Talk:Infraspecific name

message: I have been WP:BOLD and moved this page to "Infraspecific name (botany)" with "Infraspecific name" as a redirect; there seems to be strong support from those who understand the Code that "Ternary name" is not appropriate.
I've then re-written the article to include inline references to the ICBN.
* Checks on all of the material are desirable!
* I had a particular problem explaining the material in the subsection Infraspecific_name_(botany)#Legitimate_infraspecific_names. I'm confident that I understand what the Code means, but it's not easy to explain. So I'd welcome comments/revisions/whatever. I've somewhat glossed over the difference between different kinds of type, but I think this is acceptable for a Wikipedia article; if you don't agree, please say so.
* I can't find a source in the Code for the content of Infraspecific_name_(botany)#Specifying_authors, which was re-written from the unreferenced original. Is it correct? If so, what is the source?
I'm less sure now that this should be merged into Botanical nomenclature, but this is still an option. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Move and re-write

message: Is a Cultivar considered a form of Infraspecific name? (semantically it should be: "within species")?  Also, it seems "ifraspecific" is sometimes used in a more general sense than described here; i.e.: not being exclusive to botany. For instance, while using a taxonomic browser, I came across a species of mammal; under the species were a number of names under 'subspecies' and a name under 'infraspecific', and I wondered what the distinction was. ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Cultivar is not considered a taxonomic rank. Same with Plant variety (law) (colloquially "variety") which is different and should not be confused with the taxonomic rank Variety (botany) (colloquially also "variety", formally "varietas"). I have no objections to adding it as a See also link though.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

text: Also in terms of zoology, unlike botany, only the subspecies rank is recognized and regulated by the ICZN. And yes, the term is not exclusive to botany hence the parentheses in the title. The prefix infra- simply means "below" (not "within", which is intra-), such "infraspecific" simply means any rank/group below the species level. It's also used in terms like "infrageneric" (below genus level), "infrafamilial" (below family level), or "infraordinal" (below order level), etc. In zoology the term is usually "infrasubspecific", as the [informal] groups it refers to are those below the formally recognized subspecies level. Things like breeds and races.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 19:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm. I see your point now. Perhaps the page can be moved to Infraspecific rank (botany) instead? We may need to create a separate (perhaps a disambiguation) page for infraspecific name/infraspecific rank though.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 19:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how it should be handled, but there should be some sort of disambiguation. Perhaps at least add: For other uses... Infraspecific (disambiguation) ... which somehow I just managed to automagically create; and should probably be "speedily deleted"? ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It was an old incorrect redirect created last January which led to the page on Intraspecific, which is a very different concept. I have nominated it for deletion (and it has been deleted by User:RHaworth already). It doesn't stop us from creating a new page though, but I'm unsure as to how to proceed. Should we structure it as a disambiguation page or a broad-concept article? And I'm not sure I know enough to be writing such a page. I've invited other editors from the relevant wikiprojects to comment.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 22:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I'm the least informed on this issue, I'll let you folks decide what, if anything, should be done. Perhaps I'm the only one who was confused. ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

text: Some changes now made; a bit more work is needed (e.g. wikilinks, refs). Peter coxhead (talk) 11:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clarifying, ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 06:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultivar, etc. 

message: subspecies - recommended abbreviation: subsp. (but "ssp." is also in use)
There is no mention of "ssp" in Article 26, but the above wording implies that it tolerates (if not sanctions) the use of this short form.
Furthermore “ssp” is not a true abbreviation so (like Mr, Mrs etc) doesn't have a full stop.
BioImages2000 (talk) 11:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, the previous wording didn't imply to me that "ssp." rather than "subsp." was approved by the ICN, but the change made does make it clear that it isn't. Secondly, the rationale re a full stop is wrong. In those varieties of English which have dropped terminal full stops in contractions like "Mr" and "Mrs", the rationale is that the stop shows missing letters at the end. Thus "Prof." = "Professor" has a stop, "Dr" = "Doctor" doesn't. Since "ssp." is short for "subspecies" and has letters missing at the end (as well as internally) it has a full stop. See, e.g., : "subspecies (abbreviated to subsp. or occasionally ssp. but this can easily be confused with spp., the abbreviation for species plural, so is not recommended)". Peter coxhead (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: ssp

message: I have updated the references from the Melbourne code to the Shenzhen code.  The citation had previously been changed and the  template citation system was not working.  I have fixed that and it works (but I do not now list all the editors' names).  I checked the references to sections with the document, and made a couple of changes, but may have missed something.  Strobilomyces (talk) 16:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated references to the Shenzhen ICN of 2017 

message: In Index Fungorum unusual rank strings like "ß" are often found in basionyms.  This is legal and needs to be explained, and I have added a paragraph on this.  I am confused about whether the character is a Greek beta or a German sharp "s" - I think both occur.  Strobilomyces (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unusual connecting terms, such as ''Polyporus fomentarius'' β. ''applanatus''