Talk:Binomial nomenclature

	Evolutionary biology portal This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tree of Life Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree of life on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tree of LifeWikipedia:WikiProject Tree of LifeTemplate:WikiProject Tree of Lifetaxonomic articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biology Mid‑importance

	Biology portal Binomial nomenclature is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Plants High‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Animals High‑importance

Binomial nomenclature is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Animals To-do:

Here are some Open Tasks :

Copyedit:
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Improve: Photoperiodism, Tool use by non-human animals, Omnivore, Animal suicide, Sphaerium beckmani (a species in family Sphaeriidae),
Requests:
- Mammals:
- Invertebrates: Campocraspedon
- Fishes: Zaniolepis frenata
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Expand: Junqueira cow, Atka mackerel
Nominate and vote: Science collaboration of the month, Article Improvement Drive, WikiProject Animals Collaboration

Systems Mid‑importance

	Systems science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is not associated with a particular field. Fields are listed on the template page.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 10 sections are present.

Missing material?

One thing that seems to be missing from the article is what happens when a species is moved to another genus in which its specific name/epithet already exists. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Excellent reflection of underlying evolutionary patterns"

I've removed this recent addition to the lead, as it seems too narrow (and recent) a result for the lead: the paper addresses the concern that monotypic genera are an "artifact of human classification", saying that simulated phylogenies produce a similar distribution.

Binomial systematics is shown to be an excellent reflection of underlying evolutionary patterns.^[1]

References

^ Sigward, J. D.; Sutton, M. D.; Bennett, K. D. (2018). "How big is a genus? Towards a nomothetic systematics". Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 183 (2): 237252. doi:10.1093/zoolinnean/zlx059.

I'm not sure if there's a good place for the reference in this article. Opinions? Nitpicking polish (talk) 15:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our article is about binomial nomenclature, not about the distribution of the number of species in genera, which is a matter of how taxonomists use binomial nomenclature, not the nomenclature itself. So I don't see that the journal article is relevant. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

T. rex most well known

"Tyrannosaurus rex is probably the most widely known binomial.[1]" doesn't seem to be an important enough sentence to include in the first paragraph, and with only a single citation from a generation ago it may no longer even be correct. 199.212.55.162 (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a Google search for the exact phrase "T rex" (Google ignores punctuation) gave me about 66 million hits as opposed to about 32 million for "E coli" which seems to me another well known abbreviated binomial. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about Homo sapiens? It results in 72 million hits in a Google search, compared to only 9 million for the fully written Tyrannosaurus rex. Should we change the text here? DKMell (talk) 06:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Definetly should CheeseyHead (talk) 20:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Do the various naming codes adress how these names should be integrated into various languages? For example, I'm curious as to how the capitalization rules work in German. More interestingly, how should these names be written in languages which use non Latin scripts?

Is there an official international standard for "localization" to various languages? Or is officially it left up to local language authorities? Or do the codes not adress this issue officially at all?

If there is such a standard, it would be nice to mention it in the article. If not, it might be useful to add examples of how various languages adress this issue. JonathanHopeThisIsUnique (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific names are treated as literal strings of characters. They are always written in exactly the way prescribed in the nomenclature codes. So if you look in Chinese or Russian botanical sources, for example, you will see the scientific names in the Latin script, although there may also be a transcription and of course a vernacular name. See, as just one example, this extract. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image bug

That is not an image in the beginning, it's just text. Please change it to a proper image. 111.88.15.184 (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was caused by a bad edit. Now fixed. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hemihomonyms

The text in the "Problems" section says "At least 1241 instances of such binomial duplication occur", but the paper by Shipunov cited in support of this apparently shows only genus-level name duplication, not duplication of both genus and species names. Other sources, although less authoritative, have only a handful (< 10) of known cases. I think there's a mistake here, but maybe I'm missing something. DKMell (talk) 06:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DKMell: you are quite right; well spotted! I've changed the text to

"Because genus names are unique only within a nomenclature code, it is possible for two or more species to share the same genus name and even the same binomial if they occur in different kingdoms. At least 1240 instances of genus name duplication occur."

