Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 18

Archives for WT:TOL		edit

1	2002-07 – 2003-12	Article names
2	2003-11 – 2004-02	Taxoboxes
3	2004-02	Taxoboxes
4	2004-02 – 2004-08	Bold taxa; taxonomy
5	2004-03 – 2004-04	Taxonomy; photos; range maps
6	2005-04 – 2004-06	Capitalization; authorities; mammals
7	2004-06 – 2004-08	Creationism; parens; common names
8	2004-05 – 2004-08	Templates; †extinct; common names
9	2004-05 – 2004-08	Categories; taxoboxes
10	2004-08 – 2004-12	Categories; authorities; domains; Wikispecies; ranks; G. species; capitalization; Common Names
11	2004-11 – 2005-05	Capitalization; common names; categories; L.; authorities; algae; cultivars
12	2005-03 – 2005-05	Ranks; common names
13	2005-05 – 2005-06	Hybrids; taxobox format; cultivars
14	2005-06 – 2005-07	Categories; food plants; identification; Capitalization
15	2005-07 – 2005-09	Synonyms; types; authorities; status; identification
16	2005-09 – 2005-12	Paleontological ranges; Rosopsida; Taxobox redesign; identification
17	2005-12 – 2006-04	Taxobox redesign; identification; APG; common names; capitalization
18	2006-04 – 2006-10	Categorization; include in references; snakes; range maps; seasonality graph; common names; bioregions; brya;
19	2006-10 – 2007-03	various
20	2007-03 – 2007-06	various
21	2007-06 (Next 64 Kb)	various
22	(Next 64 Kb)	various
23	(Next 64 Kb)	various
24	(Next 64 Kb)	various

Photo day at the Melb Aquarium

Here are some pix I can't identify. All were taking at the Melbourne Museum in January. By and large I'm pretty disappointed with my results so I'm sorry if the standard is below average.

Image:MG 5144.jpg|Murray Cod (Maccullochella peelii peelii) Image:MG 5151.jpg|I think it's like an elephant shark or something Image:MG 5172.jpg|Tailor (Pomatomus saltatrix) Image:MG 5193.jpg|Tailor (Pomatomus saltatrix) Image:MG 5218.jpg|Tailor (Pomatomus saltatrix) Image:MG 5274.jpg|pretty sure that's a catfish due to the whiskers Image:MG 5293.jpg|Murray Cod (Maccullochella peelii peelii) Image:MG 5321.jpg|Malabar Grouper (Epinephelus malabaricus ) Image:MG 5323.jpg|Perch? Image:MG 5334.jpg|Pennant Coralfish (Heniochus acuminatus) Image:MG 5345.jpg|Humphead Wrasse (Cheilinus undulatus) Image:MG 5331.jpg

That's it, and I appreciate the work you guys do very much, thanks! --Fir0002 www 00:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno if you do this, but one thing I do is to take pictures of all the signs and labels, typically just before photographing the critters. I'm pretty stringent with myself in fact - no label found, I walk on by. Stan 00:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most pointnshoot digital cameras allow to record audio too which I find helps the memory! Pcb21 Pete 01:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Finding Nemo" one is a banner fish/bannerfish. Pcb21 Pete 16:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it is the Pennant Coralfish (Heniochus acuminatus) (Fishbase: [1]). JoJan 13:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Just to be clear, Pennant Coralfish (fishbase name) == Featherfin Bullfish (ITIS name) == Longfin Bannerfish ("common common name") == Henicochus acuminatus. Pcb21 Pete 08:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The last one is the Humphead Wrasse (Cheilinus undulatus) (Fishbase : [2]) JoJan 13:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These aquariums tend to be one connected space where all the fish swim around together - no such luck having each fish posing next to a label. Stevage 06:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried looking through their website [3]? --Stemonitis 13:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice pics but in the future could you please choose more descriptive filenames? Thanks! --Cyde?Weys 15:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually why I post them up here - I've no idea what they are so I just upload them as they are, and then once I've got an ID I can delete and reupload --Fir0002 www 11:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation

Hi. There has been a discussion going on within List of Butterflies of India (Papilionidae) and WikiProject Arthropods about how to make categories for different taxonomic levels. As you can see in the discussion, the debate is about whether or not categories should be made for the genus level. In this case we are talking about butterflies, but this issue could ultimately apply to any taxon. Please share with us your thoughts and the guidelines (if there are any) about the advantages and disadvantages of having categories down to the genus level. Thanks. IronChris | (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have discussed this before, but I can't find the right archive!

My rules of thumb:

Make categories for the articles we have now without worrying about it "getting too big later". If we do start getting lots of species level articles in large families, then we can refactor at that time.

Ball park category size: 10-50 articles, but

Use whatever other scientists use day-to-day to talk about a group. Sometimes a family is spoken about without too much consideration about the component genera. Seems wrong to make category genera in these cases.

Not worth trying to create a completely uniform standard for the whole tree, but should be consistent within an order.

Pcb21 Pete 16:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I checked out the archives, there sure has been a lot of discussions! No wonder you can't find the one you're looking for. I'm surprised that after so many discussions, so little has been put onto the project mainpage. It's a pity, because looking at the discussions in the archives is long and understanding what the outcome was isn't easy. Finding information when you're not an old-timer is a tough job... IronChris | (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will go too the genus level when there is enough article, e.g. Category:Litoria. I will generally create it when there are 7 or 8 articles, with the potential of more. When the Litoria category began, I think there were 6 or 7 articles, and now there are 16! That is far too many for Category:Tree frogs, as it has the potential of >800 articles. --liquidGhoul 02:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Pete above, except aim of a category size of 50-200 articles. It makes checking 'recent changes' for vandalism A LOT easier, than having to wait for dozens of small category pages to load - MPF 21:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bloom times, etc.

I've noticed on some plant articles that the bloom times of plants are given by month. I'm curious whether there is an established system for noting bloom times by a more "biome-neutral" standard.

I suppose the easiest system to use might be by GDD (growing degree days), but there is very little information in the literature using this. It also has the weakness of not accounting for plants that are set off by light, rather than heat.

Has this been discussed before? I think this information would be nice to include for wildflowers and garden plants, but also quite handy as phenological indicators for the emergence of insects, etc. SB Johnny 16:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally best to give flowering time by season, rather than month, unless the location is specified – the same species may flower in February in southern Europe, April in central Europe, and June in northern Scandinavia; and if planted in New Zealand, in September. But "mid spring" can apply equally to all of these. - MPF 20:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my hope is that there might be a way of preserving specificity (using GDD, day length, or perhaps a newfangled wiki way of denoting specific season), rather than something so vague as "mid-spring". SB Johnny 20:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Classification of Australian ground-dwelling frogs

I have been using this site for classification of frogs. It seperates the Australian ground-dwelling frogs into 3 families: Myobatrachidae, Rheobatrachidae and Limnodynastidae. This type of classification seems pretty common on taxonomy sites, however, when it comes to other sources, they are classed as sub-families of Myobatrachidae: limnodynastinae, myobatrachinae and rheobatrachinae. I had assumed this was the old way of doing things, as none of the identification books used it, and they were 5-10 years old. However, it seems that it is just not accepted by the Australian frog biologists. Neither of the reputable sites use it [4] [5] (one of which is run by the amphibian research center, the other is collaborative, and includes the frog biologists of Australia). Also, it seems that the splitting of the family, and the further evidence that is cited in one of the families in the above taxonomy site is pre 1995, and 1995 and 2000 were the years Tyler and Cogger respectively released their identification books, which used the sub-families.

User:Tnarg 12345 noticed the family seperation, and sent an email to Arthur White (another frog biologist), who said that they were sub-families and not distinct families. I am not sure of what to do. I would rather trust the Australian scientists, as they should have more of an idea than the American Natural History Museum, however that seems kind of POV. Any ideas? --liquidGhoul 10:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just informed that Marion Anstis's Tadpoles of South Eastern Australia, which was published in 2002 also only uses the Myobatrachidae family.

Seems a fairly clear-cut case to me; all the most recent works by the most relevant authors call them subfamilies. Mention in the articles that they are sometimes considered families in their own right (and by whom), but the subfamilial classification sounds like the one most widely used by the experts, and should therefore be the primary system here. --Stemonitis 11:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks. I will do that. --liquidGhoul 12:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Birds by classification

User:Dysmorodrepanis has been toying a lot around this cat, basically rebuilding it completely, doing stuff like creating Category:Ectopistes, or recategorizing families and orders. So I'm posting hereto get some extra comments before I start mass-reverting the changes, as to avoid an edit war. Circeus 01:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make the categories decently large, ideally 50-200 species in each category. This makes checking 'recent changes' for vandalism a lot easier. Thus, typically, use Category:Order or Category:Family rather than Category:Genus, which splits the pages up between far too many very small categories, an absolute pain to checking 50 different pages for 'recent changes' - MPF 21:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flower name

Hello. Does anybody know the name of the flower in the photo to the right? Somebody at the reference desk ventured to guess that it was Celosia Cristata (Yellow Toreador) but it isn't. If it of any help, I found this flower in Malaysia. So it's likely that it's a tropical species (though I've no idea if it's native). Thanks __earth ^(Talk) 05:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a variety of Celosia cristata. A common name used is Cock's comb. Shyamal 03:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding! I guess the person at the ref desk was right after all. However, he suggests the common name as Yellow Toreador. Is Cock's comb actually Yellow Toreador and vice versa?? __earth ^(Talk) 04:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unidentified lizard

Found this near Carnac, in Brittany (North-western France). It was crawling in and out of holes in the ground. I have a film of it if needed. Anyone know what it is? Stevage 06:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is probably in the genus lacerta maybe a European green lizard --Bjw e bb (talk) 14:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer, I've left notes on those pages. Stevage 11:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whale FAC

I have put right whale up for FAC. I'd greatly appreciate your comments either here, my talk page, the article talk page or the FAC page. Thanks, Pcb21 Pete 13:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

What to include in reference section

I have a bot that have inserted fishbase and ITIS templates in the reference section on most fish articles according to wikipedia:WikiProject_Fishes#Article_format.

Now I realised that ITIS references can be added to all animal articles, to change my bot to work on none fish articles is just removing the fishbase code, so very simple. After looking around I can not find any project except the fishes project that states that ITIS should be referenced, so I would like to have consensus here before I ask for my bot to be allowed to update animal articles.
The same bot can be updated to add links to other simmilar resources as fishbase for other types of animals, does anyone have any suggestions, if so I will add that at the same time.
It can also (probably) be updated to link to Template:IUCN, this template is used on only 5 real articles, so I would say that either we should use it everywhere, or maybe only for critical listed animals or the template should be deleted?? Comments?
I can also (probably) add the conservation status into the taxobox for all animals (with taxoboxes) see Blacktip_Reef_Shark for an example, is that something that would be wanted? I.e. can the tree of life project recomend that? If so I will ask for permission for my bot to do it also ... and try to implement it ..... :-)

See also the discussion about www.arkive.org/ above, no answer was really given to these questions there. Stefan 13:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, should we be using ITIS as a reference where it is not the taxonomic authority used writing the article? ITIS certainly isn't used for the bird articles so I would be dubious about citing it as a reference in those cases. Sabine's Sunbird talk 15:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; we should only be citing those sources actually used. For invertebrates, it has occasionally proved useful, but I often find it to be incomplete. I also don't like its habit of investing "common names". It should definitely not be added to all articles. --Stemonitis 16:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't like the idea of giving ITIS undue preference. However I do like the idea of a small sliver of a template at the bottom of animal articles that gives you links to the same species on ITIS, RedList, animaldiversity , tolweb etc. It would be a relatively simple template that took the scientific name as an argument. This gives our readers access to an abudance of extra information, but we don't make any assumptions about references. Pcb21 Pete 16:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it is possible to make a 'simple' to use template for ITIS or IUCN, neither can make a link direct using a name(as far as I can tell). You need to do a web lookup using the scientific name to get a uniq id and then use the uniq id in the link. A bot can do the translation, but doing it by hand is a bit tedious. Stefan 00:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK so I will not add ITIS links to any non fish articles. But if no more comments are raised I will implement and ask for aproval to add the conservation status for all animals in the taxobox automatically using a bot. I will also look at biodiversity , tolweb and the other web sites mentioned above and see how easy they are to use. Stefan 07:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quick comment if it's not too late: I noticed an article this morning with "Conservation status: data deficient" in the taxobox. I don't think there's much point in adding this sort of non-information to hundreds of articles. But provided there is data on the conservation status, then it can (should?), of course, be added. --Stemonitis 07:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will do like that, busy now so will not have time to write/debug bot for a while but will do. Thanks. Stefan 01:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Data Deficient is a category officially used by IUCN, for little-known species where its conservation status is not determined because of lack of data. It isn't just something used only on wikipedia. I'd say we should keep it. - MPF 22:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK code ready, tested, soeas to be ok,, just wating for OK on the request to run on the bot page, I will add data deficient unless there are more comments here after this. Stefan 13:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snakes

A case for the use of scientific names over common names

As an amateur herpetologist and former snake keeper, I've recently been spending a lot of my time happily creating, ordering and cleaning up articles related to venomous snakes. For example, see everything up from Viperidae. I'm now working on Elapidae and related articles. On a number of occasions, however, I've met with some resistance and protest from a few of the more established Wikipedians who would have me change all of the titles for these pages (back) to common names. I have resisted this advice for a number of reasons that I'd like to share with you here.

More consistency

Using scientific names (with redirects for well-established common names) will bring more consistency to Wikipedia as a whole, thereby increasing its research value. With this method, there will be no exceptions as there are with the current policy, which reverts to scientific names when common names are not available. Yes, scientific names get changed every once in a while, but it doesn't happen that often and its nothing that can't be fixed with a quick page move and a few edits. The resulting redirects point everyone else to the right article.

Less confusion

Common names are confusing. It's not so bad if the taxa are few and the common names well-established, such as with elephants for example, but if the taxa are many and the majority are obscure to most people anyway, as with snakes, common names quickly become less common and more confusing. The scientific naming convention is precise and avoids having to create a confusing jumble of multiple redirects and disambiguation pages for each species. It also means the author isn't forced to choose one awkward common name over another just because somebody made them up.

Snake people

The overwhelming majority of snake enthusiasts around the world -- not just the professionals -- use scientific names for snakes almost exclusively. It's been that way for decades. Sometimes, it's even hard to catch them using common names. Yes, it's true that the titles of snake articles -- even scientific ones -- often use common names, but if you look at the contents of those articles you'll see that the scientific names rule. Any index of species using scientific names provides a far better overview. If we want snake people to take Wikipedia seriously and contribute, then we must use the same language they use and allow them to name and organize the articles accordingly. Forcing the use of common names seems condescending to them at best; at worst they won't take Wikipedia seriously and will simply move on.

Scientific names are especially popular with snake enthusiasts who speak English as a second (or third) language. Often they don't know or care about the common names: to them, the scientific names are all that matter. A case in point: see Category:Snakes. I've had nothing to do with most of those articles, yet something like 90% use scientific names already. Bottom line: if you want to see more snake articles, they're going to be written by snake people for snake people and so they're going to use scientific names. If we allow this to happen, the entire collection of articles will be easier to organize and their quality will increase.

The Big Picture

Regardless of whether common names are relatively well-established or not, collections of articles on animals and plants so named do not scale well when their numbers begin to grow. Duplications and omissions occur frequently, while searching becomes increasingly difficult. Linnaeus figured this out over 250 years ago and invented a system, still in use today, that makes it is possible to systematically catalog all life on the planet. This is, therefore, the perfect solution for a medium such as Wikipedia, which has the potential to catalog all life on the planet (as opposed to Britannica which can never hope to do the same). The sooner we adopt scientific naming as a standard, the better. The longer we wait, the more of a mess things will become and the harder it will become to eventually set things straight. Wikipedia may have started out trying to make research seem logical for the lowest common denominator (the Let's look up apple pie! kind of people), but it's senseless to insist that the medium continue to stoop to this level despite the fact that it has the potential to map out all of human knowledge (or at least describe all species of snakes).

Finally, I would be strongly in favor of using both common names and scientific names for article titles it that were possible. Unfortunately, these titles have a function and the current format forces you to make a choice. If the system itself could be modified to accommodate and index both, the problem would be solved. However, in lieu of such a solution, scientific names have a clear advantage over common names, which is why I continue to advocate their use. --Jwinius 15:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I always prefer scientific names, so it sounds good to me. Redirects can make things pretty transparent for end-users. Guettarda 15:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may be fine for snakes, but not so birds, where scientific names are currently more fluid than common. This is because

there are several definitions of species in use, so species boundaries are fluid.
DNA analysis and other research is upsetting long-held taxonomic views
fashion- some regional authorities (eg AOU) are more likely to embrace controversial classifications and new splits

Even before DNA, Great Egret had wandered through 3 genera, and both shrikes and kingfishers are now subject to many taxonomic changes at family, genus and species level. jimfbleak 16:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, like Great Egret and Great White Egret :-)) . . . MPF

I don't think anyone doubts that taxonomy is ever changing, and many sources disagree - especially when you get down to the subspecies level. Heck, almost all known snakes used to be lumped into the single genus of Coluber, but the whole point of creating the taxonomic system was to have a universal system which everyone in the scientific community can understand when it comes to naming and sorting animals. It isn't that hard to word an article to address both the common name and discuss any taxonomic confusion, and create appropriate redirects and disambig pages when necessary.

By using primarily common names, which may or may not be so common depending on who wrote the article, I think we're just flying in the face of the science involved and ignoring the purpose of it. Then other issues, if we use the example of White's Tree Frog. Shouldn't the article's title be "Green Tree Frog (Australian)"? Since the common name of "White's Tree Frog" seems to me is a more American/commercial trade used common name, and not generally the one used where the animal is native? How do we judge which common name is used more, besides having a debate on it for every article? There are thousands of animals in this same situation which have different common names in the wild and in the animal trade, then some even have special names in the languages native to their range.

