Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Aldabra Tortoises

Ok we have a problem. The genera Aldabrachelys and Dipsochelys both have pages, they are synonyms, and neither adequately link to the species that is in both of them Aldabra giant tortoise. Now there is argument over which is valid my suggestion is to use Aldabrachelys as per the recommendations of current usage in ICZN Case 3463. However, you could conceivably use either name till the ICZN makes a decision. What would we prefer here? I am open to suggestion. Faendalimas (talk) 20:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The ICZN link wont seem to work for me, given your more extensive knowledge in the field I would be inclined to go with your suggestion, however having read the Aldabra giant tortoise article it lists and references its genera as Dipsochelys so I am on the fence with this one. Maybe even just make the Aldabrachelys a redirect to the Aldabra article until the ICZN makes a decision? ZooPro 03:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

We could conceivably do whatever we want here since both names have been used in the literature. What I will do is I am going to write a section for the Aldabra giant tortoise that will go through the nomenclatural issues that will summarize the ICZN case and the various comments on it. I would like a consensus on this so once I have adequately summarized the ICZN case we can revisit this and make a decision together as a team on this. Sorry the link did not work for you try this one: http://iczn.org/category/history-case/all-cases/cases-3000-present/cases-3400-3499/case-3463. Cheers Faendalimas (talk) 04:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I recommend sticking with what the majority of users still use. There is a lot of cutting edge taxonomy going on. And at the end of the day it is more like a style guide decision than a scientific detection of a new element. So I would stick with current usage and not get too whipsawed but the latest greatest taxonomy.TCO (talk) 05:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

In cases like this, I think we should stick with the most common taxonomy, which as far as I can see uses Aldabrachelys gigantea. Ucucha 08:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

There are maybe around 100 or so turtle articles where the taxonomy is out of date. Some of them years out of date with no sign indicated to the reader of the problem, one example was the Trachemys species issues that I updated this pass week. Given enough time then the idea is to convert all turtle articles to comply with whatever the recent official taxonomy information is. In the above Aldabrachelys and Dipsochelys situation say in the article that both are valid and the situation is unresolved with references to the latest quality sources. The species articles can then list both genera in the taxobox and naming somewhat like Blanding's turtle and Western pond turtle does - two more examples of unresolved genera although both of these were easier to fix being monotypic. Given however that amendments take time I'd start by tagging article {{out of date}}. Geoemydidae, Geochelone, Aldabrachelys and several others want a serious workout. Plenty to do if anyone wants to help out! Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok then thanks for the comments. What I think I will do then.. As there are some 6 species in this genus the existence of a genus page is important. So I am going to take the information from both the genus pages and combine and rewrite them under the name Aldabrachelys, I wont delete Dipsochelys but make it a redirect to Aldabrachelys, that way people can search with either name. Of course both names and the issues will be in the page. I will also update all the species pages concerned to link to Aldabrachelys rather than the current situation that also includes Geochelone. My reason for using Aldabrachelys is that the ICZN recommends maintenance of current and most common usage in disputed cases. I have plenty of references to utilise to help explain this situation for readers. Its some major rewriting so will be a work in progress I will keep "out of date" tags on it while I am fixing it. Sound good?? Cheers, Faendalimas (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Let me know if the navigation template {{Testudinidae}} requires altering, I've tried to make that reflect current information.. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 17:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Will do. Cheers Faendalimas (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Most edited articles

A cool new tool. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh wow! There's no contest of course, but it's a blowout!  ;-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Very cool tool. I like what it shows, too. But still, great way to keep pulse on activity.TCO (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice tool indeed. Not hard to guess who the four editors are on Painted turtle :P ZooPro 04:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Unassessed articles

Well I almost fell off my chair to learn we have 1,368 unassessed articles for AAR see here. I hope to get that list down to zero by the end of january and if anyone is willing to help please reply and we may be able to work out a system of some sort to deal with the 1000+ article. Cheers ZooPro 09:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I would help out (sort of drudge work, I know). Just point me in the direction of the guidelines used for this project for article importance.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