I think this is more accurate (and avoids some false precision). Peter coxhead (talk) 09:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Too much explanation

In the end of the opening there's a part that reads ""binomi'N'al" with an "N" before the "al", which is not a typographic error, meaning "two-name naming system"." I feel it's explaining it too much. It's clunky and hard to read. Can we get rid of it altogether? CheeseyHead (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clunky it is (I wrote that version), but for a reason. There is long history of the word "binominal" repeatedly getting removed from the lede. Allow me a few more days to research and elaborate. --Wotheina (talk) 08:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a reader, I learned from this article that both "binomial" and "binominal" are legitimate terms. I appreciate that, and believe this information is worth kept on the lede. It is notable for being used by ICZN and other literature.^[1] The problem is that "binominal" has often been removed:

Timeline of edits pertaining "binominal"

2007-05-31: First mention of alternative terms, signifying the "n" with underscore.

The system is also called '''binomi<u>n</u>al nomenclature''' (particularly in zoological circles) or '''binary nomenclature''' (particularly in botanical circles)

2011-06-14: Major rewrite of lede.

'''Binomial nomenclature''' (also called '''binomi<u>n</u>al nomenclature''' or '''binary nomenclature''') is a formal system of naming [[species]] of

2011-10-14: Removal of the underscore with edit summary "cl".
- 2011-10-14: Reverted to restore the underscore, with edit summary "I see no reason to remove the underline, which is helpful in distinguishing "binomial" and "binominal", otherwise easily misread"
2012-01-25: Removal of the underscore with edit summary "bold the subject please, no need to point out the n".
2012-01-25: Restoring the underscore with edit summary "underlining the "n" was originally a response to people not noticing that these were 2 different words, so I think it's worthwhile".

2013-02-20: "replaced n with the unicode character ṉ".

(also called '''binomiṉal nomenclature''' or '''binary nomenclature''')

2013-02-25: Replaced back to '''binominal nomenclature'''. Edit summary "rv to because underline is for visual contrast in this context only, not generally accepted orthography".
2014-05-27: (Case 1) Removed the underscored "n". No edit summary.
- 2014-05-27 : Self revert.
2017-07-30: Edit summary "removed spurious underline".
```
(also called '''binominal nomenclature''' or '''binary nomenclature''')
```
- 2017-07-30: Reverted to restore the underscore. Edit summary "not spurious; clarifies not "binomial""

2017-12-19: Unparethesized and added (note the letter N). Now it is

, also called '''binomi<u>n</u>al nomenclature''' (note the letter N) or '''binary nomenclature''',

2017-12-20: Removed the underscore and (note the letter N), with edit summary "WP doesn't do either of those things. See MOS:UNDERLINE, WP:SELFREF. Our readers do not generally have severe brain damage, so we don't write as if they did."
2017-12-20: Introduced the not-a-typo template with edit summary "This is the usual approach ({{sic|binominal|hide=y|reason=...}} would also work). We have zillions of articles that start in "'''Foobar''' also called '''foobnar'''..." form, and we don't underline like this in them. Rv. if you must, but this does work".
```
also called '''{{not a typo|binominal|reason=This is a well-known alternative spelling. Do not "correct" it.}} nomenclature''' or '''binary nomenclature''',
```

2017-12-20 and 2017-12-20 makes

also called '''{{not a typo|binominal|reason=This is the alternative name in the ICZN. Do not "correct" it.}} nomenclature''' or '''binary nomenclature''',

2023-03-29: Tried italicizing "n" to make it standout. Re-added citations right adjacent to the terms. Edit summary "Added extra deterrent against frequent removal of "binominal"". Now it is

'''{{not a typo|binomi''n''al|reason=This is the alternative name in the ICZN. Do not "correct" it.}} nomenclature'''<ref name="ICZN1999_Chap2Article5"/> ("two-name naming system")<ref name="ICZN1999_Glossary"/> or '''binary nomenclature'''

2023-07-02: Removed italicization with edit summary "The word binominal (close to the beginning of the page) has an italicized n, that seems unintentionally placed.". Sigh...

2023-07-03: Reworded inside the {{not a typo template to be more specific. Edit summary "Another attempt to deter frequent removal of "binominal"".

