Talk:Spanish slug

Gastropods Top‑importance

	Gastropods portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gastropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of gastropods 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.GastropodsWikipedia:WikiProject GastropodsTemplate:WikiProject GastropodsGastropods articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taxonomy: For all marine species, Project Gastropods uses the taxonomy in the online database WoRMS. When starting a new article, do not use sources of taxonomic information that predate the 2017 revision for all gastropod groups ("Revised Classification, Nomenclator and Typification of Gastropod and Monoplacophoran Families" by Philippe Bouchet & Jean-Pierre Rocroi, Bernhard Hausdorf, Andrzej Kaim, Yasunori Kano, Alexander Nützel, Pavel Parkhaev, Michael Schrödl and Ellen E. Strong in Malacologia, 2017, 61(1–2): 1–526.) (can be dowloaded at Researchgate.net), substituting the previous classification of 2005 Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005). If you need help with any aspect of an article, please leave a note at the Project talk page.

only a note on ID

Often the case that species are identified or otherwise by appearance. Land molluscs have seemingly been known for many years to exhibit albinism. Merely as a heads-up I have uploaded a Commons image of a local albinistic example. Perhaps someone more authoritative on the species might want to include on the page?

Kind regards, >>i<<

Ianactually (talk) 05:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A note

Please notice that the proper name of the Spanish slug is Arion vulgaris rather than Arion lusitanicus as previously thought. The latter is a case off miss-identification. See article for details. Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But if it's wrong, why even include it?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's included, as the miss-identification was recently discovered, and 95% of sources on the critter will still say Arion lusitanicus.Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so it's a common misconception? I gotcha.--76.0.137.226 (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

vulgaris vs lusitanicus is not quite so clear cut

Unfortunately there are problems also in using the specific name vulgaris for the pest species, since it is far from clear to which species this name was originally applied. In the absence of resolution, some scientists still prefer to refer to the invasive pest species as Arion lusitanicus auct. non Mabille (meaning as used by various authors but not by Mabille, who coined the name lusitanicus to apply to the Portuguese endemic). This is awkward, but not ambiguous, and not wrong. Jmchutchinson (talk) 07:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So how do readers tell then whether the author by using Lusitanicus meant Vulgaris or Lusitanicus? Or even both? 31.30.167.27 (talk) 20:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since my comment in 2014, usage in scientific publications has shifted decisively to using A. vulgaris for the invasive pest species, although an official decision by the ICZN has still to be made. In older literature, the name A. lusitanicus will also have been used to refer to that species. The true A. lusitanicus is restricted to the western part of the Iberian Peninsula, and the only papers that deliberately refer to it will be clear that they are not referring to the invasive pest because the authors will have been aware of the scope for confusion. JMCHutchinson (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]