I don't know what the real solution for Wikipedia is, but it seems to me that thousands of scientists have taken countless hours to create a categorization and naming system that is more or less universal, even if it changes as we learn more. Common names are quite often arbitrary, misleading, and differ from region to region, and then differ again in commercial trade. I agree with Jwinius to a point, but I still think articles should make liberal use of common names, and have as many redirects a possible, and as many detailed disambiguation pages made so these articles are readily found by anyone searching for them. -Dawson 15:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the "more established Wikipedians" referred to by Jwinius above I should like to make the opposing case. It seems to me that the core dispute is for whom are Wikipedia articles written? Since, Wikipedia is a general knowledge encyclopedia, it seems obvious to me that the articles are written for a general audience. I frankly find Jwinius's attitude towards the general audience (lowest common denominator, Let's look up apple pie! kind of people) to be appalling. There are countless intelligent people who for a wide variety of reasons who may want some information on a particular snake species who are not aware of the binomial names, or even the existence of binomial names. I truly believe that these are the people this project is intended to help.

To address Jwinius's concern about consistency, having a single policy in order to be "consistent" is bad policy. Too many species are widely know by well established common names, especially amongst the birds, mammals and fish. To move these articles to a binomial name would cause a great deal of confusion. The current guideline, as articulated in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna), of using a common name when possible, and when not using the binomial name is a sound policy and will lead to most people finding the article they are searching for under the title they under which they are searching.

I also doubt how "confusing" common names are. Anyone using a binomial name will know that common names exist, even if they don't know which common name is most likely to be used as the article title. The same is not true for those searching under the common name. They very well may not know that binomial names exist, and even if they do, almost certainly will not know what it is. Also, is there any doubt exactly what species the common names European asp, Eastern diamondback rattlesnake, Bald Eagle, Red fox, or the Texas live oak refer. When multiple organisms share the same common name, our standard disambiguation practices our more than sufficient to clear up any confusion. (See copperhead for an example.

Jwinius also talks about "the big picture". It is true that Linnean names were adopted to avoid the confusion arising from multiple names. However, common names have become much more standardized since the 18th century, and for some groups there are even "official" common names. Also, automatic redirects and disambiguation pages were not available for 18th century literature. I fail to see why exactly the use of common names when possible, combined with the use of taxoboxes (which do a great job of providing the taxonomy for an organism, and allows users to navigate from one group to another quite easily), categories, disambiguation pages, and appropriate redirects, including one from the binomial name, will fail to scale. It is working quite well in other groups. Dsmdgold 01:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is another discussion about this at the Village Pump here. See particularly the idea of categorising redirects to enable people to browse by either scientific names or common names. Carcharoth 20:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another one for identification

File:P1010238 crop1.jpg

Salarias fasciatus?

Hi guys, Stevage pointed me in this direction from the picture peer review page. I took this photo at the Vancouver Aquarium and forgot to make a note of the details on the display card. Ginkgo100 has identified it as a type of goby but, as there are 1800 species, I was wondering if anyone could be a little more specific? Thanks very much, --Yummifruitbat 16:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is one of the species of Algae Blenny, Salarias sp. Likely Salarias fasciatus as it is the most commonly available one for aquaria, but there are at least 8 species in that genus, and I'm not familiar with them all. -Dawson 14:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dawson. I've done a little bit of research and am inclined to agree with you. I'll add him to appropriate articles :) --Yummifruitbat 23:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taxobox vandalism

The taxobox on the arthropod article has been vandalized; unfortunately I was unable to correct it! The same message appeared on horseshoe crab, but it seems to have disappeared. If someone could check it out that would be great, I am very perplexed. IronC hris | (talk) 16:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalism was on an embedded template within the taxobox (Template:Subtext), so affected every article that made use of it. It was reverted. :) -Dawson 16:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change to taxobox

Come discuss a new proposal here. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidacy Box

Can we have a Candidacy box like the one at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board, which has featured article candidates and peer reviews related to this WikiProject. I don't often venture to FAC or PR because, well... I forget. But, if I was watching a box like that, I think I would be able to contribute more towards the FA process, and the participants of TOL would be able to increase the quality of the nature related FAs if they know when they are up for nomination or review. --liquidGhoul 10:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bio-barnstar proposal

These last weeks there has been a proposal for a Nature related barnstar, the Bio-barnstar. I foward all of you the discussion and the two proposed designs. Please, anyone interested consult Wikipedia:Barnstar_and_award_proposals/New_Proposals#Nature-related_Barnstar

Thanks. --Francisco Valverde 18:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed

I can't find anywhere which can verify the claim that the Torresian crow can eat the Cane Toad by attacking and eating the belly. It is stated in both articles. Can anyone help? The contributors who added it were annonymous, so I cannot ask them. Thanks. --liquidGhoul 14:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not mentioned in Crows and Jays (Madge and Burn), but that of course doesn't mean it's untrue. If you have doubts (I don't know either species), remove that bit, and the onus is then anyone restating that item to cite a source. jimfbleak 15:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the statment. I don't doubt the claim; they are incredibly intelligent birds and if anything can do it, it would be them. But until there is something to back it up, it is original research. --liquidGhoul 14:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can remember there is a sequence in a Discovery Channel documentary, I think Mostly True Stories: Urban Legends Revealed (don't quote me on that however) were one can see the Torresian crows flipping over toads and eating their bellies.

After some ratting out in Google I found this webpage and this image. Dracontes 17:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to research exploding toads to find references. I don't know if any are specific to Torresian crows and cane toads, but it is a common behavior of crows.

Coyoty 00:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back onto Cane Toads. Does anyone know where I would find, or know themselves, the reasoning behind the naming of the specific epithet of marinus. Linnaeus origianally described it marina which has been slightly changed since. I have been looking, but, frankly, have no idea where to look. Any ideas? Thanks. --liquidGhoul 13:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking why marinus vs marina? This kind of change is a piece of fun taxonomic pedantry. Since scientific names are Latinate (Latin-like) they follow the general laws of Latin, including a requirement of matching gender. The Latin marinus and marina are essentially the same words, just different in gender. "So what do they have to match?", you might ask. I'm glad you did. They, as species epithets, would have to match the genus name, Bufo in this case. Linnaeus may have used the female form on purpose, or it migh have just been an accident. (See the taxonomic discussion on Blue Whale for a case where Linnaeus may have intentionally given a bad name as a joke.) - UtherSRG (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I was actually asking why he used that word. I am assuming it refers to marine, which doesn't make much sense as they are not marine animals. --liquidGhoul 21:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article

Taxonomists and Users: Two species that don't meet

Shyamal 03:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cadborosaurus willsi

This reeks of bunk to me and the description is rather unlike that of Basilosaurus specially in regards to the tail and the odd locomotory method. So either we regard this one as a nomen dubium or nudum or we'll just have to furnish the cryptozoo' crowd a pertinent taxobox template so this doesn't happen again. Or one could simply delete the article... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dracontes (talk • contribs) .

Hell no. Cryptids don't get to use the taxobox, as their very nature means they have no documented taxonomy. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to get that cleared :) Dracontes 17:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia needs a parent cat

As a result of a CFD Category:Sylvia no longer has a parent category and I was wondering if someone here with knowledge of taxonomy could figure out where it should go. Thanks, Cyde Weys 01:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I swear, I should have been more forceful when User:Dysmorodrepanis started reorganizing Category:Birds by classification. Readded a cat. Circeus 02:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I knew this was the place to come to :-P Cyde Weys 02:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, see Wikipedia:Deletion review#Category:Sylviidae. Ardric47 20:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Habitat Range maps

Here's an example of what I mean: a simple map of the habitat of the Greater Sooty Owl drawn on Image:BlankMap-World-noborders.png, scaled down to 300px width; this map could be included in the taxobox along with an image of the animal.

how about extending the taxoboxes with the possibility to display a simple habitat map? The maps should be standardized (simple world maps with habitats marked in some specific colour), and I don't want to mess with the taxoboxes without thorough discussion, but even if only a small fraction of species get such maps, they would be extremely useful for quick information. dab (ᛏ) 15:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can already do it, check out the frog article. --liquidGhoul 21:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can one create such maps? I'd love to but I don't know how. IronC hris | (talk) 00:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a wonderful idea... though it might be helpful it there were some way to render it from a database (e.g., to be able to get it rendered using inputs such as countries, states, counties, etc.). Might also be nice to see different colors used for native range vs. introduced range (for invasive species), former range vs. current range (for endangered species), and summer vs. winter range (for migratory species). Not that I'd have any idea how to do all that, of course. SB Johnny 12:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, there would need to be additional colours for migratory birds, and possibly for recent spreads. I got the idea in a zoo were all animals were labelled with such maps, and they also had a special way to account for avian migration. If we decide on a particular colour code, this should be mentioned here to facilitate consistency. I cannot put much time into this, but I think I'll add an optional value to the taxobox template, and insert the map above in the Greater Sooty Owl as a beginning, and will then make note of it here. I don't think automatical generation would work, since habitats do not align with national borders. We'd need to do a vectorized model of the world's vegetational zones, which would be more bother than it'll be worth. After all, the example map above weighs a mere 12k, more detailed maps can always go to the article body (as e.g. on wolf). dab (ᛏ) 17:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

doh, that should have read, right, I hadn't seen Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/taxobox_usage#Range_maps. Should we add conventions of which colours to choose when generating maps? dab (ᛏ) 17:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found commons:Category:Animal habitat maps and commons:Category:Bird habitat maps now and I'm quite impressed; it just seems that not many articles on en: make use of this repository. dab (ᛏ) 18:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coming in on this a bit late, but I did a 4-colour range map for Fallow Deer, because the previous one was so badly wrong. As a PS, they're called range maps or distribution maps, not "habitat" maps - that commons cat really ought to be re-named. A habitat map is something completely different; that would be a map showing forests, grasslands, wetlands, etc, etc. - MPF 23:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question on policy (how to tag)

The article on Eastern tent caterpillar appears to be copied/pasted from the reference given at the bottom. The user who imported the material seems to have made no other contributions than this article (see: [[6]]). I assume I should revert it? Is there a tag I should put on the article to get more opinions?

Kind of a shame, because it's full of information. SB Johnny 11:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that there is actually another article by the same user (Social Caterpillars) is also copied from the same source. [[7]]. SB Johnny 11:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help with vendace

I initially posted this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Marine life, but that seems to be mostly inactive. While working on Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/fr, I found out that the name "vendace" refers to at least two different species in the genus Coregonus: C. albula and C. vandesius. I was wondering if anyone here could comment at Talk:vendace and help sort out the disambiguation issues. Thanks, Ardric47 20:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Village Pump discussion (scientific names and redirects)

Duplicating the note above (in case anyone missed it), there is a discussion currently in progess at the Village Pump, here. See particularly the idea of categorising redirects to enable people to browse by either scientific names or common names. Carcharoth 20:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unidentified bee

Can anyone identify this large black bee (at least I assume it is a bee). It was considerably larger than any other bees I'm used to seeing - I'd estimate the abdomen was about 2cm long or about the size of my thumb up to the knuckle - but smaller than a hornet. They are to be found in the Sierra Nevada mountains of Southern Spain. Needless to say it looked kind of menacing, but fortunately was much more interested in the flower meadows. -- Solipsist 13:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xylocopa violacea is a species I've seen in Italy, and looks very similar. --Stemonitis 13:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's Xylocopa violacea. I've had a few running around in spring in the Algarve (Portugal) and even nesting on a beam supporting a vine trellis at an abandoned house.

Here are a few photos for comparison so you don't have just our hearsay:

[8][9][10]

Hope to have been of assistance... Dracontes 16:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. Xylocopa violacea looks like the right beasty. -- Solipsist 23:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A little bird category flap

Okay, so we messed up and accidentally deleted a category that should not have been deleted. I think I have repaired all of the damage, but I am not sure. Can someone please confirm that Category:Sylviidae is correct now? It has a single subcategory, Category:Sylvia, which contains twelve articles on bids, and its parent category is Category:Passeri, which contains lots of other avian subcategories. The old category Category:Old World Warblers was theoretically supposed to be merged into Category:Sylviidae, but I don't know at this point if it was always empty or if it did use to contain some bird articles that are now orphaned. Thanks for the help everyone, Cyde?Weys 17:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All genus cats should have been returned to Category:Sylviidae now. Circeus 17:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. --Cyde?Weys 03:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry 'bout all the stubs...

I just created an awful lot of fungus and bacteria stubs... a copy-past job because the only thing I know about them is that they are included in a mix of soil innoculants I've been using lately. using wiki as my notebook, so to speak.

The good news is that several of the organisms listed in the mix already had pretty good articles :). SB Johnny 20:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Language query

I have a small snippet here, there are numerous other examples of this usage and this is just one that I found

The Viperinae is a subfamily of venomous snakes commonly known as true vipers, although the term viperines is more specific and distinguishes them from the larger viperid family.

I understand that the Viperinae could be treated as a collective noun or as a class just like say a class like birds. If I use the latter interpretation I imagine that the correct usage should be the

The Viperinae are a subfamily of venomous snakes commonly known as true vipers<snip>

Could someone please help. Shyamal 11:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both uses are correct. Gdr 12:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would opt for something between the two..

Viperinae is a subfamily...

- UtherSRG (talk) 12:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some responses from the helpdesk/language

There are a few differences between US and British English when it comes to the agreement in number between verbs and their subjects (British English is more flexible). However, in this case, although Viperinae is a Latin plural, it signifies a unitary sub-family. Also, note that, when the verb be is used thus, the sentence is an equation: Viperinae is on one side, and the singular noun subfamily is on the other. — Gareth Hughes 12:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't write biology articles, but I would probably omit the definite article, writing "Viperinae is a subfamily of venomous snakes…". Even though I'm from the United States, "the Viperinae" sounds too plural to use is. If I omit the definite article, then Viperinae sounds like just a Latin name for the subfamily, rather than a name for all the animals within the subfamily. —Bkell (talk) 18:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Shyamal 05:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for snake article work...

I don't know enough about them to work on them myself, but I wanted to request some changes on the snake articles (or at least on the one I just read, Garter snake). Mostly, I'd just like to see some information about where particular snake species might be found, as opposed to just the list of taxon that's there now. (Really just trying to figure out which species are living on my farm). SB Johnny 15:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you'll have to look the ranges of each species individually if you want to do that in Wikipedia. Your best would probably be to get a book on snakes in your area. Circeus 17:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lizard identification

I found these Creative Commons photos on Flickr ([11] [12] [13] [14] [15]), and they are identified as Cordylus breyeri, however I just googled that, and there are only 80 or so hits. Most of the results were for the sub-species Cordylus warreni breyeri. Does anybody know about this lizard, and can identify it? Thanks --liquidGhoul 03:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does look like C. w. breyeri to me from what images I can find in my books and on the web, but that species alone has nine subspecies, all of which look quite similar - at least from photographs, and none of the sources I found gave any distinguishing features to look for. -Dawson 14:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semantic Mediawiki

the future implementation of the semantic mediawiki (http://wiki.ontoworld.org/index.php/Main_Page and http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Semantic_MediaWiki) will make the creation of categories obsolete, but it will make the Taxoboxes and other similar boxes more important. also if it hasnt been suggested before (and truthfully id be surprised if it wasnt) i think the Taxoboxes should link to the wikispecies version of the article and viceversa.

Notability

Hi. Are there any notability criteria for inclusion/exclusion of articles concerning taxa around here ? lijealso 04:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC) (pt:wiki)[reply]

No. All taxa deserve articles. Gdr 20:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tag for defunct genera?

Please have a look-see at Lycopersicon. I put a disambig tag on it, but is there a better tag available? Might be useful to have a "{{Taxonomy-disambig}}" tag? SB Johnny 14:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need for a tag, disambig or otherwise: it's just an ordinary article. Gdr 20:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help ID bird

Could someone be so kind as to ID this species of bird for me? Is it Hirundo rustica? The nest has been built on top of my dryer vent, above the balcony of my second-story apartment. I'm in eastern Iowa, USA. Thanks, TacoDeposit 21:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Hirundo rustica (Barn Swallow) - MPF 20:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing species by year of discovery?

A thought occurred to me that it may be interesting to categorize species by year of discovery, or at least by year of first scientific publication. Any thoughts on the matter? — Eoghanacht ^talk 19:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it as particularly useful, though categorising by authority could be. --liquidGhoul 01:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Year of discovery is a non-starter (discovery by whom?). As for year of publication, it could be done, but what are we to make of a category containing Passer pyrrhonotus, Rhagoletis meigenii, Sarda orientalis, Hoplia festiva and other miscellaneous organisms? Gdr 09:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, it gives a snapshot of what else was being discovered at about the same time, something longitudinal vs the current latitudinal categorization. However, the more narrow "cat by authority", which I presume to be author/publication and year, sounds more compelling to me. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paleobox

What do people think of {{Paleobox}}? (See Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Paleobox, e.g. Tyrannosaurus.) Appropriate, inappropriate? Gdr 18:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat what I've said on other talk pages-- I think the most relevant info contained in the paleobox (size, etymology, distribution) should be incorporated into the taxobox template. The other info in the paleobox, like type of animal, diet, environment, movement, period, etc. either needs moe than a one-word discussion (i.e., keep it in the text) or is already contained in the taxobox (namely, fossil range and type of animal, which is what the taxobox is about!). Having it as a seperate entity is clunky and takes up too much space.Dinoguy2 19:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seasonality graph

File:Seasonality.svg

Just trying to get some feedback on the feasibily of an idea for seasonality graphs using a template. Is there a way to write templates that can modify the contents of an SVG file's text to allow for instance the specification of 12 percentages and status (breeding/flowering) etc... to produce SVG's on the fly. Shyamal 12:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too variable with location - see #Bloom times, etc. above - MPF 20:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using bullets before species seems to fix it and isn't too obtrusive. You could use that, at least temporarily.Dinoguy2 23:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion to have a dynamic SVG file has been made many times (including by myself). See bugzilla 5899 and the many duplicate bugs. Some day I might have to work out how to build the feature myself. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 00:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taxobox bug

That spaces immediately after italics and links disappear, leaving the lines like this: Myrtus nivelleiBatt. & Trab. This one's been around for months, now. Anyone know if it is likely to be dealt with, or should I start adding nbsps inbetween them all? - MPF 20:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See [16] Gdr 20:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Nice to see it tagged as urgent now :-) MPF 22:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Box jellyfish

Can someone look over these two articles and determine if they should be merged? It looks like we have a duplication of content. Note that they only differ by a single capitalization change but they redirect to two different articles, both on box jellyfish.

