Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diura chronus

Diura chronus (edit | 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)

I don't think there's any reason an apparent synonym (even if accepted?) should have its own article. Taking to AfD instead of BLARing for other opinions. C F A 💬 21:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete This is a valid species See here - the databases seem to have been clarified - I will update with a speciesbox and mod. genus page. It may have been me that I wrote "apparent synonym" as a way of flagging the problem: these anomolies sometimes crop up. Brgds.Roy Bateman (talk) 22:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update - this appears to be a valid species - clarified on 2 databases - I can't find anything elsewhere at the moment. This should not be deleted in any case - better to redirect to genus page with explanation if it turns out not to be valid. Roy Bateman (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology, Organisms, and Australia. C F A 💬 21:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ctenomorpha marginipennis. This is a phasmid, and as per Phasmida Species File (to my knowledge the authoritative source on the order) is a synonym for C. marginipennis. Note that the GBIF entry cited above [1] references the same diagnosis as the one cited for the accepted stick insect classification (Gray, 1833) and also cites the PSF. Gray's text clearly places the species as a phasmid [2]; of the very few Scholar hits for the combination [3], not one concerns Plecoptera. I assume that Diura was found to be preoccupied by the stonefly genus and had to be vacated, but whatever - there seems to be no current weight to considering this a valid Plecoptera taxon. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Diura - which is a valid genus and there is an explanation of this, with a link to C. marginipennis. I think @Elmidae is correct, but [i] any unsuspecting reader would look to the genus name first and [ii] there is still the anomolous GBIF entry (usually quite reliable) out there. I will put the taxobar on the talk page for future reference. Roy Bateman (talk) 08:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Er... no, absolutely not. Diura chronus is an accepted synonym of Ctenomorpha marginipennis, and that is where it must redirect. We do not redirect Balaena gibbosa, a synonym for the gray whale Eschrichtius robustus, to the (existing but inapplicable) genus Balaena; we redirect it to the correct species article. GBIF itself cites the phasmid diagnosis. If anything, occurrence in the species list at the Diura page is a GBIF error, and certainly not something we ought to mirror. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This may be all be true and noone is contesting the fact that it is one (of several) synonyms for C. marginipennis, but evidently this also is a name which starts with "Diura". I think it is quite useful and important to point-out, especially for non-specialists, that these issues with nomenclature do occur ... Roy Bateman (talk) 11:30, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would not be served by redirecting the reader to a peripherally related page. Placing a note at Ctenomorpha marginipennis would be the way to do that - if there is good sourcing for details on a reassignment, which I so far have not seen. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]