- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Closed as Nomination withdrawn. For the purposes of determining consensus, it further appeared that this was trending toward a keep anyway. Whether it needs a rename is another issue . Star Mississippi 23:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Ismene (moth)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Ismene (moth) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
According to http://www.pyraloidea.org/, which is recognised as an authority on the superfamily, the is an unnaccepted genus (sadly, I can't provide a url to the report, so please visit the site and search for Ismene). This website, which is recognised as an authority on Lepidoptera, gives Ismeme as a junior synonym to Bibasis, but this is a butterfly, not a moth, so this page is not suitable as a redirect. YorkshireExpat ( talk) 09:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 11:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Keep for the moment, but edit text to indicate that the genus isn't accepted. Presumably the moth Ismene pelusia does exist (since it was described), and we don't appear to have any other article on this moth, so if we delete this article, we're losing our sole record of a species. The situation appears to be: someone published a minor moth a very long time ago; a major authority hasn't accepted the nomenclature, but a less-major authority has listed it anyway (the ref in the article). Since we're a tertiary source we can simply summarise that situation and wait for the taxonomists to sort themselves out. Elemimele ( talk) 11:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 14:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The National History Museum says its a real Genus. https://www.nhm.ac.uk/our-science/data/butmoth/search/GenusDetails.dsml?NUMBER=14837.0 It mentions where to find a picture at https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/29156473#page/108/mode/1up Dream Focus 05:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- @
Dream Focus: Please look again at this. The Ismene you link to says it is a
junior homonym to Ismene Savigny, 1816, and a junior
synonym to Bibasis (which I pointed out in my rationale), which is a butterfly, not a moth. The picture you link to is also clearly a butterfly. The NHM does list Ismene as a moth
here, but states that the genus is unconfirmed, all of which takes us back to my original point. The question now is, should we retain the article when it is of an unconfirmed or unaccepted?
YorkshireExpat (
talk) 09:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Can the article be named "Ismene (butterfly or moth)" which seems accurate per this discussion, and explain within the page?
Randy Kryn (
talk) 20:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- @ Randy Kryn and Dream Focus: This doesn't seem to me to be a particularly reasonable thing to do. Given the localities of the two genera (the moth in Egypt, and the butterfly in Indomalaya) and the fact that the authorities are differnt, I reckon the naming was conincidental. Ismene is a character in Greek mythology with a few things named after her, so it's not a case of it being either a butterfly or a moth, just the name being used twice to describe different things (the name is also used for a plant genus, which is fine, botanists and zoologists can use the same name, but neither can use the same name twice, hence synonyms and homonyms). The moth is unconfirmed, and therefore the question is does it merit a page of it's own. I would argue not. The butterfly already has a page under the senior synonym (but the info could do with adding, something for me to do perhaps). YorkshireExpat ( talk) 23:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Can the article be named "Ismene (butterfly or moth)" which seems accurate per this discussion, and explain within the page?
Randy Kryn (
talk) 20:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- @
Dream Focus: Please look again at this. The Ismene you link to says it is a
junior homonym to Ismene Savigny, 1816, and a junior
synonym to Bibasis (which I pointed out in my rationale), which is a butterfly, not a moth. The picture you link to is also clearly a butterfly. The NHM does list Ismene as a moth
here, but states that the genus is unconfirmed, all of which takes us back to my original point. The question now is, should we retain the article when it is of an unconfirmed or unaccepted?
