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 The result of the discussion was withdrawn.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

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

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The result of the move request was: withdrawn per below.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.

Add topic