User Talk: Dyanega

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

For anyone wondering, I'm the collection manager of a major US insect collection, and an actively publishing insect systematist. I work with several different insect orders, but focus on the Hymenoptera ↗ in particular. I am also intimately involved with efforts to create a standardized "Official" registry of zoological scientific names, and expect I may ultimately get involved in formal collaboration with Wikipedia.

ICZN question

I wonder if you can check my understanding of how the ICZN applies in the following case, so I can write it up correctly in an article.
#In 1875, Thorell attempted to erect a new spider genus, ''Sagana'', with the only (and hence type) species ''Sagana rutilans''. However, this genus name was not available because of the moth genus ''Sagana'' <small>Walker, 1855</small>, although this appears not to have been noticed. In 1878, Simon transferred ''Sagana rutilans'' to ''Liocranum rutilans'', the placement that was then almost always used until 2008, when Wunderlich separated this species again from ''Liocranum'' as ''Sagana rutilans''.
#What is now accepted to be the same species was described by Menge, apparently later in 1875 than Thorell, in a new genus ''Drapeta'' as ''Drapeta aeneus'' of which it was the only species, and so the type species. Menge's ''Drapeta'' seems to have been ignored thereafter until recently.
#Realizing that ''Sagana'' was not available, and accepting that ''Sagana rutilans'' was the same species as ''Drapeta aeneus'', in 2024, Seropian et al. (at {{doi|10.3897/caucasiana.3.e132725}}) resurrected ''Drapeta'', with the type species given as ''Drapeta rutilans'' (Thorell, 1875), a synonym of ''Drapeta aeneus'' <small>Menge, 1875</small>.
My understanding is that Seropian et al. (2024)'s use of ''rutilans'' rather than ''aeneus'' is correct (although it initially seemed odd to me), the reason being that Art. 11.9.3.1 applies: for a species-group name "the generic name need not be valid or even available", so "''rutilans''" is the earliest species name if ''Drapeta aeneus'' and ''Sagana rutilans'' are synonymized. However, they write "type species ''D. rutilans'' (Thorell, 1875)"; should it be cited as ''Sagana rutilans'' Thorell, 1875? Peter coxhead (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:Hi, Peter. The Code does not actually insist on the format of the citation of a type species, so long as its identity is unambiguous. While I agree with you that it is better to cite it in the original combination, it is not a requirement. I might note that in GBIF, the citation for Drapeta is given as Menge 1874 ("Schr. Ges. Danzig, (N. S.) 3, no. 3"), and for Sagana Thorell as 1875 ("Tijdschr. Ent., 18"), suggesting that Drapeta is '''senior''' synonym, not junior. The discrepancy between that and the timeline you give above would possibly change the valid species name, so it would be good to know why GBIF has them in different years, and why someone suggested that Thorell's name is senior. Dyanega (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
::Yes, it's a good question, that I had been trying to answer. It's a classic problem with old proceedings/publications of learned societies – the year printed on the cover does not necessarily correspond to date when a part was actually published. The citation for Menge's ''Drapeta'' is given in the World Spider Catalog as p. 388 of "Menge, A. (1875). Preussische Spinnen. VII. Abtheilung. Schriften der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft in Danzig (N. F.) 3(3, part 8, for 1874): 375-422". It's in the BHL where 3(3) [Dritten Bandes Drittes Heft] is dated as 1874–1875. The cover here ↗ has "1874" on it; the genus is described here ↗. None of this tells us exactly when Menge's article was actually published. For old botanical material, we have TL-2 ↗, but unfortunately there are no new botanical names around this date in ''Schriften der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft in Danzig''. Is there anything similar to TL-2 for old zoological material?
::I'll ask the editors of the World Spider Catalog if they have any further information on the relative dating of Thorell's and Menge's species names. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
:::We don't have a comprehensive index of publication dates in zoology, just scattered individual pieces of research into certain authors or journals, piecemeal. That aside for the moment, it occurs to me to point out one other thing: if the name ''aeneus'' has not been used after 1899 as the valid name of a species, then it would potentially qualify under Article 23.9 as a ''nomen oblitum'', and not eligible to be restored as a valid name, '''even if''' it is determined to have precedence. The oldest name doesn't always win, if it hasn't been used. Dyanega (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I had a very quick response from the Theo Blick at the World Spider Catalog. He takes your view above: even if ''aeneus'' were earlier, it has not been used since ''Drapeta aeneus'' and ''Sagana rutilans'' were synonymized in 1880 by Bertkau, so is indeed a ''nomen oblitum ↗''. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
{{outdent}}Thanks again for your assistance. I've now written up ''Drapeta ↗'' and sorted ''Drapeta rutilans ↗'' a bit. It would be nice to include some reference to ''aeneus'' being a ''nomen oblitum'', but no-one has published this proposal, so it would be OR. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Names that look Latin but aren't

