Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (fauna)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Proposed change: use plurals

The current requirements suggest using singular form without any rationale. However according to WP:PLURAL, which is referred to, "articles on groups or classes of specific things" should use plural form. Biological classes belong to those things. All subject-related reliable sources use plural form, there is no Bird class, but Birds class for example. I propose a change in order to use plural form in such cases. This would also resolve the discrepancies in related articles, where the title uses singular form, while the lead name uses plural. 89.76.224.253 (talk) 13:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Uh....honestly, I've not ever seen any of these articles with plural titles, even outside of WP:TOL. I oppose, as most folks are more likely to look up something as a singular noun. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that since we are referring to a class, not a single bird or mammal for example, that should be plural (dictionaries naturally use singular form, such as "bird", but it looks unnatural in encyclopedia). So my two cents are support the change. Brandmeister t 23:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This would be contrary to the intention of the exception in WP:PLURAL, as typified by the examples. You're attempting to apply the biological meaning of 'class' to a sentence constructed using the mathematical meaning of 'class', which you simply can't do as they're incompatible. Mathematically, a class is a 'set of sets'. You need to examine the subject of the article and determine if the subject itself is a group or an entity. For example, the pluralised examples in WP:PLURAL such as Afro-Asiatic languages, States of Nigeria and polar coordinates all detail their subjects as groups and examine the inter-relationships between members of the group that are above and outside of the individual members themselves. 'Bird', on the other hand, details its subject as a generic entity, irrespective of the fact that there may be many instances and variations of that entity. The difference is subtle but important. Our articles on generic entities are not pluralised; our articles on groups are. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

And then I read the dates after I replied. Hah. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I concur completely, and nothing wrong with replying a bit late-ish - the discussion was still sitting here unarchived on the talk page, so it was still open, even if quiet. Anyway, if we start doing articles like Cats and Bears we're simply going to see everyone wanting to pluralize everything, because they wouldn't understand the distinction being drawn. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 20:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment [closed]: Capitalization of common names of animal species

Stale

 – The RfC is long since closed.

Hello WikiProject members and others. As part of a discussion at WikiProject Animals, a number of editors have indicated that the presentation of the current guidelines on the capitalization of common names of species is somewhat unclear.

We wish to clarify and confirm existing uncontroversial guidelines and conventions, and present them in a "quick-reference" table format, for inclusion into the guidelines for the capitalization of common names of species.

Please take a moment to visit the draft, and comment at talk. Your input is requested to determine whether or not this table is needed, and to ensure that it is done in the best way possible. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Organism capitalization synch

FYI

 – Pointer to related discussion.

I'm working to make sure that WP:Manual of Style#Animals, plants, and other organisms, WP:Naming conventions (capitalization)#Organisms, WP:Naming conventions (fauna)#Capitalisation of common names of species WP:WikiProject Tree of Life#Article titles, WP:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Animals, plants, and other organisms, WP:Naming conventions (flora)#Scientific versus common names, etc., are synched with regard to common name capitalization.

Please centralize discussion at WT:Manual of Style#Organism capitalization synch

— SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 07:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

After nearly two months of bickering at WT:MOS (with some spillover at WT:MOSCAPS at WT:BIRDS), the issue has settled down somewhat, though is bound for an RfC for further clarification. I've made some tweaks to get this page into better agreement with WP:MOS and WP:MOSCAPS. In the process I've also cleaned up a lot of wording which seemed to pretend that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy didn't exist (I checked, and the reason why is that it's been sitting in here gathering dust since long before that policy existed; similar wording that amounted to "wikiprojects can do anything they want, let chaos reign!" at MOS and elsewhere was deleted years ago as disruptive nonsense). I've also made various clarifications and wording improvements (e.g. the bullet point on IOC names not only was full of redundant chatter, it didn't even actually describe the practices of WP:BIRDS accurately). And the example on "drum" fish directly contradicted the advice it was supposed to be illustrating. And so on. Hopefully none of this will be controversial. If it is and you feel compelled to revert something, please do so carefully to isolate the particular issue you wish to raise, and open an actual discussion of the issue, per WP:BRD. It's insanely tedious to have to re-add every single fix and tweak after a WP:POINTy blanket revert of hours' or days' worth of edits, all of which had separate rationales. I've been careful to make different kinds of edits separately and to individually explain them. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 05:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Generally I agree that this is an improvement. There are a couple of points I think need fixing:

