User talk:Kryp

For the discussion please use my German discussion site.

de:Benutzer Diskussion:FranciscoWelterSchultes

DYK for Svenska Spindlar
TheDYKUpdateBot 12:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Araneus angulatus
TheDYKUpdateBot 12:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Your note at Taxacom
Just a casual comment to your post on Taxacom regarding the problems you seem to have faced while editing Wikipedia. In general I would think that contributing to scientific topics is far easier than working on history, nationality, religion or other typically partisan (subjective (?) or where there are no instruments to measure properties or algorithms to draw conclusions) subjects. Following the standard scholarly approaches seems to work in most cases and where you do need to debate a topic, I have found that trying to claim expertise is the single worst thing to do in a debate and a useful guide perhaps is to stay on the top end of what has been called "Graham's hierarchy of disagreement". Glad you seem to have taken to editing here (judging by the DYKs). Let me know if there is any way in which I can be of help. Good day! Shyamal (talk) 05:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Disagreement and discussion are not the point, I usually appreciate discussing scientific items, also in WP, and also with so-called non-experts. I also mentioned that I experienced the English WP as friendlier than the German section. So I began editing here, since I felt chased out of the German WP.
 * I edit in WP because occasionally I research something that takes me time, and when I found the solution I record it down in WP so that I will have it available if I happen to have the same question in 3 years again.
 * The result is that for researching issues in my field of expertise I don't by default consult the German WP any more, I would not expect that I had previously had written something there (at least not something that was not deleted afterwards). This might be a good situation for the English WP (or bad, depends on the view...).
 * I saw your bird pictures on your personal page. I also have bird pictures and was thinking about uploading them. In the German WP they have so strong restrictions what a "good animal picture" is, worth to be used in WP. Basic rule seems to be, only the insiders decide what to use. I don't feel invited. You know, my photos are from a public natural history museum of a university, the birds are prepared, they all died naturally or in accidents. Dead birds is certainly against these fixed conventions.
 * Maybe you are interested. If so, I can talk with our museum leader. I don't know the requirements in the English WP. Cheers and thanks for the feedback, Francisco--FranciscoWelterSchultes (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have uploaded dead bird images in the past and have found it useful, for example to make derivatives where feather tracts need to be labelled or so on. (eg: File:ThrushWing.jpg, commons:Category:Zoothera_citrina_anatomy) For some species including extinct ones, I am sure dead birds are better than none at all. If you or any of your contacts has an interest in birds and would like to contribute museum images, please do invite them (or yourself) to WP:BIRD. Shyamal (talk) 03:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Centuria Insectorum, chapter "Publications"
I have just realised following your edits at Centuria Insectorum that the source youcited to back up the statements you added states it was "Last modified 18-06-2011 by F. Welter Schultes". This would normally be a breach of WP:SPS, so perhaps you could let me know what sources you used to write that page, so that I can fix the article as soon as possible. Thanks in advance. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Query at KVK, select the checkboxes of countries, insert at Titlewords "Centuria insectorum rariorum", then press "Search" and in the results set click on all the catalogues which returned results. You should at least find the libraries I have listed on the AnimalBase page, maybe more. The information "Harvard" and "Smithsonian" was taken from the links provided on the corresponding pages linked by the Wikipedia page. The fact that the title is found in so many libraries provides strong and sufficient support for the publication being published correctly under Art. 8.1 of the Code. -- FranciscoWelterSchultes (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Then, critically, there is no published source that has stated this fact. This was your own research, using a publicly accessible database, which you have published on (effectively) your own website. I don't doubt the facts that you are reporting, but these are unfortunately not sources that we can cite on Wikipedia. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for providing such a precious direct document one of the best examples known to me until now, of why Wikipedia has such a bad reputation in the scientific community, and why so few scientists like to contribute to this forum.
 * The basic problem of Wikipedia, and the source for its total lack of success in the natural sciences, is that a WP author will have no problems to publish a statement "it has been argued that the Earth is a flat disc", and find a published reference for it, published by someone in the last year. For a scientist who knows exactly that this was total nonsense, it is extremely annoying and discouraging to start debates with WP authors who show this behaviour of regarding WP as the outlet of their own personal perception of truth - I will definitely not look for a published reference to correct the statement on which you are insisting here.
 * By the way, the information provided by AnimalBase is generally regarded as a published source, published with responsible author and date, this is a public service provided by the University of Göttingen, and the content published there is cited as a primary source not only in hundreds of WP pages as reference for reliable scientific information, but also in scientific publications of peer-reviewed journals. -- FranciscoWelterSchultes (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view exists precisely to prevent fringe theories gaining too much prominence here. I haven't seen a lot of flat-earth propaganda here, and I doubt that it's a big problem. If scientists do find it hard to contribute here (which I also doubt; I am a biologist myself), then it is more likely to do with the differences in philosophy. For someone used to drawing their own conclusions, it is something of a change to only report other people's published ideas. I actually think Wikipedia is doing rather well on articles in the natural sciences. There is a huge amount of room for improvement, but in comparison to traditional encyclopaedias, it does well. It covers thousands of less well known organisms that would traditionally be ignored; it goes into far more detail than a paper encyclopaedia would have room for; and it is able to keep up-to-date much better than a traditionally published work. If Wikipedia does have a bad reputation amogn scientists, I think it mostly comes from a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's aims, or from people being swayed simply by the repetition of the claim that it has a bad reputation. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I am sorry to say this so directly, and please do not misunderstand me, but I am disappointed by your behaviour. As a biologist you should know that it is total nonsense to force someone to give a published reference for a statement "the book is present in a dozen libraries" - every skilled scientist knows that library catalogues are online today and how to access their content, and that consequently, such a statement needs no published reference.
 * You can also imagine that I was not pleased to see that you had asked me how to obtain information not because you did not know how to do things, but to find a reason for insisting on publishing unbalanced and questionable information here (an equivalent to flat-Earth propaganda) and abusing Wikipedia's rules. This is also a question of style. If someone asks me, I give an answer. I would never have have wasted my precious time to give you a detailed answer on your question, had I known before that you knew exactly the tools.
 * Others had told me some time ago they had made bad experiences with you and showed me cases, and I verified what occurred and was a little surprised because until then I had known you as a responsible user. I told them I had not made bad experiences with you. Well. Your style had been cited as an English equivalent of the style used in the biological section of the German Wikipedia, in response to my argument that the English section did not have these serious problems the German section has. -- FranciscoWelterSchultes (talk) 17:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

