User talk:Idiothele

Welcome
Hello, Idiothele, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on. Again, welcome! Falcon8765 (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

List of Theraphosidae species
I've only just put a lot of work into standardising the format of the taxonomic citations on this page, and I see you have made a lot of changes, without adding any edit summary comments, that don't stick to the standard of the rest of the article - is there any specific reason you didn't stick to it? Is there a good reason you are changing it from the small text that the rest of the article used, and which I standardised on? -- Boing!   said Zebedee  22:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I notice you're not even being consistent within your own edits - in some cases you have placed the name of the taxonomist in parentheses, but not in others. -- Boing!   said Zebedee  22:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I am consistent within my own edits, the absence/presence of parentheses has a meaning: if the scientific name, when first published, appeared in a different combination, the publisher/described of the scientific name and the year of publishment is put into parentheses, if the scientific name in its current, valid form is the same combination it was first published, it is without parentheses - e.g. Trichognathella schoenlandi was first described by R. I. Pocock in 1900 as Pterinochilus schoenlandi, but it has been moved to a new genus Trichognathella by R. C. Gallon in 2004, thus the scientific name with the describer and year is Trichognathella schoenlandi (Pocock, 1900). On the other hand, e.g. Pterinochilus murinus was described by R. I. Pocock in 1897 as Pterinochilus murinus (no change in combination, hasn't been moved to another genus so far), so the name is Pterinochilus murinus Pocock, 1897. If by small text you mean the name of the describer and the year - I have only copied the Avicularia species list from another article and didn't notice it's not in small text. I apologize for it and I will change it to small text. Regards: Idiothele (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Also note, the describers and the year are never put in parentheses when you are talking about a genus, i.e. not Avicularia (Lamarck, 1818) but Avicularia Lamarck, 1818. Regards: Idiothele (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK, I understand now - thanks for the explanation. I fear I've messed quite a bit up by adding incorrect parentheses then, so I'll need to revert quite a lot of it to an earlier version (I can do that without damaging your new changes, so I'll work on that shortly). I also note that the same lists are included in different places, which I hadn't noticed until you mentioned the Avicularia species list - in the general article and the genus article, which suggests some transcludable templates might be a good idea to prevent the two getting out of step. If you agree, I'll be happy to make them. (PS: It's great to see someone else working on Tarantula articles - Wikiproject Spiders seems to be generally pretty deserted) -- Boing!   said Zebedee  00:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ephebopus murinus‎
Hi, many thanks for your suggestion for the taxonomic section on the Ephebopus murinus‎ article I'm developing. I started off with just a couple of the classifications (Walckenaer and Simon), but wasn't sure if I should include them all - but then that got lengthy and clumsy. I like your version a lot better. Do you have a ref for Pocock, btw? (Platnick doesn't appear to refer to Pocock wrt E.murinus - is it perhaps "Pocock, R. I. (1903b)" here?). I'm working on a general format for tarantula species articles, based on other spider articles I've seen (as I'm sure you've noticed, most of the existing ones are really just about keeping them as pets) - before I submit any, would you mind if I asked you to have a look over my first few? -- Boing!   said Zebedee  15:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, your reference is correct, here is [http://s318.photobucket.com/albums/mm409/dielonn/Theraphosidae/Pocock1903bp85.jpg p. 85. from Pocock, 1903b]. In the description of Ephebopus fossor (currently a nomen dubium - dubious name) he states that E. murinus = Santaremia pococki. Sure, I'll take a look at them. Regards: Idiothele (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks -- Boing!   said Zebedee  16:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)