YorkshireExpat (
talk) 09:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete since the genus is unconfirmed. A reputable encyclopedia wouldn't have an article dedicated to "there might be a genus of moth called Ismene, or maybe people are getting it confused with the butterfly". A note on the existing page for the butterfly genus would suffice for this purpose. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)- Yes, if I'm interpreting it correctly, we have a perfectly respectable primary description of a new species (a sole member of a new genus), the moth, but its genus name has not been accepted, and the genus name clashes with another, completely separate described genus, the butterfly. As a result, there's a taxonomic dilemma that hasn't been resolved (presumably because the moth isn't sufficiently important for the taxonomists to have got round to sorting it out yet). I don't think it's appropriate to reduce the moth to a note in the article about the butterfly because the moth has nothing to do with it, beyond an accident of naming. This AfD already shows the danger of converting a mess-up of naming into a general misunderstanding about whether there's a single Ismene that might be a moth or a butterfly, or two different Ismenes. I don't think deletion is ideal, because the moth presumably exists, and we accept articles at species-level. It's just that currently its naming is a mess. This is an example of science-in-progress, it's not unusual for species to change names, come and go, merge into other groups, or get separated out; we can only describe the story as it is. Hence my original suggestion to keep with an explanation of the situation. Elemimele ( talk) 09:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Per MrsSnoozyTurtle. Whatever the issues are with the naming of the thing the references don't seem to be there to support an article about it anyway. In the meantime I think a good argument could be made that this is probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. I say create the article in a few years when the genus is actually confirmed and there's enough references to justify something that's not just a basic listing. If I was stretching things I could also say this should be deleted as a type of hoax article. Although, I don't think we need to go that far with it to justify deleting the article. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 11:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- According to Wikipedia's current state-of-the-art, which is unfortunately a policy that failed to gain full consensus and therefore leaves us floating in doubt, species are notable (see
WP:NSPECIES). This article is about a single species of moth, which is why I'm very reticent about deleting; in general there does seem to be a feeling that a species is an inherently notable thing (while varieties and subspecies are not). I think we're stretching a point to describe it as
WP:TOOSOON given that it was described 206 years ago, in 1816. I'm not going to defend Ismene (moth)'s existence to the death as I assume no one really cares about this moth, and there's not much to say about it, but I just want people aware that this seems to be removal of our entire record of a genuine species, not a spurious bit of fluff-clean-up.
Elemimele (
talk) 16:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- @ Elemimele: but the name is not valid, as required by WP:NSPECIES, because the genus is unconfirmed. YorkshireExpat ( talk) 17:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- According to Wikipedia's current state-of-the-art, which is unfortunately a policy that failed to gain full consensus and therefore leaves us floating in doubt, species are notable (see
WP:NSPECIES). This article is about a single species of moth, which is why I'm very reticent about deleting; in general there does seem to be a feeling that a species is an inherently notable thing (while varieties and subspecies are not). I think we're stretching a point to describe it as
WP:TOOSOON given that it was described 206 years ago, in 1816. I'm not going to defend Ismene (moth)'s existence to the death as I assume no one really cares about this moth, and there's not much to say about it, but I just want people aware that this seems to be removal of our entire record of a genuine species, not a spurious bit of fluff-clean-up.
Elemimele (
talk) 16:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ Bisby F.A., Roskov Y.R., Orrell T.M., Nicolson D., Paglinawan L.E., Bailly N., Kirk P.M., Bourgoin T., Baillargeon G., Ouvrard D. (red.) (2011). "Species 2000 & ITIS Catalogue of Life: 2011 Annual Checklist". Species 2000: Reading, UK. Ginkuhà 24 September 2012
- ^ LepIndex: The Global Lepidoptera Names Index. Beccaloni G.W., Scoble M.J., Robinson G.S. & Pitkin B., 2005-06-15
- I have not read these sources. I do believe they exist, FWIW. Simply bringing them to your attention.
7&6=thirteen (
☎) 18:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- I have not read, and do not have access to, these sources, so can't confirm or refute anything with these. However, Lepindex here says the genus is unconfirmed, and ITIS does not appear to have any listing for the species (which is not particularly unusual). YorkshireExpat ( talk) 18:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- I have not read these sources. I do believe they exist, FWIW. Simply bringing them to your attention.
7&6=thirteen (
☎) 18:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- The article's creator was not told about this AFD. I posted on their talk page to inform them of it and ask where their source is from. Their user page states they created 8,200 articles, I assume mostly with some sort of bot creating things like this. I'm curious where they got their information from. Dream Focus 13:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- @ Dream Focus: The creator seems to have been inactive for a couple of years. Also, references on this aren't terribly hard to find. There are plenty in the taxonbar. The question is which are the most relevant. The ones I give at the start of this are dedicated to Lepidopterology, as is Lepindex. ITIS is a data aggregator and less reliable. YorkshireExpat ( talk) 17:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep if this is a real genus (which seems in contention) then the article is a stub that needs to be expanded. Caleb Stanford ( talk) 02:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment to add some confusion to the discussion, here is
a bulletin of the
British Museum which points us to
Hypermnestra helios with an existing link there in the "Nomenclature" section. Ismene Nickerl, 1846 an invalid
junior homonym to Savigny's Ismene.
