Talk:Nomen dubium

Add topic
Active discussions
WikiProject Tree of Life (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree of life 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.
 Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Whats the botancal version of this? it should be linked to !

There is no equivalent botanical term. MrDarwin 15:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

nomen dubium or species inquirenda?Edit

These terms are closely related in some way that isn't entirely clear. Possibly, a species inquirenda is best thought of as a name whose application is problematic, whereas a nomen dubium is a name whose application is considered to be hopeless to resolve, so a neotype must be designated if the name is ever to be used. Stho002 (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right. A "species inquirenda" is a species that needs to be inquired about, that needs further research to resolve its affinities—similar to incertae sedis. A "nomen dubium" is a dubious name that, as you say, is hopeless to resolve. Ucucha 21:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think species inquirenda concerns resolving affinities, like incertae sedis does. It just concerns what species a name applies to. So, for example, the name Aus bus, if it isn't clear to what species it applies, is a species inquirenda, as long as there is hope for resolution. Otherwise, it is a nomen dubium Stho002 (talk) 22:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Is nomen dubium a species?Edit

If I have 10 specific names in the genus and one of them is nomen dubium, how many species is in the genus? Should I state either Diversity: 10 species or Diversity: 9 species? --Snek01 (talk) 23:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

It is not known what species the specimen belonged to, so it might have another name, or it might belong to a species that hasn't been described yet. The number of names also might not equal the number of species, because some could be synonyms. (Actually, I shouldn't try to answer that question, because it is zoological nomenclature, which doesn't make much sense to a botanist like myself.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
OK, I will be more precise. 10 specific names: 9 of them are valid species and the tenth one is nomen dubium, which have never been considered as synonym. - I suppose, the only correct answer is: 9 species. Nomina dubia are never counted in the diversity. Am I right? --Snek01 (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that sounds right. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)