Hi Dyanega, hope you're doing OK. In the conversation here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Is_there_a_specific_policy_in_WP_for_editors_trying_to_provide_novel_etymologies? ↗ I've possibly misquoted you regarding names that appear to match Neo-Latin words but where the author insists they didn't intend that meaning - I could have sworn I saw mention that you'd encountered that somewhere, but now I can't find the relevant post so I'm wondering if I dreamt it...

If you ''did'' say that - would you be able to offer any specific examples please? I am attempting to distil some of the recent discussions into a draft essay, and would like to provide illustrations of the pitfalls. YFB <span style="color:#33CC66;">¿</span> 11:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Yummifruitbat}}, in that thread I mentioned ''Carmenelectra shechisme ↗'' which appears to have a Greek suffix. I was half-expecting Dyanega to call me out for accusing the describer of lying about the etymology (I do believe the describer was lying, but the zoological code says we should take statements that a name is not Greek/Latin at face value). The article on George Willis Kirkaldy ↗ lists some other -chisme names; I don't know if Kirkaldy had any disclaimer about them not being Greek. Plantdrew (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you - yes I've got that one (it's not actually clear to me whether -chisme is Greek or just looked like it could be? I'm very much not a classics scholar). I'm convinced Dyanega had mentioned some others somewhere, but it must have been either in a different thread or one I hallucinated. YFB <span style="color:#33CC66;">¿</span> 20:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I haven't been active on WP the last few days, so just now saw this. The examples you cite are sort of the converse; they're NOT Latin or Greek, but they pretend to be by using fake etymologies. My colleague Neal Evenhuis is responsible for most of these, like ''Pieza pi'', ''Pieza rhea'', ''Reissa roni'' and other painful puns. He invariably provides a fraudulent "Latin" etymology, winking at the readers the whole time. And yes, "chisme" is a conceptually viable transliteration of the Greek word "χισμα". What I was talking about was two situations - (1) when an author uses an epithet like "montana", "formosa", or "argentina", which are Latin adjectives, but states that they refer instead to the countries so named, and therefore nouns (2) similar situations with genera where the genus name matches a Latin or Greek word (or COULD be one), but the author says it is an arbitrary combination of letters. I know of 52 such cases in zoology, some of which are more subtle than others; is there anything obvious about the following NOT being Latin or Greek in derivation? ''Anutaetus, Coelutaetus, Hemiutaetus, Isutaetus, Parutaetus'', and ''Utaetus'', or ''Epipilpomus, Fronsoma, Laenichus, Nataloma, Okolpania, Olcyphides, Opithes, Pengamethes, Pilpomus, Ruana, Santia, Strilloma, Swanomia, Telacis'', and ''Teonoma''? The ICZN allows authors to disclaim names as not being Latin or Greek, and it is rarely invoked, but it does happen. Dyanega (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks Dyanega. Yes, sorry I wasn't very clear - I understood that the Evenhuis ones were 'asserted to be Latin but aren't'; the examples I was hoping you could help with were the 'looks like Latin (/Greek) but asserted not to be' variety. Thank you for the extensive list! I haven't had a chance to follow the thread on many of these yet, but would I be correct in assuming that quite a few are of anagram origin (Pompilus -> Pilpomus, Ophites -> Opithes, Neotoma -> Teonoma?), and if so would you say there any other methods of ('coincidentally' Latin/Greek-looking) name formation worth noting? YFB <span style="color:#33CC66;">¿</span> 18:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, most of them that I am aware of are anagrams or portmanteaus or such. I have seen a few cases where a name was definitely genuine Greek or Latin, but these were species names where the author disclaimed them simply to avoid having them subject to gender agreement (not because they were confusing, like ''montana'' or ''formosa''); and they're '''not allowed''' to do that, so I ignore this situation. Dyanega (talk) 20:56, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
:::Thank you, this is really helpful. YFB <span style="color:#33CC66;">¿</span> 21:24, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Gonipterus platensis reversion related