Thanks! --Cyde↔Weys 04:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it this is a article of species and families, this is quite common, you basically have two articles, one Chironex fleckeri wich is a species which is often calles Sea wasp or box jelly, and one Box jellyfish which is the article that is about the whole family in which Chironex fleckeri is a species. So IMHO the articles should not be merged. The two redirects that you show should probably be fixed in some way, not sure how, if Sea wasp is the true name of Chironex fleckeri then I think Sea Wasp should be deleted or redirected to Chironex fleckeri. But not an expert on Box jelly fish, when I see them I try to swim the other way ASAP :-).Stefan 04:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scoter pic

I've been going through some bird articles to check they tally with current taxonomic orthodoxy. Velvet Scoter and White-winged Scoter are (rightly) given separate articles as distinct species but the articles are illustrated with the same photo! I think its White-winged but I'd like someone to verify this for sure before I remove it from one of the articles. Thanks Richard Barlow 14:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure they are separate species? The first paragraph of the Velvet Scoter article states: "The East Siberian and North American White-winged Scoter is sometimes considered conspecific with the Velvet Scoter, and its two constituent subspecies are then known as M. f. stejnegeri and M. f. deglandi." It seems that M. deglandi could well be considered a subspecies of M. fusca. If this is the case, and the picture really is of M. deglandi, then it could be correctly used in both articles. --NoahElhardt 15:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My intention was to make sure the articles conform to current taxonomic thought - Collinson et al 2006 (cited in British Birds vol 99) state the two species "differ clearly in vocalisations" and that "there are small plumage differences" which together "are likely to affect mate choice" and "are clear enough to warrant specific recognition". For me the passage quoted from the Velvet Scoter article can be considered a historical note (and maybe needs to be reworded) and the placement of the picture in one of the articles must be wrong. Anyone else have an opinion? Richard Barlow 16:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably right - I didn't do any research, but merely was noting that passage. Since the plumage differences are really quite slight, I doubt we will be able to make a definite diagnosis... although the uploader clearly thought the bird was a White-winged Scoter. --NoahElhardt 16:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original source of the image seems to be [17]. Here it is identified as "White-winged Scoter - Melanitta fusca", which is confusing. Apparently, the F.W.S. considers M. fusca and White-winged scoter to be the same. As it is a U.S. FWS image, the picture is likely to have been taken in America, which would mean it is (what wikipedia calls) a M. deglandi, as M. fusca does not occur in America. (In fact, the original image has a tag "Kodiak island" so it has been taken in Alaska.) Eugène van der Pijll 21:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploadedded a PD-old drawing of a velvet scoter to commons.wikipedia.org, and added it to Velvet Scoter. Eugène van der Pijll 21:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanking you Richard Barlow 08:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beastie Bot - initial run complete, error log checking

Hi everybody. Many of you will have noticed Beastie Bot running and updating taxoboxes. The initial run is complete and it has made a large number of corrections and updates. Thanks everyone who has left feedback, and to anyone who's cleaned up after it if it didn't recognise your favourite referencing style (it recognises a couple).

Anyway, I'm hoping some people might like to check over the error logs to see why it couldn't update many of the pages. So far I've just put up a small part of it, but I'll add the rest when I have time (I was originally just going to upload the whole log, but it's 155000 lines long).

Here it is: User:Beastie Bot/initial run error log

Please check it out if you have some time. It has more info on the page.—Pengo 16:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing this work. I note that some of the errors are not really errors. For example

Peninsular Bighorn Sheep — you looked up Desert Bighorn Sheep instead, a different subspecies.
Andean Cock-of-the-rock — binomial doesn't match (we have Rupicola peruviana; IUCN has Rupicola peruvianus) — IUCN appear to be in error here, as although Rupicola as a pseudo-Latin word ought to be masculine, it should be treated as feminine in this case because of the original combination with the feminine peruviana (see ICZN rule 30.1.4.2 and example following [18]).

However, plenty more are errors, and need fixing. Gdr 21:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected the typos at White-throated Robin. Katsura (tree) is currently a genus page, covering the whole of Cercidiphyllum (two species). - MPF 22:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking out the error log. In this case of Peninsular Bighorn Sheep, Beastie Bot actually looked up Ovis canadensis cremnobates and follows a redirect to Desert Bighorn Sheep. The sheep it was looking for is only mentioned briefly on the page. It currently never looks up common names directly (but that's not clear from the logs and might change in future). As you've noticed, "Error" really implies "something wrong" preventing further execution, and not (always) an error on Wikipedia. Things that aren't really errors (like links to genus pages) can be safely ignored (and should be crossed off too). I might try to auto-format the rest of the log a bit nicer before I put it up. —Pengo 13:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see how it works now. I'd like to see the rest of the error log, there are lots of useful corrections to be made. The most useful change you could make would be to link the name the bot looked at (like Ovis canadensis cremnobates). Gdr 20:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble with Category:Solanaceae

The actual plant articles are a bit lost in the morass of subcats... at least one of which (Category:Tobacco) is mostly about politics and products, rather than plants. The only solution I can think of is to make sure the plants in those subcats have the Solanaceae tag as well as the subcat tag. Generally against policy, but in this case the subcats are just really off-topic as far as the TOL part is concerned. Sound OK? SB Johnny 17:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An article and its acompanying cat are not necessarily categorized the same way. If the scope of Category:Tobacco makes it improper in Category:Solanaceae remove it, but keep the plant's article in there. Circeus 17:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean remove the category tag from cat:tobacco? SB Johnny 21:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image problem

Can someone help me find why this image does not show in the taxo box

in Abisara fylla. Shyamal 04:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if the taxoboxes allow .png files for the representative picture. Try converting to .jpg? --NoahElhardt 05:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The taxoboxes don't care about the file format of the picture. However, the Wikipedia image thumbnailer has failed to do a proper job of conversion: the thumbnail is not a proper PNG. Gdr 09:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried re-saving the file as a .png and re-uploading, but it doesn't seem to have worked - MPF 10:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It got stranger after I made it a 256 palette grey-scale png. Shyamal 11:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown animals

Hello, I made two pictures of insectae, but I'm by no means a biologist so my determination skills end at "beetle" and "hairy catarpillar". They are:

Beetle, on the nl:Balloërveld which is heath/sand. IIVQ 19:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Catarpillar, on the nl:Balloërveld which is heath/sand. IIVQ 19:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Catarpillar, on the nl:Balloërveld which is heath/sand. IIVQ 19:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

on nl:Wikipedia:Wikiproject dieren someone suggested the catarpillar was either a Malacosoma Castrensis or a Malacosoma Neustria, but the description of the last mentions oak, or fruit trees, of which none were in a 500-metre radius. (Only small patches of pine tree in heath fields).

The Beetle was suggested as Geotrupes Vernalis.

Which is which, and a further question: Is it useful to upload images of unknown animals more often or are most "Common" animals allready photographed and is the change of hitting a unphotographed one while not specifically searching it too low? IIVQ 19:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first looks like some kind of Scarabid, but the other I am unsure of. There is a catapillar person here, he may know. --liquidGhoul 14:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your IDs were pretty good. The beetle is almost certainly Geotrupes sp (we call them dor beetles here in the UK). The commonest European species is G. stercorarius although G. mutator and G. puncticollis are also listed for The Netherlands in Fauna Europaea. The caterpillar is definitely the larva of the moth Malacosoma neustria (for some reason called The Lackey in the UK). The prominent blue head distinguishes it from M. castrensis. No article for this yet but I will write one when I have a moment and include your pic.

My advice on unidentified organisms is keep 'em coming! There are lots of common species, especially insects, with no image or even no article, so a big stock of images in commons is bound to come in handy! Richard Barlow 14:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I've just noticed your note on the habitat of the site and this is slightly puzzling. M. neustria is pretty bound to broad-leaved trees and shrubs (not just oaks or fruit trees but certainly not conifers) while M. castrensis prefers low herbaceous plants as you might well find in heathland (the British name is Ground Lackey). I'd still swear that this is neustria and it looks well grown so its clearly been feeding on something but I'm not sure what. Hawthorn (Crataegus) is recorded as a host - could there be a little bush anywhere near? Richard Barlow 14:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the beetle is rather Geotrupus vernalis, a common beetle in dunes and heaths of Holland. This beetle is rather variable in color. Geotrupus stercorarius has more prominent parallel lines on the elythra . This beetle is common in Dutch woods but not on sandy soils. See an article in the nl.wikipedia : nl:Voorjaarsmestkever and de.wikipedia de:Frühlingsmistkäfer (no article yet in the en.wikipedia). JoJan 14:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, taxoconfusion rears its head again! The splitters have been at work - this species is listed as Trypocopris vernalis in Fauna Europaea so my search missed it. I agree this looks like the beastie. Richard Barlow 15:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fauna of Madagascar

The category Category:Fauna of Madagascar is the sole remaining survivor of a recent Cfd ("Wildlife of Madagascar" was nuked) ... can someone look at it and make sure that all of the parent and sub cats are correct? I'm not sure about the organizational scheme for this stuff. Thanks! --Cyde↔Weys 13:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible vandal warning

There's something funny going on between IP editors adding and reverting inter-wiki (language) links to TOL-related pages. Unfortunately I don't know the languages, but I think we should all be careful editing after interwiki link reversions. SB Johnny 17:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Example? Gdr 18:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, meant to put that in before, but was interrupted by "real-life stuff". Check the history on Spinach for one... problem is that I've been seeing this on various articles I watch for several days now, and it didn't strike me as a pattern until today. SB Johnny 18:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, took a follow-up peek at user:84.174.199.206 contribs, and it seems to follow one of the patterns: namely removing IW links for one language, then adding a link for another language. Note that on the history for Jovibarba the pl (Polish?) is the same word as in German (which is entirely possible, but who knows?). It's impossible for me to tell which is the vandal... but the link to the French page which was removed does lead to a page whish is more or less about the same plant. SB Johnny 18:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the Spinach case, and in that case the removal of the interwiki links is arguably correct. The Polish, Bulagrian, Lithuanian and Malay articles are about the genus Spinacia (if I'm reading the taxoboxes correctly), while the English page is about S. oleracea specifically. Eugène van der Pijll 18:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pachypodium

Apart from the normal Pachypodium article, there are a whole host of other articles relating to the genus. While there is an admirable level of scholarship in them, they bother me for two reasons. For one, they don't seem suitable for Wikipedia (as much as it saddens me to say so). This material has been around for a long time (about a year), and the author, Tdwin476 (talk · contribs) hasn't edited since September. On his User page there's a "Table of Contents":

The Pachypodium Project: Proposed Structure
- Table of Contents for the Pachypodium Genus

The whole "Pachypodium project" requires cleanup in some form or other, but I really don't know how to proceed. Any suggestions? Guettarda 06:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have some expertise in this, I'd say just leave it be. Sooner or later (perhaps years from now) someone interested in the genus will wander by and do some more work. Other than at least 1 spp. article needing a stub tag, it all looks pretty good, though I do wonder about the lack of source citations. SB Johnny 16:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Brya RFC

You might want to know that a RFC has been opened regarding User:Brya's POVediting, MoS violation and general attitude at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Brya. Circeus 15:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please help with a template!

I'd like to create a "hortibox" template (similar to the taxobox) with information about growing conditions for cultivated plants (see comments here for details). I went to the template for the taxobox and found a warning saying it was quite complicated, so decided I'd better ask for help from more compitent hands. SB Johnny 16:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to take a look at the Template:Infobox Cultivar. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit easier. Thanks!

OK, cobbled it together a bit... see example here. What's the next step? SB Johnny 12:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listing common names

When writing articles on biological organisms, I've noticed that although there's an excellent way to list older synonyms for an organism's scientific name (using the taxobox), there is no standard way to list its common names -- of which there are sometimes many. It may be Wikipedia's policy to select the most common common name for the title of an article, but that does not mean that other common names for the same organism are any less valid. I therefore propose that a standard be agreed upon for listing all of an organism's common names. For clarity, I would think it best to place this list at the beginning, or close to the beginning of the article. Such a list would certainly make cross-referencing easier.--Jwinius 21:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Cane Toad, I think it does it the best. The most common common names are listed in the introduction, and the more obscure ones in the taxonomy section. --liquidGhoul 02:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed more or less how it is done at the moment. However, this means that you must first search the text to find them all. I think it would be more efficient and convenient for the readers if all of these common names -- and the cane toad has at least nine as far as I can tell from your article -- were simply listed somewhere in a predictable manner. For example, I have a number of reptile books, and a bird book, that begin the description of each species with a list of (alternative) common names. Such a list gives the reader a better chance of knowing immediately which organism the article is about.

Earlier I suggested in Template talk:Taxobox to list the common names in the taxobox, but have so far received no responses. But, perhaps the taxobox is not the right place for this. Strictly speaking, though, I don't believe the taxonomy section is the right place to list common names either. I would rather see this section reserved for taxonomic matters: how species are related, scientifically classified and organized, as well as mentioning any differences in opinion that might exist between various authorities. But, that's a different issue. --Jwinius 13:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If one is going to list all the common names of an organism that has many, then I don't think the beginning of the article is the best place for it. A reader will want to know what a cane toad (for instance) is, and why it's important, before being confronted with a plethora of unenlightening common names. If it's really important to have, then you could have a section labelled ===Common names===, which would then show up in the table of contents (i.e. pretty near the top). One example of this approach would be woodlouse, which has vast numbers of common names around the world; these are listed in a section towards the end of the article, with a notice about it right at the beginning. --Stemonitis 13:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woodlouse is a pretty extreme example. In that case I guess creating a whole separate section for it is the best solution. I was thinking more of cases where the number of common names do not add up to more than a single line -- two at the very most -- in which case creating an extra section would seem like overdoing it. --Jwinius 23:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can top Woodlouse. Since first seeing this discussion earlier, I've had occasion to create a new article for the Buttonwood (Conocarpus erectus) and found that the USDA Forest Service had thoughtfully assembled a total of 70 common names for the tree from around the world. I opted for the separate section listing "other common names". -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 23:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. And did you make redirects from them all? --Stemonitis 09:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but that's cheating. Most of the list of common names for buttonwood are in foreign languages. I only count nine or ten that are in English, including buttonwood. Woodlouse has 19. But, we're drifting off-topic here. What I'm looking for is an elegant way to clearly list a limited number of common names, preferably in an up-front manner. For example, a single line would be great, with possibly a trailing link to a Common names section somewhere below if there were more than would fit on that one line. --Jwinius 10:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even nine or ten names are a lot to include in the first sentence. And Buttonwood seems to be used for some other trees besides American Sycamore. I'm still thinking on how to handle the disambiguation and redirects for all of that. I've run into a similar situation with Coccothrinax, where some species have multiple common names, and some common names are used for multiple species, and species in other genera. I think the issue you raise is part of a larger issue of how do we treat multiple common names and shared common names in a consistent manner across WP. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 12:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is one of the reasons why I'm not a fan of using common names for article titles in the first place. But, that's another issue. I think that, regardless of how the article is named, it's important to list the common names early on. This would make it easier for many people to realized whether they've found the correct article without even having to read the introduction. In addition, listing the common names so early would also compensate somewhat for the confusion that is created when one common name is elevated over any others. --Jwinius 13:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For my views on naming articles, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive17#Which takes precedence: official common name or actual common name? -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 14:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects and listing links

Ok, I've got a complaint and a question. The complaint is about User:Pekinensis. Basically he's doing what I think is vandalism by redirecting species to genus articles. For example, look at the Psathyrotes article. If you copy and paste the species listed there, such as Psathyrotes annua, Psathyrotes pilifera, Psathyrotes ramosissima, Psathyrotes scaposa, as well as their common names, you'll find that they all redirect to the psathyrotes article. I don't think that should be allowed, because it causes a lot of problems. I asked him to stop (I admit I wasn't very nice at first, but I tried to be nicer at the end), but he just kind of ignored me after a while and keeps doing the same thing (the Psathyrotes example was after he ignored me).

My question is about lists and linking. I also couldn't find a page with rules about this. First off, should we link lower taxons from higher taxon articles? To use the first example that came to mind, if you go to Vanilla (orchid), you will notice that it has a list of species, all of which are linked even though they're red links. The second part of my question is about formatting. Should we list them like in the vanilla article (listed alphabetically, the common name after the scientific name), or like the Tarsier article, (linked common name first, then unlinked scientific name) or how?

Thanks, --TheAlphaWolf 17:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've come across these linked species that actually redirect back to the genus page and think it's a horrible practice. I think there are occasions where it's appropriate to just have the species or subspecies share the article with the genus (i.e. Repenomamus, Diatomys, or Mountain Beaver), but these are instances where a separate article will be essentially empty and/or duplicate what's in the genus article. If this is done, these should be bolded, not linked. The linking is misleading both readers and editors into thinking the article exists. The redirects should be speedy deleted. Unfortunately, it's often hard to talk a sysop into doing this so making a stub might be the only choice.

As for whether common or scientific names should be linked, I actually think both Vanilla and tarsier are good examples. Common names vary widely in name, spelling, and capitalisation. Scientific names are the only truly reliable name that we can be certain will get to the right page regardless of who starts the article. I do think articles should be titled based on common names, and once the link turns blue they can be linked to there if that's desired. In my opinion, however, if the link is red it should be to a scientific name. I know of many species articles that have existed for a long time without being linked to by the genus page because two editors used slightly different common names. --Aranae 18:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, we should not redirect names of taxa. Unless the target of the redirect describes the redirected taxon, the situation is misleading for the reader (they wanted information about the species, but were redirected to an article on a genus or family that is little use to them) and makes things difficult for editors (how do you tell which species in a list need to have articles written about them?). The reader who finds themselves at a non-existent page can always try "What links here" (conveniently available in the "toolbox" on most skins).

I always speedy-delete bogus redirects from taxa to other taxa, and I think you should, too. Gdr 19:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so it's agreed. Redirecting lower taxons to higher taxons is wrong, at least in the manner which I previously gave examples of. Problem is, I tried getting Corchorus olitorius deleted (since it redirects to Corchorus}, and AndyZ took out my delete banner. Couldn't we (*cough* and by "we" I mean Gdr, since you have more authority around here) edit [this page] or maybe some other page (I remember seeing a page specifically about what not to redirect, but I can't find it) so that we can cite that rule and save some trouble? That way I could also tell User:Pekinensis about that rule, and that should prevent him from making more redirects like that.

about linking lists- you know what wikipedia needs? standards. Everyone is out doing whatever they like, and personally I find it annoying. I guess until someone shows me a page that specifically says how to deal with lists and stuff, I will continue linking every single item in a list, organizing them alphabetically by scientific name and then have the common name follow it. So far nobody has complained, so I'll keep doing that. --TheAlphaWolf 00:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Open content animal closeups needing to be classified

At http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcodede/sets/72057594099874712/, a Brazilian photographer is making available a great number of stunning animal closeup photographs under a Wikipedia-compatible Creative Commons Attribution licence. I'd add them to Wikimedia Commons, but he's not identified the animals. Maybe our resident taxonomists would be interested? These images would be great additions to our articles on animals.