At least in 1907 there was no other published reference to Ismene pelusia. [1]. Savigny 1816 is Marie Jules César Savigny Mémoires sur les animaux sans vertèbres p. 34. fiveby( zero) 22:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Westwood, J. O. (1839). An introduction to the modern classification of insects; founded on the natural habits and corresponding organisation of the different families. Vol. 2. pp. 398–9. has some illustrations within a description of Pyralidae
- Should also look at Strigina and Lyndia. For Minyas the disambig redirects to Bombyx.
- Good work @ Fiveby:! On the first points, what you're finding are instances where other taxonomists have tried to use the name Ismene, but couldn't because it was already claimed by Savigny. Clearly, before the Internet, it was much harder to check if a name had already been used or not. The fact that Ismene was used isn't surprising as she is a figure in Greek mythology, and taxonomic names often use this as a source of inspiration. So, Nickerl couldn't reuse the name, but then it was found that the species he described was part of another genus, Hypermnestra, who is also a classical figure. None of this changes the fact that Savigny's Ismene has not been accepted.
- On your other findings
Strigina appears to be a junior synonym, which shouldn't have a page of it's own. I will redirect it accordingly like
Minyas (moth). Lyndia seems to ba a similar case to Ismene and should be deleted, but I missed this when I edited it myself -_-, so thanks.
YorkshireExpat (
talk) 10:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. I am surprised this situation does not arise more often, but maybe i am not searching the archives correctly. The closest precedent i can find is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coeloria elegans, but that coral was once recognized and here we have a monotypic genus and a 200 year old description of only head and mouth parts. @ Loopy30:, @ Robert McClenon:, any help? fiveby( zero) 13:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC) oops, @ Nick Moyes:. fiveby( zero) 14:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep if necessary ignoring any rules to the contrary, so that we have at least a stub on a species that has been documented, and all of the higher-level taxons to which it belongs. If there is an alternate name, we can worry about which is the primary, and have other names redirect. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep for reasons cited by User:Elemimele and User:Robert McClenon. And User:Dream Focus. WP:Verifiability is sufficient. Cf., WP:Truth. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 15:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
-
7&6=thirteen
Robert McClenon But that's the point, there is no verifiability here. The most reputable sources say that the thing isn't accepted. It is effectively imaginary. We don't have articles on imaginary species (apart from
Yetis and
Unicorns of course).
YorkshireExpat (
talk) 16:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- I think even a 200 year old partial description of a specimen collected 18 years prior and by a zoologist with failing eyesight is verifiable. But is a monotypic species inquirenda(?) stub (which will always be a stub) useful? I'd say no, as long as there are entries in Wikidata and Wikispecies, but would like to hear from more taxonomy geeks. The encyclopedic content and work should be in the
Savigny biography: works, named species, what happened to his collection and artwork?
fiveby(
zero) 17:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- @
Fiveby,
Dyanega,
Peter coxhead, and
Plantdrew: I am pinging some people who you may consider to be 'taxonomy geeks', and am hoping they are not too offended by that categorisation. They have discussed
lepidopterology with me before, and I would be happy to for their thoughts here.
YorkshireExpat (
talk) 16:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep There is indisputable evidence that Savigny named the genus, and that the name is valid. Yes, that it is incertae sedis does confound things. BUT - and this is important - a name that is incertae sedis is more grounded, so to speak, than a name that is a nomen dubium. Were I treating Wikipedia as a taxonomic index, I would include names in the former category but exclude names in the latter category. Why? Because incertae sedis means that we know there is an actual organism, and its name is accepted, and while we don't know where exactly it should be classified, we presume this is attainable. As such, the problem is strictly taxonomic, and could be resolved at some point. In this case, we know there's a moth, we know it's a pyralid in the broad sense, and the potential exists to definitively track down its identity. Should that happen, this article will either point to itself, or point to another article, if this proves to be a synonym of another taxon. A nomen dubium, on the other hand, means a name where we will never actually know what it refers to - i.e., we don't know whether we should accept its name - and as such, the problem is not only both taxonomic and nomenclatural, but there is no possibility of definitively tracking down its identity. Such an article would never point anywhere else, and has little meaning or relevance in and of itself - very much NOT notable. While Ismene is only marginally notable, that is not true of all names like it (especially among fossil taxa, some of which are quite famous), and I would argue that this and other articles like it should be kept as a matter of principle.