'''{{not a typo|binominal|reason="Binomi'n'al", with an "n" before the "al", is the alternative name in the ICZN. Do not "correct" it.}} nomenclature'''<ref name="ICZN1999_Chap2Article5"/> ("two-name naming system")<ref name="ICZN1999_Glossary"/> or '''binary nomenclature'''

2023-11-06 (Case 7): Zapped the whole phrase, together with the {{not a typo template and citations. Their edit summary: "Repetition on the term "binomial nomenclature"".
- 2023-11-06: Reverted to restore the phrase. Edit summary "Not a repetition, an alternate spelling (binomiNal)".

2023-11-06 (by User:Wotheina): The current clunky version. Moved the mentioning far away from the main term "binomial", as it is less important, and to attract less attention from hasty zappers. More explicitly stated the spelling difference in the main text, and added detail embedded comments for editors to understand why it is written this way. Now it becomes:

the system is also called '''{{not a typo|binominal|reason="Binomi'n'al", with an "n" before the "al", is the alternative name in the ICZN. Do not "correct" it.}} nomenclature''',<ref name="ICZN1999_Chap2Article5"/> "binomi'N'al" with an "N" before the "al", which is {{em|not}} a typographic error,<!--Keep the text explaining that "binomiNal" is NOT a typo or redundant, and do not hide it inside a footnote. Even with the big {{not a typo}} template, people just keep removing "binomiNal", such as in [[Special:Diff/1011109157]], [[Special:Diff/1147038384]], and [[Special:Diff/1183771307]]. Note that italicizing and underscoring the "N" both failed to prevent the removals. They got removed as "typos", instead.--> meaning "two-name naming system".<ref name="ICZN1999_Glossary"/>

2024-03-16: This Talk page proposal "Too much explanation".

Since 2011, as far as I could find, "binominal" was removed 7 times (excluding apparent graffiti). The "n" is particularly hard to recognize, requiring particular emphasis. Most of the time it was emphasized with an underscore. But this underscore too is a frequent target of removal (at least 9 times since 2007), on the grounds that "the underscored 'n' is not standard English and will mystify readers". A typical pattern goes

Someone adds (re-adds) "binominal" with an underscore.
A copy editor removes the underscore.
A novice mistakes it as redundant and zaps it.

To me, as a reader, the underscored version was helpful and worked well. I understood that it is a plain emphasis and did not mistake it as an "n" with a macron below or a hyperlink. Anyway, even the underscore is insufficient to deter removals. Of the 7 cases,

3 cases were when the word was without the underscore (Case 2,6,7).
4 cases were when the word had the underscore (Case 1,3,4,5). One soon self reverted (Case 1).

I suspect there are people who do not see that there are people who do not see the "n". This makes things even more difficult. All other ideas to date also failed, so the current version became clunky like designed by committee. Now the conditions we need to meet are:

Inform that "binominal" is also a legitimate term.
Prevent it mistakenly labeled or removed as "wrong spelling".
Prevent it mistakenly removed as "duplicates".
Robust against people who don't read citations, templates, and embedded comments.
Comply with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting.
Avoid WP:SELFREF such as "note ...", "see ..."
Not too clunky

--Wotheina (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ example: p429 of Cantino, Philip D. (1998). "Binomials, Hyphenated Uninomials, and Phylogenetic Nomenclature". Taxon (journal). 47 (2). Wiley: 425–429. doi:10.2307/1223773. JSTOR 1223773.. Paywalled, but accessible via Wikipedia Library [1] (very slow).

[1] Sigward, J. D.; Sutton, M. D.; Bennett, K. D. (2018). "How big is a genus? Towards a nomothetic systematics". Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 183 (2): 237252. doi:10.1093/zoolinnean/zlx059.

[2] xample: p429 of Cantino, Philip D. (1998). "Binomials, Hyphenated Uninomials, and Phylogenetic Nomenclature". Taxon (journal). 47 (2). Wiley: 425–429. doi:10.2307/1223773. JSTOR 1223773.. Paywalled, but accessible via Wikipedia Library [1] (very slow).

[1]

[1]