Hi Dyanega, Regarding the revert - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gonipterus_platensis&oldid=prev&diff=1297659069 , the edit was ''not ''solely on iNaturalist observation. I provided evidence of the scientific publication - https://academic.oup.com/jinsectscience/article/25/2/18/8119943 ↗ that took two years post observation to collaborate, collect specimen and conclude that it is indeed the species presence confirmation from India. The title of the paper could be misleading, but the journal publication is a valid reference. Could you please reverify the paper and edit made? Would be glad to know if I were wrong in my judgement. ChanduBandi (talk) 1:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
: Hi. Another editor has already added the correct citation and made the necessary changes. If you knew the citation when you made the original edit, you should have included that instead of the iNaturalist link. Dyanega (talk) 14:55, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

''Nancita''

Hi, as you noted here ↗, beetle articles based on poor quality sources present problems. An example is ''Nancita'' (beetle) ↗ which originally listed one species, ''Nancita alterna'', with no source for the species name. Google Scholar doesn't find it. I managed to find the original description online here ↗ and added it to the article. However, the author, Ernest Allard ↗, gives the authority in both cases as "(Chap.) All." From evidence in the source, "Chap." is Félicien Chapuis ↗, author/editor of various volumes of ''Histoire Naturelle des Insectes. Genera des Coléoptères''. It's not clear to me what Allard meant by the parenthesized "Chap.", so I'm not sure what the correct authority is. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:26, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

:This would appear to be one of the thousands of cases where someone described a taxon "borrowing" a name proposed - in one way or another - by a different person, and trying to give attribution to that external source. The Code does not recognize attributions of this nature unless the attributed source is '''quoted''' and therefore granted (co)authorship under Article 50. Allard made both the genus and species names available, neither was published by Chapuis, and Allard is the sole author, regardless of his attempt to attribute the names to Chapuis. Dyanega (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks for your helpful response. I'm much more familiar with the ICNafp, so often not sure about some of these issues under the ICZN. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

''Ichthyophaga''

There seems to be some confusion over the acceptability of the genus name ''Ichthyophaga ↗''. Thus IRMNG says it is preoccupied, while WoRMS says it was unnecessarily replaced. I guess the issue is the relationship with ''Icthyophaga ↗''. Over to your expertise! Peter coxhead (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

:The issue has already been resolved, back in 2017, and evidently no editor picked up on this. The paper is here ↗ and the summary is important: "We conducted an extensive literature search. Although the genus ''Ichthyophaga'' spelling is often misused for species of Asian fish eagles, the requirements for prevailing usage do not exist (Article 23.9.1). Prevailing usage was not intended to create homonyms or replace existing valid genus names, anyway. Unfortunately, and amazingly, the genus name ''Piscinquilinus'' has been widely accepted... These two incorrect names have created much confusion in the literature; however, no action from the Commission is necessary. The simple solution is to just stop using the synonym ''Piscinquilinus'' Sluys & Kawakatsu 2005; and stop using the incorrect spelling ''Ichthyophaga'' for ''Icthyophaga'' Lesson 1843." There should not be any little notes in Wikipedia suggesting that the Commission has yet to take action. We closed the Case because a Commission ruling was not necessary. A small number of ornithologists were using the wrong spelling, and they should not have been. We didn't even take it to a vote, it was so obvious that the Code simply needed to be enforced rather than treat the situation as if the ornithologists were not the root of the problem. I don't have time to make the necessary edits to remove all the excessive discussion, if you can do so that would be great, I'll leave a note for myself to check back in a few days when I have some time. Thanks. Dyanega (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

::Ok, thanks. What does this do to the family name Piscinquilinidae established at {{doi|10.1111/ivb.12169}} based on the unnecessary ''Piscinquilinus''? This needs to be clarified to ensure the correctness of the taxobox at ''Ichthyophaga ↗''. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:11, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

:::ICZN Article 40.1 states that it is irrelevant that the type genus is a synonym, so Piscinquilinidae is available and valid, but the argument against it (that the use of the invalid genus name will not stop) is fairly compelling. Concerned taxonomists would need to submit an Application to suspend Article 40.1 under the Plenary Power, and use the valid genus name as the basis for the family-rank name (therefore Ichthyophagidae). The trick is going to be finding a helminthologist willing and motivated to do this. Dyanega (talk) 15:51, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