• The version before these edits recognized that there are differences in usage between different countries. I'm not arguing for the previous wording ("In a very few cases, a set of officially-established common names are recognised only within a country or a geographic region. Those common names may be capitalised according to local custom if reliable sources indicate that such capitalization is consistently used."), but the fact that there is an ENG:VAR issue here should not be hidden. Capitalization of English names is considerably more common in some countries than others, in both generalist and specialized sources. Whether this is relevant or not we can argue about, but this fact should be recognized.
• This sentence now stands on its own in a separate paragraph: "Do not apply such capitalization outside these categories." It's not absolutely clear what "categories" means here. If it means that within the same article some English names should be capitalized and some not depending on the "category" of organism, then I think this is against consensus – although there were a few contrary opinions, most of those who have discussed this specific issue in the past have wanted uniformity within an article. This sentence should either be removed, as it's not in the old version, or it should be clarified that it means articles outside these categories not names.

Peter coxhead (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

RFC – WP title decision practice

Over the past several months there has been contentious debate over aspects of WP:Article Titles policy. That contentiousness has led to efforts to improve the overall effectiveness of the policy and associated processes. An RFC entitled: Wikipedia talk:Article titles/RFC-Article title decision practice has been initiated to assess the communities’ understanding of our title decision making policy. As a project that has created or influenced subject specific naming conventions, participants in this project are encouraged to review and participate in the RFC.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Clearer progression of default names

I've endeavored to improve this guideline by making a cascading "rule of succession" that "degrades gracefully" much clearer, by removing the "if there is a most common name" wishy-washy wording and adding:

When what is the most common name in English, or the veracity of that most common name, is so disputed in reliable sources that it cannot be neutrally ascertained, prefer the common name most used by international zoological nomenclature authorities over regional ones. When no consensus can be reached on the most common name, use the scientific name.

The upshot of the edits' total effect is that WP:FAUNA now says to use the following in descending order of preference:

1. The most common name in English (and cites WP:COMMONNAME policy as why, at the very top of the guideline)
2. The common name most used by international authorities
3. The common name most used by regional authorities
4. The scientific name

I believe that this both describes widespread actual practice at Wikiepedia, and is obvious, sound advice that should be codified here to curtail frequent editwars over animal naming that break out any time the literature shows some kind of naming dispute off-wiki. We need to be insulated from random "let's move articles around" nonsense just because this organization here or that journal paper there suggest an alternative.

It does not in any way affect other naming considerations, like the several other reasons for something preferring scientific names. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 03:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

"international zoological nomenclature authorities" is not really the right description; "zoological nomenclature" would normally be taken to be the scientific nomenclature governed by the ICZN. (And, I can't resist adding, for consistency elsewhere you need to add to (2) and (3) ", but not in their orthography" otherwise it appears to support capitalization where the "international authorities" or the "regional authorities" use capitals.) Peter coxhead (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

What would you use instead of "international zoological nomenclature authorities"? — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 15:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I think I'd just use "international authorities" – "zoological" is clear from the context, but could be added; it's "nomenclature" that is the problem since this normally means "scientific nomenclature". Peter coxhead (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think international authorities then regional authorities is practice now. In my experience the most authoritive sources are used and they maybe international or regional. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 18:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

In line with that, I think the current text of the guideline is far too complicated. Instead, we could just say "If there is an unambiguous and well-established common name, use it; otherwise use the scientific name.". We may need some definition for "well-established" and explanation for "unambiguous", but not as much as there is now. Ucucha (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to explain exactly how you are going to define "well-established" and "unambiguous". I doubt that if done properly the result will be much different from now. One important issue is that a name may be "well-established" in one English-speaking country but not in another. (I'm sure I don't need to give an example, but as an English naturalist, "fox" is well-established and unambiguous, although clearly not world-wide.) Peter coxhead (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not proposing anything that changes the outcome of the guideline; I merely think its current text is overcomplicated. If a name is "unambiguous" in one country but not in another, it simply is not "unambiguous". Ucucha (talk) 06:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of simplifying if it doesn't alter the current advice and won't lead to yet more wiki-lawyering. Go ahead and make a proposal here. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

