I see that you have reverted my change of Cornu aspersum aspersa to Cornu aspersum aspersum. The reason that it has to be aspersum is that under the rules of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature the gender of the species and subspecies must agree with the gender of the genus name (See Article 31.2). Helix is feminine, so it is Helix aspersa and Helix aspersa aspersa and Helix aspersa maxima. However, once we consider that this species should be in the genus Cornu, which is neuter, then the names change to Cornu aspersum aspersum and Cornu aspersum maximum.
I also have concerns about Cornu aspersum sensu stricto being a synonym of Cornu aspersum aspersum. Sensu stricto means in the restricted sense, so it would make sense to write this if someone had separated Cornu aspersum maximum as a separate species = Cornu maximum. Cornu aspersum aspersum would then become Cornu aspersum, and one might add s.s. to distinguish it from Cornu aspersum s.l., which would include the form maximum. However, I am not aware of anyone formally splitting off maximum into its own species (maybe you can update me), so I don't think that C. aspersum s.s. is a meaningful term in zoological nomenclature. Perhaps it has been used informally by non-scientists, but then one might indicate that in some other way than with "syn.". Can you provide an example of it being used?
Hi Jmchutchinson (talk. Thankyou for sharing your idea about what appears to be a mutual interest. Obviously, you are more familiar with the latin spelling, so I am not arguing with that. However, the changes of Cornu aspersum aspersum to Cornu aspersum aspersa and Cornu aspersum maximum to Cornu aspersum maxima is based on what I usually find in literature on snails. For example, see the CABI datasheet on Cornu aspersum. I suppose that the classic Latin spelling does not apply for scientific nomenclature. I therefore would prefer to stick to my suggested change, as it is the common naming.
As for Cornu aspersum sensu stricto, it is apparently not a universally agreed naming (see again given link), and I am okay with taking it out, if you prefer so on that ground. as I merely added it for sake of encyclopedic completeness.
As a final note, just to make sure we are on the same page: you are aware that the Cornu aspersum aspersa ("petit gris") and the Cornu aspersum maxima ("gros gris") are two distinct morphotypes of the Cornu aspersum species, right?
I can assure you that the agreement of species and subspecies name with genus is absolutely mandatory for scientific nomenclature (if the name was originally used as adjective in the nominative case, which is clearly the case with maxima and also true with aspersa, which is a participle of aspergo). Any taxonomist who sees C. aspersum aspersa knows immediately that it cannot be correct if aspersa is being formally treated as a subspecies. It might help to explain that I am a professional zoologist and editor of one of the main mollusc journals; this is not to try to "pull rank", but just to say why I am confident of this. When the names for the subspecies were coined, Helix was the genus, so aspersa and maxima were correct. Once the genus changed, taxonomists would know to change the ending, although others (including unfortunately some biologists) might not. Nevertheless all biologists would acknowledge that the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature must be followed (even if they might be rusty on the rules themselves), and the rules are quite clear in this case.
I considered the possibility that the subspecies names aspersa and maxima might not be subspecies names but just vernacular names, in which case they would not be italicised and need not change gender in agreement. Maybe some people are intending to use them like that. However, it seems that the specialists do consider them as subspecies name. See for instance, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2017.12.018 . This is from the Annie Guiller and Luc Madec group who have published much on this species over the last 25 years (have a look at https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Annie_Guiller). Note that in earlier papers when Helix was still the genus, the group correctly used aspersa and maxima for the subspecies names: see, for instance, https://doi.org/10.1093/mollus/60.3.205 .
You might try a Google search for "Cornu aspersum maximum" and "Cornu aspersum maxima"; it is important to include the inverted commas in the search so that you get these exact phrases. I was surprised that it was not a clearer difference, and you are quite right that some people do use the latter even in the scientific literature. But it is clear to me that the higher-quality scientific articles are using maximum. I would argue that Wikipedia ought to be using the correct scientific names in an article like this, even if a majority of people are still using aspersa. It is probably overkill to add to the article that these old forms are still used. If you still disagree, I suppose the right course would be to copy this conversation to the talk page of the article and ask for comments from some of the regulars at Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastropods. In any case, thanks for bothering to take this seriously. Jmchutchinson (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Jmchutchinson (talk), thank you very much for your elaboration. Clearly, you are the ranking peer - I know, you didnt mean it as such, but your elaboration is convincing enough, so I rest my case. I am stunned then how very much ignorant the heliciculture sector is (which is where I am from) about the correct use of nomenclature, but then I am not surprised altogether: the people in that sector are mainly practical professionals keen on the production and marketing of their snail products, without actually so much of interest in the scientific context.
Indeed it would probably be a bit too much to elaborate on the old and new names in the main article, but I am sure that transferring this conversation to the talk page of that article will be useful and beneficial to those who are interested in the correct nomenclature, so that is what we should do once this conversation is concluded.