50 down only a thousand or so to go :P ZooPro 11:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Ha.  :-) What bothers me more than the number that don't have their quality assessed is the number that must not even have the project banner. I've come across quite a few, one very recently: Morelia spilota mcdowelli. I'll begin work too, don't worry (sort of have my hands full at the moment).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The most effective way to get untagged articles tags is to create of relevant categories to the project and use User:Xenobot Mk V. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 16:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Assessed for importance another 50 or so, all B-class, C-class and Lists. Many hands make light work! Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 18:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll be taking a look as well. bibliomaniac15 22:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yesterday I assessed ~50 articles...so far the list has gone down to 1129 results. I'll be sending out a mass note to people to join the assessment drive. bibliomaniac15 00:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Dahong Palay

Hello. I would like to ask if any of you are familiar with any green venomous snakes from the Philippines locally known as dahong palay (literally 'rice leaf')? According to local beliefs the snake is thus named for its resemblance to a single blade of rice, it is also said to be so poisonous it secretes venom through its skin (tall order, I know, haha).

Whatever its supposed behaviors are, its existence has long been taken as fact by most Filipinos, to the point that most of us here are deathly afraid of small green snakes and kill them on sight indiscriminately. A traditional filipino weapon is also supposedly named after it (Dahong Palay), hence this discussion. Since you guys are more familiar with the subject, I'd like to ask: is it a real species or is it simply an exaggerated folk tale? --Obsidi♠n^Soul) 11:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC) :It is a cryptid please read this article Dahong Palay . Regards ZooPro 11:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I have removed a link I provided as it is not a worthy nor acceptable source, There is no official snake known as Dahong Palay, its a myth/legend and refers to any green snake found in the area. ZooPro 11:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Er... the edit saying it is a cryptid is MY edit. Heh. :P But thanks for clarifying. Previously the article identified Ahaetulla prasina as being the dahong palay and describes it as 'lethal'. I removed the dab and species mention because of this and replaced it with a cite of the folk story instead. --Obsidi♠n^Soul) 12:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm I dont know why you would insert the information into the article, qoute a questionable source then come here to ask if its real or not. I have removed the information in the article as it is not sourced correctly, Had I known you wrote it I would clearly not have referred you to the article. Furthermore google returns very little information about the name Dahong Palay being used for any snake. What a waste of my time. Please do not re-insert the information into the article as you have clearly been reverted once before. Regards ZooPro 12:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Um... a bit confrontational aren't we? To clarify. Please view the article BEFORE my edits (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dahong_Palay&action=historysubmit&diff=406665085&oldid=341449571). That was the reason why I inserted that information on the article and why I asked the question. The folk tale of the dahong palay is well known enough (it's actually in school textbooks), you yourself said it is not a real snake, and I too came to the same conclusion after trying to find references leading to the identification of the actual snake referred to as dahong palay.

So what's the verdict? Is it real or not? Because it's pointless removing that information and blaming me for 'wasting your time' if it in turn means the implication that the snake is real and is highly poisonous, as was originally hinted at by the article.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 12:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

No not real. ZooPro 12:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, is it okay then to restore that source for the statement 'legendary snake' in the lead without restoring the original conclusion that it is a cryptid? (which is actually true, though yes I admit, it's original research). The folk tale is a good enough reference to point out the mythical status of the snake.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 12:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

No "Legendary" would indicate it is of great importance to the culture and people and well known, google tells me it is neither, a folk tale is not really a reliable source itself, if you can provide another source to back up the claim then I have no problem with the information being in the article, however a more NPOV in describing the "cryptid" would be better. Regards ZooPro 12:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... okay, is it a mistake in wording then? How about 'mythical', or 'a snake from local folklore'? You are not Filipino, correct? It is not of great importance, of course, but the belief in its veracity is so pervasive that deaths are misattributed to it quite frequently. Some branches of the Philippine military use it also as part of their official seals/designations. But when you dig deeper, you realize that there is actually no scientifically documented evidence of such a snake existing. That gives you two problems:

1) No citable reference can clearly point out what snake it actually is. And current knowledge makes it clear that the green snakes it usually refers to (which varies a lot, to say the least) are actually not dangerous. Common sense also dictates that no snake could possibly secrete poison through its skin.