if the common name is ambiguous, use the scientific name

Seems to be different interpretation of what ambiguous is suppose to mean. It's intended meaning wants to be clarified. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 12:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Bump this as still issue. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Also would like clarification. Specifically, hobbyists want to call certain fishes one common name, while the scientific community uses another. If two parties are in disagreement, should it defer to the binomial nomenclature? Esoxid^t•contribs 18:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, no. There is never a one size fits all solution. Each case needs to be treated separately. Use an RfC or mediation if necessary, but it is better to come to an agreement than to force one way or the other. Apteva (talk) 11:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Right, the above two comments refer to a dispute in the choice of common name. This was my original interpretation but it got pointed out that its not the intention of the wording ambiguous. Ambiguous it seems to some editors at least means when the common name is ambiguous with other meanings. So for example a possible common name of of the turtle Sternotherus odoratus is stinkpot, but stinkpot is an ambiguous name being used also for a bird Southern Giant Petrel in which case Sternotherus odoratus defaults to it's scientific name. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 21:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I've attempted some re-writing; removing the word "ambiguous" (which can be misinterpreted) and substituting wording and an example from the fuller explanation above. I hope this is (a) clearer (b) not contentious. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. That does help a little although I think much of the issue is what establish editors already (mis)understand that spreads by interaction from editor to editor, for example at WikiProject talk pages. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 11:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Article titles: Monotypy of extant versus extinct taxa

Prior to 2010, the convention for handling article titles for monotypic genera was as follows:

• Extant taxa: Species
• Extinct taxa: Genus

An apparently undiscussed convention change in 2010 has stirred up a bit of inconsistency between the actual content of Wikipedia and the apparently encouraged convention, which states the article should always be written about the genus and not the species when the genus is monotypic.

I don't have a strong preference on this, but I do feel like this page should reflect conventions which are currently in practice, and hope through this discussion to promote the use this new convention (which would ideally include bot runs to revise articles) or else revise the guidelines to reflect the old convention which is still in use.

Please link to this discussion wherever you see fit. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I've noted this is a problem. I disagree with the existing text since 2010, but also the example before. In my view article title should match the article contents, not the genus title if the article content is about the species and not the species title if the article content is about the genus. I believe the change in 2010 was made in good faith to match an occurances of article with genus contents, but without realising if the reverse occured then it does not make sense. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

But in the case of monotypic genera what does it mean for the article to be about the genus and not the species and vice versa? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Quite a lot. The article title would be the name of the genus. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 10:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I think in most cases it is hard to tell the difference between using the species name and using the genus name; eg Crested Duck—how would you do that any differently if the guideline were different? Of the cases where you can, what is current practice? Lampocteis is an example of putting the article at the genus; Gregoria fenestrata is at the species. Looking at Category:Monotypic_animal_genera, most are at the genus, although I don't know what percentage of monospecific genera are in that category! To me, the current guideline as specified feels right—for monotypic taxa use the lower level taxon as the article title, except "stop" at genus. eg. Welwitschia. But I can't really make a good case for it, I guess, other than that it does appear to codify practice, which is something. Maybe we should just say to go with the common name? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

For well known animals it makes more sense to have species as the article. If one is interested in the Osprey I doubt one would start the search at the family or genus levels. Most people, I believe, are more interested to know about the species than the characteristics that define the genus. Of course, the single article could contain that information too. Dger (talk) 01:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Not to discount that, but common taxa usually have a common name for the article title; the only notable exceptions would be things like E. coli, T. rex, Velociraptor, etc. Redirects are quite useful here for making sure the the genus and species both land on the same page. I'll restate (hopefully a bit more clearly) below what our options are:

1. Restore the previous guidelines. There are two conventions currently in use:

   • Extant taxa in monotypic genera have taxoboxes focused at the species level and (if no common name) the article title is the species name. (See alligator snapping turtle, Carukia barnesi)
   • Extinct taxa in monotypic genera have taxoboxes focused at the genus level, indicating the type species in the taxobox, and the article title is the genus name. (See Rebellatrix)

   Costs:

   • Update the convention guidelines.

1. Adopt the convention proposed in 2010. All monotypic genera would have taxoboxes focused at the genus level, and (if no common name) the article title would be the genus name.

   Costs:

   • Notify relevant WikiProjects of the new convention.
   • Bots can be programmed to run through a good amount of articles to update them appropriately.

1. Alternate proposals?

Hopefully that makes a bit more sense than my initial paragraphs.