Dyanega (
talk) 20:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- @
Dyanega: Thanks for this. I'm not so worried about the fact that it is
incertae sedis; many pyralid genera are at different levels. However, could you shed any light on the reason for the genus being 'invalid' or 'unaccepted' in the refs I cite at the start of this thread, and what the ramifications of that would be? I was thinking I might the species elsewhere as a synonym of another crambid moth, but no luck.
YorkshireExpat (
talk) 21:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- The link a Pyraloidea.org just says "unrecognized taxon". I don't know what that's supposed to mean without details of their reasoning. Savigny provided a figure, even, so one is compelled to assume that the folks at Pyraloidea.org simply don't know what existing species that figure corresponds to. It's a puzzle, yes, but one that should be possible to answer. Would I bother to create an article in WP for such a species? Probably not, but once it has been created, it harms nothing to leave it in place; maybe it will inspire someone to seek a resolution.
Dyanega (
talk) 17:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- @ Dyanega: Thanks for the reply. In that case I think I must withdraw. YorkshireExpat ( talk) 20:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- The link a Pyraloidea.org just says "unrecognized taxon". I don't know what that's supposed to mean without details of their reasoning. Savigny provided a figure, even, so one is compelled to assume that the folks at Pyraloidea.org simply don't know what existing species that figure corresponds to. It's a puzzle, yes, but one that should be possible to answer. Would I bother to create an article in WP for such a species? Probably not, but once it has been created, it harms nothing to leave it in place; maybe it will inspire someone to seek a resolution.
Dyanega (
talk) 17:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- @
Dyanega: Thanks for this. I'm not so worried about the fact that it is
incertae sedis; many pyralid genera are at different levels. However, could you shed any light on the reason for the genus being 'invalid' or 'unaccepted' in the refs I cite at the start of this thread, and what the ramifications of that would be? I was thinking I might the species elsewhere as a synonym of another crambid moth, but no luck.
YorkshireExpat (
talk) 21:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep There is indisputable evidence that Savigny named the genus, and that the name is valid. Yes, that it is incertae sedis does confound things. BUT - and this is important - a name that is incertae sedis is more grounded, so to speak, than a name that is a nomen dubium. Were I treating Wikipedia as a taxonomic index, I would include names in the former category but exclude names in the latter category. Why? Because incertae sedis means that we know there is an actual organism, and its name is accepted, and while we don't know where exactly it should be classified, we presume this is attainable. As such, the problem is strictly taxonomic, and could be resolved at some point. In this case, we know there's a moth, we know it's a pyralid in the broad sense, and the potential exists to definitively track down its identity. Should that happen, this article will either point to itself, or point to another article, if this proves to be a synonym of another taxon. A nomen dubium, on the other hand, means a name where we will never actually know what it refers to - i.e., we don't know whether we should accept its name - and as such, the problem is not only both taxonomic and nomenclatural, but there is no possibility of definitively tracking down its identity. Such an article would never point anywhere else, and has little meaning or relevance in and of itself - very much NOT notable. While Ismene is only marginally notable, that is not true of all names like it (especially among fossil taxa, some of which are quite famous), and I would argue that this and other articles like it should be kept as a matter of principle.
Dyanega (
talk) 20:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- @
Fiveby,
Dyanega,
Peter coxhead, and
Plantdrew: I am pinging some people who you may consider to be 'taxonomy geeks', and am hoping they are not too offended by that categorisation. They have discussed
lepidopterology with me before, and I would be happy to for their thoughts here.
YorkshireExpat (
talk) 16:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- I think even a 200 year old partial description of a specimen collected 18 years prior and by a zoologist with failing eyesight is verifiable. But is a monotypic species inquirenda(?) stub (which will always be a stub) useful? I'd say no, as long as there are entries in Wikidata and Wikispecies, but would like to hear from more taxonomy geeks. The encyclopedic content and work should be in the
Savigny biography: works, named species, what happened to his collection and artwork?
fiveby(
zero) 17:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
-
7&6=thirteen
Robert McClenon But that's the point, there is no verifiability here. The most reputable sources say that the thing isn't accepted. It is effectively imaginary. We don't have articles on imaginary species (apart from
Yetis and
Unicorns of course).
