E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Scientia dubia[fontem recensere]

I was about to create a category for the author, and noticed that on other wikis this author is credited with the name "Tunicata", not "Urochordata". Is our claim correct against the others? Maybe that could be verified. Thanks. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:22, 18 Maii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All science is dubious, in the sense that interpretations and their applications change. Many taxinomical names are in dispute. In general, one should of course prefer whatever determination the English wiki has made, but the Spanish wiki sometimes has useful additional taxinomic data. IacobusAmor 13:45, 18 Maii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as we are often reminded on the founder's authority, "Wikipedia is not a reliable source". I generally trust ITIS until I find something better. ITIS says that the valid name is Tunicata Lamarck, 1816 (incidentally the German wiki agrees); and that a synonym (invalid) is Urochordata. ITIS does not give an authority for Urochordata, but Google sources suggest Urochordata Balfour, 1881. So I'd be inclined to move to Tunicata, of course with a redirect from Urochordata. Would you disapprove? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:03, 18 Maii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ask the creator of the page, anonymous editor Isn't that the guy from Guadalajara? Maybe his facts are as shaky as his grammar. He attributes the name Urochordata to Giribet et al. 2000, but that's the source that Wikipedia cites as the authority for the name Tunicata. Curious! IacobusAmor 19:55, 18 Maii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't notice that! I recognised your handiwork, evidently transforming his original. OK, unless any other information appears, I'll move the page and cite ITIS. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:34, 18 Maii 2011 (UTC)[reply]