2) Given how widely accepted it is, there are no references either that say that it is not real, just obviously questionable 'facts' about it. There is a heavy metal band that erroneously implies that the snake is the most venomous in the world.

It is so accepted in rural areas that the 1928 short story by Arturo Belleza Rotor is about it: Dahong Palay. An 1895 guidebook, Filipinas: Pequeños Estudios; Batangas Y Su Provincia by Manuel Sastrón (it's in Spanish) also mentions it as one of the dreaded local snakes, again without actual evidence.

And again, a government sponsored statistical survey of local fauna (by the DENR) actually lists it among the snake species but do not give an actual scientific name. See Compendium of ENR Information and Statistics, CY 2006 - 2006

So how do you suggest it should be phrased then? If the snake is real then it is an undocumented species, and given how frequently it is mentioned and 'encountered' in Filipino culture, it is a bit unlikely for it to remain unidentified. The conclusion is it's not real, but how do you state that given how many <unscientific> references do say it is?--Obsidi♠n^Soul 14:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, I see you're not interested at all. Anyone else with info on the Dahong Palay and opinions on how best to phrase it on the article? --Obsidi♠n^Soul 03:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I have other areas of wikipedia I am active on also, Yes I only have a problem with the word Legendary. Perhaps it would be best just to make a note that it is a myth and that it could refer to any of the small green snakes perhaps list one or two possible species with a ref. ZooPro 04:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Edited. I still can not find reliable references, I did the best I could with secondhand news articles and primary sources. I also can not simply remove it from the article as the sword is actually said to be named after the snake. It's an essential part of it. The problem lies in the fact that the snake is more folk superstition than an actual species.

I give up. Can't think of any other way to make it clearer that dahong palay does not refer to any one species of snake but to any small green snake perceived to be lethally venomous (whether it actually is or isn't). But I still think it's better than the alternative of claiming that such a snake exists and is dangerous to humans.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 06:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you want project banner on famous herp pages?

I have found several famous herp wikibio pages, and made a couple, lately. Do you want your banner there? Have been putting a biography banner, but can have a subject one too, no worries. Just don't want to put it there, if you are trying to stick to reptiles only, not broader herp topics.TCO (talk) 07:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Got any examples please? Cheers ZooPro 08:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Wilmer W. Tanner
• Sherman C. Bishop
• Karl Patterson Schmidt

I would kinda restrict it to people that emphasize herp stuff, rather than general zoology of course. Just asking.TCO (talk) 08:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Also see [here], regarding the rationale for having multiple project banners, "A short article about a prominent scientist, for example, would probably benefit greatly from a project dealing with the scientist's discipline, his area of residence, biographies in general, and potentially even his time period."

You can see how Issac Newton is handled on talk. Again, not pushing, project should do what is fun, what appeals to it. Just asking.TCO (talk) 10:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I reckon go for it, please do me one favour though and rate the articles :P I am about to tackle the list of 1000+ unrated AAR articles and a few less would be great. ZooPro 10:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

List of herpetologists might come in handy. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 02:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you help? I want to concentrate more on article content. Will put it up on any that I start, but I don't want to be pounding out a list like that.TCO (talk) 03:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

There might be some who are in our article, or at least the daughters btw. Conant and Gibbons jump to mind. Need the little wikilink in refs and all.TCO (talk) 03:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Herp bio chronologies

not much detail, but easy to scan names. http://ebeltz.net/herps/biogappx.html TCO (talk) 10:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

As I'm assessing articles...

...I've noticed how many titles are in Latin. In a general encyclopedia, wouldn't these titles be the common name of the animal?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

A while ago (in 2008, to be exact), we had a discussion on reptiles that had a ton of common names. It was generally decided that in the absence of one single very commonly used name, it would be better to use the scientific name rather than cause bickering over which common name was better than the other. bibliomaniac15 02:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Have no other alternatives been brought up in the discussions? I don't really mind, it's just that Latin titles can be a bit off-putting to readers.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I suggest gradually driving things how you want them. Try to avoid too many direct confrontations, but do more and more with time, and then you have the Project to lend some authority. Can't give orders, you know how this place is. But they do respect Projects on stuff like naming format etc.TCO (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right, confrontation isn't what I'm after, just making the best articles possible (man, that almost sounded political). But again, I have no problem with Latin titles, just wondering.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