I've added this notice to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life and to Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). Anyone is invited to cross-post it anywhere else where it might be noticed by knowledgeable Wikipedians. Sandstein 15:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Binomial names in a list all in the same genus

I don't remember seeing guidance on this, and I don't feel like searching for it right now, so, if we have a list of binomial names, all in the same genus, (see Coccothrinax, for example), should the genus name be abbreviated for all the species in the list? Which of the lists below is preferable?

Coccothrinax
- Coccothrinax acuminata (Griseb. & H.L.Wendl.) K.Schum.
- Coccothrinax acunana León
- Coccothrinax alexandri León

Coccothrinax
- C. acuminata (Griseb. & H.L.Wendl.) K.Schum.
- C. acunana León
- C. alexandri León

-- Donald Albury^(Talk) 00:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that from the point of view of legibility, abbreviated is better. However, for linking purposes, it is simpler to use a full name. compare markup: [[Coccothrinax acuminata|C. acuminata]] vs. [[Coccothrinax acuminata]]. Circeus 00:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no particular guidance or custom on this, I won't worry about it. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 00:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although the form with the abbreviated genus looks nicer, please think about search engine indexing. We would like someone who searches for "Coccothrinax acunana" to find this page among the hits. So that means writing out the name in full at least once (it's safe to abbreviate it thereafter). Gdr 10:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Standard notation is to use the abbreviated form. If we don't have an article about the species, only the genus, then the searcher may be out of luck, particularly for very large genera where it is difficult to list all of the species. That all said, the cephalopod articles that I've made use the full form. Will a wiki search find "Coccothrinax acuminata" in [[Coccothrinax acuminata|C. acuminata]]? - UtherSRG (talk) 11:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gdr, UtherSRG, thanks for those points. I just leave the genus name spelled out. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 20:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CFD animals by country, plants by country, etc

The whole group of cats were CFD'd (although the undividual cats have not been tagged as yet). I thought that the people here would be in a good position to speak about the usefulness of this set of cats. Guettarda 19:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Here. Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_3#Category:Animals_by_country.2C_Category:Flora_by_country_and_all_the_subcategories. Guettarda 21:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lizard

I took this picture of a lizard in a French forest (near Lyon). There aren't many different species of lizards in France, but I really can't identify this one! Could it be a juvenile green lizard (Lacerta viridis)? IronC hris | (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unidentified Tussock Moth caterpillar

Unidentified caterpillar, possibly a Tussock Moth.

I found this cute caterpillar with false eye stalk hairs on my shirt in the vicinty of Cambridge, England this weekend. I put him on a beech leaf for the purposes of this portrait, but can anyone tell me the species. As best I can tell, he looks like being on of the Tussock moths. -- Solipsist 22:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's Lymantriidae. It's Orgyia antiqua, usually called The Vapourer in the UK. There is a very brief stub under the name Rusty tussock moth which needs serious expansion as this is a rather interesting species (the female is wingless and doesn't really look like Lepidoptera at all). Another one to add to the to do list! Richard Barlow 11:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh thanks. The darker colouring in the photo of the German variety already on that page was throwing me. But armed with the Vapourer name, I can find a number of examples with similar colouring on the web, as well as a description of the tussock hair defence by Alfred Wallace. -- Solipsist 18:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Common name cite in Infoboxes

Does anyone think it is necessary to cite common names in the headers on infoboxes where there is no confusion about a common name? See Western Quoll etc.--04:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm using that location to indicate the default source of all the info in the taxobox. Where else would it be appropriate to indicate the taxobox's data source? Should I put a reference on each piece of data in the taxobox? (See Wikipedia:How_to_read_a_taxobox.) - UtherSRG (talk) 04:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no contention a reference is unnecessary in my opinion. All scientific papers require is the binomial and the author. I should also add I think sticking Collin Groves Book on every mammal page is a tad misleading given that the information on Taxonomy is available in Wikispecies and several other free online sources.--Peta 04:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Groves' book, and you'll kindly note that I have several appropriate templates for the various authors that wrote for the book. Wikispecies is not a source; much of its information comes from books like MSW3, too. Just as we can't use other Wikipedia articles as a source citation, we can't use Wikispecies as a source citation. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good idea to cite a source on the taxobox. There may not always be controversy, but there will be older sources and it gets really frustrating when editors drag our taxonomy back several decades because they're using an older source. I agree that the placement of the citation on Western Quoll looks like it's the source for the common name. I don't hold that against Uther, I think that's currently about the only remotely logical place to add it to a taxobox. Is there any way we could put the citation after the words "Scientific Classification"? --Aranae 05:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we can, if we change the template to allow it, the way the status_ref was added. Be that as it may, MSW3 *is* a official source for the common name as well as the taxonomy. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely if there is some question about the taxonomy then the best place to discuss it is in the text (from where you can cite it)? Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there is question, yes, or even if there is a simple change. But should not all of our facts have some verifiable source, regardless of whether that fact is in question or has changed over time? - UtherSRG (talk) 10:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and no. If we're stating that the Western Quoll is a separate species from the Northern Quoll, contra many earlier papers, yes, we need to cite that. Best place to talk about that is the text. If we're stating that it is in the phylum Chordata in the clade mamalia and the family Dasyuridae then no, anymore than we would cite a reference for the fact that New Britain is an island off New Guinea or that Switzerland is a landlocked country in central Europe. In most cases it is sufficient to follow the scientific convention of linking to the original authour and date, if anything else needs proving then it will also need discussing in the text anyway. Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So saying "Callithrix (Mico) mauesi Mittermeier, et al, 1992" is enough, even though the common reader will have a hard time finding where Mittermeier published the information? The authority portion of a scientific name is fantastic for those in the biology field, but it does little for the common reader. It's also then incumbent upon the editor to cite the actual publication of the data. Given the enormous list of citations in MSW3 alone makes this a task unsuitable for a general encyclopedia, even an electronic one. Citing the more common source that the common reader can get their hands on to find the publication's listing goes a big step further, and removes the necessity of citing the thousands of sources the larger source books reference. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is 2006, it is extremely easy to find information on the taxonomy of mammals on the internet - there's NCBI, wikispecies and a host of other sources - none of which cite any authority (plants is another matter entirely). Expecting easy access to Colin Groves book is also a fallacy, I'm at a major uni and we don't have it in our library. If there are actually issues with the taxonomy and it is relevant to the article the author of the article is better to describe them in text and cite the literature.--Peta 23:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Groves' book, he is an author in the book, so perhaps you can't find it in your uni's library because you are searching incorrectly. Nonetheless, using the ISBN you can order it from Amazon.com or any number of other sources. I'm also assuming that the common reader is not at an educational organization. Without using your uni's library, can you find what publication "Mittermeier, et al, 1992" refers to? I don't believe I can, without going to MSW3 or some other such source. And we shouldn't have to make the reader hunt to find "Mittermeier, et al, 1992" on the internet, we should be explicit about how the reader can find that reference. Citing the source that lists that authority is the way we do that. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know how to search a library catalogue, so don't be a dick. The average person has easier access to taxonomic resources on the internet than they do any print source, thus the reason to add the Groves or any other reference to the taxobox is still entirely unclear to me.--Peta 14:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, no name calling is needed. Pray tell, put your money where your mouth is. In reference to Cheirogaleus medius, what publication does "É. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1812" refer to? In your response, indicate all the steps you had to go through to find the publication. You aren't allowed to use MSW3 as the first place you go to, since in your version of the article, the taxobox doesn't indicate MSW3 as the source of taxonomic information. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really think it would be great to include "É. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1812" in the reference section. There are too few places that actually give the full citation for that information. (Incidentally, the best web source to answer your question is: at ION, but it even fails with older references such as this one.) Cheirogaleus is a great example of why citing the source for taxonomy is needed. Geoffrey described the genus in 1812, Gray first elevated it to family status in 1873, but many authors following Gray treated it as a member of the Lemuridae. We're treating it as a separate family, not based on the opinion of Gray, but on the opinion of Groves. Thus Groves should be cited as the source of our taxonomy. I agree that the history of the taxonomy should be given treatment in the article, but most TOL articles are stubby and many editors won't have access to the detailed overview of the history of the revisions of a particular taxon. They will know where they found the information. --Aranae 19:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really I think that there are two issues here

Cluttering up an already potentially confusing taxobox with cites.
Providing a blanket reference to a secondary source, which isn't necessary to establish the basics of an animals taxonomy - and isn't that widely avaiable.

If a reader is acutally interested in detalied taxonomic revisions, and writers are willing to provide that detail, then they are better desrcibed clearly in the text with reference to the original litrature.--Peta 22:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Incidenatlly many (or most, I haven't checked) species or taxa level article begin Xxxx (Xxxx xxxyx) is a [inesrt higher level taxa] in the family [Xxxxidae]. That is a great place to whack a refernce in the event that the taxonomy is controversial and deviates from the normal sources. As for references or links for the original description, they don't even cite them in journals when refering to a species. They are content to go Canis lupus (L.) and leave it at that. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving "conservation status" down lower

There was a discussion on Template talk:Taxobox about changing the taxobox so that the "conservation status" is put into its own section, below the picture but above the classification. I was previously opposed to this change, but have come 180 and now fully support it. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UtherSGR. I've been meaning to get back onto this for a while. Now that the bugs in the taxobox have been worked out (like the ? alignment and line thing) it might be a good time to have another go at it. I'll see what I can do. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 23:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regional lists

List of Brazilian birds has the species list in the format

Scientific name, Portuguese name,

rather than the usual

English name, scientific name.

I'm particularly concerned about the listing only in a foreign language, which means that searches and "what links here" will miss this article. Do we have a policy on this? jimfbleak 06:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a strong case for translation into English. Perhaps retain the Portuguese names, but perhaps not. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It needs a major translation into English. There is no point in having the Portugese names. It was probably created directly from the Portugese wikipedia. --liquidGhoul 11:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll recreate the article from scratch (quicker than translating), but it may be a few days before I get the chance. jimfbleak 12:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lines visible through taxoboxes

Due to this change in the software codes [19], the background of taxoboxes has suddenly become transparent. Lines under headers are now visible when they run through a taxobox (at least in Firefox). I was told that adding style="background: white; " to the taxobox template would solve this problem. Can someone look into it ? JoJan 08:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also in Internet Explorer. I noticed the lines too. Peter Maas 09:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was noticeable on most browsers, we were talking about it on Template talk:Taxobox. Thakyou Jojan, I added the change, and the line has disappeared! If you can still see a line, editing the article will get rid of it. Thanks again. --liquidGhoul 09:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name that seal

File:Seal on the shore.jpg

Unknown seal

This image needs to be identified over at Pinniped. Circeus 00:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Location implies either a common (harbour) or grey seal. The face suggests common to me. Grey seal faces are much longer. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. --Aranae 06:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely Phoca vitulina. Richard Barlow 08:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photo hunt

Fauna of New Guinea is in need of photos! At the moment, I am still creating it, and many sections have not even been started, but I would like to have some photos for this article. I would much prefer endemic fauna, so it doesn't become a group of Australian animals which are also found in New Guinea. If anyone is willing, could you please have a look around the net, and maybe ask some people, for photos of New Guinea fauna. I have been asking around at Flickr (got the tree-kangaroo), but it is pretty poor in diversity. Thanks. --liquidGhoul 08:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested TOC

I looked quickly here and couldn't find a suggested table of contents to use as a rough guide for animal pages (as you'll find, for instance, at WikiProject countries). Is there some consensus about how to lay-out animal TOCs? Marskell 11:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean. --liquidGhoul 12:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's asking what sections a TOL article should have. If the article in question doesn't fall under a more specific Wikiproject than TOL, feel free to use as few sections as possible to maintain a coherent article. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rightio. Then, also look at WP:FA for an article which is similar. E.g. if it is about a species, look at the articles about species. --liquidGhoul 12:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I thought of looking at the FAs but this didn't help much. We have a number of whales listed, for instance, but all have a different list of sections. Gray Wolf is the only large land animal listed and, while it covers a lot of ground, I find the TOC to be less than ideal (it has "Social structure and hunting" and then later "Wolf hunting", for instance). Compare that to the massive cat article. We do not seem to have standardized nomenclature in our headlines at all ("scientific classification" or "taxonomy"? "Anatomy" as at Red Wolf or "physical traits" as at Tiger?)

I think it would be worthwhile to come up with something standardized. Marskell 15:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think, on the contrary, that standardisation is probably counter-productive. The important facts about a species (for instance) vary from case to case. Some may be invasive species, which require a section about that; others may be widely kept as pets; others may be important for other reasons. I would argue that the headings should be determined on a case-by-case basis, and not be standardised too much. We might argue about how to word the common sections (should it be "physical traits" or should it be "anatomy" or "morphology" or "appearance"?), but we should not insist that every species has a major section titled that way. The external morphology of Caenorhabditis elegans probably wouldn't fill a very long paragraph, while reams could be written just about the dentition of many apes. I suggest you consider which topics are most important to the organism in question, and use that as your guide. --Stemonitis 15:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting that the entire TOL is going to have a one size fits all TOC. But consistency across broad categories is hard to argue with. I think it silly that I can go from one panthera to another and have a completely different set of headlines. "We might argue..." Yes, let's debate it, and then let's write it down somewhere for future reference. Marskell 15:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So to clarify then, a list of potential section topics and the preferred titles for them. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. See here for the country example. I think it may be best to start with the low hanging fruit, by devising a list for the large land animals. From there, tweak it to fit other categories. Marskell 16:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you're restricting this to large land animals (just mammals?). That makes it easier. Here are my thoughts. Etymology probably isn't very important, certainly not enough to warrant a whole section; it could probably be included in the first paragraph. A section describing the scientific classification and relationships to other related taxa would be useful, in both directions (so, for a species, not only what genus it's in, but also what subspecies of it exist). The geographical distribution is vital, as is the ecology. Where they are not too long, these two could perhaps be dealt with together in one section. The only other section that must be included is a description of the outward appearance / external morphology ("anatomy" suggests innards). I would suggest an order like: [Introduction], Appearance, Distribution, Ecology, Classification. Beyond that, it really would have to be decided case by case. Animals are not like countries; they don't have obvious easily-divisible subtopics. --Stemonitis 16:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And behaviour! That's actually the one I'm chewing over as much could be included (should mating be listed there or perhaps a separate section on reproduction?). We also want both "outards" and innards, so Appearance and anatomy I think. Should it be Scientific classification or Taxonomy?

We can start just with the large mammals, as that's easiest (and deals with the articles that are probably most high-volume). Marskell 17:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You guys realise that this is the tree of life. You cannot apply most of what you are talking about to plants (behaviour), bacteria, fungi, nematodes, virus etc. If you would like to create TOC for mammals, I suggest doing it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals. --liquidGhoul 00:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. I very much doubt that many plants need a section on migration, but it might be quite important for the article on Arctic Terns! Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I completely hadn't realized. Thank-you. Marskell 21:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What list of contents one wants will vary a lot depending on the length of the page – pages with numerous headers and not many lines of text look awful, so if all there is on e.g. the behaviour of X amounts to two or three lines, then don't put in a separate ===Behaviour=== heading, just leave it as a paragraph without a header. My 'rule of thumb' is to average one header per 20 lines of text over the length of the page, and if the page is less than two monitor-screen-heights, then no more than three headers altogether. - MPF 17:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps flogging a dead horse here, but at least one common thing between all species is a ==Latin(ized) name==, and I'd like to see more species have their scientific name and synonyms translated, explained, IPAed, and turned into a sound file. I'm suggesting this because I have zero-to-nil Latin skills, and Genus/species names often baffle me. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 23:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fauna of ...

This is in regard to the "Fauna of ..." and "Flora of..." categories and articles. At the moment, there is no definite guideline as to the boundaries of these articles or boundaries. I believe they should only cover geographic areas, and not political borders. The simplest example I can give for this is that of New Guinea. Politically, New Guinea is split into two areas, Papua New Guinea and Irian Jaya (under the Indonesian government). To me, it seems silly to split New Guinea into these two areas. It creates two problems. If the article is split, they are basically identical. If two categories are created (which seems to be where New Guinea is going), then animals will get over-categorised.

Animals such as the Peregrine Falcon, if it were properly categorised, would be in hundreds of categories if they were done politically. If they were done geographically, it would still be in a lot of categories, but it would be appropriate for such a largely distributed bird.

I have discussed this with a few people, and the best argument so far is that most publications are based on political boundaries. I think this is an area where Wikipedia could stand out. If we base our boundaries on real things, then the articles are so much better. Also, it would require the use of more references, which could only be a good thing.

So far, I don't know what all the best groups would be, but for my area, I think it would be: Australia, New Zealand, New Guinea, Indonesian archipelago (probably including Borneo), Japan, Pacific. As for the continents, I don't really know the differences. This would be a good thing for someone more knowledgable in geogrpahy to determine. Thanks --liquidGhoul 08:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the Dutch Wikipedia, we have categories for the large biogeographic areas (Neotropic, Nearctic, Palearctic, Afrotropic, Oriental, and Australasiatic; subcategories of nl:Categorie:Dier naar regio). If I'm not mistaken, faunal provinces are different from those; we have no articles for them yet.

