Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38025950›Full record

ArticleZooKeys2023

Name game conundrum: identical specific epithets in Microgastrinae (Hymenoptera, Braconidae).

Mostafa Ghafouri Moghaddam, Diana Carolina Arias-Penna, Minoo Heidari Latibari, Buntika A Butcher

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ZooKeys, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Mostafa Ghafouri MoghaddamIntegrative Insect Ecology Research Unit, Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Chulalongkorn University, Phaya Thai Road, Pathum Wan, Bangkok 10330, Thailand Chulalongkorn University Bangkok Thailand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1942-9689
Diana Carolina Arias-PennaBogotá, D.C., 111221, Colombia Unaffiliated Bogotá Colombia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9601-3038
Minoo Heidari LatibariIntegrative Insect Ecology Research Unit, Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Chulalongkorn University, Phaya Thai Road, Pathum Wan, Bangkok 10330, Thailand Chulalongkorn University Bangkok Thailand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4158-8034
Buntika A ButcherIntegrative Insect Ecology Research Unit, Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Chulalongkorn University, Phaya Thai Road, Pathum Wan, Bangkok 10330, Thailand Chulalongkorn University Bangkok Thailand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0541-0709

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is a privilege to recognize a new species and immortalize it with a name. Taxonomists may use etymologies recalling the sampling locality, habitat, species morphology, people (actor, writer, singer, politician, scientist), culture (customs, beliefs), fictional characters (gods, demons, cartoons), brands, ancient names, and others. Naming a species is a creative act that allows scientists to express their love for nature. By drawing on personal and cultural associations, species names are often imbued with far greater meaning than one might initially assume. Unconventional names for species can be an effective way to capture the imagination of the public and make the species memorable. In other words, species names can be both meaningful and whimsical. The central focus of this study was to pinpoint species in the subfamily Microgastrinae that share the same specific epithet that often creates confusion regarding which species is being referred to. The findings showed that 153 specific epithets were repeated representing 340 species in 52 genera, while the remaining 2,823 species have unique epithets. Three of the five categories proposed accommodate the majority of the etymologies: people (42%), morphology (27%), and geography (15%) whereas the categories of other (9%) and biology (7%) achieve the least representation. Approximately 95% of the same specific epithets had a single clear meaning, while for the remaining 5%, it was not possible to trace etymology. The study revealed that the average length of specific epithets was 9.01 letters, the longest contains 18 (

Indexed as

Binomial nomenclatureetymologyICZNscientific namessystematics

Identifiers

PMID38025950
PMCPMC10646770

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.