The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This, along with pubescens and many, many others (most articles currently in Category:Latin words found in species names that lack legitimate disambiguation entries), have been accumulating over the years as perfect examples of abuses of a disambiguation page. They are Latin terms used in species epithets and in terms of classification and taxonomy, have no meaning when used on their own. Species are never called solely by their species epithet without first naming the genus, thus in the same way you would not list every regional zoo on the Zoo (disambiguation) page even though locally they are called "the zoo," so these species should not be listed on disambiguation pages of the species epithet. NotWith (talk · contribs) (formerly Nono64 (talk · contribs)) has built up an army of these over the years and I find absolutely no redeeming value in the cross-linked dab pages. Disambiguation pages in Category:Latin words found in species names with no real entries other than these species partial title matches should just be deleted. Others should have the list of species removed. Over the years I've tried to engage NotWith/Nono64 in discussion on this matter but the editor almost never replies to any message. Depending on the discussion of this page here, I will compile a list of all similar partial title match disambiguation pages for deletion and submit a second discussion of the large lot to all be deleted, save the ones that have legitimate disambiguation terms. Rkitko (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]