makes no sense at all. Any other thoughts? Richard New Forest (talk) 21:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I generally include all nominal taxa (species synonyms, as you call them; taxonomic synonyms for the botanists) and the most significant combinations (for example, in marsh rice rat, the current name combination, and in Oryzomys couesi, the current name combination and a significant earlier taxonomy). When there are relatively few synonyms, I include all combinations (Lundomys, for example). Ucucha 21:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that synonyms readers might encounter should be included (and they should be redirects as well). Ideally subjective and objective synonyms (taxonomic and nomenclatural in ICBN parlance) would be separated, but also ideally, readers would understand the distinction.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A single description, no matter how many different genera or subgenera it is moved to, is still the same taxonomic entity. It is not, from a taxonomic perspective, not a synonym and should not be in the taxobox (which is primarily for taxonomic information). the text is the appropriate placement for discussions of various different placements of the taxa in question. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Under ICBN, a homotypic name is most assuredly a synonym. I haven't kept up with the ICZN recently, but at least at the end of the last century, homotypic names were called "objective synonyms". I'm willing to discuss their value (I think they are valuable if readers are likely to encounter them elsewhere, and by current practice they can be in the lead or in the taxobox), but they can't just be dismissed.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Outside Wikipedia, full synonymies do include such combinations (Mammalian Species accounts, for example). It is significant taxonomic information. But rather than arguing about technicalities, we should think about the solution that helps readers. In Nephelomys albigularis, for example, I have listed "Oryzomys albigularis" as a synonym; this is the name it has been known under from somewhere around 1900 until 2006. Your system would not include that name under "Synonyms", even though it is very likely the name a reader will be looking for. Ucucha 06:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, the taxobox isn't the place for that information. It should be a redirect (to aid searching), and it should be in the text (which aids searching when there is no redirect and allows for an explanation). The taxobox should only be limited in the data presented. This is the same reason we don't list every minor rank taxa in the taxobox, only the major ranks until the minor taxa become important. - UtherSRG (talk) 08:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * An issue with placing subjective synonyms in the taxobox, or even in the article, is that they constitute opinion, and so ideally must be referenced, to prove that they are not original research. I suppose this argues against placing subjective synonyms in the taxobox, since others above have stated opposition to anything that introduces links.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Except that we've got "synonyms_ref = " exactly so that the synonymies can be directly referenced. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * One problem with that, Curtis, is that one can't tell a subjective synonym from an objective one (with or without listing the genus name as well) without a larger bit of text than the taxobox can readily handle, particularly with species that have been known for quite a long time and with their close forest being rearranged often. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

For clarification, let me list the options I see available. Note that this whole discussion is only for species-level or below. I don't believe there's an issue at the genus-level or higher. Hrm. Make that leaves a gap between genus and species. I don't suppose there's an issue with subgenus, and I'm not sure there is one with species-group. We'll leave that problem for if we have it. All possibilities below should always have the authority. I'm leaving it out of the listing for ease of reading.


 * 1) List epithets only, don't list different genus placements of the species. (Don't list uncia for its move from Panthera to Uncia, but do list irbis, written when the species was in the genus Felis.)
 * 2) List full name, don't list different genus placements of the species. (Don't list Panthera uncia, but do list Felis irbis.)
 * 3) List full name, list synonyms and placement changes. (List Pathera uncia and Felis irbis.)

And after reading synonym (taxonomy) several times, I still don't see where an alternate placement is a synonym... - UtherSRG (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In that article see the example given of Pinus abies and Picea abies, which seems clear enough. Richard New Forest (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah... botany. I always gloss over botany. ;) - UtherSRG (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The glossary to the ICZN says a synonym is "Each of two or more names of the same rank used to denote the same taxonomic taxon." If you accept that Felis uncia and Panthera uncia are different names, then they are synonyms. Ucucha 15:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't take them to be different names. The description is attached to uncia (or rather, uncia is attached to a specific description). uncia and uncia are the same name. uncia and irbis are "two or more names of the same rank used to denote the same taxonomic taxon". - UtherSRG (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The codes are always more reliable than Wikipedia articles. :-) I agree that the distinction is more than the taxobox can handle, which is perhaps an argument that it shouldn't be in the taxobox. It seems likely to me that someone might search for Panthera uncia, and indeed it is a redirect. General practice is that legitimate alternate names should appear in the article so that readers know why they got there. So Panthera uncia needs to appear somewhere. I can see keeping it out of the taxobox, but not out of the article.


