Talk:Homopus

Official naming and taxonomy

For all future work on Homopus tortoises, please consult the authoritative organisations in southern Africa, such as SANBI, the Homopus Research Foundation (http://www.homopus.org/ ) or Cape Nature ( http://www.capenature.co.za/resources.htm?sm[p1][category]=749 ). The taxonomy of these species has been updated and there is a standardised version that should be used. They are now commonly known as "Padlopers". Thank you. Abu Shawka (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Please see the discussions of this issue at Talk:Boulenger's Cape tortoise. The 'padloper' term seems to be promoted recently by a few organizations – especially some based in southern Africa, apparently based on a word found in Afrikaans, but it is not really a term recognized by most people world-wide. For example, the IUCN does not seem to use it (please see http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/html/TORTOISE/section11.html), and reference books published outside of Africa do not seem to use it. Common names cannot be changed by proclamation. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barrelproof, the common names of the species in this genus are highly unstandardised outside of South Africa. I see that Homopus signatus is even sometimes given the baby name of "Speckled tortoise" (a generally descriptive name surely shared by a dozen other unrelated species around the world). These unstandardised common names only serve to muddy the waters, to obscure the agreed grouping of these species into the Homopus genus ("padlopers" or "Cape Tortoises") and to make South Africans scratch their heads in confusion.

I would suggest that you either use the names of THE authoritative bodies locally (ie. the South African Government's biodiversity authority) as these are agreed upon locally (ie. Padlopers), or use the names of the relevant international bodies like IUCN (ie. Cape Tortoises) or like the European based "Homopus Research Foundation" (which also uses name "Padlopers").

However, expect that if you consult terrarium books from the USA, then the names will not be inclusive or standardised. They also will not reflect the genus grouping. The only set of names that are standardised internationally are the scientific names, and these would perhaps be the least controversial names to use for the species in Homopus. Otherwise this ongoing battle between South Africans/Europeans vs. Americans about the Homopus common names will go on!Abu Shawka (talk) 12:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see much of a controversy here, except for you, and some of your remarks seem like repetitions of comments already made and answered in other Talk page discussions. This article's title is Homopus, which seems acceptable with you, and the article already says that one of the common names for these tortoises is "padlopers", which also seems acceptable to you. Common names are often not completely consistent or scientifically accurate, which is why science uses a different formal naming convention in the first place. What are you suggesting to change? —BarrelProof (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well the title of this page Homopus is indeed absolutely acceptable, as you say. It's scientific and not controversial (If you'd tried to name it "Cape Tortoises" then we'd have another discussion!)

It is of course the articles for the individual species (not this article) which I maintain carry outdated and rather mad names. Perhaps I was wrong to raise it here in the genus Talk Page, but I wanted to correct the links to the individual species articles that run from here.Abu Shawka (talk) 09:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the suggested species names for the five individual species. The names used by IUCN checklist page 000.279? Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 21:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting reference. It lists different common names than those found by IUCN elsewhere (e.g., http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/html/TORTOISE/section11.html), and includes "Padloper" names in particular. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The IUCN checklist is from December 2012. The IUCN tortoise weblink is older, for example 'Homopus bergeri' is used when it has changed to 'Homopus solus'. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 22:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right. The names are standardised by the biodiversity authorities who study the species in situ, with support from the relevant government bodies like SANBI. Then only later do they tend to filter out to the international bodies like IUCN, which rely on this information to update their rather dusty records. Hence my rather tetchy impatience (apologies btw) with outdated and misleading names on wikipedia. Abu Shawka (talk) 12:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The most up-to-date common names for the Homopus species can be found on the Cape Nature or SANBI sites, as well as on the sites of current research groups like the HRF. (They'd also have the newer name for Chersina angulata - I see it's still called "Bowsprit tortoise" on Wikipedia!)