::::A further possible complication: another Commissioner pointed out that the comment cited above "the requirements for prevailing usage do not exist (Article 23.9.1)" is citing the wrong ICZN Article. The prevailing usage of the misspelling ''Ichthyophaga'' has to be evaluated under Article 33.3.1, which requires ony that a majority of recent authors have used the misspelling, a much less stringent requirement than 23.9.1 (which requires a minimum of 25 authors in the past 10 years). It is therefore possible, and requiring re-evaluation, that the misspelling WAS in prevailing use, and the replacement name was necessary. That means checking the past few decades of ornithological sources, which could be a monumental task. Very, very messy. Dyanega (talk) 16:55, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

:::::Messy indeed! Google Scholar gave me 236 hits for the exact binomen "Ichthyophaga humilis" versus 73 for the correct "Icthyophaga humilis". Google Ngrams Viewer found no occurrences of the correct spelling, but quite a few of the misspelling. I suspect it's actually fairly easy to demonstrate that the majority of ornithological sources have been using the misspelling of the binomen. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

::::::Even worse: I see that in 2023, Wikispecies and Wikipedia adopted the original ''Icthyophaga'' spelling for the bird genus, citing IOC 13.2 - meaning the International Ornithological Council has reverted to the original spelling, at least as of 2023, and possibly sooner. The IOC list is considered an authoritative source for bird names, so that further complicates things. That is, if the IOC has decided to use the non-homonymous original spelling, then reverting back again might meet with some significant resistance. I will see if our Commissioner liaison to the IOC can offer anything more on this case. Dyanega (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I hope the IOC usage prevails! Peter coxhead (talk) 12:52, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

The ornithologist on the Commission had this to say, and it seems fairly definitive: "Prevailing usage indeed massively reverted from ''Ichthyophaga'' to the original spelling ''Icthyophaga'' about ~8 years ago. With the acceptance of the latter name in AviList ↗ a few months ago, the original spelling is bound to stay in place." So, my strong recommendation would be to retain the ''Icthyophaga'' spelling for the bird genus, and have ''Ichthyophaga'' strictly for the flatworm, with a hatnote pointing to the bird. Dyanega (talk) 15:48, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
:Excellent! So the way we have the titles now is fine. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:38, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Bee article

Hi Dyanega, I was curious if there's some history or previous interactions you've had with Astral Highway? Their comments about canvassing and personal attacks on the article talk page seem to be coming out of left field to put it kindly, but disruptive either way. If it's just someone launching into random accusations of canvasing, etc. (which is what it looks like to me) those are oddly some of the harder cases to deal with. KoA (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

:Nope. I haven't read the talk there since my last comment a few days back, evidently it's escalating in my absence. Any comment about canvassing is certainly nonsense, as your post here, now, is the first communication about this page that I've had with anyone OTHER than AstralHighway. Dyanega (talk) 23:40, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;flex-basis: 40px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2025 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2025|end}}-1 day}}. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2025 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>

How to represent animal subgenera?

Is there anything wrong under the zoological code about using page names (for articles or redirects) such as Isoclerus (Ababa) ↗ rather than Ababa ↗? Plantdrew (talk) 04:53, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

:I for one am curious what a 'page name' is (I don't find the term in the 1999 iczn code). - Kweetal nl (talk) 06:50, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

::I'm sure what Andrew was referring to was whether it violates the Code to present a subgenus in text without brackets around it to indicate its rank, as is done on a variety of Wikipedia pages. The short answer is that Wikipedia isn't a published source, so it doesn't have to comply with the Code, regardless. The longer answer is that for WP purposes, it is probably better to use "naked" names '''if they are to be used at all''', in part for ease of searching, but also because it's fairly common for subgenera to get elevated in rank - at which point, a "naked" title does not need to be changed at all, but a bracketed title would need to be moved. Personally, I really don't like having separate pages for subgenera, and would not encourage editors to create them; I feel similarly about articles for subspecies. Just because there are scores of ranks in the Linnean herarchy doesn't mean we should have separate WP pages for every possible rank - taken to its extreme, it would result in an absurd inflation of pages associated with taxonomy and with virtually no noteworthy '''unique''' content. Dyanega (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

:::There's certainly considerable inconsistency at present: look at :Category:Insect subgenera ↗ for example. One issue with 'naked' names is the nominate subgenus: ''Chaetopodella'' (''Chaetopodella'') ↗ versus ''Anthrenus'' (subgenus) ↗. Then there's the issue of disambiguation. ''Ballana'' (leafhopper) ↗ or ''Gloridonus'' (''Ballana'') ↗?
:::I have strong sympathy for the view that we don't need almost all of the subgenus articles, which usually just consist of a statement that it's a subgenus plus a list of species, and could easily be merged into the genus article. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