Oh, I thought we were just talking about article titles, now it sounds like you're focusing on taxoboxes. I don't think it's really an option to not have the taxobox go down to the species level, nobody has ever suggested such a thing as far as I am aware. Or maybe I'm missing the point. Can we go through some examples? Would Osprey change—either the title or taxobox or contents—at all depending on the outcome? (I think that's a good example of a page that would be the same no matter what the guideline here.) I suppose either Gregoria fenestrata should move to Gregoria (genus) OR Lampocteis should move to Lampocteis cruentiventer—but would the contents/taxobox of either article change depending on what we decide here? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm; maybe Gregoria isn't a great example; it looks like it is at Gregoria fenestrata in order to have a more "natural" disambiguation; there's already an article at Gregoria about something else. I can't find any cases of articles of monotypic genera where the title of the article is the scientific name of the species for some reason other than natural disambiguation. Does anyone have an example? If not, changing this would be a pretty extreme example of a guideline being prescriptive rather than descriptive. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Added examples to the first section; hope that helps illustrate this better. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok; how would alligator snapping turtle be any different if we decided to "focus on the genus"? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 10:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The article would be called Macrochelys and the opening sentence would be something like: Macrochelys is a genus of freshwater turtles. Such a change I would strongly oppose. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 10:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect the article title to change for animals with common names-- but I definitely see your point-- that does make the lead sentence awkward, which is probably why we have so far used the convention we have. Interestingly, the dinosaur articles somehow don't suffer from the awkwardness presented by the genus-centric convention, but probably since they have no common names. SunCreator, I think you've convinced me. (Not that I needed convincing, I was already biased in this direction!) Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I see the recent change or revert to 2010 wording but I doubt that the wording will help or make the guideline stable long term. I suspect User:Ucucha will be back to show examples or where the genus name is more sensible. Also anyone who gives a common name to a monotopic none lowest-ranked taxon are going to be mighty confused that the article name should according to the guideline be the lowest-ranked taxon, in practice this bit of the guideline would be ignored, but if it's going to be ignored why even cover this? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 12:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Good point, I'll have another go at that. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I've split it apart from the common names ordeal since it really addresses something deeper than the common name.[1] Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

That is certainly an improvement. It's raised something in my mind, that an 'article covers not one, but two taxa', so if the article covers only one taxon in its content this section of the guideline does not apply? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 11:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

That's correct. Of course, any time monotypy is involved, multiple taxa will be covered simultaneously like that. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Birds and bees

The sentence "Some wikiprojects have arrived at local consensus to always capitalise the common names of bird species (and subspecies) in ornithology articles, and to permit but not require upper-casing of species of dragonflies, and of moths and butterflies in articles on Odonata and Lepidoptera, respectively. Do not apply such capitalisation outside these categories" is not correct and is condescending in tone. Originally all animal species capitalized all words in the name, and it was pointed out that this was absurd, and whereas it may be (and is) correct for birds, it is not correct for bees. Another common exception, though is fish, another is cultivars. In the case of mammals, it is my understanding that the first word is capitalized (Grizzly bear), and that in textual usage, lower case is used. The sentence "Do not apply such capitalisation outside these categories" is not appropriate. No wikipedian likes to be told what to do. A better wording would be:

"Capitalization of species varies by discipline. Most use lower case common names (capitalized for article titles), such as "black bear", not Black bear, while within some disciplines, such as ornithology articles, the practice is to use capital letters (Spotted Owl, Great Blue Heron). In this case redirects are always added from the lower case, and only lower case names (except for proper nouns) should be used outside of field specific articles (use spotted owl in an article about old-growth forests, not Spotted Owl, and Spotted Owl in other ornithological articles)."

--Apteva (talk) 12:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

While I don't read the original as condescending, your welcome to change it and if anyone disagrees they can revert. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 13:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. Any suggestions for better wording are welcome. The article Barrhead, Alberta uses "Great Blue Heron", while Kenmore, Washington uses "great blue heron". Any ideas how to point this out? Apteva (talk) 13:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