 * What about Canis lupus familiaris? Should Canis familiaris appear in the taxobox or not? Unless "species group" is included in what the ICZN means by rank in the glossary entry, those names wouldn't be synonyms (equivalent cases are under ICBN).


 * I think a better way to approach this is to address which synonyms should appear.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * familiaris is attached to the description of the domestic dog, and this description has been placed as a full species (Canis familiaris) and as a subspecies (C. lupus familiaris), so it is not a synonym, and should not be listed in the taxobox as such.
 * I believe we should minimize what appears in the taxobox; for synonyms this means taking the narrowest sense: sensu stricto as it were.
 * We are generally supposed to always use a genus name attached to a species epithet (or at least a genus abbreviation when the genus has already been mentioned), and this is because a species epithet is not guaranteed to be unique within a family, while all higher ranks' names are guaranteed to be unique (if they are a senior synonym). However, there are times when (at least) zoologists will use bare epithets, and that is when discussing placement and treatment of a species. Then they will say things such as "It is debated whether baz should be treated as a full species in the Foo genus, or whether it should be relegated to a subspecies of Foo bar, and has even been given its own genus in the past Quz baz." This flexibility shows the understanding that the use of Genus species is synthetic and not always a requirement. I believe our usage in the taxobox is similar.
 * However, there *are* times when I would agree that an epithet currently in use should also be in the taxobox, and that would be if the epithet were attached to two different descriptions. I can't recall a specific epithet where this has occurred, but I do know that there are higher ranks in which this has occurred. This is why authorities must be required for the synonym listing. - UtherSRG (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * All that amounts to a restatement of your view, Uther, and as far as I can see it still hangs on little more than your own feelings. Can you please address the point made by several people (including me) that users will expect to find all alternative names in this field?  Why should we deny them this obvious information?  It does not in fact take up much space in most cases so that is not really an issue.


 * You are trying to treat scientific names as "mononomial", talking as if taxa are placed in genera in the same way as they are placed in families or orders (where the family or order name is not part of the species name). If this were true then your argument would make some sense – but it is not.  The name of every taxon of species rank is binomial – it includes the name of the genus into which it is placed (likewise trinomial for subspecies rank).  This is why we think of Carl Linneus as a hero...  In our example "Panthera uncia" and "Uncia uncia" are certainly synonyms, and do not cease to be so just because the "uncia" epithet obviously cannot be a synonym of itself.  Only when speaking of the species epithet in isolation does your argument have any validity – and in this context we are not doing that.  Richard New Forest (talk) 09:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In addition, your view of what constitutes a synonym is at odds with the botanical code, and is probably at odds with the zoological code, unless it has had major changes recently.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

My take on it.

Everything starts with the description of the species. When that happens, it is often indicated with 'n. sp.'

When a species is moved to a new genus, it is called a new combination (n. comb.), NOT a new name.

ICZN glossary: new combination "The first combination of a generic name and a previously established species-group name." Logical, because it does not have a new description with assignment of type specimens etc., it is a subjective call of the taxonomist to place the species in a different genus.

So, now lets look at synonyms:

ICZN glossary: synonym, n. "Each of two or more names of the same rank used to denote the same taxonomic taxon."

The key here is "of the same rank":

ICZN glossary: rank, n. "The level, for nomenclatural purposes, of a taxon in a taxonomic hierarchy. The ranks of the family group, the genus group, and the species group at which nominal taxa may be established are stated in Articles 10.3, 10.4, 35.1, 42.1 and 45.1."

So, we talk here about the genus-group and species-group levels as separate ranks. Now, lets interpreted objective synonym:

ICZN glossary: objective synonym "Each of two or more synonyms that denote nominal taxa with the same name-bearing type" Above, synonyms are at their specific rank, so it applies specifically to the species-group name alone or the genus-group name alone, not to combinations.

So, to answer the question. Panthera uncia and Unica uncia are based on one single description. The difference is the subjective placement of the species in different genera. As it was described originally as Panthera uncia, moving the species to the genus Uncia does not result in a new name, but a new combination, Uncia uncia.

