Talk:Kalotermitidae

Requested move 10 May 2025

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: Not moved * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:51, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kalotermitidae → Drywood termite
Heterotermitidae → Subterranean termite

– Per WP:COMMONNAME.

Disclosure: I'm initiating this on behalf of my bug-enthusiast friend User:Bardusquus at their request as they're less familiar with the RM process. If both of us participate in this RM, please do not count us separately when closing for the purpose of determining consensus.

In their view, "Drywood termite" and "Subterranean termite" are more recognizable and commonly used names than Kalotermitidae and Heterotermitidae. While I am personally too ignorant of this subject matter to have informed opinions on these proposals, Google Trends data demonstrates that the proposed names are more commonly used: Kalotermitidae vs Drywood termite, Heterotermitidae vs Subterrranean termite.

For the Heterotermitidae -> Subterranean Termite move in particular, User:Bardusquus provided the following source: "The Heterotermitidae now encompass the three genera often referred to as “subterranean termites”, a term historically associated with “Rhinotermitidae” with an extensive pest status in the literature" [1]

Vanilla Wizard 💙 02:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Google Ngrams paints a different picture than Trends: drywood termite vs. Kalotermitidae and subterranean termite vs. Heterotermitidae vs. Rhinotermitidae. The proposed titles exist as redirects to termite, where they are treated as term describing ecology, not taxonomy. Schedorhinotermes intermedius remains in Rhinotermitidae, and Australian pest control websites describe it as a subterranean termite ([2] [3]). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plantdrew (talk • contribs) 20:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't feel qualified to respond to anything that would require subject-matter expertise, I would like to mention that I feel the Google Books Ngrams viewer isn't always necessarily the best indicator of the WP:COMMONNAME. This is not to say that the Ngrams viewer is not useful here; I think it can be great for establishing that a name is a common name, but it's insufficient for establishing that a name is not a common name. In other words, if a colloquial name is used more than the scientific name even in scientific literature, such as in the case of the Southern toad (ngram), the Ngram viewer is a very strong argument in favor of the colloquial name being the common name. This is because scientific literature is disproportionately likely to use scientific names, so when a colloquial name overcomes this bias, it's almost certainly the WP:COMMONNAME. But this does not mean that a name not being more common in the scientific literature must mean it's not the common name, take for example the American white ibis (ngram) or the Tropical house gecko (ngram). Scientific literature uses their scientific names, but we nevertheless use their colloquial names that win out in Google searches because the common name takes precedence. Vanilla Wizard 💙 22:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to highlight some inconsistencies with using Ngram preferentially.

For Fungus-growing ants we see almost no long term historical usage for the term in association with Attini, only very recently following 2000 the trend is moderately high in association.

In regard to the case of the Lower Keys marsh rabbit we observe the opposite issue, with ngram clearly showing a higher occurrence of the common name in literature over the scientific name, yet the page title takes after the scientific name.

However in Ngram we do observe a strong association with the typical subterranean termite genera, Reticulitermes, Coptotermes and Heterotermes than we do with Schedorhinotermes and others.

My main argument would be that not only is common name usage inconsistent to Ngram on some Wikipedia articles, but that we should consider collocational narrowing of the aforementioned genera to the term Subterranean termites (and Kalo/Drywoods). Google search results and related queries on trends and pest control websites shows a higher usage of Subterranean termite in relation to these three genera, although Coptotermes and Reticulitermes overwhelmingly dominates. I'm not arguing that Subterranean termites is a perfect inclusive taxonomic synonym, especially after the break up of the family Rhinotermitidae. Rather it should reflect both academic and colloquial sources that support a taxonomic affinity between the term "Subterranean termite" and the three genera over Schedorhinotermes and other taxa formerly nested in Rhinotermitidae. Especially since numerous other termite taxa occupy a similar ecological niche and yet they're not referred to as Subterranean termites in literature, with often the denotation of their primary feeding behaviors in literature being "soil-wood interface feeding", not simply "Subterranean" or else you'd encompass the vast majority of termites. Bardusquus (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While it's not relevant to this particular discussion, I think Sylvilagus palustris hefneri probably should be titled Lower Keys marsh rabbit. Might nominate that one later, it'd likely be a more open-and-shut case of COMMONNAME. Vanilla Wizard 💙 13:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ngrams, Trends, raw Google hit counts, or any other supposedly objective measure of usage of a vernacular name vs. a scientific name have not really figured into how Wikipedia titles articles about organisms. COMMONNAME is Wikipedia jargon; outside of Wikipedia jargon, common name usually refers to a name for an organism that is not the scientific name.