As a biologist, I would happily write that the book is present in a dozen libraries, and not feel the need to provide a citation. As a writer or editor of an encyclopaedia with Wikipedia's policies, I cannot write that, at least not without a reliable source having said so independently. It's a hard distinction to make, but it is a valuable and important one. Whether you choose to believe it or not, I did not ask you the question purely as an excuse for undoing your edit; I sincerely hoped that you would then provide an admissible reference that could be used to improve the article. The article isn't perfect, and I always welcome suggestions about its improvement (without asserting ownership, of course). You drew my attention, for instance, to the fact that the question of priority wasn't dealt with clearly, and I am glad that as a result of our interactions, that element is now improved. To the rest of your answer, I am unable to comment, since I cannot know what incidents you are referring to. I consider equilibrating my edits with flat-Earth propaganda to be particularly inapposite. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You should restore your initial version, if you don't accept other users editing in pages you seem to regard as yours. Now you converted the sentence from unbalanced information into total nonsense. -- FranciscoWelterSchultes (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Office Hours
Hey ! I'm just dropping you a message because you've commented on (or expressed an interest in) the Article Feedback Tool in the past. If you don't have any interest in it any more, ignore the rest of this message :).

If you do still have an interest or an opinion, good or bad, we're holding an office hours session tomorrow at 19:00 GMT/UTC in #wikimedia-office to discuss completely changing the system. In attendance will be myself, Howie Fung and Fabrice Florin. All perspectives, opinions and comments are welcome :).

I appreciate that not everyone can make it to that session - it's in work hours for most of North and South America, for example - so if you're interested in having another session at a more America-friendly time of day, leave me a message on my talkpage. I hope to see you there :). Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry not to see you at the session; the logs are here. In the meantime, the Foundation has started developing a new version of the tool which dispenses with the idea of "ratings", amongst other things. Take a look at WP:AFT5 and drop any comments, criticisms or suggestions you have on the talkpage - I'd be very grateful to hear your opinions. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Meaning of synonym in the ICZN
I'm raising this here, rather than at Talk:Synonym (taxonomy), because it's really about the topic rather than the article. What I'm trying to do is to understand precisely the position you hold on synonyms under the ICZN. I've read the Taxacom discussion, as well as a number of others. As an outsider, I can see that a) zoologists disagree as to what counts as a synonym at the species-group level b) actual usage by many sources normally considered reliable (IUCN, Avibase, etc.) for species names governed by the zoological code is actually the same as the botanical code c) there are complex arguments as to why (b) is wrong.

