Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dalytra


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Leomk0403 (Don't shout here, Shout here!)  01:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Dalytra

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I'm doubting the validity of this genus. No refs, and a WP:BEFORE search turned up article and cats and yahoo search and some archive.org. Leomk0403 (Don't shout here, Shout here!)  02:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong keep: The reason you are finding so few references is because most online sources erroneously place these species in the genus Alcmena, which is a permanently invalid junior homonym (see for proof). For one glaring example, see . Just because some online sources are erroneous does not oblige Wikipedia to propagate these errors. Dalytra does definitively exist - see the reference linked in the article itself, and also,  - and is the oldest available name for the permanently unavailable Alcmena. Dyanega (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * are there three confusing taxon here? GBIF has:
 * Alcmena Stål, 1859(accepted) which is Proceedings of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences?
 * Alcmena C.L.Koch, 1846(doubtful)
 * Dalytra Stål, 1861 which is Entomologische_Zeitung p. 131
 * fiveby(zero) 20:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, Alcmena Stål, 1859 (Homonym) in infobox i think explains it. fiveby(zero) 21:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Alcmena Stål, 1859 should not be accepted by anyone; that is an error, since Koch's name is available and has seniority. The circumstances allowing a junior primary homonym to be adopted as valid do not apply here, if only because Art. 23.9.1.2 could not possibly be satisfied. Dyanega (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC) (I should note that both GBIF and BioLib are not trustworthy sources, as both are quite often wrong; GBIF especially so, and a distressingly large number of editors seem to give it entirely undeserved, uncritical acceptance). Dyanega (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.