Talk:Microcaecilia iwokramae

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: All Pages Moved  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Caecilita iwokramae → Caecilita — All these caecilian species are currently considered monotypic in their respective genera, and with most it is unlikely any more species will be discovered (half of these are comparatively well-studied island species). Most monotypic genera with no real vernacular name are currently under the full species name, but more recent moves to the scientific name have been to the genus name alone. In the case of "Rhinatrème À Deux Bandes", Polbot inexplicably gave the French trivial name. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 16:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Brasilotyphlus braziliensis → Brasilotyphlus
• Idiocranium russeli → Idiocranium
• Praslinia cooperi → Praslinia
• Hypogeophis rostratus → Hypogeophis
• Luetkenotyphlus brasiliensis → Luetkenotyphlus
• Sylvacaecilia grandisonae → Sylvacaecilia
• Atretochoana eiselti → Atretochoana
• Potomotyphlus kaupii → Potomotyphlus
• Rhinatrème À Deux Bandes → Rhinatrema

Support, and kudos for sorting out the Rhinatrema bit of Polbot mess-up. We place monotypic genera at the genus name, because that is shorter. I would say the point about more species being unlikely to be discovered is actually irrelevant because we have to deal with the current situation (cf. WP:CRYSTAL). But that comment is itself not very relevant, as we agree on the substance. Ucucha 21:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I have seen WP:CRYSTAL; but I was unsure as to the exact guidelines in this case and after not properly reading up before making a request for a move several times, I wanted to set the matter straight on this one. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Further clarification: I meant: scientists don't think there are probably more species, as with lots of insects. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 16:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Could someone knowledgeable put this case into more laymens' terms, please? I'd also like to point out that the article content currently starts with "Caecilita iwokramae is a species of caecilian in the family Caeciliidae.", which combined with the commentary about Polbot makes me wonder if this isn't some sort of attempted backdoor resolution to a wider content dispute... I'm not accusing here, but some clarification of both points would definitely help all of us make a reasoned, educated decision here.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 03:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The RM is about species that are the only species in their genus. In this case, established practice is to use the genus name as the title, as this is shorter. See Lundomys and Pseudoryzomys for two examples of current FAs that use this convention and Trichoplax is for other conventions. Polbot was a bot that added lots of species pages from the IUCN Red List and like any bot it wasn't very intelligent and didn't follow all of our conventions. We're still fixing the mess three years later. Ucucha 07:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
    • As for the article heading, there is no common name for the caecilians besides "caecilian". They are amphibians that look a little bit like worms or snakes, but really are quite unique. I highly object to any other opening sentence for caecilian articles. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
      • OK, that's cool. You guys obviously are knowledgeable here, and I'm perfectly up front about not having much of any education in this arena outside of High School Bio (which was 20 years ago now... ugh). My only real question is, if the title of the page is to be "Caecilita", then why shouldn't the opening sentence be "Caecilita is a species of caecilian in the family Caeciliidae."? That and, be honest now, if they knew about it who if anyone would object to this, and why? (Note: I'll probably wander back through here on an RM patrol again tomorrow, but feel free to ping me on my talk page again if you'd like).
        — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 20:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Caecilita is a genus, not a species, so that sentence would be incorrect. I am not aware of anyone opposing the principle of having monotypic genera (that is, genera with only one species) at the genus name (as Innotata proposes); however, a RM discussion on a similar matter is ongoing at Talk:Ostrich fern, which is a special case because in that case two species were recently moved out of the genus. Ucucha 20:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
        • As for my not using layman's terms: I intended to link them, but forgot. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
          • I don't know, this being a mass move and the issue with moving the page but not changing the lead (which always immediately suggests that the article title may not be the most appropriate) make me fairly uncomfortable. On the other hand there's nothing to really base on "Oppose" position on as far as I can tell. All that I'd really ask is that once the moves are complete that one or both of you work on the articles to make the article leads fit with the new names, even if that means refactoring the content as a whole. Don't be afraid to dig in and add content (especially refs), please.
            — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 09:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
            • Confer the FA Lundomys. Same story there. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 14:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support This move and the other moves noted, as discussed already are bringing the article titles in line with project guidelines. --Kevmin (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Brasilotyphlus

The article Brasilotyphlus needs to be renamed (moved back to) --> Brasilotyphlus braziliensis, as there is now a congener, Brasilotyphlus guarantanus.

The Brasilotyphlus page needs to list both species. Bruinfan12 (talk) 02:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm splitting braziliensis off. —innotata 15:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)