« Discussion:Odonates du Monde » : différence entre les versions

De Histoires Naturelles
← Modification précédenteModification suivante →
mAucun résumé des modifications
mAucun résumé des modifications
Ligne 1 : Ligne 1 :
''Nomina nuda'' chez Hagen (1861), notamment pour des espèces néarctiques : prise en compte de tels noms dans la WOL (Odonata Central)
Yesterday I made two steps: '''(1)''' that of checking the consistency of the main names given on the [[IUCN Red List]] and their correct synchronization with the WOL. The IUCN presents 4080 species, of which 3592 are perfectly consistent with those of the WOL, 378 have the same species name but not exactly the same descriptors (errors of dates, parentheses, commas or more complex). Finally 110 species do not synchronize with the WOL and in this case a more precise examination will be necessary.<br>
'''(2)''' I also checked the consistency between the WOL and its XLS version for the main / valid names (not for synonyms), and compared these names with my notes. I discovered about thirty cases to correct in a more or less complex way.


L'ensemble ou l'essentiel d'une série de taxononymes sont indiqués par Garrison & von Ellenrieder (2019) ainsi que dans les éditions antérieures de ce travail sur les noms d'Odonates du Néarctique, d'abord sous la mention Unav. (= Unavailable), ce qui signifie qu'ile ne sont pas valides, utilement corrigé avec la mention plus officielle ''nomen nudum'' dans l'édition la plus récente, de 2019.<br>
Two main difficulties concern the follow-up and the management of the WOL :
J'ai rendu compte de cette difficulté dans la WOL (nouvelle version sur ''Odonata Central'' ; la version initiale de l'Université Puget coordonnée par D.Paulson, ayant renoncé à rendre compte des ''nomina nuda'' n'est pas concernée) à J.Abbott et D.Paulson (C.Deliry ''in litt.'' du 15 juillet 2023), avec pour réponse de J.Abbott : ''"My goal with TaxonWorks has always been to have a place where someone could look up any name that they run across (valid or otherwise) and see where it currently stands. As a result, I conscioucly have kept nomen nudums in the list. They aren’t labeled as such on the WOL and that is an issue though. I need to look into the best way to do that... so this is very helpful."'', ce qui signifie (traduction libre) : ''"Mon objectif avec TaxonWorks a toujours été de disposer d'un endroit où quelqu'un pourrait consulter n'importe quel nom qu'il rencontre (valide ou non) et voir où il se situe actuellement. C'est pourquoi j'ai délibérément conservé les ''nomina nuda'' dans la liste. Ils ne sont pas étiquetés comme tels sur le WOL et c'est un problème. Il faut que j'étudie la meilleure façon de le faire... c'est donc très utile."''.
'''(1)''' the synchronization between the online version and the XLS version. I think that a method of copy-paste of the XLS version on the online HTML page should solve this difficulty.<br>
----
'''(2)''' regular updates and the difficulty to highlight the details of these updates. Several proposals have been made by others to solve this issue. It will be necessary to move forward on this one and '''find the best solution'''.<br>
{{G&vE2019}}
As a first step, I '''propose''' to put aside synonyms and concentrate my remarks on the main / valid names of the species. These are propositions...
{{Hagen1861}}
* We have on the WOL ''[[Acanthagrion chicomendesi]]'' as a good species but on XLS it is done as synonym of ''[[Acanthagrion apicale]]''. The first solution seems correct<ref>Finalement la synonymie a été conservée sur la [[WOL]] [2024].</ref>.
*  Same thing for ''[[Acanthagrion hartei]]'' good species on the WOL but synonym of ''[[Acanthagrion obsoletum]]'' on XLS. The first solution seems correct<ref>Finalement la synonymie a été conservée sur la [[WOL]] [2024].</ref>.
* We have simply ''[[Anax selysii]]'' Förster, 1900. The exact Schegel’s name is ''[[Libellula selysii]]'', this is not an exact homonym then the name is not preoccupied. ''[[Libellula selysii]]'' Schlegel, 1849 is a synonym of ''[[Anax guttatus]]''.
* On XLS correct the authors for ''[[Argia acridens]]'' Garrison & von Ellenrieder, 2018.
* ''[[Calopteryx angustipennis]]'' (Hagen ''in'' Selys, 1853) is correct on the WOL but to complete on XLS version.
* ''[[Chlorocypha jejuna]]'' (Karsch, 1898) is correct on the WOL but without bracket and coma to add on XLS.
* Stay only with ''[[Dasythemis venosa]]'' (Burmeister, 1839) / ''[[Libellula venosa]]'' Burmeister, 1839. As proposed by R.W.Garrison, de Haan could have participed but is not the descriptor.
* ''[[Euthore terminalis]]'' is correct on the WOL but need a first bracket on XLS version.
* I think that the correct form is van der Weele and not Van der Weele for ''[[Indolestes risi]]'' / ''[[Lestes risi]]''. van is generaly with a minuscule in netherland I think.
* Stay only with ''[[Orthetrum pruinosum]]'' (Burmeister, 1839) / ''[[Libellula pruinosa]]'' Burmeister, 1839. Hagenbach should not be the descriptor.
* ''[[Palaiargia tydecksjuerging]]'' Orr, Kalkman & Richards, 2014 is not perfect on XLS version.
* As other cases we have ''[[Procordulia smithii]]'' (White ''in'' White & Gardiner Butler, 1846) / ''[[Cordulia smithii]]'' White ''in'' White & Gardiner Butler, 1846
** {{W&GB1846}}
* We have as other cases ''[[Sympetrum pallipes]]'' (Hagen, 1874 ''in'' Hayden, 1874) / ''[[Diplax pallipes]]'' Hagen ''in'' Hayden, 1874 [To confirm ?]. We can interpret Hayden as a director of a « journal » and not as the author of a principal work ?
** {{Hagen1874}}
* ''[[Uropetala carovei]]'' is yet describe in 1843 ''in'' [{{Dieffenbach1843}}] by White. We have finally ''[[Uropetala carovei]]'' (White ''in'' Dieffenbach, 1843) / ''Petalura carovei'' White ''in'' Dieffenbach, 1843.
* Complete on XLS version ''[[Zygonyx luctifera]]'' Selys, 1869.
* I think that we need to strike the [[minor synonym]] ''[[Libellula rufa]]'' Müller, 1767 for ''[[Aeshna grandis]]'' : this is quite right, but this name is done under ''[[Libellula quadrifasciata]]'' Müller, 1767 as a proposed name for a possible species. This resolve the problem of ''[[Rhodothemis rufa]]'' (Rambur, 1842) / ''[[Libellula rufa]]'' Rambur, 1842 which seems without that preoccupied. It is not the case !
* We have ''[[Triacanthagyna obscuripennis]]'' (Blanchard ''in'' d'Orbigny, 1846) / ''[[Aeschna obscuripennis]]'' Blanchard ''in'' d'Orbigny, 1846 as other cases.
** {{Blanchard1846}}
* I get further six more cases but I want to study them more, generally problems of dates : ''[[Nesoxenia lineage]]'' (Selys, 1879), ''[[Phyllocycla brasilia]]'' Belle 1988, ''[[Polythore batesi]]'' Selys, 1869, ''[[Rhinocypha ogasawarensis]]'' Oguma, 1913 (but 3 publications of this name the same year), ''[[Sympecma paedisca]]'' Brauer ''in'' Fedstchenko, 1877 (need perhaps a publication !)<ref>A traiter (''com.'' 20 octobre 2024)</ref>, ''[[Synthemis macrostigma]]'' Hagen ''in'' Selys, 1871 (I must verify the descriptor first)<ref>A traiter (''com.'' 20 octobre 2024)</ref>.
'''No more things...'''