These categories work rather well; they give a good overview of what occurs in a given area. It would be unworkable to have separate categories for any country, since even a widespread African species like Mus musculoides would already need about 40 categories - and some birds may have even larger distributions. A problem with the biogeographical regions is that the boundaries are not always that clear; we even have a subcat for animals from Wallacea (Sulawesi+Nusa Tenggara), since that region can't really be put in either the Oriental or the Australasiatic region. It's workable, at least. (Another possibility I now think of is to have categories for endemic species of particular countries and leave the widespread species outside the categories.) Ucucha 11:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(After edit conflict.) I can see this becoming quite complicated. At the highest level, we have the Biogeographic Regionss. Of course, nations do not always fit neatly into a biogeographic region. For instance, the Wallace Line, dividing the Oriental and Australian (in Wallace's terms) regions, runs through Indonesia (and, it's not really a line, but rather a transitional zone). However, within biogeographic regions the particular mix of fauna and flora varies by latitude, altitude, climate variations, and idiosyncratic local variations. Oceanic islands up to New Zealand are generally biogreographical isolates, each with a unique fauna and flora. The biggest problem is that each species has it own range. Looking at the countries you mention, some species may be distributed throughout much of the Australian Biogeographical Region, others may be confined to Australia or to New Guinea, and still others may be found only in Tasmania. Building a hierarchy of biogeographical categories, starting with the six or so regions, may be feasible, and if done properly, would allow most species to be categorized more or less precisely. Fauna of ... and Floria ... sections could then refer to the appropriate biogeographical areas, and add details on local variations. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 12:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can also see it getting quite complicated. I don't think the Biogeographic regions are the best option, as they don't give the best level of detail. The difference of flora and fauna in New Guinea to Australia is quite remarkable, even though they are the same biogeographic region. However, Tasmania is very similar to southeastern Australia. There would be problems in many parts of the world. The best way to resolve it, would be to assertain whether the flora/fauna is unique enough for its own article. E.g. Puerto Rico from South America. How about we make a list of all the regions we think should be included, and we can discuss the specifics. If the list turns out to be good, we can try to implement it? Thanks --liquidGhoul 13:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have been reading Fauna of Puerto Rico liquidGhoul ;-)

But seriously what would be the parameters for determining notable uniqueness for a region?Joelito (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biodiversity hotspots and islands with endemic faunas? Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of bioregions

Australasia

Australia
New Zealand
New Guinea

Antarctica
Asia

Asia
Indonesia (including Borneo?)
Japan (?)

Europe
Africa

Africa
Madagascar

India

India
Seychelles

South America

South America
Puerto Rico
Central America
Cuba (?)

North America
Pacific

I don't know about a lot of these regions; some should probably be split up further, and others merged. I will leave that to people who know better, this is just a start. I also think most of the Pacific should be one region. Although most islands have a lot of endemics, they also have very little biodiversity. An article cannot be made on each and every island. Thanks --liquidGhoul 23:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Pacific should at least be broken up into Melanasia (non Papuan that is), Polynesia, Micronesia, New Zealand and Hawaii. The Seychelles would be lumped closer to Africa not India, and the Mascarene Islands would need to be included also. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to change anything, just edit the list, I'm fine with that. --liquidGhoul 05:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a big problem with having an article on the flora and fauna (or a combined flora and fauna article, or a biodiversity article like this one) for every island/country or region if someone wants to make to make a good attempt at it. For example Hawaii has a different flora to the Samoan Islands and both places have different forces affecting the preservation of that flora; info from the Fauna of New Guinea would be equally relevant in an article on the fauna of Indonesia. Sometimes it is logical to use a bioregion, but trying to impose an overarching scheme over what type of areas get which kind of articles probably won't work since it is very hard to get any kind of overarching scheme to work on Wikipedia. As far as categories go, I tend to think that categorisation by country or as a cosmopolitan genera/species might be the best way to go.--Peta 03:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if someone wants to create an article for each Pacific Island, that would be great.

I don't agree with your statement about having an article for each country. If the Fauna of Indonesia article includes info about Fauna of New Guinea, then there would be a hell of a lot of repetition between articles, and a hell of a long article. The introduction should state that the political boundaries include western New Guinea, and have a link to the appropriate article. Other than that, it is causing some problems. The Biodiversity in Israel and Palestine could be expaned to include the entire region (Middle East or whatever that be). Under the political system, you could validly create two seperate articles, with pretty much the same content, on Armenia and Azerbaijan. What's the use?

Oh, and I don't understand what you said about the categorisation. --liquidGhoul 05:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The case for different articles for islands or island groups is stronger than national units, as you say you could easily make the case for a single article for, say, East Africa, or the Caucuses. I don't think articles based soley on a national units would ever be the same - in the case of Indonesia it would cover three regions (Sunda, Wallacea and Papua) and thus it woud be a different article from that of New Guinea, though there would be a lot of overlap. Moreover people who are from particular countries and regions are going to be interested in their own countries, even if they aren't dramatically different from their neighbours. If people want to write those articles I don't think it is realistic to ask them not too. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point. Don't create them for seperate countries, and you don't have the problem of people wanting to create a very similar article because their neighbour has one. Creating articles for regions would allow for collaboration between people of different countries, and overall a better article. --liquidGhoul 06:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you to a point, I just think that it is hard to enforce (easier with cats) Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The usefulness of having articles based in a particular country shoud be obvious - since any laws that are enacted to protect biodiversity are typically at the country level, and most countries keep their own lists of rare and endangered species that often differ greatly from the IUCN, conservation is easier to discuss at the country level. Also an animal may be extinct in the Netherlands but thriving in Austria, so an article on the fauna of western Europe will probably have to discuss national borders anyway. An article on the fauna of Indonesia is going to cover a lot more ground that just New Guinea, since the coutry is split across the Wallace line, creating a good article that wasn't overly long wouldn't be too difficult. What's the problem with articles containing similar content, Wikipedia is not paper? I'm not suggesting we create stubs fot all the potential articles, but if someone did write them, I don't think that they would be problematic in any way. I think a national article would also be better that using ecozones.

On categories, I was suggesting that genera and species that have a wide distribution should be put in a categories like category:migratory birds, or Category:cosmopolitan species rather than putting a species in lots of country categories.--Peta 07:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conservation is one section within the article. The conservation laws of many countries could be worked into a single article. If it gets too cumbersome, then create a (or many) subarticles. This is not a reason to repeat a lot of information about the fauna of a region, which is what the article should be about.

I seriously doubt that there are many extinctions based on a political line. The Green and Golden Bell Frog has undergone severe declines in NSW, but not in VIC. This is just a conincidence, the decline actually starts because of climatic difference. Extinction of individual species is not included within these articles unless they are of high notability, like the Thylacine. How many extinct species are actually mentioned in Fauna of Australia? If a species is extinct in the Netherlands, but thriving in Austria, I think it would be better to have the combined article. If it is extinct in the Netherlands, the chance of it being mentioned in an article focused on the Netherlands is little (what differentiates it from other extinct animals?) Same goes for Austria (what is special about an organism which is common?). However, if the article is combined, the species shows a strange distribution across Europe, which could be further elaborated on. Especially under the subject of conservation, is it a difference in policies which has caused these extinctions?

If an article becomes so big that it warants splitting, then it can be split. The same as we do with species. If there is enough information to split a species into subspecies, then do so. Otherwise, we are needlessly splitting and repeating information. I think it is better to encourage people to create unique articles, than waste their time repeating the same information.

I like the idea of having Category:Cosmopolital species, but migration is a behavioural trait, and should not replace a distribution category. This still leaves many species which are not truely cosmopolitan, but still have large distributions. Thanks --liquidGhoul 11:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to invent warm water again. Several internet databases already use standardized geographic distribution schemes, e.g. the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew : [20]. If we want to categorize, than we better follow these rules. JoJan 08:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really like that one. It doesn't split Australia in a logical way. What is different about central Australia in the Northern Territory and central Australia in South Australia. Do you know of a standard geographic distribution scheme which is not politically based? Thanks --liquidGhoul 11:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following is another geographic distribution scheme : R.K. Brummitt "World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions" (second edition August 2001). This pdf.file (153 pages) can be downloaded at [21]. It's worthwhile to have a good look at it. JoJan 12:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At first I thought of the "Fauna of ..." categories as a harmless trend, but now I've come to regard them as irritating at best. I first thought of two problems that both involve unreasonable numbers. First, each "Fauna of ..." category has the potential to become gigantic, so that as they grow, they will have to be split up many times into ever smaller, more specific categories. That's a lot of work. So, why not just save ourselves the effort and start with more specific categories in the first place?

Second, even if we did that, we'd still get into trouble. "Birds of ..." for example, may seem reasonable, but many species are found across one or more continents that included very many countries. For many common species, the result would be perhaps 100 or more "Birds of ..." category tags in a single article, which is ridiculous. You could try to limit the number of these categories by using geographic regions instead of countries, as liquidGhoul suggests, but it looks to me like this idea will be either controversial, or of limited value, or both.

A third and more serious argument can be made especially against "... of <country>" categorization on the grounds that it fosters inaccuracy. This is because broad and rather vague statements are often made regarding geographic ranges. For example, if an author states that a certain species is found in West Africa from Ivory Coast east to Nigeria, it is a common mistake to assume that the species is therefore also found in Ghana, Togo and Benin; so many times this just hasn't turned out to be the case. However, when applying "... of <country>" categorization at Wikipedia, its likely that this is exactly what will happen.

Organizing all of our biological organism articles into a single tree of life will be difficult enough to set up and maintain, so it's quite unreasonable to think that we can achieve this for every country in the world -- or even for just a few bioregions. Therefore, I suggest we abandon the whole idea. --Jwinius 00:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although some categories are unworkable, not all are. For example, Category:Frogs of Australia seems to be a nice, workable list. For such creatures such as birds which can have wide ranges, like, say, Rock Pigeons, which are found in a large number of countries, I would suggest replacing categories with prose. E.g.

"The Rock Pigeon is found in Australia, throughout North America, and has been introduced to French Polynesia, etc..."

(where the links go to article lists, rather than to categories. The benefits of this approach are twofold: The article is not crowded with long lists of categories, and the information is presented in readable prose. The prose form also presents more information, and naturally ignores redundant categories (e.g. you don't bother mentioning USA and Canada if you've already said "throughout North America") - so redundant categories do not crowd the page (even if equivalent lists exist as articles on Wikipedia). Categories and prose/lists both have advantages and should each be used where appropriate. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 07:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may consider Category:Frogs of Australia manageable (although with more than 200 species, that is debatable), but what's the point? Where do you stop? I mean, if you can do "Frogs of Australia", why can't he do "Lizards of Japan", why can't she do "Snakes of Sri Lanka" and they do "Salamanders of Florida"? Then we'd still have the problems I mentioned above. I suggest that we keep things simple at this stage and stick to a tree of life structure as much as possible, using descriptive articles with short lists for everything down to the suborder level, after which we can use categories to help in listing the genera, species and subspecies.

I know it's tempting to create categories like "Frogs of Australia", since so many books like that are available (I have more than a few myself). However, even though it may be practical to write and sell books that way, at Wikipedia it's just not practical to make geographic categories for all forms of life. Organizing all of our articles into a single tree of life, even at this early stage, will be hard enough to achieve.

As for replacing categories with prose, I couldn't agree more, if only because this is the way it is often written in the literature we quote. We have no business changing that kind of information no matter how it's formulated. --Jwinius 13:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't agree with just based on the fact that I use these categories, particularly Frogs of Australia. It is very useful as I can keep an eye on whether any new articles have been created in the field I am interested, without having to look through all the genus categories (which is pretty useless, as I may as well look through the article). I am finding that categorising species based on their taxonomy starts to get useless the more information that Wikipedia gets. It is still useful when species articles are created without genus or family articles, but once they have been created, you can just look through the articles to find what you want. The use of a category is for someone to browse Wikipedia. Say someone can't think of the name of Peron's Tree Frog. It is useless for them to look at Category:Tree frogs, as it is huge, with heaps of sub-categories. But, if they look at Category:Frogs of Australia, they can see the frog and it could jog their memory. It seems more useful to categorise geographically for the use of browsing. --liquidGhoul 13:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem I see with these categories is that we do not have a stopping point. For exmaple Category:Fauna of Mexico by state. Is it really necessary to have categories for every Mexican state? Are they really that different? Joelito (talk) 14:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would make sense to restrict these categories to taxa with more or less restricted distributions. They would therefore become, more or less, categories of endemic taxa of certain regions. Australia has lots of endemic frogs, so a category for that would make sense, whereas [[Category:Newts of Leicestershire]] is patently useless. I would argue that once a combination of area (and yes, they must be geographical, not political areas) and taxon covers enough articles for a category, there's no reason why it shouldn't exist. But we do also need some way of dissuading editors from adding widespread species to many more or less unhelpful categories (perhaps things like [[Category:Cosmopolitan birds]], [[Category:Cosmopolitan ferns]], and so on could be employed?). --Stemonitis 14:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the categorization should be mainly of genus, because it is a taxon that represents all the creatures very well (animals or plants) and that the categorization should also take in consideration the largest area of range of this genus. Example: Abeliophyllum is endemic to Korea, then it should be included in the Category:Flora of Korea; already Acacia that is a genus of vast distribution, in the whole area pantropical, it should be placed in the Category:Pantropical Flora.It should be followed a source, example Good and his 6 floristic Kingdoms: Paleotropical, Neotropical, Holarctic, Australia, Cape (South Africa) and Antarctic.In my opinion the two formulas Fauna or Flora by country and Fauna or Flora by region work.The Fauna or Flora by country would be more for genera with restricted distribution to countries, as the endemic ones. Berton 15:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with liquidGhoul that it is not always practical to create categories along taxonomic lines, but only when they are too rigid. For instance, I recently completed Category:True vipers (that's all there is, according to ITIS), but Category:Pit vipers will eventually become too large (close to 300 taxa). So, what then? Well, in many such cases it's probably best to subcategorize the larger genera, but here it might be a better idea to split it up into "Old World Pit Vipers" and "New World Pit Vipers", as there are over 100 Asian taxa. But, this would be semi-geographical categorization, so it would not be nearly as problematic.
I believe the latter agrees with part of what Stemonitis said. However, I'm afraid his idea of limiting geographic categories to more or less restricted distributions would get us into trouble as well. Although a category like "Endemic Fauna of France" may end up being quite small, similar categories for countries like Australia and Indonesia would be huge, and you'd once again be forced to deal with seemingly endless subcategorization.
As for Burton's suggestion that only genera be used as a standard for categorization, this is too rigid. Many genera are way too small: what's the use of creating a category for a genus with only a single species? Better to group these into subfamilies. Category:True vipers is a good example: it is complete and represents three whole subfamilies. On the other hand, some genera comprise so many species on their own that there is no better solution than to create separate categories for them. --Jwinius 16:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But we wouldn't make a [[Category:Fauna of France]], because that's a political, not a geographical (or biogeographical) area. And I don't see any problem in later splitting Fauna of Australia into Category:Crustaceans of Australia, Category:Birds of Australia and so on. It seems to work at the moment. --Stemonitis 16:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's even worse. For the moment it may be an okay solution, but you have to think ahead. That kind of subcategorization will ultimately result in a miniature tree of life for that region. That's too much complexity for us to deal with: one tree of life for the entire planet is going to be hard enough for us to achieve. --Jwinius 17:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia categories are not mutually exclusive. Articles should be placed in as many categories as make sense. I would imagine that before too long we'll be routinely categorising taxa not only by phylogeny (e.g. Category:Nymphalidae), and (bio-)geography (e.g. Category:Fauna of Australia), but also by ecology (e.g. Category:Alpine plants), palaeontology (e.g. Category:Triassic animals) and possibly several other criteria. It would be more productive for us to work out now how these categories should best be organised before they become too disorganised. Such multiple classification is desirable and useful, and is no more complex than categorising a person as, say, a 1783 birth, an 1840 death, an American botanist, an American zoologist, a botanist active in North America, an algologist, a bryologist, a pteridologist, a botanist with an author abbreviation, a French botanist, a French zoologist, a malacologist, a carcinologist, a meteorologist, a mycologist, a polymath, and a Mayanist (Constantine Samuel Rafinesque-Schmaltz). Intersecting categories (Category:American botanists being both in Category:Botanists and Category:American people) are the norm, not the exception, and we should not oppose them here. Sorry, but the world is horribly complex, and there are many more ways of classifying organisms than just by phylogeny. --Stemonitis 07:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, from your point of view, it's okay to look at a Wikipedia article from 1000 different angles -- to be able to find the same article in 1000 different categories. Well, okay, but then you're talking about articles that have 1000 different category tags. The question is then: Who's going to add them all... to all those thousands of articles? Who's going to maintain them? Are you? It's better to let readers use a search engine than to create a myriad of obscure categories for them (that they probably won't use anyway). In my own articles, I mostly use lists and wlinks. --Jwinius 16:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think didn't express myself well.I wanted to say that was to consider mainly the genera and to include them in regional categories or for countries, I didn't say to create categories for taxa like categories of small genera.

BTW, I think that is time of launching WikiProject:Floras and WikiProject:Faunas, how about? Berton 17:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you're suggesting that we use genera (taxnomic info) for every country or bioregion category? That would eventually result in nothing less than the same horrible complexity that would result from Stemonitis' solution. My point is: isn't a single tree of life for the entire world -- in which every taxon is mentioned only once -- going to be hard enough to achieve? --Jwinius 17:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone look into a this?

There'a a lot of links being made to ARKive.org (link list), and it's unclear whether they are adding to the articles or are just a case of extreme linkfarming. See spam project discussion for details. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We already decided that ARKive links were good. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Microphylum - neologism?