Here are the new common names (Sorry, don't know how to bring them inline to the rest of my text)

Boulenger's cape tortoise → Karoo Padloper
Karoo cape tortoise → Greater Padloper
Berger's cape tortoise → Nama Padloper
Beaked cape tortoise → Common Padloper
Speckled tortoise → Speckled Padloper

You can see the new naming system on the site of their research foundation here: http://www.homopus.org/ ..or you could also download the tortoises booklet from the Cape Nature site. Alternatively, you can see the new naming system in this very article (Homopus) under the "Species" section - the new padloper-names are given first and then the incorrect older "cape tortoise" ones are the second set, separated by a dash.

If the jump to the new common names is too big a step, I'd once again recommend the compromise solution of using the scientific names. Abu Shawka (talk) 13:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing the IUCN checklist page shown above, I guess I'm more willing to acknowledge that "padloper" is sometimes being used in the broader/international community rather than just being something used by a small number of local people (people who are more familiar with Afrikaans than most people would be). Those "padloper" names still have the problem of a lack of familiarity among the general public and even among many people familiar with tortoises, but perhaps there is no perfect solution here. Switching to the scientific names is probably not so helpful for making the names familiar either. After seeing that checklist, I am feeling less opinionated about what is the best approach. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Barrelproof. I have to say though, the "padloper" naming system is a lot more familiar in international tortoise forums, than the "Cape tortoise" naming system. It is also a lot more familiar to the general public who encounter these tortoises, or are aware of their existence. Yes, most English-speaking people who know these tortoises are resident in southern Africa, but that's the case with all species that are confined to certain regions of the globe.

The padloper naming system is also preferred by the official INTERNATIONAL studbooks and the organisation of Padloper keepers & breeders around the world - see above for the relevant websites. This is therefore of far greater international familiarity than the outdated "Cape Tortoise" naming system.

Also, please note that the etymology of "padloper" is in Afrikaans, but that doesn't mean it's not a name that's perfectly acceptable in English (just like other Afrikaans words like "Commando" and "Trek" and several others). English words and proper names have etymologies outside of English, that's simply how language works. Abu Shawka (talk) 10:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on naming move

There is a discussion here to change the name of one of the species to its scientific name and use pointers for the various common names. I have proposed this apply to all 5 species due to the amount of discussion in the past on this. Anyone wishing to comment please do so. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 00:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Scientific Names, Please

I agree that each of the five WP articles for species in the genus Homopus should have as the title the scientific name.

There is too much emphasis on common names on this page and in the articles. Before Linnaeus begins rolling in his grave, everyone involved in this discussion should take a deep breath and read the WP article on binomial nomenclature, especially the section "Value".

I'll go one step further: I believe that the title for every amphibian or reptile WP article should be the scientific name. Not only will this provide clarity, but also it will lessen vandalism. Lyttle-Wight (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am in agreement with you on this and for many other reasons too. The only one still to be moved is Speckled tortoise it was initially moved but was shortly afterwards moved back again. The other four species are all moved to scientific names. Getting all reptiles and amphibians under scientific names would be a big ask. Although it would be the preference of almost anyone who works with them, it is not WP naming policy, and if a common name has wide usage it is preferred. I think this is rather short sighted and based largely on mammals and birds where for some species common names are very stable and well known. This is rarely the case for reptiles and amphibians. However we do need to do a move request for the Speckled tortoise as it is not an uncontentious move. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 14:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Faendalimas! Funny you should mention birds, because I've always been perplexed by ornithologists' using "common names", even going so far as to compile standardized lists of them in many languages. Traditionally this has not been the practice in herpetology, and let's hope it doesn't become so. Why make things more complicated by introducing contrived "common names" when a perfectly good scientific name already exists?

Also, I agree with you that most herp "common names" are neither stable nor well known, nor are they the true vernacular names. Ask a farmer who already knows the herpetofauna on his land what kind of snake he saw sunning itself this morning, and he'll probably identify it as a "gardner [sic] snake", a "highland moccasin", or even a "pied snake". Good luck finding any of those in a list of common names. Regards, Lyttle-Wight (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]