You can forever find such anomalys on Wikipedia. Editors rarely read this guideline, or don't even know it exists, missing the detail like 'only lower case names (except for proper nouns) should be used outside of field specific articles' is a bit specific especially as there is little interest in general, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Animals/Draft capitalization guidelines. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 14:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. It was reverted with the factually erroneous statement "a specific name is not necessarily an adjective; in zoology (and, for that matter, botany), subspecies names are never capitalized)". It turns that that with trinomial there are in fact examples where "subspecies" are capitalized, and in binomial scientific nomenclature it is a completely factual statement that the genus is a proper noun and thus capitalized and the species, even if a proper noun, is an adjective and never capitalized. Oh well.... I am not getting into an edit war about this but the edit should have been corrected if it was inaccurate, not reverted, which accomplishes nothing, and having it reverted by someone who apparently does not know the facts is insulting. Apteva (talk) 03:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It is equally insulting to say that the other editor does not know the facts. Zoological nomenclature never capitalizes subspecies names; see Article 5 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. You cited domesticated flowers as an example where subspecies names are capitalized, but a) this is a guideline on fauna, so plants are irrelevant, and b) you may be confusing cultivar names with subspecies names. In addition, Article 11.9 of the ICZN states that a species-group name may be either an adjective or a noun. Ucucha (talk) 12:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I am misunderstanding but doesn't a subspecies in fauna always refer to a trinominal/trinomial nomenclature name, but the text in question was specifically about binomial naming. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a subspecies has a trinomial name; I'm not sure how that relates to the edit that we're discussing, though. The word "normally", which you added back, is wrong because zoological subspecies names are never capitalized (as I argue above); the other part of your edit is correct if perhaps overly verbose. Ucucha (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, cross-wires on reading the edit summary, the word 'normal' in regards to the trinomial is not required. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 19:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Apteva, there have been endless debates about the capitalization or not of common names, both here and in other WikiProjects. If you search through the archives you'll find page after page of discussion. I'm sure you meant well, but this is a topic best left alone; there is no consensus either way and little hope of finding one. I've restored the earlier wording; it's certainly not perfect but is accurate as to the current position, whereas your wording is not. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Monotypy

I have restored an earlier wording of the section on monotypy, since I do not believe that the new wording accurately reflects the wider consensus on this issue. It doesn't make sense to have separate practices for extant and extinct taxa, or to have separate practices for animals and plants (and other kingdoms). WP:TOL covers all taxa and is clear that monotypic taxa should be dealt with, where possible, under the genus title. Any desire to change this guideline should occur at WT:TOL, not here; this page should merely be re-iterating the principles given there. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the restored text is generally better. However, there are some issues which arise from the three sets of guidance at Wikipedia:TOL#Article titles, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora).

• There is a difference between fauna and flora: WP:PLANTS has a much stronger preference for the use of scientific names than other projects, not just in the wording of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) but in actual practice.
• Using the genus name for most extinct organisms arises from this part of Wikipedia:TOL#Article titles: "Not all species need have separate articles. ... As a general guideline, though, it's best to combine separate species into a single entry whenever it seems likely that there won't be enough text to make more than a short, unsatisfying stub otherwise." The limited fossil record for many species (e.g. very early Silurian/Devonian plants, which I've worked on) makes it unlikely that a whole article on a species will be worthwhile. I agree that extinct organisms shouldn't have a separate rule, as a category, but I do think it's worth cross-referencing the TOL guidance in the fauna and flora naming convention articles.
• As has been discussed elsewhere (Template_talk:Automatic taxobox#Speciesbox in genus articles), there's an issue about how to structure articles which are at the genus title when the genus is monospecific. I think the first sentence and the taxobox should target the genus in this case, but in many articles either or both of these target the species.

Peter coxhead (talk) 11:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the relevance of the fact that we often do not make separate articles for each species in a fossil genus. We are discussing the section on monotypy, and there's no reason to treat monotypic fossil and extant genera differently.

Another issue that may be worth adding to the guideline is disambiguation when the monotypic genus name is ambiguous. After some discussions (which I can dig up if required) I've been using the binomial in these cases (e.g., Ambondro mahabo, Afrasia djijidae). The example that was added to the guideline in favor of the "rule" that extant monotypic genera should be at the binomial, Bullockia maldonadoi, falls in the same category, since Bullockia is ambiguous. Ucucha (talk) 13:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Relevance of extant genera: yes, sorry, this doesn't belong under the current heading; it's a more general point about ensuring consistency among the article naming guidelines.

Disambiguation: this seems very sensible to me and avoids the artificiality of titles like "Ambondro (genus)". Peter coxhead (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Inter-kingdom homonyms

I'd like to see this guideline address how to handle cases where a scientific name is homonymous across different nomenclatural codes. Please go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Inter-kingdom homonyms for discussion. Plantdrew (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Example

From the page.

\\There are some rare instances where lower case and capitalised versions have different meanings."\\

Do we have some specific examples for this statement. --Shijualex (talk) 06:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Good question. When the convention of capitalizing vernacular names is used, it's easy to think of examples where in running text there is a difference (as in the example at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Birds: The phrase "in Australia there are many Common Starlings" indicates a large number of Sturnus vulgaris. In contrast, the phrase "in Australia there are many common starlings" indicates several different types of starling.) However, the general usage wouldn't be employed as an article title. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)