YorkshireExpat (
talk) 16:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Closed as Nomination withdrawn. For the purposes of determining consensus, it further appeared that this was trending toward a keep anyway. Whether it needs a rename is another issue . Star Mississippi 23:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Ismene (moth)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Ismene (moth) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
According to http://www.pyraloidea.org/, which is recognised as an authority on the superfamily, the is an unnaccepted genus (sadly, I can't provide a url to the report, so please visit the site and search for Ismene). This website, which is recognised as an authority on Lepidoptera, gives Ismeme as a junior synonym to Bibasis, but this is a butterfly, not a moth, so this page is not suitable as a redirect. YorkshireExpat ( talk) 09:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 11:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Keep for the moment, but edit text to indicate that the genus isn't accepted. Presumably the moth Ismene pelusia does exist (since it was described), and we don't appear to have any other article on this moth, so if we delete this article, we're losing our sole record of a species. The situation appears to be: someone published a minor moth a very long time ago; a major authority hasn't accepted the nomenclature, but a less-major authority has listed it anyway (the ref in the article). Since we're a tertiary source we can simply summarise that situation and wait for the taxonomists to sort themselves out. Elemimele ( talk) 11:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 14:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The National History Museum says its a real Genus. https://www.nhm.ac.uk/our-science/data/butmoth/search/GenusDetails.dsml?NUMBER=14837.0 It mentions where to find a picture at https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/29156473#page/108/mode/1up Dream Focus 05:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- @
Dream Focus: Please look again at this. The Ismene you link to says it is a
junior homonym to Ismene Savigny, 1816, and a junior
synonym to Bibasis (which I pointed out in my rationale), which is a butterfly, not a moth. The picture you link to is also clearly a butterfly. The NHM does list Ismene as a moth
here, but states that the genus is unconfirmed, all of which takes us back to my original point. The question now is, should we retain the article when it is of an unconfirmed or unaccepted?
YorkshireExpat (
talk) 09:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Can the article be named "Ismene (butterfly or moth)" which seems accurate per this discussion, and explain within the page?
Randy Kryn (
talk) 20:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- @ Randy Kryn and Dream Focus: This doesn't seem to me to be a particularly reasonable thing to do. Given the localities of the two genera (the moth in Egypt, and the butterfly in Indomalaya) and the fact that the authorities are differnt, I reckon the naming was conincidental. Ismene is a character in Greek mythology with a few things named after her, so it's not a case of it being either a butterfly or a moth, just the name being used twice to describe different things (the name is also used for a plant genus, which is fine, botanists and zoologists can use the same name, but neither can use the same name twice, hence synonyms and homonyms). The moth is unconfirmed, and therefore the question is does it merit a page of it's own. I would argue not. The butterfly already has a page under the senior synonym (but the info could do with adding, something for me to do perhaps). YorkshireExpat ( talk) 23:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Can the article be named "Ismene (butterfly or moth)" which seems accurate per this discussion, and explain within the page?
Randy Kryn (
talk) 20:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- @
Dream Focus: Please look again at this. The Ismene you link to says it is a
junior homonym to Ismene Savigny, 1816, and a junior
synonym to Bibasis (which I pointed out in my rationale), which is a butterfly, not a moth. The picture you link to is also clearly a butterfly. The NHM does list Ismene as a moth
here, but states that the genus is unconfirmed, all of which takes us back to my original point. The question now is, should we retain the article when it is of an unconfirmed or unaccepted?
