User:Dyanega/sandbox

This is the user sandbox of Dyanega. A user sandbox is a subpage of the user's user page. It serves as a testing spot and page development space for the user and is not an encyclopedia article. Create or edit your own sandbox here. Other sandboxes: Main sandbox | Template sandbox Finished writing a draft article? Are you ready to request review of it by an experienced editor for possible inclusion in Wikipedia? Submit your draft for review!

23.9.1. prevailing usage must be maintained when the following conditions are both met:

23.9.1.1. the senior synonym or homonym has not been used as a valid name after 1899, and

23.9.1.2. the junior synonym or homonym has been used for a particular taxon, as its presumed valid name, in at least 25 works, published by at least 10 authors in the immediately preceding 50 years and encompassing a span of not less than 10 years.

23.9.2. An author who discovers that both the conditions of 23.9.1 are met should cite the two names together and state explicitly that the younger name is valid, and that the action is taken in accordance with this Article; at the same time the author must give evidence that the conditions of Article 23.9.1.2 are met, and also state that, to his or her knowledge, the condition in Article 23.9.1.1 applies. From the date of publication of that act the younger name has precedence over the older name. When cited, the younger but valid name may be qualified by the term nomen protectum and the invalid, but older, name by the term nomen oblitum (see Glossary). In the case of subjective synonymy, whenever the names are not regarded as synonyms the older name may be used as valid.

Example. The valid name of a species formed by including the nominal taxa Aus xus Schmidt, 1940 and Aus wus Jones, 1800 in a single taxonomic species is Aus wus Jones, 1800. But if the conditions in Article 23.9.1.1 and 23.9.1.2 are met, then Aus xus Schmidt, 1940 becomes (unless the Commission rules otherwise) the valid name of that species. However, if the nominal taxa do refer to separate taxonomic species the names of these are Aus xus Schmidt, 1940 and Aus wus Jones, 1800. If, on the other hand, the two taxa are treated as subspecies of a single species then the names of these are Aus xus xus Schmidt, 1940 and Aus xus wus Jones, 1800 - not Aus wus xus Schmidt, 1940 and Aus wus wus Jones, 1800.

Recommendation 23A. If suppression desired. If in the opinion of an author suppression of the older name, rather than a change in the relative precedence of the two names involved, is desirable, in addition to taking action under Article 23.9.2 to maintain prevailing usage, the author should refer the case to the Commission with an appropriate recommendation for a ruling.

23.9.3. If the conditions of 23.9.1 are not met but nevertheless an author considers that the use of the older synonym or homonym would threaten stability or universality or cause confusion, and so wishes to maintain use of the younger synonym or homonym, he or she must refer the matter to the Commission for a ruling under the plenary power [Art. 81]. While the case is under consideration use of the junior name is to be maintained [Art. 82].

usage, prevailing, n. Of a name: that usage of the name which is adopted by at least a substantial majority of the most recent authors concerned with the relevant taxon, irrespective of how long ago their work was published.

31.2.2. Where the author of a species-group name did not indicate whether he or she regarded it as a noun or as an adjective, and where it may be regarded as either and the evidence of usage is not decisive, it is to be treated as a noun in apposition to the name of its genus (the original spelling is to be retained, with gender ending unchanged; see Article 34.2.1).

Example. Species-group names ending in -fer and -ger may be either nouns in apposition, or adjectives in the masculine gender. Cephenemyia phobifer (Clark) has often been used as C. phobifera, but the original binomen was Oestrus phobifer; since Oestrus is masculine, phobifer in that binomen may be either a masculine adjective or a noun in apposition; hence it is to be treated as a noun in apposition and not changed when combined with the feminine generic name Cephenemyia.

that usage of the name which is adopted by at least a substantial majority of the most recent authors concerned with the relevant taxon, irrespective of how long ago their work was published.

8.5. Works issued and distributed electronically

To be considered published, a work issued and distributed electronically must

8.5.1. have been issued after 2011,

8.5.2. state the date of publication in the work itself, and

8.5.3. be registered in the Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature (ZooBank) (see Article 78.2.4) and contain evidence in the work itself that such registration has occurred.

Examples. Evidence of registration is given by stating information that would be known only if the registration has occurred, such as the exact date of registration or the registration number assigned to the work or to a new name or nomenclatural act introduced in the work. A work issued as a PDF may contain the registration number as an embedded hyperlink. Even if the registration number is not visible in the normal viewing mode of the file or when the work is printed from the file, it is deemed to be cited in the work itself because the text of the hyperlink can easily be revealed using standard software for viewing PDFs.

8.5.3.1. The entry in the Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature must give the name and Internet address of an organization other than the publisher that is intended to permanently archive the work in a manner that preserves the content and layout, and is capable of doing so. This information is not required to appear in the work itself.

8.5.3.2. The entry in the Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature must give an ISBN for the work or an ISSN for the journal containing the work. The number is not required to appear in the work itself.

8.5.3.3. An error in stating the evidence of registration does not make a work unavailable, provided that the work can be unambiguously associated with a record created in the Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature before the work was published.

Examples. The following are examples of admissible errors: In preparing a manuscript an author accidentally deletes the final digit of the registration number. An author states the wrong date of registration forgetting that ZooBank uses Coordinated Universal Time rather than local time. An author registers two works that are in review for publication and accidentally uses the same ZooBank number in both published versions.

The following are examples of inadmissible errors: An author, in preparing a manuscript for publication, states that day's date for the registration date, intending to register it later that day but forgetting to do so. The author discovers the omission after the work is published and immediately registers it; because registration occurred after publication, the work is not available. A publisher discovers errors in a work and reissues it to correct those errors, but instead of registering the new edition, uses the original ZooBank number; the revised edition is not available because it was not separately registered. --- COMMENTING OUT FORMAT:

Format for collapsible synonym lists: "| synonyms = {{collapsible list|bullets = true" on first line, then "| Sternotomis variabilis" etc., then close brackets

Phrissomini

• Brimidiusx Breuning, 1936

Echthistatodes Gressitt, 1938 3 Morimopsini Phrissomidius Breuning, 1939 Morimopsini Centruroides Breuning, 1940 HOMONYM Morimopsini

• Pseudobrimusx Breuning, 1936

July 2018

Your recent editing history at xxx suggests that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Your edits demonstrate a fundamental disregard for the content of the sources being cited, and if you wish to offer contrary claims, then you should provide reliable sources for your contrary claims, rather than altering or deleting text that you feel is disputed. Instead of reverting after your edits have been undone, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors, again noting that there is the expectation that you have reliable sources to support views other than those presently summarized in the article. The best practice if you believe there is something problematic is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. If you persist in disruptive editing without discussion on this article, or others you have edited, such as xxx, note that admins may implement temporary page protection for those articles to prevent further disruption.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly, or act indefinitely without discussing your proposed edits. Dyanega (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)