To sum it: Now I will; duck and run -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1 type, 1 description,  1 combination:  not synonyms
 * 1 type, 1 description,  2 combinations: not synonyms
 * 1 type, 2 description,  2 combination:  objective synonyms
 * 2 types, 2 descriptions, 2 combination: subjective synonyms


 * I've asked at the Taxacom taxonomy email list, and so far my impression is that, whereas in botany the code is reasonably specific, and there is a longstanding culture of how to interpret it, neither of those things seem to be true for zoology (I man specifically in regards to synonyms, not generally). I suspect that the ultimate result of all this will be to remove synonym from the taxobox. But, Kim, I have one question that I will ask also on Taxacom: What, then, is an example of an objective synonym? --Curtis Clark (talk) 13:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I poisted the same reply there, but it has not yet shown up. An example of an objective synonym is the tarpan (the European wild horse) which was described by Johann Friedrich Gmelin in 1774. In 1784 Pieter Boddaert named the tarpan Equus ferus, referring to Gmelin's description. Unaware of Boddaert's name, Otto Antonius published the name Equus gmelini in 1912, again referring to Gmelin's description. Since the two names refer to the same description, they are objective synonyms. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In ICBN, the latter name would be illegitimate, although it might still be included in a list of synonyms.--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Another example (in the genus group) is the vole genus Myodes, which has as its type species Mus rutilus Pallas (now Myodes rutilus). The genus names Clethrionomys and Evotomys also have Mus rutilus as their type species, and are thus objective synonyms of Myodes.
 * Kim's interpretation of the ICZN is perhaps as reasonable or more reasonable as mine above (that the ICZN does include combinations as synonyms), but I think in preference to interpretations we should look at what taxonomists actually do. I can give a few examples in mammals. Alfred Gardner's Mammals of South America, Vol. 1 (2007) lists combinations under a header "Synonyms" (for example, on p. 334 for the bat Platyrrhinus dorsalis, it lists first Vamyrops dorsalis O. Thomas, 1900, and then among several others "Platyrrhinus dorsalis: Alberico and Velasco, 1991:237; first use of current name combination". "A guide to constructing and understanding synonymies for Mammalian Species" (a series of accounts of individual species of mammals published by the American Society of Mammalogists) does not define "synonym" but states (p. 3) that name combinations are part of the synonymy. Ucucha 15:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Your example of Mus rutilis is of objective synonyms at the generic level, right? I assume that Clethrionomys and Evotomys are junior synonyms of Myodes.--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Based on responses here and on Taxacom, I've arrived at the answer, "Many zoologists assert that new combinations aren't synonyms, and a fair number of those assert that they are correct. A few zoologists believe that new combinations are synonyms, but few if any of them are willing to strongly defend that view. The Code has nothing to say beyond a glossary definition that can be interpreted in different ways."--Curtis Clark (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the view that the ICZN Code is unclear in respect of objective and subjective synonymy. Objective synonymy is absolutely clearly defined in the Glossary. Two nominal taxa are objective synonyms if they have one and the same name-bearing type. If Evotomys and Myotes have the same type species, they are objective synonyms. Uncia uncia and Panthera uncia are not objective synonyms under the Code because they are not nominal taxa. The nominal taxon is Felis uncia [Schreber], 1776, and this is only one nominal taxon. At the level of species, synonyms are mostly subjective synonyms. I would prefer either not including subjective synonyms in the taxobox (and instead use the redirect function), or to make clear that the synonyms are subjective, not objective. If it is desired to list also the names Felis uncia and Panthera uncia in the taxobox I would use a new header "Other combinations", or "Other genus-species combinations". If these terms are listed under a header "Synonyms" it it just to make clear that Wikipedia is not reliable in terms of correctness of the information given, and that it was made by amateurs without deeper knowledge of the nomenclatural discipline.


 * In resonse to Kim (cited from above): "When a species is moved to a new genus, it is called a new combination (n. comb.), NOT a new name."