YorkshireExpat (
talk) 09:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete since the genus is unconfirmed. A reputable encyclopedia wouldn't have an article dedicated to "there might be a genus of moth called Ismene, or maybe people are getting it confused with the butterfly". A note on the existing page for the butterfly genus would suffice for this purpose. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)- Yes, if I'm interpreting it correctly, we have a perfectly respectable primary description of a new species (a sole member of a new genus), the moth, but its genus name has not been accepted, and the genus name clashes with another, completely separate described genus, the butterfly. As a result, there's a taxonomic dilemma that hasn't been resolved (presumably because the moth isn't sufficiently important for the taxonomists to have got round to sorting it out yet). I don't think it's appropriate to reduce the moth to a note in the article about the butterfly because the moth has nothing to do with it, beyond an accident of naming. This AfD already shows the danger of converting a mess-up of naming into a general misunderstanding about whether there's a single Ismene that might be a moth or a butterfly, or two different Ismenes. I don't think deletion is ideal, because the moth presumably exists, and we accept articles at species-level. It's just that currently its naming is a mess. This is an example of science-in-progress, it's not unusual for species to change names, come and go, merge into other groups, or get separated out; we can only describe the story as it is. Hence my original suggestion to keep with an explanation of the situation. Elemimele ( talk) 09:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Per MrsSnoozyTurtle. Whatever the issues are with the naming of the thing the references don't seem to be there to support an article about it anyway. In the meantime I think a good argument could be made that this is probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. I say create the article in a few years when the genus is actually confirmed and there's enough references to justify something that's not just a basic listing. If I was stretching things I could also say this should be deleted as a type of hoax article. Although, I don't think we need to go that far with it to justify deleting the article. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 11:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- According to Wikipedia's current state-of-the-art, which is unfortunately a policy that failed to gain full consensus and therefore leaves us floating in doubt, species are notable (see
WP:NSPECIES). This article is about a single species of moth, which is why I'm very reticent about deleting; in general there does seem to be a feeling that a species is an inherently notable thing (while varieties and subspecies are not). I think we're stretching a point to describe it as
WP:TOOSOON given that it was described 206 years ago, in 1816. I'm not going to defend Ismene (moth)'s existence to the death as I assume no one really cares about this moth, and there's not much to say about it, but I just want people aware that this seems to be removal of our entire record of a genuine species, not a spurious bit of fluff-clean-up.
Elemimele (
talk) 16:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- @ Elemimele: but the name is not valid, as required by WP:NSPECIES, because the genus is unconfirmed. YorkshireExpat ( talk) 17:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- According to Wikipedia's current state-of-the-art, which is unfortunately a policy that failed to gain full consensus and therefore leaves us floating in doubt, species are notable (see
WP:NSPECIES). This article is about a single species of moth, which is why I'm very reticent about deleting; in general there does seem to be a feeling that a species is an inherently notable thing (while varieties and subspecies are not). I think we're stretching a point to describe it as
WP:TOOSOON given that it was described 206 years ago, in 1816. I'm not going to defend Ismene (moth)'s existence to the death as I assume no one really cares about this moth, and there's not much to say about it, but I just want people aware that this seems to be removal of our entire record of a genuine species, not a spurious bit of fluff-clean-up.
Elemimele (
talk) 16:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ Bisby F.A., Roskov Y.R., Orrell T.M., Nicolson D., Paglinawan L.E., Bailly N., Kirk P.M., Bourgoin T., Baillargeon G., Ouvrard D. (red.) (2011). "Species 2000 & ITIS Catalogue of Life: 2011 Annual Checklist". Species 2000: Reading, UK. Ginkuhà 24 September 2012
- ^ LepIndex: The Global Lepidoptera Names Index. Beccaloni G.W., Scoble M.J., Robinson G.S. & Pitkin B., 2005-06-15
- I have not read these sources. I do believe they exist, FWIW. Simply bringing them to your attention.
7&6=thirteen (
☎) 18:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- I have not read, and do not have access to, these sources, so can't confirm or refute anything with these. However, Lepindex here says the genus is unconfirmed, and ITIS does not appear to have any listing for the species (which is not particularly unusual). YorkshireExpat ( talk) 18:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- I have not read these sources. I do believe they exist, FWIW. Simply bringing them to your attention.
7&6=thirteen (
☎) 18:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- The article's creator was not told about this AFD. I posted on their talk page to inform them of it and ask where their source is from. Their user page states they created 8,200 articles, I assume mostly with some sort of bot creating things like this. I'm curious where they got their information from. Dream Focus 13:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- @ Dream Focus: The creator seems to have been inactive for a couple of years. Also, references on this aren't terribly hard to find. There are plenty in the taxonbar. The question is which are the most relevant. The ones I give at the start of this are dedicated to Lepidopterology, as is Lepindex. ITIS is a data aggregator and less reliable. YorkshireExpat ( talk) 17:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep if this is a real genus (which seems in contention) then the article is a stub that needs to be expanded. Caleb Stanford ( talk) 02:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment to add some confusion to the discussion, here is
a bulletin of the
British Museum which points us to
Hypermnestra helios with an existing link there in the "Nomenclature" section. Ismene Nickerl, 1846 an invalid
junior homonym to Savigny's Ismene.