User:Dinoguy2 has raised an issue at Talk:Amniota about the use of microphylum as a taxonomic level. This use of 'microphylum' as a taxonomic classification appears to be a neologism in Wikipedia. Using Google, I cannot find any instance of 'microphylum' in association with 'Amniota' anywhere other than in Wikipedia and its mirrors. Unless someone can point me to a reliable source for 'microphylum' as a taxonomic level, and particularly applying to 'Amniota', I will remove 'microphylum' wherever I find it it, and nominate the redirect at Microphylum for deletion. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 11:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[22] has one instance of the term before its use in Wikipedia. Don't know how authoritive that is. More importantly, a Google books search shows the term has been used in literature. The first hit is Biological Systematics: Principles and Applications by Randall T Schuh, who gives an example of cladistic classification following Loconte and Stevenson 1990, 1991 including the microphyla Coniferales and Anaspermae. Most of the hits are for linguistic microphyla, however. -- Eugène van der Pijll 11:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so it's not a neologism on Wikipedia, although it doesn't look like it is widely accepted in taxonomy. It also doesn't look like it's use in Wikipedia is sourced, and that still needs to be addressed. When I have time ... -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 11:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket

Were you aware that cricket links to the sport, not to the insect or a disambiguation? Am I the only one who thinks that's crazy? --Aranae 08:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean but I'd say that the majority of people looking for "cricket" would be looking for the sport. -- Froggydarb ^croak 11:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the sport would be much more commonly searched than the insect. --liquidGhoul 11:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomen nudum, nomen conservandum, and other nomenclatural terms

Several botanical editors have pointed out that the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature differ substantially in many respects, and have quite rightly edited numerous articles to reflect or clarify these differences. But has there been any consensus on when terms or concepts used in both should be covered by the same article? The examples at hand are Nomen nudum and Nomen conservandum. The terms are in use in both botanical and zoological nomenclature, are spelled identically and have essentially identical meanings (although the conservation process is certainly different). My own opinion is that, given such a close similarity, it makes little sense not to include references to both the botanical and zoological concepts in the same article. I have been butting heads over this with Brya, who seems to think these articles must be reserved for the zoological concepts, and the botanical concepts should be... well, I don't quite know. All I know is that s/he has been removing all botanical references from these articles. Separate articles for Nomen nudum (zoology) and Nomen nudum (botany), both saying pretty much the same thing? As Brya and I have had some several acrimonious disputes in the recent past, I need some relatively objective third-party opinions. MrDarwin 13:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with MrDarwin on this one. If the terms are so similar for both systems, it makes no sense to create separate articles. Besides, having them in the same articles and explaining the differences there would also be good from an educational standpoint. --Jwinius 14:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this is also being discussed (in a manner of speaking) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants. MrDarwin 15:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the discussion was almost immediately derailed, I have separated the tangential discussion under a new heading immediately below. I would still like to hear the opinions of other editors regarding my specific question about how to handle the Nomen nudum and Nomen conservandum articles, and the more general question: when the terms are identical and the concepts nearly so, does it make sense for a single article to address both botanical and zoological nomenclature? MrDarwin 04:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Important note: Brya has moved the Nomen conservandum article, including its editing history, to a new article entitled Conserved name (zoology) and has started a completely new article under the title Nomen conservandum, with an editing history of its own. A rather neat little trick, if a bit confusing to anybody trying to follow this discussion. MrDarwin 18:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomen nudum, nomen conservandum, and other nomenclatural terms (continued)

Firstly let me challenge MrDarwin's statement: "Several botanical editors have pointed out that the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature differ substantially in many respects." This is not the case: there is only one such editor, which is me.
Secondly, the articles on botanical nomenclatural are in pretty good shape (except where degraded by MrDarwin), and this is because I put them in. I would not say the same of the articles on zoological nomenclature, as I have restricted myself to getting out the most horrendous errors in the basic facts. Wikipedia does not have an editor who is really competent in zoological nomenclature, which is not really surprising as this is a vast and highly complex topic. It takes hard work to get more than a basic competence on the matter. The same is true for botanical nomenclature, but I happen to be competent to represent the basic items of botanical nomenclature, and have done so. So, summing up: wikipedia certainly does not have an editor who is competent to make comparisons across these two fields, and who is able to avoid opening the cans of worms.
Thirdly what wikipedia does have is many people who feel that "taxonomy" and "nomenclature" are two words for the same thing and who feel that if something is believed to be true for names of animals then it is also good enough for the names of plants. In itself this is understandable, as these days nomenclature is an esoteric topic, with few people having a decent grasp. However, when this ignorance turns militant and starts a war on facts things get really ugly. Brya 15:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting slightly back on topic, how is it not both factual and informative to note that the terms nomen nudum and nomen conservandum are used in both botanical and zoological nomenclature, and have virtually identical meanings under both? To include a reference to the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature in the articles? To restore these articles to the Botanical Nomenclature category after noting their botanical relevance? I am quite mystified and simply don't understand Brya's reasons for objecting so bitterly to my actions. I quite agree with Brya that these articles need a lot more work and could be greatly improved, and I don't understand why I have been criticized for taking some steps in that direction. MrDarwin 13:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not understanding is not a virtue. In this edit you made the explicit connection between a nomen nudum as used in botany with the following three statements:

“

[a nomen nudum] may not have been published, or published but in a form that does not satisfy the requirements of the appropriate code of nomenclature (for example, published only on the internet).

”

“

[a nomen nudum] may have been published but without the intent to create a new scientific name, for example it may be accompanied with conditions, or with a disclaimer, or simply lacking an indication that the name is intended to be new.

”

“

[a nomen nudum] may have been published, but without a description or type specimen, or with a description that is inadequate to distinguish that organism from its relatives.

”

If you cannot see anything wrong in these definitions of a nomen nudum in botany as espoused by you, then I cannot only conclude that you either are a) not acting in good faith or b) so ignorant on such matters that you should not be editing such pages.

Clearly your "taking some steps in that direction" consists in creating the greatest tangle imaginable in order to pressure others in running after you to clean up your messes. Brya 17:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The definitions Brya claims I "espouse" (and strongly implies that I wrote myself) were added by previous editors of this article; I left what was there, while acknowledging the article needs further work (as so many on Wikipedia do). Brya's comments here are teetering on the brink of dishonesty.

It is quite unfortunate that the term nomen nudum is not explicitly defined in the ICBN (even though it is used therein and implicitly accepted), but the ICBN is vague on many points and quite inadequate in others. Nevertheless, the term "nomen nudum" is widely used by botanists and to pretend otherwise is to fly in the face of both reality and common sense. There is far more to the practice of systematic botany than the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. MrDarwin 17:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You did add that category, thereby connecting this information to this concept in botany, thereby indeed espousing these definitions as being true for botany. And thereby indeed enlarging the area that this misinformaton damaged. Denying your actions and the consequences of your actions is over the edge of dishonesty. Brya 16:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I invite anybody who cares about this matter to examine my contributions. Please note especially the editing history and talk page of the article Type (botany), in which any and all additions and changes by several editors (not just me) have been summarily deleted, reverted, or otherwise rejected by Brya, who seems to have staked out this and numerous other articles as personal property which only s/he is apparently qualified to edit in any way. Attempting to improve such articles or alter them in any way results in accusations of vicious attack. MrDarwin 15:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody is free to examine this, but actually this is hard to judge without some knowledge of the topic (as the ICBN is online in it should be doable to verify that everything I put in is quite factual, but not all that easy). Do note that whatever MrDarwin has been trying here, it does not have an upside: his additions would not have led to a significant improvement in the article, even if they were factual, which they were not. Also note that his warring on the page itself is quite against guidelines of good conduct in wikipedia. It was I who initiated adiscussion on the Talk page, but in vain: he cared nothing for that or for anything except his own beliefs. Brya 16:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You argue about the facts, but after a quick glance at a few of the disputed articles, it seems that neither you have ever bothered to say exactly where your information comes from. Well of course you argue! Why should anybody believe either of you at all?! In a situation like this, you should both be citing your references rigorously for (almost) every sentence you write. Working like this may make writing a little slower at first, but as long as you quote accurately (without plagiarizing) and refrain from ever voicing your own opinions, very few will bother to argue with you. This approach even allows for things like contradicting opinions within the same paragraph; let the readers make up their own minds about who to believe. Of course, this is also an approach that demands strict adherence to the facts -- always -- but then... that is the point. --Jwinius 00:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with the Jwinius' suggestion to come up with arguments, especially references. TeunSpaans 07:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Above a direct quote from MrDarwin's edit. A nomen nudum is not formally defined in the ICBN, nor does it any status in the ICBN. So it is quite marginal if it would belong in the category "botanical nomenclature, even if it were correctly defined. However, its informal usage in botany is not doubt. To quote the semi-official glossary (outdated in some respects, but not on this point), which defines it as:

"Nomen nudum. Latin, a 'naked name', i.e. one published without description or diagnosis, or reference to either, abbreviated nom. nud.; not a name in the sense of the Code because not validly published; see Name."

Clearly this is nowhere near any of the three definitions espoused by MrDarwin.

Also note that I went and corrected the definition to make the page conform at least to the ICZN. All MrDarwin is doing is screaming his head off because his personal belief system is being violated. Throwing tantrums is not constructive by any measure. Brya 17:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brya, I am glad you come up with a reference. MrDarwin can respond to that. You say hrowing tantrums is not constructive by any measure and you are quit right in this. So please dont throw around remarks like I cannot only conclude that you either are a) not acting in good faith or b) so ignorant on such matters that you should not be editing such pages. Degrading the person you disagree with, isnt an acceptable discussion technique here. Be courtious, and your fellow wikipedians will respond courtiously. TeunSpaans 18:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teun, my response is that Brya did not actually come up with a reference, but a quotation from an unknown source. Nevertheless, the definition Brya provides is actually very similar to the definitions that were added to the article by previous editors (not by me, as Brya implies). I do resent Brya saying I am "screaming [my] head off" and "throwing tantrums" but I think Brya's own words and actions here and elsewhere speak for themselves. MrDarwin 14:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can only note that MrDarwin statement that the definition quoted by me "is actually very similar to the definitions [...]" is proving my point that he is either "a) not acting in good faith or b) so ignorant on such matters that you should not be editing such pages". [I do admit that this is not a nice thing to say, but as MrDarwin says "actions speak for themselves". If he insists on convicting himself I cannot help it] Brya 16:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To sum up this argument for those who came in late... It seems Brya wants to have two separate articles because this would separate out botanists and zoologists and give each their own article to work on, and "wikipedia certainly does not have an editor who is competent to make comparisons across these two fields"; meanwhile MrDarwin sees that the concepts used in botany and zoology are in fact the same concept, and would like to unite the articles. Beyond that it seems to have been a pissing match over the quality of each others contributions and some thinly veiled person attacks.

It seems obvious to me (having no expertise on the subject) that nomen nudum should be a single article, as should Nomen conservandum, which ought to have Conserved name (zoology) merged into it, as this is an encyclopedia which has articles about concepts, not about every synonymous word and phrase. If there really is no one able to make the comparisons between the plant and animal fields for these articles as Brya believes, then simply having two headings ("Botany" and "Zoology") within these articles will surely give editors some space to write about their field of expertise until some exceptionally tallented person comes along to write a blurb about both together, creating a lovely introduction before the headings which starts with something like:

A conserved name or nomen conservandum is a scientific name that enjoys special nomenclatural protection.

If this solution does not address your concerns, Brya, please clearly state why. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 23:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone and made these changes as I've stated. Please feel free to add to the "Botany" heading on the Conserved name article. Brya, it has been difficult to find your specific arguments for keeping the articles separate. I'm sorry that you feel that zoology and botany are two distinct fields, but, as argued by others above, the the similarities by far outweigh the differences. This is not like Cricket (sport) and Cricket (insect). Please clearly state your reasons, without retortic, before trying to split the article(s) up again. Your reason given that wikipedia does not have an editor who can edit both zoological and botanical sections is a poor (and incorrect) argument. Your other reason given that zoological and botanical worlds must not collide is not even a reason, but a hierarchical/reductionist ideal with no substance. —Pengo ^{talk· contribs} 02:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually nomen nudum and nomen conservandum are two entirely different cases. A nomen nudum has no status under either Code (that is no rules apply to it), although the ICZN does define this for convenience only. Informal usage is probably the same, although I would not want to guarantee this.

Conservation is regulated by both Codes, and that is all that these two have in common. There is a saying "The US and the UK are two countries separated by a common language", and if you cube that (twice) you will have an idea of the difficulties. Not only is the language of the two Codes completely different, but also the underlying concepts, the procedures, etc, etc, etc. A full treatment of the topic in botany would not fit anywhere near on a wikipedia page, and probably the same applies to the topic in zoology also.

My statement that "Wikipedia does not have an editor who is really competent in zoological nomenclature, which is not really surprising as this is a vast and highly complex topic. It takes hard work to get more than a basic competence on the matter." remains eminently true, unless said editor is carefully hiding himself (which might be a very wise thing to do. Apparently the only thing that is more hated than scientific names are rules about scientific names). Brya 16:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that a very similar dispute arose several weeks ago regarding Tautonym and Tautonymy, which Brya insisted on splitting into separate articles. I was only peripherally involved in that one, but my opinion was and still is that the two articles should be merged. The danger with splitting such concepts so finely is that it threatens to turn Wikipedia into the dictionary that it is not supposed to be. MrDarwin 13:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear! --Jwinius 13:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well you only have to look at the Tautonym page with its heartbreaking errors to realize how this idea of merging non-related topic inevitably turns out. Brya 16:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the most egregious bit of clutter to the end of the article and reworded slightly, although I doubt it will satisfy Brya.MrDarwin 17:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brya, your ranting about the difficulty of understanding the meanings of the terms does not include a reason for splitting the articles. Your input on Wikipedia is appreciated, but your rubbishing of the capabilities of Wikipedians is irrelevant to the topic being discussed. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 21:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly I cannot stop anybody from lying to himself.

I suppose I should thank MrDarwin. By including the reference (that he claimed I did not provide) in an article, although completely inappropriate, he once again clearly demonstrated the case against providing references in anything that is web-based. He thus also proved that in practice Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, but an eclectic gathering of whatever can be turned up by anybody who passes by. Brya 08:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Desert flower for identification

Unidentified desert flower
Unidentified desert flower
Unidentified desert flower

Hi all, these photos are of a small, very low-growing flowering plant which I found all over the place in desert areas of Lanzarote. I was fascinated by the little 'globules', but have no idea of the species. Might I call upon your knowledgeable ranks for some assistance? Thanks in advance, --Yummifruitbat 01:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This plant is Mesembryanthemum crystallinum of the Family Aizoaceae, see [23].--Berton 02:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Siberian tiger

From what i have heard the Siberian tiger is now officially known as the Amur tiger, due to its range being far more relevant to the Amur River than Siberia. Should we try to rename the article to Amur_tiger rather than Siberian_tiger and refer to it as Amur in text? --chris_huh 17:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been moved. However I disagree with this move since Siberian tiger is the most common name for that subspecies and according to our naming conventions the most common name should be used. Joelito (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it. "Most common name" by counting what? Common references? Scientific references? Zoological references? We should never be tied down to using what the common folk believe is correct, for then we fail as an educational tool. We should strive to be more correct than that and use correct names, with redirects from the "common folk names". - UtherSRG (talk) 18:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And our naming convention should be changed. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My own question is, who is the international arbiter of what is the "official" or "correct" name for a particular animal or plant? In my opinion the only "correct" name is the scientific name (although even those can get you in trouble at times) and this kind of controversy--which arises all the time with plant articles, and apparently animal articles as well--would be irrelevant if the article titles were the scientific names with "common" names redirecting to them, rather than vice-versa. The advantage of using scientific names is that they are, by and large, unambiguous and accepted internationally. MrDarwin 18:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. Scientific names get you into a lot less trouble than common names. Do scientific names look weird? Of course they do, but that's not the point. It's simply the only way to make absolutely sure that everyone knows exactly what species the article is about. Also, to make sure readers aren't confused when they jump to an article with an unfamiliar name, I've altered my intro style a little. Example: gaboon viper. --Jwinius 18:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Mammal Species of the World, 3rd ed., is the official listing of official common names for mammal species. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Official" according to whom? That's what I'm getting at. Who decided that this is the "official listing", and just how widely is it accepted as such? MrDarwin 19:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to see any journal or other official source material claim that MSW3 is not the official. It picks up on a previous work which was, at the time, the official listing of mammalian common names. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UtherSRG, I think you must have misunderstood my question, because you haven't answered it. MrDarwin 20:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The American Ornithologists' Union also have such an "official" list of common names, but I hear those names are not taken as seriously in the English-speaking world outside of the Unites States, nor are they always followed in Wikipedia. I'm guessing the case involving "Mammal Species of the World, 3rd ed." will not be much different. For for less controversy, for better accuracy, internal and external continuity, for crossing time and language barriers, nothing beats scientific names. --Jwinius 20:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MSW3 is an attempt at standardizing English common names and is a natural continuation from Wilson and Cole (2000). It is in no way the "official" ledger of common names and makes no claim as such. It is strictly the opinion of a single (or sometimes two) author(s). There is no governing body over mammal common names, unlike in birds and unlike of course scientific names. I know of no formal body governing common names in any taxon other than birds. Many of the names proposed in MSW3 will not see common use even among researchers, much less the general public. Many of the changes will find themselves adopted. For example, it remains to be seen whether common names such as caenolestid instead of shrew oppossum, treeshrew instead of tree shrew, nesophontes instead of West Indian shrew, tree mouse instead of spiny dormouse, calomyscus instead of mouse-like hamster, deermouse instead of deer mouse, akodont instead of grass mouse, apeomys instead of montane mouse, delomys instead of atlantic forest rat, ichthyomine instead of crab-eating rat, irenomys instead of instead of climbing mouse, juliomys instead julio mouse, melanomys instead of rice rat, neacomys instead of bristly mouse, nectomys instead of water rat, neotomys instead of swamp rat, and many many more will be adopted by the scientific community. J of Mammalogy, the journal most closely associated with the publication of MSW3 makes no mention of official common names or of the source that contributors should use for these names. They merely state that the authors should include the common name. In fact, the most recent issue (vol 87, no 3) deviates from MSW3 on p 545 in using the names veld rat, Tate veld rat, and red veld rat for what MSW3 calls aethomys, Tete Veld Aethomys, and Red Veld Aethomys respectively. The same holds true on p. 628 where Peromyscus maniculatus is referred to as "deer mouse" instead of North American Deermouse.

There are no official common names for mammals just as there are no official common names for most taxa. Why did tree shrews become treeshrews, but elephant shrews stayed the same? Because Colin Groves chose to change the name to emphasize their separation from shrews, but Duane Schlitter either didn't think of it or saw no point. I tend to favor Schlitter in this regard. I don't mean to advocate for changing article titles to scientific names. I think that pointlessly disassociates the general reader and isn't the standard for encyclopedias targeting a specific audience. I just feel that the common name under which a taxon is housed is a bit fluid and should be determined by reaching consensus among the editors involved. If a TOL wikiproject wants to adopt a standard text for common names, that is reasonable, but such a text should not be arbitrarily imposed. --Aranae 00:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Aranae, that's about what I suspected. The issue of common names is a messy one, and a similar mess exists in the plant articles, with some editors trying to designate or even impose a single "correct" common name for particular plants. The problem is that you will get a different opinion on the "correct" common name depending on who you talk to. English is spoken in enough countries around the world (not the mention the regional differences within a large country like the USA), and enough plants are widely distributed, naturalized, or cultivated in those areas, that many genera and species have acquired a bewildering array of common names. Wikipedia should acknowledge this diversity of names, and frankly I don't see how it can possibly designate a single "correct" name except for those relatively few with more or less universal acceptance (like "oak"). This disagreement over common names leads to endless disputes, even edit wars, and is one major reason why I believe the scientific names, rather than the common names, should be the article titles. MrDarwin 14:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...I don't mean to advocate for changing article titles to scientific names... Well, you sure had me fooled. You make such a fantastic case for it! --Jwinius 01:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it can't be emphasized enough how important it is that redirects be in place from the scientific name. It is the only reliable way of getting there. I'm, also of the opinion that redlinks should go to the scientific name until an article at the common name is in place. --Aranae 02:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are not a solution. By using them for article titles, we give common names far more import than they deserve -- a special status -- and the arguments about which one is more "correct" will never cease. --Jwinius 17:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects should never be made to a redlink. That's just plain bad Wiki. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also think we would be better off using the species name for articles. It has been argued that users would be put off by entering Bald eagle as a search term and finding themselves at the Haliaeetus leucocephalus page. I think it's a bit disconcerting to search for Cougar and end up at Puma, which someone decided is the most common of the 50 or so common names for Puma concolor (or maybe because that is the generic name). Whichever way we go, we still need a slew of redirects and dab pages. -- Donald Albury 21:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful also if some of this talk about "official common names" from this discussion was copied over to the article Common name, which discusses these issues without much real detail. Especially listing some of the bodies who come up with these official or semi-official common names and how official or not they are or claim to be. Anyone up to sorting out that article? —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 03:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homo floresiensis

Homo floresiensis is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 21:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cats for deleting again.

