Talk:Calliostoma

message: Part of this article was based on the corresponding article in Powell A. W. B., New Zealand Mollusca, William Collins Publishers Ltd, Auckland, New Zealand 1979 , which is not compatibly licensed for Wikipedia. This article has been revised on this date as part of a large-scale project to remove infringement from these sources. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. (For background on this situation, please see the related administrator's noticeboard discussion and the cleanup task force subpage.) Thank you.  --Invertzoo (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: I have found a large number of articles about some species of Calliostoma that were previously created but were not included in the list. I have included them, but doing that I realized that many names are very similar (and also they have the same binomial authority). I mean: the previous created articles have very similar names to other names in the list, but there is no reference in the article to these names as synonyms. The online databases didn't help me very much to solve these questions.
A the moment, I have linked the original names in the list to the created articles with very similar names.
I think that an expert should be:
* Either correct the article title of those previously created articles
* or correct the binomial in the list
* and add the synonym wherever it was neccesary (and the binomial_authorities too).
The mentioned pairs of ambiguous names are:
Previously created article 	Previous name in the list
Calliostoma babelicum      	Calliostoma babelica
Calliostoma amamiense      	Calliostoma amamiensis
Calliostoma bisculptus     	Calliostoma bisculptum
Calliostoma cleopatra      	Calliostoma cleopathra
Calliostoma comptum        	Calliostoma comptus
Calliostoma consobrinum    	Calliostoma consobrina
Calliostoma fernandesi     	Calliostoma fernandezi
Calliostoma gualterianum   	Calliostoma gualterianus
Calliostoma hayamanus      	Calliostoma hayamanum
Calliostoma incertum       	Calliostoma incerta
Calliostoma jackelynae     	Calliostoma jacquelinae
Calliostoma leptophyma     	Calliostoma leptophymum
Calliostoma margaritissimum	Calliostoma margaritissimus
Calliostoma multiliratum   	Calliostoma multiliratus
Calliostoma opalinum       	Calliostoma opalinus
Calliostoma problematicum  	Calliostoma problematicus
Calliostoma shinagawense   	Calliostoma shinagawaensis
Calliostoma takaseanum     	Calliostoma takaseanus
Calliostoma tosaense       	Calliostoma tosaensis
Calliostoma tsuchijai      	Calliostoma tsuchiyai
Calliostoma vaubani        	Calliostoma vaubanii
Other articles, both already created, with very similar names:
Calliostoma belauense     	Calliostoma belauensis
Calliostoma madagascarense	Calliostoma madagascariensis
Calliostoma spectabile    	Calliostoma spectabilis
Flakinho (talk) 16:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: All species have to be referenced, especially in this complicated case. I will let generate the list of automatically created articles, then I will reference the rest of them and others will be deleted or marked with Template:fact. --Snek01 (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have checked them. Done. --Snek01 (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your work, Snek01. Flakinho (talk) 16:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I just wanted to say that these kinds of misspellings, or mistaken recollections, are very commonly encountered in lists of scientific names of organisms. Some of these misspellings arise because the person using the name misunderstands the gender of the genus name (thinking as in this case that an "-a" ending always implies a female genus name, when sometimes and "-a" ending is found in a neuter name). Other mistakes occur because the person writing the name does not understand that  the ending "-ensis" means found in the place mentioned in the first part of the species name. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synonyms and valid names