In conclusion, do we speak of the following (please correct me if necessary):
Common garden snail (fr:petit gris): Cornu aspersum aspersum Müller 1774 (syn. Cryptomphalus aspersus), formerly known as Helix aspersa Müller 1774
Large garden snail (fr:gros gris): Cornu aspersum maximum, formerly known as Helix aspersa Maxima
With my request to you in particular to also confirm (1) the common English names; (2) whether genus names are written in straight characters, and (3) what category is aspersum/maximum: 'subspecies'? 'morpholic variety'? The latter is what is argued for by a Dutch compatriot of mine.
The research group centred on Annie Guiller and Luc Madec have published many good-quality papers in very respectable journals on Cornu aspersum using genetic, shell and anatomical characters and including populations from Algeria amongst many others. In some of these papers they refer to Helix aspersa maxima (in later papers, Cornu aspersum maximum) as a distinct subspecies (e.g. Madec & Guiller 1993 https://doi.org/10.1093/mollus/59.4.455, Guiller et al. 1994 https://doi.org/10.1093/mollus/60.3.205 , Guiller et al. 2001 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-294X.2001.01145.x , Guiller et al. 2012 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2017.12.018). In Madec & Guiller (1993) they give the taxonomic authority as Taylor (1883). Taylor's description is available here https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/31571517, and it refers to the variety maxima from Algeria; Taylor mentions various other large specimens from elsewhere although it is not absolutely clear that he includes them in this variety. The description is just "shell larger", with some measurements. Under Article 45.6.3 of the Code, for a publication before 1961, a variety name like this is considered a subspecific name.
The Guiller-Madec group are inconsistent in what they mean by maxima. Sometimes they seem to mean a local geographic form from Algeria (e.g. Madec & Guiller 1993), and sometimes they clearly mean the large variety found in snail farms (e.g. Guiller et al. 2012). Their genetic results imply that the snail-farm form is not the same as the forms so far known from Algeria (Guiller et al. 2001).
There are two problems with using Taylor's (1883) maxima name for the snail-farm form. One is that none of the specimens that Taylor mentioned in his description was from a snail farm. If the snail-farm form is genetically distinct, then maxima cannot be used to describe it. Taylor's name could be considered a synonym of the normal form or could be applied to a large Algerian variety, and it would be up to someone to write a paper that designates a lectotype to decide this.
However, it seems that this issue is mute because, when Taylor wrote, the name H. aspersa maxima had already been published by Parfitt in the "The Fauna of Devon. Part X. Conchology", Transactions of the Devonshire Association 1874 p.634. This is not online, but presumably it describes a large variety from Devon, which would make the name maxima a synonym of the usual form, H. aspersa aspersa. As one expects, if you look at MolluscaBase (http://www.molluscabase.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1380657 ) you find that Parfitt's maxima is indeed considered there a synonym of Helix aspersa (they do not recognise any subspecies). Significantly, that would mean that any subspecies named after 1874 as Helix aspersa maxima was not given a valid name. There is evidence that both the snail-farm form and one or more Algerian races may deserve separate subspecific status, and possibly there are some names already published that may be applied to them (I am not going to research that), but maxima is not such a name.
So what to do? One might copy Guiller and Madec's "bad behaviour" and use the subspecies name as though it were a valid scientific name and apply it both to the Algerian subspecies and the domesticated gros-gris. In that case the gender of maxima/um must match that of Helix or Cornu. Or you can say that this is not a valid name under the ICZN rules, and treat the name maxima just as a vernacular name. In that case there is no need to change the gender to match the genus. But it would be desirable to format it so that it did not look like a scientific name. I am not sure if there is an established way to do so (it is not covered by ICZN rules). The botanists write cultivars in inverted commas and not italicised. What do you think?
It is a bit different for C. aspersum aspersum. The nominotypical subspecies is considered to exist automatically as soon as someone describes another subspecies. It is the subspecies of the specimen described as C. aspersum. So aspersum is a valid subspecies name, and should agree with the gender of the genus.
I can put all or some of our discussion on the talk page of Cornu aspersum. I would try also to add something to the taxonomy section of the article, although we are constrained by the ban on original research.
To your other questions. The genus, species and subspecies names always appear in italics if you have the option. I don't know what are the usual English vernacular names for the subspecies. In what you write in bold, for consistency it would have to be syn. Cryptomphalus aspersus aspersus (i.e. with the subspecies added). Jmchutchinson (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Few questions on snails
Dear Jmchutchinson (talk), now I have found out on your expertise on snails, you may suffer from some questions that have kept me busy on the subject :). Yet, needless to say to do not feel obliged, dont waste time if you dont have answers ready at hand:
Cornu a.a. is to my knowledge and experience a 'grazer', which means it eats food (leaves) from the edge, not the middle. Plants with holes in the leaves are therefore attacked by other animals. This would underline my claim that although the Cornu a.a. may be considered a garden pest, it does get more than its fair share of the blame. I dont have literature thought that sustains my claim. Perhaps you have?