Version du 21 avril 2025 à 12:24

Yesterday I made two steps: (1) that of checking the consistency of the main names given on the IUCN Red List and their correct synchronization with the WOL. The IUCN presents 4080 species, of which 3592 are perfectly consistent with those of the WOL, 378 have the same species name but not exactly the same descriptors (errors of dates, parentheses, commas or more complex). Finally 110 species do not synchronize with the WOL and in this case a more precise examination will be necessary.
(2) I also checked the consistency between the WOL and its XLS version for the main / valid names (not for synonyms), and compared these names with my notes. I discovered about thirty cases to correct in a more or less complex way.

Two main difficulties concern the follow-up and the management of the WOL : (1) the synchronization between the online version and the XLS version. I think that a method of copy-paste of the XLS version on the online HTML page should solve this difficulty.
(2) regular updates and the difficulty to highlight the details of these updates. Several proposals have been made by others to solve this issue. It will be necessary to move forward on this one and find the best solution.
As a first step, I propose to put aside synonyms and concentrate my remarks on the main / valid names of the species. These are propositions...

No more things...

  1. ↑ Finalement la synonymie a été conservée sur la WOL [2024].
  2. ↑ Finalement la synonymie a été conservée sur la WOL [2024].
  3. ↑ A traiter (com. 20 octobre 2024)
  4. ↑ A traiter (com. 20 octobre 2024)
Récupérée de "https://deliry.com/site/index.php?title=Discussion:Odonates_du_Monde&oldid=2387"