 * Principally you are right. But in zoology species are not moved to new genera because there are no official combinations in zoology. The term "n. comb." should not be used, it suggests an official act which it is not. Classification is taxonomy, and the Code does not rule taxonomy, only nomenclature. A species is not moved to a new genus, a species is classified in a different genus by an individual author - others may accept it or not. The definition for "new combination" in the Glossary is misleading, it should be deleted from there. Perhaps an old relict, it has no meaning today, and most taxonomists do not use that term "new combination" since it does not reflect the logic behind the Code (and it is not mentioned anywhere in the Code except in the Glossary). But you are right that placing a species in a different genus does not create a new name, since the term "new name" is usually meant in the sense of a new nominal taxon. --FranciscoWelterSchultes (talk) 01:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My bad, I see it used all the time and the code had an entry, which made me believe it was still used. But I agree with you, nomenclature and taxonomy should be separate entities. To me, placement of a species in a specific genus is a subjective exercise, and has nothing to do with the name of the species. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I got a similar response from Colin Groves: "You call it a "new combination" or "name combination". So it is not strictly a synonym, and you don't have to list it in a basic checklist-style synonymy, though even newer combinations are listed in the fullest bibliographic-style synonymies (which I think is unnecessary)." - UtherSRG (talk) 03:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

A practical approach
I think we should take a practical approach to how to use the synonym box. First of all, there are the objective and subjective synonyms in a narrow sense, and I think we all agree that those should be included. The question is what to do with specific combinations based on the same species name, but a different genus name. Personally, I think adding frequent used combinations is wise. For example, in the case of Uncia uncia, the original name was Panthera uncia, and is frequently used (both names are about equal popular on Web-of-Science). So, I think it is best to add Panthera uncia to the synonym list, so that readers can see 1. that this was the original name and 2. that they are not confused if they see the name used in other literature. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In principle, I agree. But I wonder if it isn't better to put synonyms and "pseudosynonyms" in the text rather than in the taxobox, and to put alternate names that may be used by readers in the lead. --Curtis Clark (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Practically then, isn't the KISS principle prime? If it requires an explanation, leave it out and discuss it in the text. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * See my comment above, listing of various combinations under a header "synonyms" would just reflect and document that Wikipedia editors are amateurs without deeper knowledge. Also, Kim's example is incorrect, the original name was Felis uncia. Panthera uncia must be another subsequent combination used by some authors. I have nothing against creating a new header "Other genus-species combinations". Then you would be free to add any other combination that might be useful for readers, and you do not need to say that this is the original combination, if you don't know it. You might also create another header "Original combination" in the taxobox for those contributors who actually know the correct original name of a species. Nomenclature is the science of naming, in this case animals. In the taxobox names are listed. So it might be convenient to use that science for the taxobox. --FranciscoWelterSchultes (talk) 01:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Your Taxacom post was very helpful; the concept of "nominal taxa" clears everything up. In ICBN, new combinations are explicitly new names. The ultimate results are the same, but the intermediate steps are very different.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I did not look deep enough for the original name, my bad. Panthera uncia is the alternative name noiwadays, and if the last phylogenies are correct, the proper name to start with, otherwise, Panthera is paraphyletic. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Dubois A (2010) Retroactive changes should be introduced in the Code only with great care: problems related to the spellings of nomina. Zootaxa 2426:1–42 - http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2010/f/zt02426p042.pdf seems be a useful WP:RS source - for adding to the terminology-soup. Shyamal (talk) 03:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * So do any of you think that having synonyms in the taxobox (as contrasted to the text) is overall a good thing? It seems like the downsides outweigh any possible advantages:
 * Subjective synonyms really need sourcing per WP:V
 * Botanical nomenclatural synonyms are common, but are not the same as zoological objective synonyms (despite the assertion in the ICBN glossary), and the taxobox format strives to be code-neutral.
 * Having synonyms in the taxobox only is not a big help when readers arrive by redirects from widely-used alternate names.


 * My inclination would be to remove "synonym" from the taxobox, but I image that would break a lot of pages. What would be another approach?--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia seems to need generally some more taxonomic expertise. The very taxobox example for synonyms itselfs European lobster is a good example in that it shows that basic understanding of nomenclature in Wikipedia is extremely poor and insufficient to provide correct information. In the "Binomial name" section the scientific name is incorrectly cited as Homarus gammarus Linnaeus, 1758 - correct would be with parentheses Homarus gammarus (Linnæus, 1758). The original combination Cancer gammarus Linnaeus, 1758 is cited as a synonym, so it was known that Homarus was not the original genus. I did not realize before that knowledge was so poor. This means it would not be a good idea to distinguish between synonyms and "other subsequent combinations" because most contributors would not understand those terms.


 * I am asking myself why species need a special section "Binomial name", where the scientific name is just repeated from the above "Species:" except that the author is added, while in the genus taxobox the author is added to the generic name in the above section under "Genus:".