Wikipedia has a history of applying little-used common names as titles for organisms (especially for vertebrates), or using common name titles without considering what topics readers might be searching for ("Cardinal (bird)" was the long standing title for Cardinalidae, but most species are known as grosbeaks or tanagers, and all of the ones known as cardinals are in the genus Cardinalis, with northern cardinal being overwhelming the species best known as cardinal). There is no other subject area where Wikipedia titling practice has been more biased against technical names. In medicine, we have sildenafil (not Viagra) and patella (not knee cap). In military history we have M4 Sherman (not Sherman tank) and Hughes H-4 Hercules (not Spruce Goose)

Regarding the Ngram examples brought up, there are generally other names that should be considered as well (although there may be reasons why they can't be used as titles) Southern toads were only recently moved out of the genus Bufo; Ngram including Bufo terrestirs shows it being more common than "southern toad". American white ibis is better known as white ibis, although that can also refer to an Australian species (see white ibis). Tropical house geckos are likely mostly known as just "house geckos", but that can refer to other species. Leafcutter ant is more common than fungus-growing ant, and there is a separate article for leafcutter ant (though some fungus-growing ants don't cut leaves).

I'd support moving the gecko, the toad and the ants to scientific name titles. Birds are more complicated, as their is established consensus to use the common names from the International Ornithological Congress as titles, but I don't think IOC names are necessarily COMMONNAMEs in the Wikipedia sense; the COMMONNAMEs for the ibises are arguably "white ibis" for the American one and "Australian ibis". I wouldn't object to moving the rabbit to the common name title.

The fact that Wikipedia has previously used little-used or imprecise common names as titles for organisms doesn't mean Wikipedia should continue to do so. The scientific names of these termite families are precise, and the common names are imprecise. WP:PRECISION is as much a consideration in titling articles as WP:COMMONNAME. Plantdrew (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not sure comparing the frequency of common names and family names is that useful here. The subterranean, drywood and dampwood termites are ecological categories. The question is whether these categories apply to the family names. The scientific sources I've found don't use common names so aren't helpful (speciesfile, Isoptera of the World). While the family names Kalotermitidae, Heterotermitidae and Archotermopsidae generally seem to apply to drywood, subterranean and dampwood termites, the correspondence doesn't seem to be exact. For example, Neotermes castaneus is "known as the southern damp-wood termite or Florida dampwood termite" (from the article) and is in family Kalotermitidae, with the drywood termites.

So I'm leaning against the move as the family names are precise and the common names may not be. What we need for a move is sources referring to these families by the common names, in which case some exceptions might be acceptable. — Jts1882 | talk 07:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my previous reply, I think we should consider the narrowing of the collocation to specific taxa as they're commonly used over broad ecological categories, which despite some (inaccurate) exceptions are still predominantly used in academic and colloquial texts to refer to specific taxa (which I believe Ngram supports).

For Subterranean termites = Reticulitermes, Coptotermes, Heterotermes (Heterotermitidae) we have the first citation from above, Hellemans et al,. 2024 which regrouped the Rhinotermitidae and referred to the three genera as the taxa most commonly denoted Subterranean termites. Bug guide also refers to the Heterotermitidae as Subterranean termites, and iNaturalist "Typical Subterranean termites (which I'm also in favor of, although I'm not sure if that name can be pushed in this specific discussion)". Per David Mora et al,. 2025, "In continental Spain, 2 native subterranean termite species (Heterotermitidae; Hellemans et al. 2024) are present: Reticulitermes grassei Clément and R. banyulensis Clément."

