"DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between April 24 2007 and May 04 2007.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarising the section you are replying to if necessary.

 Dispute on your reply on Case Closed naming 

After your closing of WP:RM discussion on Case Closed, saying, inter alia,  seemed to be disputing invalid argements that you mentioned in the closing arguments. Please answer him/her there.  TALK·CONTRIBS 

Just a little misunderstanding, I think. I've addressed the issue there. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.  

 List of mycologists 
Thanks for creating the list of mycologists.  The only thing that might be missing is the author abbreviation.  I have been linking a lot of those lately in the mushroom articles.  

I noticed that the botanists have everything set up pretty well - They have a list of botanists with abbreviations and also a template to make it easy to put a box in an article that gives the abbreviation info.

I copied it and changed a couple words - Now we have:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Mycologist

I tried it out on Gaston Guzman.  

There are still some red links, I haven't decided if I should reword the template or add the articles that are in red.

What do you think?

 

I can see the advantage of having author abbreviations included on the list of mycologists, and I can't see the harm of a separate  to parallel , although since mycology falls under the ICBN, all mycologists are, in some sense, botanists (and many were both, particularly in the early days), so the links in the template should lead to author citation (botany) and botanical name. We should not expect a separate article on ""author citation (mycology)"" to be created, since mycological naming is botanical naming, even if the organisms aren't plants.  

 Melolonthinae 

Thanks for fixing the errors I made in creating Melolonthinae. I took a leap creating it since I have zero practical knowledge of the subject. Hey this is totally random, but I figure you might know a thing or two about biology as a whole. Why does Canis lupus familiaris cover everything from a chihuahua to a great dane yet other animals with very minor variations (ex. Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdnerii, Oncorhynchus mykiss newberrii) are distinct subspecies?   C T 

The species is normally defined as a group of ""actually or potentially interbreeding populations"" (the biological species concept), which means that if two animals can interbreed to produce fertile offspring, they are considered conspecific. Subspecies are defined more vaguely, as divisions of a species which are not different enough to prevent interbreeding, but which have fairly constant differences. I don't know what the morphological difference between O. m. newberrii and O. m. gairdnerii is, but I am sure there is one. The unusual situation is Canis lupus familiaris, which has been subject to artificial selection, and so exhibits much more physical variation than is normal for taxa of such limited genetic isolation. I am not sure whether it is really valid to apply scientific names to domestic dogs and the like in the first place, although it is widely done; perhaps it represents the scientific name of the wild taxon from which the domesticated breeds are derived. By contrast, cultivated plants have their own system of nomenclature, separate from the ICBN.  

 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict 

Hello Stemonitis, you wrote that there has not been consensus with the name