At least in 1907 there was no other published reference to Ismene pelusia. [1]. Savigny 1816 is Marie Jules César Savigny Mémoires sur les animaux sans vertèbres p. 34. fiveby( zero) 22:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Westwood, J. O. (1839). An introduction to the modern classification of insects; founded on the natural habits and corresponding organisation of the different families. Vol. 2. pp. 398–9. has some illustrations within a description of Pyralidae
- Should also look at Strigina and Lyndia. For Minyas the disambig redirects to Bombyx.
- Good work @ Fiveby:! On the first points, what you're finding are instances where other taxonomists have tried to use the name Ismene, but couldn't because it was already claimed by Savigny. Clearly, before the Internet, it was much harder to check if a name had already been used or not. The fact that Ismene was used isn't surprising as she is a figure in Greek mythology, and taxonomic names often use this as a source of inspiration. So, Nickerl couldn't reuse the name, but then it was found that the species he described was part of another genus, Hypermnestra, who is also a classical figure. None of this changes the fact that Savigny's Ismene has not been accepted.
- On your other findings
Strigina appears to be a junior synonym, which shouldn't have a page of it's own. I will redirect it accordingly like
Minyas (moth). Lyndia seems to ba a similar case to Ismene and should be deleted, but I missed this when I edited it myself -_-, so thanks.
YorkshireExpat (
talk) 10:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. I am surprised this situation does not arise more often, but maybe i am not searching the archives correctly. The closest precedent i can find is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coeloria elegans, but that coral was once recognized and here we have a monotypic genus and a 200 year old description of only head and mouth parts. @ Loopy30:, @ Robert McClenon:, any help? fiveby( zero) 13:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC) oops, @ Nick Moyes:. fiveby( zero) 14:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep if necessary ignoring any rules to the contrary, so that we have at least a stub on a species that has been documented, and all of the higher-level taxons to which it belongs. If there is an alternate name, we can worry about which is the primary, and have other names redirect. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep for reasons cited by User:Elemimele and User:Robert McClenon. And User:Dream Focus. WP:Verifiability is sufficient. Cf., WP:Truth. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 15:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
-
7&6=thirteen
Robert McClenon But that's the point, there is no verifiability here. The most reputable sources say that the thing isn't accepted. It is effectively imaginary. We don't have articles on imaginary species (apart from
Yetis and
Unicorns of course).
YorkshireExpat (
talk) 16:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- I think even a 200 year old partial description of a specimen collected 18 years prior and by a zoologist with failing eyesight is verifiable. But is a monotypic species inquirenda(?) stub (which will always be a stub) useful? I'd say no, as long as there are entries in Wikidata and Wikispecies, but would like to hear from more taxonomy geeks. The encyclopedic content and work should be in the
Savigny biography: works, named species, what happened to his collection and artwork?
fiveby(
zero) 17:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- @
Fiveby,
Dyanega,
Peter coxhead, and
Plantdrew: I am pinging some people who you may consider to be 'taxonomy geeks', and am hoping they are not too offended by that categorisation. They have discussed
lepidopterology with me before, and I would be happy to for their thoughts here.
YorkshireExpat (
talk) 16:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep There is indisputable evidence that Savigny named the genus, and that the name is valid. Yes, that it is incertae sedis does confound things. BUT - and this is important - a name that is incertae sedis is more grounded, so to speak, than a name that is a nomen dubium. Were I treating Wikipedia as a taxonomic index, I would include names in the former category but exclude names in the latter category. Why? Because incertae sedis means that we know there is an actual organism, and its name is accepted, and while we don't know where exactly it should be classified, we presume this is attainable. As such, the problem is strictly taxonomic, and could be resolved at some point. In this case, we know there's a moth, we know it's a pyralid in the broad sense, and the potential exists to definitively track down its identity. Should that happen, this article will either point to itself, or point to another article, if this proves to be a synonym of another taxon. A nomen dubium, on the other hand, means a name where we will never actually know what it refers to - i.e., we don't know whether we should accept its name - and as such, the problem is not only both taxonomic and nomenclatural, but there is no possibility of definitively tracking down its identity. Such an article would never point anywhere else, and has little meaning or relevance in and of itself - very much NOT notable. While Ismene is only marginally notable, that is not true of all names like it (especially among fossil taxa, some of which are quite famous), and I would argue that this and other articles like it should be kept as a matter of principle.
