Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Drafting the fossil question

[edit]

This is based on the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)/Archive 1#Fossil taxa and other comments. We appear to have three options.

What should we advise for genera that have only fossil species?
Say nothing Treat all species the same Merge fossil species up to genus
  • No advice in this guideline.
  • Usually, all species will get separate articles.
  • Usual rules about merging articles by consensus apply.
  • Usually, if a genus has only fossil species, all of them will be merged up to the genus.
  • Usually, if a genus has both fossil and extant species, all of the species will get separate articles. However, editors may choose to merge up fossil species and split off only extant species.
  • Usual rules about splitting long articles apply. Splits generally happen only if two or more species are worth splitting out.
Examples for which editors would decide individually about all merge/split options: Examples of ordinary result, unless editors form a consensus to do the opposite:
  • For the Tyrannosaurus genus, all species could be split to separate articles.
  • For the Ginkgo genus, each species would be split to separate articles.
 Examples of ordinary result, unless editors form a consensus to do the opposite:
  • For the Tyrannosaurus genus, all species would be merged into the genus article.
  • For the Ginkgo genus, all extant and fossil species would be merged into the genus article.
Possible wording: Possible wording:
  • Change sentence from In general, all extant species that are accepted... to say In general, all extant and fossil species that are accepted...
 Possible wording:
  • Separate section at the end of the guideline.
  • See text below.

Possible text for third option

[edit]

(This is too long to shove in the table, so I'm putting it here. —User:WhatamIdoing)

Fossil species

If all species in a genus are known only from fossils, then the species are not presumed to be notable and should be merged to the article about the genus.  However, some extinct species in extinct genera, such as the Woolly mammoth, qualify for separate, stand-alone articles under the Wikipedia:General notability guideline. If two or more species in a fossil-only genus are especially well-described, then those well-described species may be split for size reasons, with less extensively described species remain merged to the genus; however, when only a single fossil species qualifies for splitting, then a split is not recommended.

If some species in a genus are known only from fossils and others are still extant or are extinctions in modern history (becoming extinct after about 1500 CE, such as the Dodo bird), then all species in that genus should be treated equally, which means that the extinct species is also presumed notable.  An example of a genus with some extant and some extinct species is the Metasequoia genus of redwood trees.

(Now back to the ordinary content.)

Discussion

[edit]

What have I got wrong so far? What's missing? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the usual practice when there is a genus with fossil species and a single extant species is to have an article for the extant species and the genus. However, if editors aren't making a specific effort to consult paleontological literature, the fossil species often get overlooked. Since bird articles use the "official" vernacular name as the title for species, genera with a single extant species were often created as redirects ca. 2005-2007, and have only been given articles in the last few years (see Category:Bird genera with one living species). Plantdrew (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About the multispecific genus with a single extant species: in the prior discussion here with A Cynical Idealist and Larrayal, I thought we had agreed that a genus with four species – fossil1 + fossil2 + fossil3 + extant1 – usually resulted in a single article on the genus, with voluntary/consensus-based exceptions to split out particularly well known ones like Ginkgo biloba. Do you think that would normally result in separate articles on Genus and Extant1 instead? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably a reasonable default, yes. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So would this mean that Tremarctos floridanus (extinct) and Spectacled bear (Tremarctos ornatus, extant) should be merged into Tremarctos? The genus and floridanus articles are short, so size isn't a problem, and neither species is "famous". Donald Albury 21:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this suggests that those would get merged up. However, (a) Consensus! and (b) I think the Spectacled bear, if not technically a case of Charismatic megafauna, is close enough (maybe a case of "animals that appear in children's edutainment television shows") that I'd expect editors to prefer splitting them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken! Donald Albury 23:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly, this discussion had to the contrary pointed out that species of extant animals automatically meet WP:NOTABILITY, and that by consequence they should systematically have their own article if they aren't monotypic. As a corollary, it would be weird to discuss fossil species in their article, so creating articles of extinct species of extant genera should be fair game. Articles on extinct species of extinct genera are contentious tho.
So in a situation where there is Tremarctos, T. floridanus and T. ornatus, it should be assumed that :
T. ornatus meets WP:NOTABILITY on the basis of being an extant species ;
Tremarctos meets WP:NOTABILITY on the basis of being an extant and not monotypical genus ;
and T. floridanus meets WP:NOTABILITY on the basis of being an extinct species of a non-monotypical extant genus. Larrayal (talk) 12:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a majority paleontology editor who concentrates on "non-charismatic" taxa (plants and insects), I usually go with an approach of all species talked about at the genus IF the genus is also extinct. If the genus is extant, I will always create a separate article for the fossil taxon, as the geology, chronology, known elements, repository, paleoecology, etc are all highly distinct features of the fossil only and provide enough information to generate an A-B level article. I would NOT support merging of fossil species into extant genera articles. Additionally since Tremarctos is not monotypic it is not beholden to wp:monotypic guidelines, so the extant and extinct species are all considerable as species level notable.--Kevmin § 15:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point with Tremarctos is not that it's monotypic, but that there's only two species. However, you're right: Since one of those two is extant, then my comment above is wrong: It wouldn't get merged up. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Monotypic taxons

[edit]

A monotypic taxon is a taxonomy group with only one member, such as a genus that has only one species in it. Examples of monotypic genera include the Beluga whale and the platypus. The rule appears to be:

"In the case of a monotypic genus (i.e., there is only one known species in the genus, counting both fossil and extant species), it is usual to merge the lone species article into the genus article."