 * Maybe the best approach for the problem above would be to rename the "Synonyms" section "Other species-genus combinations and synonyms", and then leave the folks going on inserting there what they like, and what they consider as useful to be mentioned.


 * Why has the English Wikipedia changed its whole web design and now has a different (and less comfortable!) design than all the other Wikipedias which still share the same common design? Are the English not of this world any more? --FranciscoWelterSchultes (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Can we come to some kind of consensus on this...? What do we put in the synonym field? Richard New Forest (talk) 09:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

How about this for an idea...? I notice that in some reptile articles square brackets are used to indicate synonyms arising from different placements: see for example Vipera berus. Doesn't this meet all objections? It is clear which synonyms are alternative species names and which are "merely" different placements, but we are also able to include all the binomials under which the species is known. Richard New Forest (talk) 16:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've not really been paying as much attention as I should have to this debate, but doesn't it centre around the definition of "synonym"? It seems that everyone has been assuming this should be interpreted according to the codes, i.e. as a taxonomic synonym (or similar phrase). However, there is also a more common meaning of "synonym" among the lay public (our primary readership), which is "another name for the same thing". We should include all names that a reader is liable to come across, but we do not need to repeat nomenclatural minutiae, which would fall outside the aegis of a generalist encyclopaedia. There shouldn't really be anything in a taxobox that isn't explained in the text anyway, in my opinion, so that's where you would make clear which names are new combinations based on existing types, and which are entirely new names. To my eye, Vipera berus is a horrible example; there should never be that much unnecessary taxonomical detail. The following seems to cover most of the important information:
 * "The adder was originally described as Coluber berus Linnaeus, 1758, but Linnaeus also described it under other names, as did subsequent authors, which are not now considered to be separate species. This may in part be due to the natural variability that the species shows. The species has also been transferred to other genera, including Pelias, and the most frequent combination in recent literature, Vipera berus."
 * I don't see that knowing how many additional names Reuss churned out is in any useful in a Wikipedia article. If I were reviewing Vipera berus for GA, I would probably insist that the synonyms be cut down substantially and that the taxonomic history be explained in the text. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm with you on the definition thing, but what we need is a consensus view that also includes the stick-to-the-narrow-definition people. I agree that far too many synonyms are included on Vipera berus, but the bit I was pointing out was just the way square brackets are used to allow the inclusion of different combinations.  Richard New Forest (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * My point (or part of it) was that different kinds of alternative name should be distinguished in the text: that's where you say which are new combinations, which are subjective synonyms and so on. Inventing new typographical conventions that we haven't got the space to explain in the taxobox seems like the wrong approach. You have told us what the square brackets mean, but I can't see any way that a reader could glean that information from the article. What is meant by "[Coluber] berus - Linnaeus, 1758"? How can the original description be a new combination? How come it's "Vipera berus - Daudin, 1803", when the  section says it's "Vipera berus (Linnaeus, 1758)"? I know the answers to these questions, but a lay reader probably wouldn't. Explain the synonymy in the text and summarise it in the taxobox. Japanese spider crab, for instance, explains [all but one of] the "synonyms" that appear in the taxobox, and makes it clear that they are new combinations; moreover, the list is taken from an explicitly cited source, so that there can be no suggestions of original research. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I'm agreeing with Stemonitis: (ec)Although it's true that "synonym" has a different meaning for average readers, if a taxobox includes things in an area labeled "synonyms" that aren't synonyms in the taxonomic sense, ordinary readers will be misled, and taxonomists will doubt the accuracy of the article. I think I mentioned above that IMO taxoboxes shouldn't include a "synonym" field; if synonyms are important enough to be in the article, they are important enough to be explained in the text.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Is it true that taxonomists will lose confidence in a generalist encyclopaedia just because it uses the word "synonym" in the general English sense, rather than their restricted meaning? I have had a few dealings with formal nomenclature in my professional life, but I would never expect Wikipedia to reproduce a full synonymy (which, for subjective synonyms at least, is always going to constitute an opinion, and therefore something we have to cite from elsewhere anyway). The method used in [some?] botanical journals, by the way, is to use "=" for synonyms based on different types, and "≡" for synonyms based on the same type, although that would be equally opaque to a lay reader. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No, no, sorry I'm not making myself clear. If a taxobox listed a name as a synonym that wasn't (an extreme example would be a common name, or a garden name, or even a cultivar name), that would reduce confidence, in the same way that "ginkgo and podocarpus fruits" or "cactus thorns" would. I agree that Wikipedia should not reproduce synonymies, and in fact I don't think synonyms should be included at all unless they are common in outside sources, in which case they should also be redirects. I've seen the =/≡ convention (perhaps even used it), but I agree that it is opaque to non-botanists and even to most botanists.


