Talk:Dawsonia campanulata

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource 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.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

On 3 May 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved to Dawsonia (problematicum). The result of the discussion was withdrawn.

Dawsonia Nicholson, 1873 is a junior homonym[edit]

It is unclear whether Dawsonia campanulata Nicholson, 1873 is a plant or an animal. However, whichever Dawsonia (incertae sedis) Nicholson, 1873 may turn out to be, it is a junior homonym because both the moss Dawsonia R.Br., 1811, and the trilobite Dawsonia Hartt in Dawson, 1868, where correctly described and published earlier. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 May 2021[edit]

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The result of the move request was: withdrawn per below. (closed by non-admin page mover) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 00:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dawsonia campanulata → Dawsonia (problematicum) – As per WP:MONOTYPICTAXA. YorkshireExpat (talk) 11:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. Bada Kaji (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Also per WP:MONOTYPICTAXA: "The exception is when a monotypic genus name needs to be disambiguated. The article should then be at the species, since this is a more natural form of disambiguation." ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 11:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@YorkshireExpat: In case you are willing to withdraw. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 15:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aseleste: Yeah, ok, will withdraw. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2021 (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.