For Kalotermitidae = Drywood termites, I believe Ngram shows a reasonable association. Here in this website we find the author directly call Kalotermitidae Drywood termites. Per Michael S Engel et al,. 2016, "...most are attributable to the Kalotermitidae (drywood termites...) Here as well, Aleš Buček et al,. 2022, "Molecular phylogeny reveals the past transoceanic voyages of drywood termites (Isoptera, Kalotermitidae)". Bardusquus (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lean oppose - I just don't think this change is necessary. There are loads of zoology articles that use the family name instead of the common name and I don't see why this should be an exception. Not that there is a strict rule to it though - I just think this would be a little randomly implemented in this case. ZKevinTheCat (talk) 11:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lean support

While it is true that "Drywood Termite" and "Subterranean Termite" are often used as ecological categories, I think there is a case to be made for these being the common names of Kalotermitidae and Rhinotermitidae/Heterotermitidae in terms of contemporary usage. It should be noted that, a) the anglophone majority countries (USA, Canada, Australia, specifically, South Africa to a much lesser extent, Britain lacking any native termite species) are further away from the equator and generally taxa poor, particularly in the Termitidae. b) Termites are cryptic and are not easily morphologically distinguishable from one another, hence almost all "common names" are derived from ecology (i.e "mound building termite", "soil feeding termite", "lichen feeding termite", "wood feeding termite", "tree termite", etc) and/or geographic location, and usually, are also derived from the literature in some part. c) Termites in popular culture are largely structural pests, and members of the Kalotermitidae and former Rhinotermitidae disproportionately represent these taxa. d) Because a lot of precise information originates from the literature, there is also a shift towards "standardization" (i.e Helleman's paper mentioned above taking on a very conservative approach nomenclaturally, even for the scientific names, or Bucek's reference to all Kalotermitidae as "Drywood Termites", or Dr. Scheffrahn with the University of Florida and Florida pest control practices) in the literature.

Hence, it is probably more useful, and often the case, that these common names are used at the family level, even if they contradict or are not used at the species levels. For example, the epithet of drywood termite is basically never used to refer to any termite outside of Kalotermitidae, yet most Kalotermitidae do not have common names nor include "drywood termite" in their common name(s), and yet this is not necessarily an issue either, as in its not always possible or necessary to ID Kalotermitidae down to species or genus, for say, pest control. The same applies to "Subterranean termite" and Rhinotermitidae s. l. in many cases. To summarize, most species and termite taxa simply do not have common names, and this is largely irrelevant. What is relevant, are the Kalotermitidae and Rhinotermitidae/Heterotermitidae, and these common names should be treated as common names for the families themselves.

The case for Heterotermitidae inheriting the "Subterranean Termite" common name, is that of this limited pool of relevant taxa, the primary pest species (Reticulitermes (Mostly northern Hemisphere), Coptotermes (both hemispheres) and Heterotermes (Mostly southern hemisphere), exception being Schedorhinotermes in Australia only really, as S. lamanianus is not a pest in South Africa) are all Heterotermitidae. Termitidae not being significant structural pests for the most part.

Nevertheless, I think its a fair to object the logic I've proposed above, in favor of adhering to these as strictly ecological descriptors. Bugguide is North American centric (US and Canada) and so has adopted this scheme (No Rhinotermitidae s. str. in the US and Canada, Psammotermitidae represented by one species in Florida, Prorhinotermes simplex, with a very limited range, practically all Heterotermitidae). iNaturalist common names are largely a community ran thing, even if there are guidelines, and they do what they deem is relevant or useful for IDing purposes. But, if adhering to strictly ecological descriptors, it should still follow that Kalotermitidae -> Drywood Termites, as the ecology of *strictly single piece nesting in primarily sound wood* (wet, dry, live, and/or + arboreal) is a characteristic of this group, the dominant ecology of this group and not characteristic of any other group. 3kacerol (talk) 01:15, 28 May 2025 (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.