Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mordella auropubescens

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 12:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mordella auropubescens[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This beetle species is absent from any up-to-date database I can access, and does not show up in any literature searches. The GBIF entry appears to have been removed for unknown reasons some time after the article was created. Barring clear and recent presence in the records, I think this is not a currently accepted taxon. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this may be a genus-level issue. Of the first ten species listed at Mordella, one has been reassigned within the genus, two to a different genus, and four have been deleted from GBIF and are otherwise undetectable. Ouch. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looks like Mordella is a wastebin taxa that needs a lot of rework. I concur this appears to be a species that is no longer accepted. With no information more than what is on the article, I can't support maintaining this article. UtherSRG (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES since this looks like it's not a valid species name. If anyone can dig into the sources for the other species name changes, maybe that might give a clue as to what's going on with the entire genus, but it sounds like it may be defunct. KoA (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Something is definitely up with that. CoL lists no species within the genus, but offers half a dozen synonymized instances, so at the very least there have been a lot of reassignments. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ray, 1936, is the author of only a few valid names, all of them in the genus Mordellistena. I can't find any confirmation of the existence of this particular name even as a synonym, but it isn't impossible that it was published and has since vanished from online sources. That said, until and unless it can be confirmed, I would support deletion. Dyanega (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to [1] the original description is in "Arb. morph. tax. Ent. 3, 215". Plantdrew (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You may be right, but IRMNG seems to accept the species. See https://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=11516213 Note that the words after Environment (~~marine~~, ~~brackish~~) are struck out. We have an article on Tomoxioda auropubescens Ermisch, 1950, which is also a beetle, and which shares the same specific epithet as Mordella auropubescens. That's not enough evidence that Tomoxioda auropubescens is the new name for Mordella auropubescens, but it's a strong hint that someone who knows more about beetles than I do might want to explore. If this is a simple change of genus, the good article should have an explanation of that added, and the bad article could be replaced with a redirect to the good name. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IRMNG added it because GBIF added it. But then GBIF deleted it, and I don't think IRMNG deletes it when GBIF does, so its presence in IRMNG doesn't hold much weight. And T. auropubesens was also deleted at GBIF, so is probably not long for the AFD route... - UtherSRG (talk) 17:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've found the original description. [2] The holotype is from Brazil. I have not yet found the text of Ermisch's description of T. auropubescens but it was apparently published in "Die Gattungen der Mordelliden der Welt. Entomologische Blätter 45-46: 34-92" with a type from Sumatra, so apparently unrelated. Choess (talk) 05:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.