Talk:Neolithodes

Neolithodes alcocki

Re these edits: , . I am not a subject matter expert so I can't comment on the validity of this new row, but a quick Google search suggests it's plausible. If the row is kept, we should update the "The following 13 species" to 14, and add it to the taxobox. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:18, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mitch Ames: It looks legitimate on a surface-level, but under the surface, you'll find that it's a nomen nudum which is at best a synonym for Neolithodes indicus as discussed in the 2020 paper which describes N. indicus for the first time. And even then, I'm not sure it'd even be worth a redirect to that given it's only ever mentioned casually in two papers from the 1980s by Dawson. (Sorry it took so long to get to this; I didn't know it was here.) TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@TheTechnician27 see you soon, not to report me..... I'm playin' ROBLOX! Michael espellogo (talk) 13:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

yipeeee Michael espellogo (talk) 13:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Neolithodes species differentiation

I do not know why is Neolithodes agassizii and Neolithodes indicus a nomen nudum, where the other more — Neolithodes alcocoki by Dawson 1980 doesn't get their original description but why exists. ~2026-38901-03 (talk) 13:17, 8 July 2026 (UTC)