 * Does anyone argue that synonyms (of any sort) should be in the taxobox?--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I, for one, would. I appreciate the synonym parameter of the taxobox and use it frequently, but not too much. I specifically think the basionym is exceptionally important if a taxon has been moved and now widely accepted at that rank. I also explain this in the text, but the taxobox is meant to give the reader info at a glance, so certainly basionyms would be important. I'm also not against including other synonyms, as long as it is cited or widely known to be a synonym. I also redirect synonyms and categorize them, e.g., so when people end up being redirected, they can figure out why by the synonym field in the taxobox. What I would argue against is the inclusion of pro parte synonyms, which I may be guilty of in some of my earlier Utricularia stubs. I've been meaning to get back to those anyway and clean them up. If it's a clear example of pro parte, though, where previously half of all specimens labeled as one species are really this other, new species, then maybe a pro parte synonym might warrant a mention, certainly in the text. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 19:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that basionyms are important, but that could (and perhaps should) be achieved with a "basionym" parameter. If I understand the arguments of the zoologists correctly, the zoological equivalent of a basionym is not a synonym, in ICZN usage. A quick survey of your examples shows that, other than basionyms, they are all taxonomic (heterotypic, subjective) synonyms Once again, I find myself defending a practice by zoologists with which I disagree (in this case, not calling new combinations synonyms, in the other case capitalizing common names). You'd think I'd learn by now. I'm going to drop this issue altogether.--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The zoological equivalent of a (botanical) basionym is the "original combination" of a species-group name. For example, Felis uncia is the original combination for what is currently known as Uncia uncia, the snow leopard. It may or may not differ from the currently used name. There may exist more than one widely accepted currently used names, for example Panthera uncia is such an alternate combination that is currently used by some authors for the same animal. These are not synonyms in the zoological sense, because all are based on the same original combination Felis uncia.
 * In zoology there are no official genus-species combinations for species, everything is based on general acceptance, and often WP has to select between two or more currently used genus-species combinations. To answer your question above, yes I consider it as certainly useful to mention alternate genus-species combinations ("synonyms of any sort" in the dictionary sense) in the taxobox. Especially if they are currently in use somewhere.
 * The zoological use of term "synonym" is well defined in the ICZN Code. A synonym is always a different species-group name. So, anything else but uncia in the example. A name Felis alba could be such a synonym.
 * And it is also useful to know that in zoological nomenclature there is a difference between objective and subjective synonyms. For objective synonyms there is no discussion, these are the only definite and real synonyms. Subjective synonyms are synonyms in the personal view of an author, a view that can be accepted or not by other authors and by WP contributors. The difference between objective and subjective synonyms is in the identity of the type specimens on which the names are based. This is relatively deep inside the science of zoological nomenclature, which an averge WP contributor would not know in detail.
 * Therefore I repeat my proposal from above, yes it is useful to cite alternate names for the same organism in the taxobox, but not under a header "synonym". This term should be replaced by a correct expression in the nomenclatural sciences, which in zoology would give "synonyms and other genus-species combinations" or something euqivalent to that. Presence of a taxobox gives the impression that its contents represent the scientific standard used by the editors of the database. It would certainly not contribute to a high reputation of WP (it would not look professional) to establish a taxobox, and then to apply incorrectly the terms of the corresponding science.--FranciscoWelterSchultes (talk) 11:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Alas, in botany the only "genus-species combinations" that are not synonyms are nomina nuda and homonyms, which wouldn't seem to belong in that box. Since "synonym" means something different in ICZN, ICBN, and common speech, I don't see any easy solution to this one.