Common name edit
When IUCN and the 2005 paper reestablishing its status both only list one common name, it seems to me that that should be the title of the article, not a common name used in a more than a century-old reference. Are there contemporary sources showing that the common name without the "Cofre de" is the more widely-used one today? Umimmak (talk) 09:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- When alternative popular names exist, I'm not aware that we necessarily need to worry about which is more common (particularly in a species as obscure as this one), or that more recently proposed names necessarily take precedence over older ones. There are definite practical advantages to listing a species under a shorter common name that does not include an unintelligible foreigh language place name. WolfmanSF (talk)