Consider the following argument, which seems to me as logical as the one you set out at Talk:Synonym (taxonomy).


 * 1) synonym = Each of two or more names of the same rank used to denote the same taxonomic taxon.
 * 2) Let "rank" = species. So synonym (species) = Each of two or more names at the rank of species used to denote the same taxonomic taxon.
 * 3) What is a "name at the rank of species"? Use definition (2) from the glossary entry for name, which gives: name = Equivalent to scientific name.
 * 4) What is a "scientific name"? Use the glossary entry for the species rank, which gives: name = scientific name = The scientific name of a taxon at any rank above the species group consists of one name; that of a species, two names (a binomen). Hence name at the rank of species = scientific name at the rank of species = a binomen
 * 5) So now we can say: synonym (species) = Each of two or more binomina used to denote the same taxonomic taxon.
 * 6) Consider Felis leo and Panthera leo. Do these denote the "same taxonomic taxon"? Yes. Is each a binomen? Yes. So they are synonyms at the species level.

Now go back to Step 3 and choose definition (3) from the glossary entry for name. It is immediately clear that this definition does not lead to Felis leo and Panthera leo being synonyms. The generic names are clearly not synonyms; the specific names are precisely identical (not because they are lexically the same as some people seem to have thought in the Taxacom discussion, but, as you said there, because they are produced by the same name-bearing type) so they aren't synonyms.

So I conclude that from the ICZN it can be shown, by simply substituting in definitions in the glossary, that Felis leo and Panthera leo are synonymous species names (binomina) but obviously not synonymous specific names.

Hence I cannot see that we can use the ICZN as a reliable source for a simple statement that under the ICZN Felis leo and Panthera leo are not synonyms.