Should we add this sentence to the guideline? It could be put in the third paragraph, which currently says only "Consider making appropriate redirects for synonyms and non-notable organisms."


WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MONOTYPICFLORA might be relevant here (to make sure we don't conflict). – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a little more nuanced than that, but I think something along those lines should be added. The nuance is that bird and mammal articles (and some other vertebrates and very little of any other organisms) use vernacular name titles for species, so the monotypic genus redirects to the species article at the vernacular name title. Where scientific name titles are used, the species redirects to the genus. There is some inconsistency to that (i.e. genus redirects to species), but overall species redirect to genus is the usual practice (and there is also an explicit exception in WP:MONOTYPICFLORA and WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA to use the species title if the genus name is ambiguous with another topic on Wikipedia). Plantdrew (talk) 20:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be enough to add something like See WP:MONOTYPICFLORA and WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA for advice on how to name the article? (Otherwise, we should plan a short ==Monotypic taxons== section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eewilson, @Plantdrew, anyone else: Does this work?
"In the case of a monotypic genus (i.e., there is only one known species in the genus, counting both fossil and extant species), it is usual to merge the lone species article into the genus article. See WP:MONOTYPICFLORA and WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA for advice on how to name these articles." WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Plantdrew (talk) 03:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are two aspects to monotypic guidelines. Firstly, there is locating the article at the genus name if there is no common name, which is the part most widely applicable. The second aspect, on merging, I get the impression mostly comes up when there is taxonomic revision and the articles in question are poorly developed. That said, this seems to be about naming rather than notability? CMD (talk) 04:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The part this guideline cares about is the bit that says "it is usual to merge". If it's too confusing to deal with "merge the lone species to the genus, except if there's a common name, in which case merge the genus into the lone species", we could re-write it to be vaguer. Perhaps "it is usual to merge the species and genus into a single article", with no hint about whether one merges "up" or "down"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a decent idea, maybe "In the case of a monotypic genus, the species and genus are covered in a single article. See WP:MONOTYPICFLORA and WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA for more advice." Probably no need to mention monotypic families etc., rare enough cases. I went and had a look yesterday and we do have the monotypic Toxoplasma gondii not in line, but the rest I checked were. CMD (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is how I understand that we do it and has been my experience. The paragraph you wrote covers it. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 04:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFC monotypic genera

[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a consensus to add the proposed text. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we add this text:

In the case of a monotypic genus, the species and genus are covered in a single article. See WP:MONOTYPICFLORA and WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA for more advice.

to the lead of this notability guideline? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merging up in this case is the long-standing community practice, and I think it should be documented here. I'm inclined to add it to the very end of the lead.
For those who are struggling to remember how this works, when you get down to the end of King Philip Came Over For Great Spaghetti, sometimes there is only one "spaghetti noodle" (species) in a given genus. The community has long said that it makes more sense to have a single article about the Platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) than to have one article about Ornithorhynchus, that says the platypus is the only one of them plus a separate article at Ornithorhynchus anatinus that says the platypus is the only Ornithorhynchus ever found. So we merge the two into a single article. Of course, Wikipedia:Consensus is king and can overrule this general rule, but I'm not aware of any exceptions or any desire for exceptions.
(Apologies to any who believe an RFC is overkill for this change.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why are prokaryotes held to a higher standard?

[edit]

Merely existing as a eukaryote is enough to be notable, but not for a prokaryote? Why is this? Seems a bit biased towards our own kind. Haplodiploid75 (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that gene flow between species makes it more difficult to distinguish species among prokaryotes than is so in eukaryotes.[1] Donald Albury 15:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the wording in this guideline could use some improvement. A basic point for both eukaryotes and prokaryotes is that we're not wanting to have articles for species names that are regarded as synonyms.
For prokaryotes, the rules for establishing a species name are more stringent than for eukaryotes; the names must be published in one single journal (IJSEM), there must be a living cultured type, and the type must be deposited in multiple institutions in at least two different countries. Eukaryote names can be published anywhere, types don't need to be maintained alive, and the holotype is going to be held by a single institute (it is considered good practice to have a type series with multiple specimens deposited in multiple institutions, but it is not requirement).
Many prokaryotes have been identified as "existing", but fail to meet one of the requirements for establishing a species name. Most frequently, this because we can't figure out how to maintain a living culture for a type (Candidatus status for prokaryotes essentially means that a species "exists" but can't be cultured). Sometimes an "existing" prokaryote fails one of the other requirements; the next most frequent problem is a name being published somewhere besides IJSEM. There is a database (LPSN) for prokaryotes that includes Candidatus taxa, as well as names that have other problems. Databases for eukaryotes are much less likely to include names that fail to meet the (less stringent) requirements to be established than LPSN is. On the other hand, Wikipedia has many more articles for Candidatus prokaryotes than it does for eukaryotes that don't have a formal name. Plantdrew (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Bobay, Louis-Marie (2020), Tettelin, Hervé; Medini, Duccio (eds.), "The Prokaryotic Species Concept and Challenges", The Pangenome: Diversity, Dynamics and Evolution of Genomes, Cham (CH): Springer, ISBN 978-3-030-38280-3, PMID 32633914, retrieved 2025-03-26
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(species)&oldid=1282876856"