Diskusjon:Hagedroneflue

message: According to ICZN Opinion 2153, the correct name for this species is Eristalis horticola De Geer, 1776. The complete story, including links to relevant sources, can be found in the English article Eristalis. Wikiklaas (diskusjon) 9. jan. 2018 kl. 21:18 (CET)
replies: text: The complete story was not really very clear in the article Eristalis where it is discussed if eristalis is feminin or not and it says «As of 2006, Eristalis is officially a word of feminine gender.». This does not solve the question of horticola or lineata being correct. In the English WP twin article it says: «The name horticola is in some doubt and an ICZN decision is required.». Our article states that «Eristalis lineata» previously was known as «Eristalis horticola». We need to check sources before a move is decided or rejected. --ツツDyveldi☯ prat  ✉ post 9. jan. 2018 kl. 22:07 (CET)
replies: text: :I'm sorry. That's completely my fault. Because I wrote a chapter in the Dutch article on Eristalis horticola, explaining the nomenclatural history, which was solved in ICZN Opinion 2153, and later on copied parts of a similar chapter, but on the gender of Eristalis, solved in the same ICZN Opinion, to the English article on Eristalis, I forgot that the part on the correct names for those three species was not in the English page on Eristalis. Opinion 2153 is not only about the gender of Eristalis but also about the status of the three names Eristalis arbustorum, E. nemorum and E. horticola. In order to shed some light, I translated the chapter on the name of Eristalis horticola, so it can now be read in English here. Anyone who, after 2006, states "the name Eristalis horticola is in some doubt and an ICZN decision is required", can only do so when not aware of Opinion 2153. In short: Eristalis lineata is not an accepted name for this species. Wikiklaas (diskusjon) 10. jan. 2018 kl. 00:40 (CET)
replies: text: ::Thanks a lot. I'll take a look at this tomorrow. Have been looking at your sources and some others. Read first, then write and see what happens, i.e. solve the problem.

text: ::-- By the way do you have access til M.P. van Veen. 2004. Hoverflies of Northwest Europe. Identification keys to the Syrphidae.? I'm interested in fig. 328 and a key in the book listing Eristalis lineata and/or Eristalis horticola. I may have found some interesting information about it concerning our subject. Have a good night. --ツツDyveldi☯ prat  ✉ post 10. jan. 2018 kl. 04:32 (CET)
replies: text: :::Right now, I have no access to the book, but I just placed an order to buy it, so I expect I will be able to contact you on this in the near future. I saw you have your e-mail enabled, so I could send you a scan of the figure, and the relevant part of the key. Please feel free to contact me on my Dutch userpage if you think it is taking too long, so I won't forget. Cheers, Wikiklaas (diskusjon) 10. jan. 2018 kl. 14:27 (CET)
replies: text: ::::Thanks. I just ordered the book myself. It will probably arrive in a couple of weeks thought. The reason I asked is that I probably found the source for our article stating that «Eristalis lineata» previously was known as «Eristalis horticola». I found a 2005 review of the book and the reviewer uses «Eristalis horticola» in an article he wrote in 1999 so this is possible a mistake in the review. Our article has no inline citations and only two in a not specified list of sources.ツツDyveldi☯ prat  ✉ post 10. jan. 2018 kl. 18:43 (CET)
replies: text: :::::The complete story on the names Eristalis horticola and E. lineata can be found in Case 3259, under point 8 (p. 243). The names are considered synonyms, the latter being a junior one. Eristalis horticola has been in use for over two centuries, until Thompson & Pont (1994) decided to place the name in the synonymy of Eristalis arbustorum. It may be interesting to note that Thompson is of North American origin (see here). Had he been a European, he would certainly have thought of other possibilities to clarify the nomenclatural inconsistencies, because he would have been used to the name Eristalis horticola, and would have realised that his "solution" to change a two centuries old name for a very common species was not realy desirable, to say the least. As stated in Case 3259, several authors followed Thompson's choice. They were of course free to do so until Opinion 2153 was published, in which Eristalis horticola was placed on the Official List, with a neotype. This means that, unless at some point the neotype would appear to be conspecific with another type, of an older name, the name Eristalis horticola has to be used for this species.

text: :::::A similar kind of decision was published for the combination Eristalis nemorum and E. interrupta in the same Opinion. In that case, E. nemorum is the compulsory name. And since this is a name published by Linnaeus in 1758, there are very few names left that could possibly compete with it (E. arbustorum, E. intricaria, E. oestracea and E. tenax are the most probable, though at the same time very unlikely candidates). Wikiklaas (diskusjon) 11. jan. 2018 kl. 00:03 (CET)
replies: text: ::::::Thanks a lot for your information and very useful links to good sources. I'll start with reading before I try to do something similar to what you have done in the English article, i.e. a scientific name («vitenskapelig navn»)-section, then change the lead and finally move the article. I'll have to read first though to make sure I understand the sources properly and be certain i chose the correct wording in Norwegian. I'll probably find someone more used to little insects to voice their opinion just to make sure the text is all right. ツツDyveldi☯ prat  ✉ post 11. jan. 2018 kl. 19:30 (CET)
replies: text: :::::::I corrected the scientific names of the two species in all Wikipedia's because keeping the names Eristalis lineata and E. interrupta is an outright violation of the rules (the ICZN Code in combination with the Opinions). After publication of Opinion 2153 there is just no justification for using those two names proposed by Thompson. I was not able to make the necessary corrections in the Norwegian articles because I had no page mover rights, so I had to ask for it. For some reason, I was granted those rights now, so I moved the pages to their Norwegian names (engdroneflue and hagedroneflue), adding the proper scientific names, moving the other ones to the synonymy, adding the proper references, and adjusting some redirects.

text: :::::::This is really not rocket science. It's just a matter of appreciating the meaning and impact of an Opinion, published by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. It's the highest order rule in zoological nomenclature. The Opinions are meant to override rules as set out in the already important International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Apart from renaming the articles, and switching the correct and outdated names, I did nothing, so I'll leave it up to you to give the full story. Cheers, Wikiklaas (diskusjon) 11. jan. 2018 kl. 22:35 (CET)
thread_title:  Move