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I sympathize with the zoological problem and would agree that our taxobox lacks the type of precision required by the ICZN. I'm comforted that the ICBN seems to be based on a bit more common sense, at least in my estimation. ;-) I can't see a solution, either. I can make a few suggestions, though. The linked term synonym (taxonomy) in the synonym field of the taxobox does explain the differences between zoological and botanical usage, but it could be made much clearer to the lay reader. Each section delves into terminology the reader may be unfamiliar with and more care could be taken to clarify the distinctions. Second, would it be feasible to maybe use a different parameter for animals, e.g. zoo_synonyms = instead of synonyms = ? Then we would be free to maintain separate field names and choose something other than "Synonyms" for ICZN-domain articles (I don't have any suggestions on a succinct title for that). More broadly, I think we can agree on what types of synonyms or combinations to include. Clearly the example above of Vipera berus is over the top. We can agree that objective synonyms should be included, right? I usually also include subjective synonyms if the most relevant and widely cited recent monograph says so or if an authoritative database (e.g. in my realm, the carnivorous plant database here) can be cited. But to ask a larger question, why should we include any names? My answer would be based on whether or not that synonym is used anywhere. In my experience, I appreciate it when I'm reading through decades-old (or centuries-old) literature and turn to Wikipedia for more information on that species, only to be redirected to another taxon with the name I searched for in the synonyms field. So I guess my point is that certainly if it's an objective synonym and has been used in any publication, it should be in the taxobox. I make no assertions on whether or not that publication has to be widely used, as I find value in most synonyms being listed. What I think we should avoid is telling the reader the pro parte synonyms; we don't need to let the reader know what every single mislabeled herbarium specimen was ever called or referred to in error as. Sorry if this rehashes some of the above arguments. Rkitko (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We should keep in mind that "subjective synonyms" in zoology are often subjective only in a formal sense: in neomammalogy at least, there is usually broad agreement on synonyms. Most of the synonyms listed on Transandinomys talamancae, for example, are subjective synonyms, but there is no current dispute on the placement on any of them as a synonym of T. talamancae. Objective synonyms, on the other hand, are often old and obscure names, the result of 19th-century authors naming the same thing over and over, and as such in many cases deserve little attention. Ucucha 16:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Listing synonyms (and zoology: other genus-species combinations) is useful for some WP readers. A term zoo_synonyms in the taxobox would not solve the main problem: it would restrict the content to "synonyms" (a zoo-synonym is always a synonym in the broader sense as used outside zoology) and exclude "other genus-species combinations". The main problem is that contributors like to list Felis uncia and Panthera uncia under some header in the taxobox of Uncia uncia. Under which header should they place these names?
 * I agree with the statements given in synonym (taxonomy). I have corrected some incorrect statements in the zoological passages, added the ICZN Code references and removed one incorrect example (and transferred to the discussion page there, for those who are interested). But this is okay now, in terms of scientific correctness. It might be useful to add a passage that in zoology Felis uncia, Uncia uncia and Panthera uncia are not considered synonyms, and that this is a difference to botany.
 * Objective synonyms at the level of species are extremely rare, I would hardly be able to give an example off hand. Most are subjective synonyms. But we do have problems with them. Not all subjective synonyms are of the easy mammal kind, Ucucha. In other animal groups we have different views on whether a name is a synonym of another name, or a separate species. In such a case it is possible that in the Portuguese Wikipedia they consider it a separate species, and in the English Wikipedia not. I have already observed such cases in molluscs, because then we run into problems with the interlanguage links (and I wondered why the interlanguage link led incorrectly to a completely different species in the other Wikipedia). Would be good if a solution of this problem could be found. For example, each synonym could automatically get a redirect page, to which another WP could be linked in the interlanguage system. --FranciscoWelterSchultes (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm in favour of a simplistic approach to synonyms, roughly following the common English usage: list any other names which are generally accepted to refer to the same taxon (i.e. including the placement of the same epithet in a different genus as a 'synonym'). Trying to follow the precise minutiae of two different nomenclatural codes will confuse both readers and most editors. Even distinguishing them with square brackets, as in Vipera berus, is distracting: why brackets in [Coluber] Chersea but not in Coluber prester? Is ''C[oluber]. Scytha'' merely a typo? Per these guidelines: "A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field." and "Texts should be written for everyday readers, not for academics." Thomas Kluyver (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the WP guidelines cited by Thomas are a clincher. If we assume that readers are not well versed in the field, then surely we cannot insist on a narrowly technical definition of "synonym", but should instead use one closer to its "natural" meaning.  As such a meaning also agrees with widespread technical use I can see no good reason not to use it.  Richard New Forest (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)