I wrote a text on the Dutch Wikipedia on the reproductive system of the snails of the Helicidae family. However, I intend to generalise it such that it applies to all land (lung) snails in general. So far I can come, and that would fit with the general article addressing snails. But then aquatic snails must be covered as well, but I am not sure if their reproductive system is similar enough to be included in the description. I do not feel competent to generalise the story to aquatic snails, even though there may be literature on it. Could you confirm?
Someone wrote about snail's eyes that they could entirely regenerate after being damaged/cut. In my experience, this is false, yet I have no reference to document. Do you have?
I don't know about the grazing behaviour on leaves.
Reproductive anatomy shows such diversity that I wouldn't like the job of trying generalise, but that is not any criticism of someone brave enough to try. For this and for a comparison with freshwater basommatophorans, I would recommend that you try to borrow this book from a library (Volume 7, not any other): https://www.amazon.com/Reproduction-Mollusca-Karl-M-Wilbur/dp/0127514074 . The first chapter is by Tompa on the reproductive systems of stylommatophorans and the next chapter on that of basommatophorans.
I had it in mind that eye regeneration has been studied and indeed "snail eye regeneration" gets lots of google hits. But I have no specialist knowledge of this.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Jusdafax (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
COI
Looking at the deleted content, I think we need some clarification as to any conflict of interest here.
Please don't write about yourself, your friends, relatives or colleagues. If you do so, you must disclose any connection.
If you have a conflict of interest, you must declare it. If you work directly or indirectly for an organisation, or otherwise are acting on its behalf, you are very strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. If you are paid directly or indirectly by the organisation you are writing about, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at Jimfbleak. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Chescargot|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. Note that editing with a COI is discouraged, but permitted as long as it is declared. Concealing a COI can lead to a block. Please do not edit further until you respond to this message. Also read the following regarding writing an article:
When you write about a person, you must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that they meet the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the person or an associated organisation, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the person claims or interviewing them. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls.
When you write about a company you must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the organisation or company, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, logs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company or organisation claims or interviewing its management. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls
The notability guidelines for organisations and companies have been updated. The primary criteria has five components that must be evaluated separately and independently to determine if it is met:
Note that an individual source must meet all four criteria to be counted towards notability.
In either case
You must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic, with verifiable facts, not opinions or reviews, like it is likened to a treasure room of Turkish architecture
There shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections.
You must not copy text from elsewhere. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial; text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.
Before attempting to write an article again, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. Also read Your first article.
Hi Jimfbleak. This is too much hassle to me. I am not a total stranger to Wikipedia and I know the principles - You can see my contributions, mainly on the Dutch Wikipedia. I also know that Wikipedia should be a low threshold community where one should be able to write anonymously, provided its neutral/objective, sourced, and formally written. And that one can write at one's ease and pace on drafts in his own user space.
And what you see on my draft is my way of working: I collect sources, I incidentally write woolly phrases, but then build the article gradually to one that meets the Wiki-standards. Only then I submit it for review.
So if you please kindly place back the text in my Draft space, I'd be happy. If you insist on me filling in all kind of forms, I resign.--Chescargot (talk) 19:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You said one should be able to write anonymously, provided its neutral/objective, sourced, and formally written. And that one can write at one's ease and pace on drafts in his own user space. That's all true, but on English Wikipedia, it is mandatory to disclose paid editing. Since you appear to have chosen not to answer my query either positively or negatively, I'm not going to restore the draft. Jimfbleak - talk to me?11:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CoI and Paid editing
Hello, Chescargot. With the belief that there is a conflict of interest, I tagged Turgut Toydemir. If there are CoI or paid editing in the articles you write, you must disclose them. Otherwise, you can be blocked indefinitely. I wish you good work. Kadıköylü (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Kadıköylü, a similar question was asked on the Turkish Wikipedia, and which I responded there. For the English speaking, I have worked for the man some fifteen years ago and have been interested in his person since. As you kindly request me to disclose: I do not have any (commercial) interest, and write out of curiosity for the subject only, as I do for many subjects that I encounter, mainly on the Dutch Wikipedia - You can see my stats on my user page there. I hope this takes away your concerns. Best, --Chescargot (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you would pile up lots of pictures and sources for someone with whom you have no personal relationship. Even if you do not have a financial relationship, you must disclose your conflict of interest. Best, Kadıköylü (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that is how I work... I dig into a subject, and dig whatever there is to dig. Sometimes I get tired of myself in that regard. See, for example: Vrouwenschaak on the Dutch Wikipedia.
But on disclosing my conflict of interest, I just did disclose the relation I have to the topic. What else can I do? (Did you read my Turkish response? Did you check my other work? That would perhaps help putting my answer in perspective)Chescargot (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Kadıköylü, you said "I don't think you would pile up lots of pictures and sources for someone with whom you have no personal relationship." That is why I mentioned about my other works, just to demonstrate it is my way of working with any topic in which I put my teeth. Otherwise, of course you are right, they are irrelevant to this topic. Anyways, I take from your last words that you are satisfied with my response. Best, --Chescargot (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
