Talk:Phymatodes nitidus

Insects Low‑importance

	Insects portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects 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.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Beetles Low‑importance

	Insects portal Phymatodes nitidus is within the scope of WikiProject Beetles, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to beetles. For more information, visit the project page.BeetlesWikipedia:WikiProject BeetlesTemplate:WikiProject Beetlesbeetle articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

I could not find a common name for this species. If anyone does, please add it to the taxon box (replacing common name), add it to the first line, and enter a redirect article for the common name.

If there is no common name, how about Sequoia beetle?

—Eoghanacht 18:27, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

We don't normally like to make up our own names for things; how would you answer someone that objects and thinks it should be something else? If there is no common name given by an entomological authority, then it stays at the Linnaean name, along with many other articles in a like situation. Stan 02:12, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My intention was to suggest to an authority in the beetle community (who may look at this page in the future) to either look up the common name in his reference material, or perhaps begin the process to officially asign it one. But on further reflection, why should I not just make up a common name? They all came from somewhere. Many species have multiple and conflicting common names, why shouldn't this beetle have at least one? If I had decided to make up a name, and not leave this note, how long would it have been before anyone realize what I had done? Would this Wikipedia article become the definitive reference for the proper common name 30 years from now? Food for thought. Eoghanacht 16:16, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

Probably right (or if not wikipedia, then a field guide author who reads wikipedia). If I was coining the name, I'd go for Sequoia longhorn or Sequoia longhorn beetle. While looking around data on the species on google, it seems it is also found on Sequoia sempervirens as well as Sequoiadendron giganteum. - MPF 17:38, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A made-up name would fail the verifiability test - in the absence of professional coleopterists here, I periodically make sweeps through beetle material, have already made a mental note that this article needs a source at least. (I should buy my own copy of American Beetles, other people keep checking it out of the library...) Stan 19:40, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)