# Talk:Eoscorpius

As I alluded to in the notes (without explicitly stating to avoid OR), it appears that the genus name Eoscorpius was erroneously applied to a fish half a century after it was given to the scorpion. I've already reached out to some taxonomic authorities, but if anyone else could help me get in touch with an expert to address the issue, I'd be very appreciative. Anonymous 21:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm no taxonomic authority, nor an expert of any kind, but I don't see this being a problem. The older taxon name should get priority, I believe. Cremastra (u — c) 19:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
The problem arises from the fact that no alternative name exists for the fish genus and the Paleobiology Database seems to be confused by listing its single species among scorpions. Since Wikipedia is built on what reliable sources say rather than original research and no reliable sources seemed to have noticed the issue, I'm forced to discuss them alongside one another in the article. Anonymous 19:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I think that's PaleoDB being silly. Given that no alternative name has been given, I guess it's been deemed all right to have two genera of the same name (recent example of the fish being discussed), so I'm pretty sure it can be safely omitted. Cremastra (u — c) 19:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
For example, Iris (mantis) and Iris (plant) share a genus name. Cremastra (u — c) 19:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
My understanding is that sharing names across kingdoms is permissible, but not within. Here's what one of our articles has to say about it: [3] Anonymous 20:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
All right, you're correct. :) Cremastra (u — c) 20:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
The older name has priority. If the fish genus is to be recognized, it will need to have a replacement name published. The thing is, genus names have historically (and continue to be) pretty siloed. Taxonomists studying fishes pre-internet and pre-taxonomic databases weren't likely to have resources for genus names already used for scorpions (or any other non-fish animals) at their fingertips.
Taxonomic databases and the internet are helping to uncover homonyms across disparate subfields of taxonomy, but it can still take awhile for a necessary replacement name to be published once somebody is aware of the homonymy (I have notes on one of my userpages on 13 genus disambiguation pages (e.g. Navicella) on Wikipedia where Wikipedia has articles for two same-named genera both governed by the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi and plants where a relevant database for algae, fungi or plants says the junior homonym is accepted without taking note of the senior homonym in another branch of "botany"). There is a taxonomic problem in these cases that needs to be remedied by a replacement name for the junior homonym, but I wouldn't really call it an error in the databases (more of an oversight than an error)
PaleoDB is more prone to outright errors than most other taxonomic databases. The scorpion Eoscorpius species on PaleoDB are sourced to Dunlop et al. "A summary list of fossil spiders and their relatives" (available here). Use Dunlop for the species list, not PaleoDB (in general, go for sources cited by PaleoDB if they are recent, not PaleoDB itself).
@An anonymous username, not my real name:, note that parentheses around a taxonomic authority normally have a meaning, and are not just a stylistic preference. Parentheses indicate that a species was first described in a different genus than the one in which it was currently placed (this is mentioned briefly at Author citation (zoology)). PaleoDB ignores this convention and doesn't use parentheses at all. In Dunlop, E. distinctus and E. pulcher have authorities in parentheses, and the other species don't have parentheses.
If you are reaching out to experts off of Wikipedia, I'd suggest contacting PaleoDB and letting them know they need a record for the fish genus. And contact one of the authors on the publication Cremastra linked; they may not be interested in publishing a replacement name for the fish genus themselves, but are likely to know somebody who would be (I see Harry Fierstine passed away recently, but Gary Takeuchi appears to still be active).
Two of the three links to this article intend the fish genus. Plantdrew (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I will get started on that. I already contacted PaleoDB a few days ago, but they haven't replied. Also, I had no idea about the parentheses, thank you! Anonymous 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
@An anonymous username, not my real name @Cremastra @Plantdrew: Quickly checking in Google Scolar for Eoscorpius primaevus, it turns out the the fish genus Eoscorpius Jordan & Gilbert 1919 does in fact have an existing replacement name: Aneoscorpius White & Moy-Thomas, 1940, first used in [4] and last mentioned in a 1991 article written in German [5]. Unfortunately these are also the only two results in Google Scholar for Aneoscorpius, but there we are. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
@Monster Iestyn, what should the course of action be from here? I had already contacted some paleoichthyology specialists on the advice of Dr. Thomas R. Holtz, but I guess I'll need to inform them that a name does actually exist. While it looks like my hopes of having made a scientific discovery are over, that fact remains that this new genus name is more obscure than the invalid name. I suppose the objective now is to get this name more widely recognized. Anonymous 16:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
@An anonymous username, not my real name Sorry for the delay! Beyond contacting relevant specialists which you say you're already doing, I don't really know what else you should be doing to be honest. Monster Iestyn (talk) 02:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)