Someone is having another shot at removing all categories by country (as in [Fauna of India] or [[Avifauna of New Zealand]). Check it out here. While doubtless there are some worthless cats in there some good ones have been swept up in the mass nomination. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Italics on genera

When just the genus is mentioned should it be in italics. Obviously binomial form should be, but if it is just the genus that you mention should it be, and should it have a capital? chris_huh 21:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The genus alone should be in italics and capitalized. --Aranae 21:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Division

I'm a bit confused on what is a division. If you read Division (biology) it says a division is the equivalent of a phylym for plants. There is however another division in the taxobox called zoodivision. This should probably be used for animals, but then I read a page like this, which has two taxons called Division. One of them can't be used in the taxobox. Can anyone explain the difference to me. --Maitch 19:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sparrows

Hi!
I'd appreciate some help getting ID's on these pix:

File:MG 2850.jpg no. 1	File:MG 2845.jpg no. 2	File:MG 2847.jpg no. 3
no. 4

I assume that they are some kind of sparrow? Anyway thanks! --Fir0002 09:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks very much like the house sparrow to me. Where were the pictures taken? --Stemonitis 09:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's a house sparrow. And try not to feed them, they are a huge pest. --liquidGhoul 10:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You had best not let the RSPB hear you say that. They are a bit concerned about the 50% decline in House Sparrow numbers in the UK - (RSPB) (BBC). -- Solipsist 14:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Their red list has some of the biggest pests in Australia (the sparrow and European Starling), but doesn't have the worst. Is disease taking them out, because it can't be habitat. --liquidGhoul 14:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside Bakers Delight in Bairnsdale, Australia. Taken in August 2006. Sorry LiquidGhoul. --Fir0002 11:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's cool, I have accidentally done it as well thinking it was something else. Beautiful photos by the way. --liquidGhoul 11:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx, any idea on the genders? --Fir0002 12:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just looked at the house sparrow article (stupid to not have done it earlier). Here's what I'd make them out to be: 1: female, 2: male, 3: juvenile, 4: female? --Fir0002 12:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, no. 2 is, in my opinion, the best photo of a house sparrow on Wikipedia (inc. Commons), although it could perhaps be cropped a little more closely. The one in the taxobox at the moment is horrible. --Stemonitis 12:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paratype

Somebody might want to keep an eye on the Paratype article and its most recent edits. I simply don't have time to deal with another Nomen nudum, Nomen conservandum, etc.-type dispute right now. MrDarwin 18:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brya got this one right. I don't know about the term in zoological nomenclature, but what the article refers to is in botany called an isotype.--Curtis Clark 19:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the edit suggests that neither the term nor concept of paratype (and that is the title of the article) exists in botanical nomenclature, when what was needed was a clarification of the difference between the zoological and botanical concepts of a term that exists in both nomenclatural codes. I’m holding off any editing until I can check the new Vienna code (although I can't believe they've altered it so much as to throw out "paratype"). MrDarwin 20:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9.5. A paratype is a specimen cited in the protologue that is neither the holotype nor an isotype, nor one of the syntypes if two or more specimens were simultaneously designated as types. [24] --Stemonitis 07:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also concerned that the zoological definition is flat wrong. One solution would be to move the article to Isotype (nomenclature) (Isotype is a dab page), put in the correct definition for botany, and hope that a zoologist does whatever is necessary to make the article correct for ICZN.--Curtis Clark 02:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of fun

I just came across the flatworm genus Lagenivaginopseudobenedenia. At 27 letters is this the longest taxon name or can anyone top that? Also do you think Mr Yamaguti was having a bit of a joke with this one (I bet it is commonly known as L. in the platyhelminth world:) Richard Barlow 07:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gammaracanthuskytodermogammarus Dybowski, 1926 (amphipod; longest genus name at 31 characters; see below for binomial) (courtesy of Doug Yanega's personal page [25]. Apparently, now an invalid name [26]. Shyamal 10:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

European Lions

Hello!

1. I copied everything important from the Site Lions in Europe to other lion Artikels, like Asiatic lion or European lion and deleted the contend of this Site. I want to shift the Lemma "Lions in Europe" to the Lemma European lions and keep it as a forwarding-site to European lion. I think there is no need for such lemmas like "Lions of Europe", "Ants of Italy", "Moles of northern Asia" ect.. Who does not agree with this opinion?

2. May be this is not the best place to ask, but I already started to write now: Where is the reference for the existence of Panthera leo europaea and Panthera leo goojratensis. -Altai 14:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Panthera leo goojratensis is a junior synonym for Panthera leo persica, thus the Asiatic Lion. Panthera leo europaea has been described, named, but cannot give you a reference now. However, many scientists consider Panthera leo europaea as an invalid subspecies too and recognise the European lions as actually being "Asiatic lions". I will try to look for a reference. Peter Maas 16:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At first is did disagree to the merger/move, but not anymore (as the content can now be read elsewhere). Although I would also not object lemmas like Lions in Europe, Ants of Italy, etc. Some I would support actually. Peter Maas 16:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer. I will move the site now.

Yes, goojratensis seems to be a valid subspecies. (Or a least it was an accepted subspecies once) But does (did) goojratensis include(s) the extinct lions of persia and turkey. If not, than P. leo persica is extinct in the wild. That should be written in the right way in the articles. But we should probably discuss that on the Talk of the Lion.-Altai 10:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P. leo persica is not extinct in the wild as it survives in the Gir Forest National Park in India. Peter Maas 14:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-adherence to ToL standards by user:Brya

In editing some of the pages on types and nomenclature today, I came across numerous past cases where this one user has insisted on editing pages so as to italicize higher taxon names, which is contrary to the ToL guidelines. There appears to have been a long period where these pages were left alone in proper form, but as of today this user has once again re-edited pages so as to italicize higher taxon names, in addition to de-wikifying them (e.g., see Botanical name, version timestamped 16:49, 5 October 2006). As a new editor to the pages in question, it is evident that there have been major "edit wars" surrounding these pages, so I am hesitant to engage in any editing myself, lest I be drawn into the conflict. Is there a policy in place as to how to proceed when an editor consistently ignores the stated guidelines in this fashion? Dyanega 05:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have had no problems applying the standard formating to articles that do not fit the guidleines following Brya's contributions. Just modify the pages as you find them. --Peta 05:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having examined carefully the talk pages and histories of several articles that Brya watches, it appears that no such edit goes unreverted (e.g., Coniferae); I do not wish to waste my time, nor get involved in an "edit war" that dates back more than a year. It would be simpler to end the war by disarming the combatants. My question is whether there are ways to close the loophole that Brya continues to exploit, namely that the ToL project page has a blanket statement that the guidelines are only suggestions that do not need to be followed. Could there not be a formal statement such as "We ask that editors do not convert articles that comply with the guidelines so as to render them non-compliant; this is contrary to the goals of WPToL, and such alterations are undesirable. Repeated attempts to do so after having been informed that this is undesirable will be treated as vandalism." Frankly, repeatedly removing all the wiki links to higher taxon names can be construed as vandalism, and it would also be construed as vandalism if some editor was removing the italics from the genus and species names from every WP article that contained names. That there is a single publication, the ICBN, that has a tradition of italicizing higher taxon names (and three minor journals that follow its example) does not justify extending this tradition to include all WP articles that discuss botanical names; the ICBN itself explicitly states that it is not to be intrepreted as a standard in this matter. Choosing to unilaterally and arbitrarily expand this idiosyncratic formatting policy as if it were an alternative doctrine embraced by a significant portion of the scientific community is unreasonable. A single paragraph in the articles for the ICBN and botanical name could inform readers that the ICBN italicizes higher taxon names, but that the vast majority of botanical taxonomists and other scientists do not, and leave it at that. Though Dr. Grolle and others may wish people to treat the ICBN as canonical, the selective editing of WP entries is not the appropriate method to effect community change. Further, there is ample reason to avoid this practice, as can be demonstrated by the following example; consider the taxon names Aphelinoidea, Chalcidoidea, and Trichogrammatoidea versus Aphelinoidea, Chalcidoidea, and Trichogrammatoidea. Written the former way, one cannot determine, without recourse to external reference works, that two of these names are genera and the other a superfamily; written the conventional way, one CAN (and one can also see that an article exists for one of the names). This is precisely why the convention exists, and why names should be wikified. There is no reason to act as if this is an optional guideline - this SHOULD be standardized across all WP articles, botanical and otherwise. Dyanega 21:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a postscript, I see now that in one of the most explicit and mercifully brief discussions of this issue, in Talk:Hamamelididae, Brya argued that one cannot apply the rules in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) to plants. This is logical. However, the corresponding page for plants, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) supports the general ToL guideline that states that ranks above genus are not italicized. Thus, there is no support for the continued conversion by Brya of plain text names to italicized names, back and forth, as has occurred in the Hamamelididae article and others. The claim that WP allows editors "a degree of freedom in the layout and adopted spelling of their contributions," while literally true, cannot and should not be construed to mean that an editor can alter layout and spelling in violation of posted guidelines for a formal Wikipedia Project; a degree of freedom is just that - a DEGREE of freedom - not carte blanche to refuse to conform to either Project guidelines or to broader community conventions on formatting, and to consistently undermine the sincere efforts of other editors to adhere to these conventions. The ICBN is not the community standard, and even states in its Preface: "The Code sets no binding standard in this respect, as typography is a matter of editorial style and tradition not of nomenclature." I and other practicing taxonomists can object to the choice of the word "tradition" when "accepted convention" would be more appropriate, and I suspect this wording explains why Brya believes that this phrase supports his editing policies, when it is so clearly at odds with the feelings and practices of other scientists. It is, after all, much harder to ignore an "accepted convention" than a "tradition." Dyanega 22:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can learn more about Brya's style here.--Curtis Clark 03:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or just scroll up this very page a bit, to the "discussion" (and I use that word very loosely) on Nomen nudum, etc. Alas, I see that the Paratype article has once again been edited to remove all botanical references--surely I am not imagining that the word and concept do indeed exist in systematic botany--but as I am taking a break from Wikipedia (and having enjoyed a very pleasant long weekend at the beach) I'm going to let somebody else fight that battle. MrDarwin 00:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As we have been over this extensively, I can limit myself to noting that I regret that some users in the ToL-crowd (hopefully a minority) are at war with basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It is quite hurtful to me to see that somebody now proposes making "No original research"-violations mandatory.

As to paratype I cannot see the value of a copy-and-paste of a highly technical sentence from the ICBN wedged in between two technical treatments of a zoological type and a zoological phrase. If anybody feels that paratype as used in botany is a valuable concept, why not write it up in a a proper page? I don't see how yet another empty complaint is of any use. Brya 11:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Brya? Surely you must have some better contributions to make than re-italicizing things, especially after numerous and long winded debates have made it clear that this is against the consensus. Your substantive contributions are of course valued, but can't you do more of those and less of the silliness?

If a policy was adopted to change the higher taxons to an italic typeface, this couls be done quite easily by simply modifying the taxobox template (b:Template:Weedbox does it automatically for species, for example). If you change some, but not all, we end up with inconsistencies. And if we were to alter the template after 1/2 of them had been changed, Italicised names would render 'like this' (boldfaced and single-quoted). This really just won't do, so if you want to re-argue for italicizing, then argue it, but if you lose the argument again, don't just ignore it again. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 19:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, again. The Wikipedia Manual of style is unambiguous, and several virulent editors persist in violating it. I have not noticed many people interested in plants who are against having italicization where this enhances readability. As for those editors who are in love with standardisation I should note that this is the fastest way to writing fiction. As for ""Your substantive contributions are of course valued", this is not something I have noticed any sign of in practice. It is just a phrase that people use before going off on a campaign of destruction. Also it is clear that the more "substantive" a contribution is the more likely it is to attacked by an editor keen on defending his PoV. Brya 16:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the edits about ICBN are quite valuable (and valued), since you obviously have a good level of knowledge about them, I just think you put a little more authority in them than there really is (they don't define the English language in general, just how specific words are used in botany for specific things... just because the code says "this is the correct usage in botany" doesn't mean that other uses of terms are incorrect, just that they will have a specific meaning when used by botanists who follow that code).

I do wish you would expand on the articles (i.e., make them simpler to read, dummed down, however you want to put it), add some historical context (Why was the code adopted? What problems does it address?), and, when it comes to families being recognized or not recognized: why they are/aren't recognized, and what was the basis for deciding whether a genus or species is/isn't part of a particular family?

I know how the old system worked (morphology of flower, seed, and so on), but it isn't clear to me what the new systems uses to classify, and since you seem to be someone who would know that, maybe you could write some good articles on the subject? --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 17:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sokal It to 'Em -- Brya Is Hoaxing Us

Brya included comments about the "APG III" and speculation about what this entity might do in the future on many Wikipedia pages--pre-original research. If you search for APG III in botany or plant pages on the Internet or for "anigosperm phylogeny group iii" you will find that the "apg iii" exists in the field of botany in only one place: pages created by Brya on Wikipedia and copied from these elsewhere.

I think that the italics are a smoke screen for vandalism added to Wikipedia, like the "apg iii."

Brya even smugly admitted to everyone what was going on, that APG II was a new toy, and "APG III" would be adopted by Wikipedia as soon as it came out. And no one challenged this.

"As I said earlier I am not afraid of APG II becoming obsolete and Wikipedia being stuck with it; if ever APG III is published Wikipedia will be the first to adopt it. Don't underestimate the appeal of a shiny new gadget. Brya 20:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

This is just vandalism, but a rather sophisticated vandalism that requires the failure in a particular way of those trying to stop it: Brya edits a bunch of pages by adding italics, then adds some complete nonsense to the page, and sits back and watches what happens. What happens? A 1-year battle about the italics, oh and the free dissemination of the nonsense, without a single question or any fact checking.

The "APG III" doesn't exist, yet. Referencing the future research of a future entity is no part of an encyclopedia that claims a policy of No Original Research.

IMO, it's time to admit it, Brya Sokaled Wikipedia, debryde the necessary text, and move on.

KP Botany 00:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have thoughts on the matter that are best not aired publicly, but you don't have email enabled. Suffice to say that I think you have misjudged Brya, and that you are judging the rest of us rather harshly. There are only so many of us, and we have only so much time and energy. However, I would note that Brya has been questioned and challenged (and even corrected, although I suspect Brya would dispute that) on numerous occasions. MrDarwin 14:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And many of you spent an awful lot of time removing Brya's italics again and again. If you had not spent any time on that, you could have devoted that time to other things.

What I see of Brya? Incomprehensible pages about nomenclature and italicizing wars with other editors. Yes, I see Brya questioned and challenged repeatedly on the same things, then going on to continuing doing them to frustrate a whole new generation of editors, then people just give up. Some will give up and allow Brya's vandalism to stand, others will just leave Wikipedia, and the botany pages will continue to be left in their state of disrepair. The focus will continue to be Brya, not botany, as long as Brya is not challenged on vandalism like creating the APG III and then fostering her personal opinion on what they might do as if it were peer-reviewed secondary or tertiary material when it's not.

I personally don't think Brya's for real. I think it is a hoax, a joke. KP Botany 00:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after "Back to the future" proved to be a big success, it was not a big step to expect there to be a "Back to the future II". When "Back to the future II" was a big hit, it was not a big step to expect a "Back to the future III". Now that APG and APG II are big hits and there continue to be refinements and improvements in the field, it is not a big step to expect an APG III to be published. It is not a certainty that it will be and the quote given indeed reads "if ever APG III is published ...". Even the most literary minded person could not misread this (at least that is what I thought, but it proves that there are plenty of persons with unexpected talents to misread anything). Brya 14:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brya is not a vandal, he just has troubles working with others sometimes. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 17:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree.

"Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge."

Brya's speculation about what might happen in the future is clearly and simply just a personal opinion, nothing else.

"Wikipedia is also not the place for "original research"—that is, new theories, etc., that haven't been supported by peer review"

Brya's speculations about what might happen in the future have NOT been subjected to peer-review.

There should be some sense of responsibility about what is included in Wikipedia, especially when it gets copied and quoted elsewhere. That should include stopping blatant vandalism, vandalism like making things up that don't exist and predicting what they might do if they did and including your own personal POV on speculation in an article. If Brya doesn't understand that personal speculation about what might happen in the future is not peer-reviewed research, what else doesn't Brya understand? KP Botany 00:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another example of a Brya invention on Wikipedia

The Paleodicots article created by Brya claims to quote from the APG II paper. Yet searching the APG II paper does not return any searches for palaeodicot or paleodicot or palæodicot. Now, just like I googled APG III, google these various spellings of paleodicot and see what gets returned--mostly Brya's inventions, and not too many of them. If Brya had read the paper, as Brya is out here championing the heck out of APG II, to such an extent that she's invented their future research, wouldn't Brya know that it doesn't use the term?

I ask again, what else has Brya invented?

And I repeat, this is a hoax. We are being Sokaled. This is vandalism.

