Talk:Cyrtophloeba

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Insects Low‑importance

	Insects portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects 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.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Diptera Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Diptera, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of flies 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.DipteraWikipedia:WikiProject DipteraTemplate:WikiProject DipteraDiptera articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

On 9 February 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Cyrtophleba to Cyrtophloeba. The result of the discussion was moved.

Cyrtophloeba or Cyrtophleba?

For years this genus has swung between the two names. Both names are used in Rondani 1856 Dipterologiae Italicae Prodromus. Vol: I. Genera italica ordinis Dipterorum ordinatim disposita et distincta et in familias et stirpes aggregata. Cyrtophloeba on page 207, Cyrtophleba on page 68. There are no page precedences in ICZN. See O'Hara, James & Cerretti, Pierfilippo & Pape, Thomas & Evenhuis, Neal. (2011). Nomenclatural Studies Toward a World List of Diptera Genus-Group Names. Part II: Camillo Rondani. Zootaxa. 3141. 1-268. 10.11646/zootaxa.3141.1.1. Simuliid talk 19:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems odd to take the spelling from the index over the spelling in the main body of work, although perhaps that can be explained by the etymology (Greek?). O'Hara et al (2011) don't explain why they prefer Cyrtophloeba, but Pape and Evenhuis do in their Nomenclator at Systema Dipterorum, where Cyrtophloeba is treated as the current valid name and the entry for Cyrtophleba has a note that "Rondani (1859: 187) acted as First Reviser (Art. 24.2.4)". Rondani (1859) can be found at BHL.

So I think Cyrtophloeba is the correct scientific name. While it does seem that Cyrtophleba is has been used more often recently and could qualify as the WP:COMMONNAME, in English "oe" and "e" are used interchangeably, usually depending on which side of the Atlantic one resides. Systema Dipterorum is probably the best source for flies and the one used by CoL, so I suspect CoL and other sources will change their spelling. The Tachinid Recording Scheme uses Cyrtophloeba. — Jts1882 | talk 09:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the authoritative sources are in agreement, and cited, then why does the page keep getting reverted to the incorrect spelling? Dyanega (talk) 01:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because the matter is still being discussed. Perhaps we need to see who supports the move. — Jts1882 | talk 07:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting this. I'll update it to be a formal RM, though, so it gets picked up by the bots. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Simuliid: You should stop these reverts while the matter is being discussed as you risk a block for edit warring (see WP:3RR). That won't help you get the changes you want made. — Jts1882 | talk 07:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, copy-paste is not the correct way to move a page. If you can't move it properly, you must use a form of WP:RM. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: above it is stated: "O'Hara et al (2011) don't explain why they prefer Cyrtophloeba". This is in fact incorrect, here is what those authors have to say:

There are two original spellings of this genus-group name in Rondani (1856): Cyrtophleba (page 68) and Cyrtophloeba (page 207). By subsequent usage (ICZN Code Article 24.2.4), Rondani (1859b: 187) acted as First Reviser and selected Cyrtophloeba as the correct original spelling. Although Rondani (1859b) used two different spellings of this genus-group name, Cyrtophloeba (page 187) and Cyrthophlaeba (page 235), he satisfied Article 24.2.4 by using only one of the original (1856) spellings (Cyrtophloeba) as valid (Cyrthophlaeba was not one of the original spellings). The spelling Cyrtophleba is widely used, but as an incorrect original spelling it is neither eligible as a nomen protectum (ICZN Code Article 23.9.2) or for consideration under prevailing usage (ICZN Code Article 33.3.1). The correct original spelling Cyrtophloeba has been used as the correct original spelling after 1899 by, e.g., Rocha-e-Silva et al. (1999).

Tony 1212 (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 February 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrtophleba → Cyrtophloeba – Per Simuliid's rename attempt and discussion above. UtherSRG (talk) 12:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support following O'Hara et al (2011) and Systema Dipterorum, which explains the original author acted as first reviser in selecting Cyrtophloeba. — Jts1882 | talk 07:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resources using Cyrtophloeba: Systema Dipterorum (source used by CoL for beetles), Natural History Museum's UK Species Inventory (also see here), iSpot (run by Open University), BOLD systems, the Tachinid Recording Scheme, FinBIF master checklist, Plazi, LERC Wales' Biodiversity Information & Reporting Database, DNA barcodes for north European Tachinidae, a 2023 taxonomy paper (New combination and new synonym in Paedarium Aldrich, 1926 (Diptera: Tachinidae))

Oppose per the standard of waiting for multiple 3rd party sources to pick up the change in name/spelling. Correctness is only correct if others follow suit. If they don't, then the commonly used name stands. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support now that there are multiple 3rd party references found, I can support this. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Insects has been notified of this discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Diptera has been notified of this discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, this appears to be properly cited to "multiple, reliable sources" as per policy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per the ICZN, there is only one correct spelling. 138.23.68.28 (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Plenty of references. YorkshireExpat (talk) 11:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support: this is the correct spelling and maintining an incorrect one does no favors for anyone. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 16:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.