::::I hadn't realized just how bad the mess was. At the very least, it seems like a situation calling for a formal editorial policy. For the issue of nominate subgenera, if they are to be used at all, I would very much advocate the approach used in the ''Anthrenus'' example as opposed to the ''Chaetopodella'' example. The example of "''Ballana'' (leafhopper)" seems fine to me, hopefully not too many articles will be subgeneric names that need a disambiguation like that. Still, I'd rather not support subgeneric articles at all. What's the phrase people use when describing this sort of thing - content forks? If the consensus is that content forks are bad, then subgeneric articles are also bad for that reason. But given the scope of the problem (as evidenced by the size of that category, just insects alone), I don't think we're ever going to be able to put that genie back in the bottle, so maybe a consistent editorial policy is the best we can do. Dyanega (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

::::Relevant to one of the scenarios I mentioned above, consider the tribe Aphodiini ↗, which has some 260 genera in it presently. Back around 2000, some 200 of those genera either didn't exist, or were subgenera of ''Aphodius ↗''. It's not impossible that someone could suggest they are all sunk back into ''Aphodius'' in the future. By not having bracketed titles, none of the existing articles would need to change the title - they would only need to change the text and taxobox slightly to reflect their reduction to subgenera. Tiger beetles (genus ''Cicindela ↗'', historically) and the genus ''Carabus ↗'' are similar cases where one gargantuan historical genus with hundreds of subgenera can be split by some taxonomists, and not others. "Naked" article titles are vastly more accommodating in these situations. Dyanega (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Question on authorship

Good afternoon Dyanega,

Ive been doing page creation and wikignoming over on Wikispecies for a little while and I just encountered a situation with authorship of a fossil hemipteran genus. ''Dawsonites'' is a monotypic genus named from Eocene fossils found in the Eocene Okanagan Highlands of British Columbia. The name and an illustration of the fossil was first published by George B. Buckton in 1891 (plateF Fig12) ↗, with the associated text "Fragmentary parts of ''Dawsonites veter'', Scudd. One elytron is perfect. The venation to a certain extent recalls that of ''Athysanus'', but the limbus is wanting. A trace of brown colouring matter still remains in the matrix.". Note that he attributed the binomial to Samuel H. Scudder, but Scudder's genus and species descriptions (page 18) ↗ plus own illustration did not get printed until 1895. Dmitry Dmitriev on World Auchenorrhyncha Database's entry ↗ and in a 2021 paper ↗ has taken the position that Buckton is the correct authorship for ''Dawsonites veter'', but this seems to miss that no descriptive text was published by Buckton, which would seem to qualify as ''nomen nudum'' at most until the 1895 paper. What is your opinion?--<span style="color: #120A8F;">Kev</span><span style="color: #228B22;">min</span> § ↗ 17:40, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

:The requirements for name availability prior to 1930 are astonishingly "loose". The text "The venation to a certain extent recalls that of Athysanus, but the limbus is wanting" is fully compliant with the admittedly very limited requierments of Article 12. The attribution to Scudder is meaningless, it's just one of thousands of very old names that were attributed to people who either never published them, or published them AFTER the attributed name had already been published elsewhere. Dmitriev has this one right, as far as I can see. Dyanega (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
::So despite Buckton clearly sourcing the names of the fossils to Scudder as origin, his making general comments on the fossils on the plate is counted as priority. Ugh. Three genera and species are effected, with Scudders 1895 descriptions very likely to be supported by revision via modern highland specimens and exam of the holotypes in the GSC collections. Messy messy.--<span style="color: #120A8F;">Kev</span><span style="color: #228B22;">min</span> § ↗ 20:51, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
:::I'm curious as to what would be "messy" here other than the date of availability of the name. The type specimen of Buckton's 1891 taxon is Scudder's 1895 type, unless someone got clever and assigned a different specimen to be the type of Buckton's name. Again, this sort of thing happened with great frequency in the 1700s and 1800s, where a new taxon was made available with no type species or no type specimen until later - sometimes MUCH later. The largest such debacle was probably Dejean's catalogue in the 1830's, where it took almost 200 years before people were able to sit down and systematically assess each name for availability, and figure out, for the available names, whether they had types. It can be messy, but isn't '''necessarily''' messy. Dyanega (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Outing

Hi Dyanega. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life ↗, and it has since been suppressed ↗ by an oversighter because it is considered an attempted outing ↗ (though I'm sure you didn't intend it that way). Please do not add it back. Chess enjoyer (talk) 00:51, 18 March 2026 (UTC)