User:MargaretRDonald/ToBeKept

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Taxa named by Paul Kummer


A tag has been placed on Category:Taxa named by Paul Kummer requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 16:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Margaret. None of the taxa you placed in this category were actually named by Paul Kummer. Take for example, Inocybe lacera (Fr.) P.Kumm. (1871). The species was originally given a "name" by Elias Magnus Fries, as Agaricus lacerus Fr. Paul Kummer transferred the species to the genus Inocybe in 1871. When Kummer transferred it to a different genus, the "name" stayed the same. ("name" = "epithet" = "specific epithet" = "species epithet" = "species name" - these are used interchangably, and all mean the second part of the binomial name). Hope that helps with your future categorisation efforts. Esculenta (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the interpretation, . I would agree that the first naming is by Fries. However, the name does change with the genus change, with the epithet staying the same (but agreeing with gender of the new genus). And of course, the description is changed with the change of genus. Perhaps you could give a reference for your interpretation. (Certainly within the plantae, it is the practice of wikipedians to also use the final authority in a "named by" category.) Regards, MargaretRDonald (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, the "name" does not change when the genus changes. As above, the "name" = the specific epithet. The description does not necessarily change either. See the article Author citation (botany) "In botanical nomenclature, author citation is the way of citing the person or group of people who validly published a botanical name, i.e. who first published the name while fulfilling the formal requirements..." If there are instances of plant taxa also using the final authority (i.e. the genus changer) for author categorization, then this is simply wrong, and the incorrect categorizations should be removed. Esculenta (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)