KP Botany 03:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is easy to answer. I did not create the article (it was created here) and I did only modest editing on this. The editing history is clear enough to show that KP Botany is fabricating his wild accusations. Brya 12:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The editing history shows that Brya did not create this article, but also that Brya did much more than "modest" editing and in doing so introduced the egregious error of suggesting that the term and concept of "palaeodicots" has something to do with the APG system, which it most certainly does not--and I believe that is the basis for the complaint, and quite a valid one. MrDarwin 13:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some major editing to the Palaeodicots article (moved to Paleodicots to reflect the more common, and as far as I can tell original, spelling); I've also cleaned up the Eudicots article a bit. Please check them both out and if my edits look good, let's un-nominate the Paleodicots article for deletion. MrDarwin 17:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest it remain a candidate for deletion. The term "paleoherb" is used a lot more frequently and doesn't have an article. And, although you have offered a single major credible source that uses the term, the authors don't define the term in the article and the other one only mentions it in reference to Takhtajan, also without defining it. If it is a term used by Takhtajan, maybe his definition should be sought?

Most internet search engines return only Wikipedia created (OR) references to paleodicot.

And, exactly what is a paleodicot? It's essentially a group of plants that are no longer dicots, because they are recognized to not be related to the eudicots or the monocots, and the term dicot is no longer used as a defining term in the sciences. So, it's what? An ancient group of no longer defined plants? An ancient group of plants that was united with an anapomorphy that is not longer thought to be an anapomorphy? Even Wikipedia's article on Dicots includes the information that some of the non-eudicots, non-monocots, have traditionally monocot characteristics. So it's an old group of plants that once were thought to be something called a dicot, even though they also had monocot characteristics, that no longer are a .... It just can't be made to square away.

This is, imo, a problematic inclusion in Wikipedia. The dicots articles needs cleaned up also, as it says: "It is now accepted, thanks to the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group, that monocotyledons evolved from within the dicotyledons, and as such the latter form a paraphyletic group." This says, a group not recognized by the APG gave rise to a group recognized by the APG--actually, the APG II makes monocots a basal group, branching before the eudicots, not derived from within the dicots, most of which are now eudicots. If it does say they arise from within the dicots, this has to be clarified as to what it means within the Wikipedia article, and it is not clarified, that showing it arose within the dicots meant the dicots were not a monophyletic group and it didn't really arise from within this non-existing group--it's a major distinction that must be meant. It looks like the article is kinda trying to say this, but it doesn't quite get across.

KP Botany 18:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monocots did evolve from within dicots, as "dicots" have traditionally been defined (although attributing that discovery to the APG is highly misleading). The point is that a plant can be considered a "dicot" (now better treated as a descriptive term, rather than as a taxon and certainly not as a phylogenetic concept) without being a "eudicot" (a monophyletic group that has only recently been recognized, and that does not contain all plants once considered "dicots").

I agree that "paleoherbs" is a more commonly used term than "paleodicots" (although still of rather limited usefulness) so I would encourage you to create an article for it. But I see no reason to delete the Paleodicots article if (as rewritten) it is factual and explains both a term and concept that are real and have been used in the botanical literature. MrDarwin 19:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, just do a general internet search for paleodicot -wikipedia and see what comes up, look at the couple dozen links offered and see what they are (references to the Wikipedia article) before deciding that this article could stay. Check PubMed, PNAS, Scholar, and see what comes up, and how it is defined there. I believe that including the article here and on Wiktionary give a poorly defined concept too much weight. I will review my textbooks and see what they say. I don't have the Chase article referenced in the one you posted, but will look at its other references, none of which, by the way, are returned when searching for paleodicot. KP Botany 19:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try searching on "paleodicots" (plural). Here are the Google and Google Scholar search results. Let's not throw the baby (however ugly or malformed) out with the bathwater! MrDarwin 19:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will look this search over, although, again, without the Wikipedia references. Still, last time I plowed through Brya's references assuming good faith, it was simply a horrendous waste of time. My preference is to toss the bathwater then look for the baby. If the article stays it would still have to be rewritten quite a bit more to reflect the lack of consensus and how little used the term is and the fact that it uses a term no longer accepted as to what it once meant in botany. KP Botany 20:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The plural gives the same thing as the singular, the same limited scope of articles, mostly references to Brya's Wikipedia creation. Delete those and you get 2 or 3 additional references, counting the one Vermont professor's 3 or 4 as a single one. That's half a dozen references in cyberspace. I need to take a break from this. I still think it's simply a hoax to get folks to focus their times on extraneous issues and ignore the botany pages completely and it's working quite well.KP Botany 21:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From my survey of the available literature, there really is no reason why this term should be in an encyclopedia, it is cleary a neologism a creates more confuction than necessary.--Peta 03:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO palaeodicot is a useful term, denoting the grade/paraphyletic group of angiosperms that are neither monocots nor eudicots. It may as yet have less usage that palaeoherb, but IMHO is more likely to persist - palaeoherbs are a polyphyletic group. Lavateraguy 20:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lavateraguy, could you please register your opininion in this article's entry on the Articles for Deletion page? MrDarwin 20:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not post on my talk page

Keeping me involved in this is simply seen by Brya and her supporters as an invitation to continue personal attacks on me to guarantee that only Brya be allowed to dictate how the Botany community on Wikipedia is run. Any responsible new editor to Wikipedia Botany will see their duty to correct misinformation Brya has sent through Cyberspace with the Wikipedia stamp on it and will start changing them. Then, after they have made hundreds of edits, many to Brya's false references, fake groups ("APG III"), and spurious remarks about time frames, they will be personally and falsely attacked for their low number of edits in a vicious and disingenuous manner by Brya until they leave.

If you attack newbies for their low number of edits you are doing far worse than biting them, you are outright giving them notice that Wikipedia does not welcome newcomers or want the contributions of anyone who cannot spend all day and all night contributing.

The Botany pages at Wikipedia need a lot of work to be useful to the Cyber-community. Until they have been attended to they should come with warnings about potential misinformation.

And, as long as Brya is in here personally attacking people, even while being blocked, they should come with warnings that newcomers will be personally attacked in a visious manner by Brya and her supporters for their contributions.

And, by the way, to the Dutch-Brya supporter, Brya introduced spurious references to APG II in the Dutch Wikipedia also.

The Wikipedia Botany community has worked hard over the past year to maintain Brya as a high contributor of personal attacks, point of view, and edit wars. Well, keep Brya, then. But warn newcomers of the potential consequences of attempting to contribute to the plant community on Wikipedia and warn Cyberspace communities that use Wikipedia about her speculation, point of view and false references.

KP Botany 18:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I can only say I am entirely mystified by this. Most of what I know of User:KP Botany is that he made quite a number of edits on Talk pages, many of them angry and frustrated in tone. All the personal contact I had with this user are these [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34] before he went into an all-out attack on me. In these attacks he expressed a great deal of dissatisfaction about my conformance to APG II, but never entered any specifics. All that is available of his familiarity with the subject matter are these edits on Chloranthales and Nymphaeales, which confuses APG II with the APWebsite which just about the worst beginner's mistake anyone can make. When this was pointed out to here and subsequently he clearly had great difficulty in understanding this and finally went into what is close to a tantrum.

I have not made any personal attacks on KP Botany, although I did echo his personal attack on me in his own words. I have not made any reference to his edit count whatsoever, although now I am invited to it looks to me that Amborella trichopoda and [35] are the only places where he added new material in a plant article (this is not based an extensive search).

As to the Dutch wikipedia, first of all it looks to met that this is a matter for those who contribute there. Secondly, the situation there is different as the Dutch standard flora has gone over to (a variation of APG II): I am making my edits there based on the Dutch standard flora, which is available in bookshops and libraries all over the country. I have not heard anybody pointing even the least discrepancy between the flora as printed and my edits.

As to the Wikipedia Botany community's eforts towards me, I am in a better position to judge this than KP Botany, and I do not recognize the picture he paints. For that matter I have yet to see him point out any "speculation, point of view [or] false reference[...]" provided by me. Brya 13:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brya has a very selective memory. After all, it was Brya who made the "worst beginner's mistake" of calling the Angiosperm Phylogeny Website the "APG-companion site" (see here and here), and it was precisely this sloppy (and that's being charitable as some might call it outright erroneous) phrasing that confused and misled KP Botany in the first place. It's just unfortunate that none of us caught this earlier but it does illustrate a point several of us have been trying to make: Brya's text is often badly worded, even misleading, and could use some major cleanup and clarification. Unfortunately such cleanups and clarifications sometimes have to be fought tooth and nail with Brya, as the edit war (see particularly here) over "hundreds, if not thousands, of common names in hundreds of languages" in the Botanical name article demonstrates. As I pointed out in my edits to that article, we should not be adding speculation and assumptions to Wikipedia articles.

I would also note that KP Botany's "personal attack" quoted by Brya was actually a complaint against me on my talk page (where I thought he was overreacting a bit although I bit my tongue), and did not specifically accuse Brya of anything except to indirectly refer to the "Brya issue" (which I took to mean the edit warring and general bad blood). Brya managed to turn this around into a direct and very personal attack against KP Botany.

BTW, wasn't Brya specifically asked to refrain from editing any pages other than her own talk page and the arbitration page, as a condition of unblocking? MrDarwin 15:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Brya should have a little leeway when it comes to posting here, since people are indeed talking about him. While I certainly don't feel confident of a positive understanding being reached in this matter, it's better to try and fail (one more time) than not to try at all. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 16:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brya was unblocked specifically so he could comment on the arb case and told not to post anywhere else but that and their talk page. The block was to prevent these sorts of arguments from continuing while the community makes a decision, and Brya's inability to abide by even that one simple polite request does not show much willingness to negotiate anything. Since Brya violated the conditions of the unblock, she has been re-blocked. No leeway should be given when a user can't even control themselves for one day. pschemp | talk 17:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but he (Brya is a genus, btw) might not, because up til now the conversation has been on this page. (Again, I support a permanent block, but if we're giving him a chance, then we should give him a chance). --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 17:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How could he not understand it? It was spelled out specifically by CBD on his talk page. IF he didn't understand, he should have asked. Sorry, but Brya's understanding of English is not so poor that he can't ask for clarification. Ignorance is not an excuse in this case. pschemp | talk 17:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand the heading correctly, "Please do not post on my talk page" was addressed to Brya. Brya unwisely responded. This whole section belongs on Brya's talk, not here (WP:POINT comes to mind), but since it's here rather than there, the response is understandable. Again, I don't think the arbitration is going to go anywhere other than a ban, but since arbitration is the way things are now, it doesn't make sense to block him, unless the arbitration is just going to be decided without his input. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 18:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to note that the arbitration was filed against *ME* not Brya. And, he's had a chance for input. Often times in theses cases, if someone is blocked and needs to comment they put their comments on the talk page and someone else copies thme over. Blocking doesn't stop input. pschemp | talk 21:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying you did anything improper. Please bear in mind that my first post was in response to MR Darwin, not you (in fact I wasn't aware that Brya had been blocked again). --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 22:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KP Botany's comment was not addressed to Brya, it was addressed to all of us. KP Botany chose to drop out of Wikipedia and did not want to be involved in any further discussions about Brya. I think KP Botany overreacted (one thing I have discovered is that one needs a fairly thick skin to edit on Wikipedia) but I certainly understand his frustration. MrDarwin 21:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please move these sections

The Brya/KP_Botany-related topics on this page are rather nasty, and do not reflect well on the TOL project (heaven forbid a newcomer should arrive and see this!) I ask for consensus for moving these discussions to a subpage: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/The troubles of October 2006. This stuff really doesn't belong here.

Support - as nominator --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 22:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No support: Archiving this page will accomplish pretty much the same thing, and this entire talk page has gotten much too long and is ready for archiving anyway. Most newbies will not go reading through the archives, but if anybody is so interested that they do, I think they should find this discussion and know what transpired. MrDarwin 12:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree Just archive normally. This section is linked to arbcom request but moving it smells like hiding it.pschemp | talk 14:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Apology

I apologize to everyone at Wikipedia for my contributions which allowed this to continue, including to Brya. The fact is that Wikipedia is bigger and more important than Brya. Most people get this. The Wikipedia community as a whole should consider just how much energy should be devoted to those who don't get this versus how much energy can better be devoted to continuing to make Wikipedia one of the world's great collaborative projects.

KP Botany 18:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Community ban of Brya?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal below. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

User:Brya has been blocked from editing and there is a discussion going on here as to whether this should be a temporary or indefinite block or ban. Is there a consensus for a community ban of Brya, i.e., that Brya should be blocked from further editing indefinitely? MrDarwin 19:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support has been given plenty of opportunities to stop editing disruptively, yet continues to do it on a wide scale. Violation of a large number of key Wiki principles. --InShaneee 19:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support fully. KP Botany 20:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe current block is indefinite, not infinite. Certainly if after the mess is cleaned up, and if Brya asks to be given another chance, one should be given. However, right now the block is to prevent the situation from disinigrating further. Let me know when things have been been fixed, and we'll discuss it then. pschemp | talk 20:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support -- He knows a lot about the field, so it would be nice if he could work with others to make good articles, but after 4 or 5 months of endless games it's pretty clear he's not interested in working with others. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 20:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: my support is for an infinite block. If he wants to start over, he should just start a new account. There's too much bad blood between him and the community now, as he's really exhausted the patience of a large number of contributors. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 20:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ temporary block, since that he never has been blocked before. Berton 20:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - After the lamentable facts that took to a RfAr I changed my vote.Berton 11:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, reluctantly, an indefinite block. There is no doubt that Brya has an extensive knowledge of botanical nomenclature (if a rather rigid and idiosyncratic interpretation of it) and has made some valuable contributions to Wikipedia, but having sparred with Brya for several months, and having observed Brya's interactions with other editors, Brya's tendency to claim ownership of articles, and Brya's unwillingness to compromise, cooperate, or reach consensus on even the smallest points, I see no evidence that his/her behavior will ever change. MrDarwin 20:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support indef block Per above comment by MrDarwin. — Moe 22:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - agree fully with MrDarwin. - MPF 01:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per MrDarwin. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Agree with Mr. Darwin, including the reluctance. --Curtis Clark 04:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No support - User Brya may have his quirks and twists, but he is still a valuable contributor (as even Mr. Darwin concedes). Furthermore, he is highly regarded in the nl.wikipedia (since he is a Dutch speaker). I know, he doesn't give in easily when confronted (something typical for the Dutch). But even then he still stays polite in his answers and tries to reason. Instead of giving him a rap over the knuckles with a short block, this whole proces of blocking him indefinitely looks more like a witch hunt. I invite the community to think twice before creating this unpleasant precedent. JoJan 08:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I think part of the problem lies in this; Brya's command of English grammar and sentence structure is not nearly as good as I suspect s/he thinks it is, making many of his/her contributions close to incomprehensible. While this is not a problem of itself (the same could be said of many other widely respected contributors), Brya's unwillingness to accept any changes to improve the readability is an issue. S/he has frequently made reversions back to his/her peculiar wordings, combined with accusations of vandalism (often in edit summaries) against those who do try to improve the grammar. Several people can also attest that s/he has often not been at all polite in dealings with other editors (for a recent example, see e.g. here; in view of this, I am not at all surprised at KP Botany's subsequent strong reactions). - MPF 10:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - He may be a stickler for accuracy (at least in his opinion) but there is nothing wrong with that. He has antagonized and even exasperated a few of the best contributors of our community. But he gave his reasons at great length in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Brya. You may disagree with them, but surely you will agree that these are not the act of a vandal. I'm afraid the whole situation has got a bit out of hand, with the sledge-hammer ultimately coming down on Brya. JoJan 13:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: I would also challenge the characterization of Brya as "polite". Please see the edit history, and especially the talk page, for the article Type (botany). I should also qualify my point about Brya's contributions: Brya's knowledge of the very narrow field of botanical nomenclature is keen and extensive, but Brya has a very restrictive, rigid and idiosyncratic interpretation of the subject and some rather odd ideas about how the articles should be structured and written and will not allow anybody else to contribute to those article in any way (e.g., see again Type (botany). Brya's knowledge of other botanical subjects, such as classification, phylogeny, cladistics, and particularly anything related to the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group, is more limited and in articles dealing with these subjects Brya did indeed introduce numerous errors (and precisely the kind that he/she so rudely commented on when made by other editors). Finally, while Brya's English is technically excellent, I quite agree with MPF that Brya often produced oddly-reading, very stilted, and sometimes even misleading text. Efforts to clean this up were routinely rebuffed. MrDarwin 13:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Ral315 (talk) 08:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Brya has made valuable modifications. When confronted with opposition in non-trivial matters, he usually turns out to be right. With hindsight, even I as a layman can see that his deletion of text in Nomen nudum probably removedat least one factual error. The person asking for this block call him names (monster), while Brya this time seems to have refrained from this. So he does learn. Blocking him doesnt improve his conduct. I admit that his tendency to be correct to the n-th decimal makes coorperation difficult. TeunSpaans 09:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Did KP Botany ever ask for a block? If so, I didn't see it. Peta brought the complaints to the attention of admins, one of whom blocked Brya after several looked at Brya's record and agreed that Brya's actions were unacceptable. I would also note that Brya had more or less stopped editing at the point that this all blew up. Finally, "creating a monster" is a figure of speech in English, and may not have the connotations that non-native English speakers may think--it is usually used self-disparagingly, or to disparage the party that has created the "monster"; KP Botany's comments were actually directed at the other Wikipedia editors who allowed the situation to escalate. MrDarwin 14:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ to an indefinite block. I would like to hear more from Brya. Unfortunately his comments tend to be terse and difficult to follow without detailed background knowledge of previous conversations and article histories and seem to require detailed references. While I have personally found myself cleaning up some of Brya's mess, it's clear that Brya is not badly intentioned, and could possibly become a (more) valuable contributor, so a temporary ban would be more appropriate. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 10:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support after considering further material from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Brya. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 10:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support has not demostrated ability to work with the community and fails to understand WP:CONSENSUS, among other things. Joelito (talk) 14:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section

I am closing the above. The above has been brought to my attention via WP:AIV. The process above is not how we do things on Wikipedia -- first, polls that are of interest to more than a page or project must be mentioned more broadly than on a moderately obscure talkpage. Second, we don't do community bans in this way (we once did, a long time ago, but that was years ago) - community bans happen when admins, who are familiar with policy, make a judgement to block a user and no other admin challenges that decision. Third, if community bans are not done, RfC and arbitration should be used, which at least give the person the ability to speak on their behalf to explain things. Piling on a user who can't explain their own side is not appropriate. --Improv 15:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]