Dyanega (
talk) 20:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- @
Dyanega: Thanks for this. I'm not so worried about the fact that it is
incertae sedis; many pyralid genera are at different levels. However, could you shed any light on the reason for the genus being 'invalid' or 'unaccepted' in the refs I cite at the start of this thread, and what the ramifications of that would be? I was thinking I might the species elsewhere as a synonym of another crambid moth, but no luck.
YorkshireExpat (
talk) 21:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- The link a Pyraloidea.org just says "unrecognized taxon". I don't know what that's supposed to mean without details of their reasoning. Savigny provided a figure, even, so one is compelled to assume that the folks at Pyraloidea.org simply don't know what existing species that figure corresponds to. It's a puzzle, yes, but one that should be possible to answer. Would I bother to create an article in WP for such a species? Probably not, but once it has been created, it harms nothing to leave it in place; maybe it will inspire someone to seek a resolution.
Dyanega (
talk) 17:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- @ Dyanega: Thanks for the reply. In that case I think I must withdraw. YorkshireExpat ( talk) 20:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- The link a Pyraloidea.org just says "unrecognized taxon". I don't know what that's supposed to mean without details of their reasoning. Savigny provided a figure, even, so one is compelled to assume that the folks at Pyraloidea.org simply don't know what existing species that figure corresponds to. It's a puzzle, yes, but one that should be possible to answer. Would I bother to create an article in WP for such a species? Probably not, but once it has been created, it harms nothing to leave it in place; maybe it will inspire someone to seek a resolution.
Dyanega (
talk) 17:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- @
Dyanega: Thanks for this. I'm not so worried about the fact that it is
incertae sedis; many pyralid genera are at different levels. However, could you shed any light on the reason for the genus being 'invalid' or 'unaccepted' in the refs I cite at the start of this thread, and what the ramifications of that would be? I was thinking I might the species elsewhere as a synonym of another crambid moth, but no luck.
YorkshireExpat (
talk) 21:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep There is indisputable evidence that Savigny named the genus, and that the name is valid. Yes, that it is incertae sedis does confound things. BUT - and this is important - a name that is incertae sedis is more grounded, so to speak, than a name that is a nomen dubium. Were I treating Wikipedia as a taxonomic index, I would include names in the former category but exclude names in the latter category. Why? Because incertae sedis means that we know there is an actual organism, and its name is accepted, and while we don't know where exactly it should be classified, we presume this is attainable. As such, the problem is strictly taxonomic, and could be resolved at some point. In this case, we know there's a moth, we know it's a pyralid in the broad sense, and the potential exists to definitively track down its identity. Should that happen, this article will either point to itself, or point to another article, if this proves to be a synonym of another taxon. A nomen dubium, on the other hand, means a name where we will never actually know what it refers to - i.e., we don't know whether we should accept its name - and as such, the problem is not only both taxonomic and nomenclatural, but there is no possibility of definitively tracking down its identity. Such an article would never point anywhere else, and has little meaning or relevance in and of itself - very much NOT notable. While Ismene is only marginally notable, that is not true of all names like it (especially among fossil taxa, some of which are quite famous), and I would argue that this and other articles like it should be kept as a matter of principle.
Dyanega (
talk) 20:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- @
Fiveby,
Dyanega,
Peter coxhead, and
Plantdrew: I am pinging some people who you may consider to be 'taxonomy geeks', and am hoping they are not too offended by that categorisation. They have discussed
lepidopterology with me before, and I would be happy to for their thoughts here.
YorkshireExpat (
talk) 16:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- I think even a 200 year old partial description of a specimen collected 18 years prior and by a zoologist with failing eyesight is verifiable. But is a monotypic species inquirenda(?) stub (which will always be a stub) useful? I'd say no, as long as there are entries in Wikidata and Wikispecies, but would like to hear from more taxonomy geeks. The encyclopedic content and work should be in the
Savigny biography: works, named species, what happened to his collection and artwork?
fiveby(
zero) 17:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
-
7&6=thirteen
Robert McClenon But that's the point, there is no verifiability here. The most reputable sources say that the thing isn't accepted. It is effectively imaginary. We don't have articles on imaginary species (apart from
Yetis and
Unicorns of course).
YorkshireExpat (
talk) 16:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.