Disputatio:Heterocera
Pagina huic coniuncta e conversione paginae “Moth” sitūs en.wikipedia.org orta est.
Auctoribus illius paginae hic enumeratis gratias agimus.
Aquesta pàgina es basa en una traducció de „Moth“ a en.wikipedia.org. Podeu trobar la llista d'editors aquí.
Die angegliederte Seite basiert ursprünglich auf einer Übersetzung von „Moth“ aus en.wikipedia.org. Eine Liste der Autoren ist hier verfügbar.
The attached page originated as a translation from the page “Moth” on the site en.wikipedia.org.
We are grateful to the authors of that page as listed here.
We are grateful to the authors of that page as listed here.
La apuda paĝo origine baziĝas sur traduko de “Moth” el en.wikipedia.org. Listo de la ĝentilaj artikolverkintoj haveblas ĉi tie.
Capsa taxinomica[fontem recensere]
If this is a paraphyletic group, it doesn't have a place in Linnaean taxonomy, so putting a taxobox in it is misleading. So I'll remove the taxobox. If it's shown that this could be a Linnaean clade, then it could go straight back in, but the present article says that it isn't. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:10, 31 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
- Nobody doubts that moths are in a valid taxonomic ranking down to the level of the order (Lepidoptera), which is how the English wiki shows it. I'd have continued the English wiki's style by showing the level to be "(unranked)," but how does one make Vicipaedia's taxobox do that? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:33, 31 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
- Every imaginable grouping of animals and plants is "in a valid taxonomic ranking". The question is, is it synonymous with a valid taxonomic ranking? If yes, then we use the official Latin name for the taxon, and we give it a Capsa taxinomica.
- If not, it isn't part of Linnaean taxonomy: we'd want to give sources for the meaning we apply to our chosen Latin pagename, and we wouldn't give it a Capsa taxinomica: it would mislead readers to do so, because it isn't a taxon. Unless I'm mistaken, that is the present case.
- Unranked is different again. An unranked taxon is one that has been properly defined in Linnaean terms, but hasn't been given, and perhaps can't be given, a Linnaean rank. E.g. Avialae. I think I explained how to do these in answer to a previous comment of yours. Unless I'm mistaken it isn't relevant here, but I'll find my answer (which you might very easily have missed :) and put it in the documentation at Formula:Capsa taxinomica. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:38, 3 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
- That answer of mine is at Disputatio:Archaeopteryx. If you had missed it, you might still want to respond to the last part (or of course to any other part!)
- I will soon rephrase it and put it at Formula:Capsa taxinomica. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:49, 3 Februarii 2020 (UTC)