Nor can we use your opinion or my opinion, because, as per your discussion with Stemonitis, rightly or wrongly Wikipedia can only report information available in reliable sources. So I'm a bit stuck. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * These are things for which you will nowhere find what you call a "reliable source" in WP's sense. The science of naming animals is zoological nomenclature, which is goverened under the ICZN Code. This is a legal work that is followed deliberately by zoologists in the light of the chaos that would result in the absence of such rules, but in contrast to usual laws it has no governing power and no organs to officially interpret the rules, which would issue the reliable sources WP would require. The Commission can issue such official interpretations, but it has not done this in our case.
 * If you like to interpret Articles in the Code you must use the definitions given in the Code's Articles and Glossary. You cannot say "Let "rank" = species", you must take the definition for the term "rank" and all the other terms from the Glossary. Doing this is always a bit ennoying, I must admit. But in the contrary case your arguments will run away from the Code at an early stage of the cascades (in your case in bullet point 2).
 * You can also go to the German WP talk/discussion site of the corresponding article, I have provided such an interpretation cascade there, some time ago. If you don't speak German you may try with Google translator, for German this works badly, but it might occasionally do it. The result was basically the same as you had - Felis leo and Panthera leo being synonyms - but Richard Pyle argued that this was wrong, indicating that the Code contradicted itself in this point. So what we must use for the synonym in the nomenclatural sense are either Art. 48, or the very simple fact that there cannot exist a third category of synonyms next to objective and subjective synonyms which are both well defined.
 * In the Taxacom discussion you must distinguish between persons who just comment (like me) and Commissioners who provide comments. Comments by Commissioners tend to have more weight. Internally there is a hierarchy among Commissioners. The comments by Thomas Pape are currently the most reliable ones.
 * Do not underestimate Taxacom. This is not just a mailing list, it is one of the two officially recommended mailing lists given at the official ICZN website www.iczn.org for users to ask questions and obtain answers on nomenclatural issues concerning the interpretation of the Code.
 * It is very important to distinguish between taxonomy and nomenclature. The Code rules only nomenclature. It does not rule taxonomy (a difference to the botanical Code), and it does not rule bioinformatics. For a bioinformatician Helix aspersa Müller, 1774 and Helix aspersa O. F. Müller, 1774 are synonyms. You can ask the same questions as above: Do these denote the "same taxonomic taxon"? Yes. Is each a binomen? Yes. So they are synonyms at the species level.
 * Of course, all this is not published in a reliable source and you are not allowed to base a WP article on this kind of information. For understanding nomenclatural discussions like the one in Taxacom such knowledge is basic and indispensable. -- FranciscoWelterSchultes (talk) 00:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that's a very clear and helpful reply.
 * On a minor point, you suggest that there is a logical flaw in my argument at Step 2. Again I would argue that provided we use the Glossary definition there is not: rank = The level, for nomenclatural purposes, of a taxon in a taxonomic hierarchy. "Species" is a rank within "species group" by 45.1. However, this is firmly a minor point.
 * The real points, on which I think we agree, are:
 * There's no doubt that outside the code "synonym" is used loosely, and for good reasons in databases. (Although as a computer scientist I wouldn't want to say even then that ""Helix aspersa Müller, 1774" and "Helix aspersa O. F. Müller, 1774" are synonyms any more than "H. aspersa" is a synonym of "Helix aspersa". Abbreviated forms are different from synonyms.)
 * There are interpretations of the Glossary which can lead to the conclusion that binomina with the same specific name can be "synonyms" within the code. Even if you don't accept my argument above, reputable persons have accepted that the Code contradicts itself (in the Glossary at least).
 * However, for any pair of synonyms you should be able to divide them into a "senior synonym" and a "junior synonym" (this is clear both from the Glossary and from relevant articles). Synonymous species names created by placement changes cannot be so divided; Felis leo and Panthera leo are one and the same senior synonym, because the concepts of senior and junior synonyms necessarily apply to specific names, not binomina.
 * So the ICZN, as currently written, is somewhat ambiguous, but the weight of the evidence – the articles themselves and interpretations by commissioners – leads to the view that the code does not intend combination changes to create synonyms.
 * Anyway, I am clearer in my own mind now! Peter coxhead (talk) 09:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I must apologise, you were indeed correct at your step 2, the rank was species and not species-group. I also had noted this here http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Synonym_(Taxonomie)#Kleine_Erg.C3.A4nzung_zum_Fazitversuch and came to the same conclusion as you, that the logical result contradicts Art. 48 and other relevant articles of the Code. The concepts/definitions for "senior synonym" and a "junior synonym" is also a good point. These were the things Thomas Pape had in mind in the Taxacom discussion.
 * You could probably also take Helix aspersa Müller, 1774 and Helix aspersa Mueller, 1774 as example for synonyms in computer sciences, if you prefer excluding abbreviations from the synonym definition. -- FranciscoWelterSchultes (talk) 10:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the [ reviewer's talk page]
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! &mdash; The Earwig   (talk)  02:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Trochulus lubomirskii
Your remarks on the exact spelling of Trochulus lubomirskii/Trochulus lubomirski are very welcome. Once a binomial is misspelled, it can be copied numerous times on the internet, leading to much confusion afterwards. Personally, I have asked to correct a number of times misspelled names of species in WoRMS while writing an article on the concerned species. Such requests were always received thankfully. I've done the same a few times for secondary homonyms (such as Ceriothopsis infrequens (C.B. Adams, 1852) and Ceriothopsis infrequens Rolàn, Espinosa & Fernandez-Garcés, 2007). Another homonymy required an application to the ICZN. And another homonymy existed since 1872 and had obviously not been noticed before (Eulimella polita de Folin, 1870 and Eulimella polita (A.E. Verrill, 1872) ). I consider it very important to note such discrepancies, as you have done this time. Well done. JoJan (talk) 15:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Question about ICZN
Hello, since you are someone who seems to understand zoological nomenclature, I wonder if you would have time to look at Nominal species. This is a mysterious term to us botanists. Nominal species redirects to a section on the Species page where I have just removed the phrase "nominal species" because I think it was quite misleading. I'm wondering whether something could be done with the page International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, which uses that and similar phrases often without defining them, or perhaps there simply needs to be a page called Nominal species which defines the term. Best wishes, Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The term "nominal species" is defined in the ICZN Code Glossary, however it is not easy to find that definition. The Code is not written in a service-directed language. First you have to look at "nominal taxon", which redirects you to "taxon", there you look under "taxon, nominal taxon", and then you must know that you have to replace the term "taxon" by "species", "genus", "family-group" or whatever applies to your case. So for your case you must read the definition for nominal species in this form:
 * "A concept of a species which is denoted by an available name (e.g. Homo sapiens). Each nominal species is based on a name-bearing type (although such a type may not have been actually fixed)."
 * This is the definition for "nominal species" in zoological nomenclature. Did this help? -- FranciscoWelterSchultes (talk) 09:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your reply. Now the difficulty that I have is with "concept of a species", which in the terminology that I'm used to, absolutely from a botanical standpoint, seems to mean circumscription of a species. In botany, we try to keep taxonomic matters such as circumscription separated from the purely nomenclatural matters such as types, priority, etc. As is often said, the botanical and zoological codes of nomenclature have drifted apart over the last 1.7 centuries to an astonishing degree. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)