If there's a single, very common name, just go with the common name. Otherwise, it's better to have redirects to the Latin. bibliomaniac15 23:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Most of those probably should be at the scientific names. Animals like the bog turtle have real common names; those names are used very often in discussing the animal. However, lesser-known reptiles are more likely to have "common names" that only exist in a few books and lists, and to be more widely known under the scientific name. In that case, it's better to use the scientific name. Ucucha 12:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the quick answers everyone. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

reptile featured pictures

Not sure you all were aware of this [1]. TCO (talk) 06:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Australia is a strange country

Who ever said frogs and snakes dont get along, Pictured is a green tree frog riding on the back of a red belly black snake during our flood emergency. I think our reptile keepers are still rubbing their eyes in shock. ZooPro 12:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Love it! I wonder what bargain the frog struck with the snake to get that ride. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 15:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That's SO funny! They look like they're going downtown to rough up some punks.NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

We breed our frogs tough down here. ZooPro 00:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess when it comes to survival, finding a place were you can be safe is a little bit more important than food. Unless you are starving that is. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

working on American herpetologists

Got a hair up my cloaca and have been doing some BLP and BDPs of American herpetologists. Just sharing in case other have ideas or comments. Find a few existing already, find others have lots of incoming redlinks from species they classified or were named after them. Also, that easy to get incoming links from reference sections of articles. Not doing any junk ones, but the ones who had careers and did a lot of stuff. Often there is a Copiea biography to reference. Also, several have French pages, but that the content is improved when worked on in Anglo space.TCO (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Ron Tremper would be a good start. Don't know any others. --TangoFett (talk) 06:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Down to 781

We are down to 781 unassessed articles !!!!! Great work everyone keep it up, I think by the end of it I will never want to rate another article ever again :P ZooPro 12:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

PS Just wondering what others are doing about templates on the redirect pages?, I have been removing them as there is no use having two templates for one article.ZooPro 12:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems they should be tagged with class=redirect, but redirecting appears to not be a problem (discussed at WP:BIRD). —innotata 13:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I've just been deleting redirect talk pages if there isn't any history other than adding the template. bibliomaniac15 18:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Amphibians and Reptiles of Montana

Question. Is this a list or an article? We have it rated as B-class, another project has it as list. Just curious, and a change is likely needed, whether it's us or them.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I assessed one of those articles recently. I rated it as a list per the list guidelines. ZooPro 13:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool, I'll do the same. Thank you. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 00:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

New Mexico whiptail lizard

A photo of the New Mexico whiptail lizard(Cnemidophorus neomexicanus) is required for U.S. state reptiles as it's the state symbol for New Mexico. Any suggestions? The current image can't be cropped due to restrictions. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 03:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Why can't it be cropped? The file description page says that images on Wikipedia must allow modification, and this image is no exception. Ucucha 04:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

That's kind of a good question. I was thinking if was restricted because it's not on commons but reading the labelling it looks okay. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 04

33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It is fine to do derivitaves on that. Would like an assist to photoshop the sand over the left nd right images. Cropping would lead to an insane aspect ratio.TCO (talk) 04:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Fence Lizard ID

I put a photo of what I think is an Eastern Fence Lizard on the talk page of that article. Can someone positively ID it and perhaps add it to the mating section? It shows the male displaying its orange throat flap.Jstuby (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a Brown anole, and fence lizards HAVE no dewlaps. Anoles and fence lizards are completely different, don't know how you missed that. --TangoFett (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

natureserve as source?

Any perspective on NatureServe as a source? Reliability? HOw to best access info? ARe they some sort of contract research outfit?TCO (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a reminder

Sauropsida ≠ Reptilia. Not sure if anyone makes that mistake anymore, but just to remind you all. --TangoFett (talk) 03:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Galápagos tortoise

Galápagos tortoise is at FAC, please review and lend your comments/support.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Reptilia vs. Sauropsida revisited

Hi again everyone...would the editors of reptile articles mind stopping by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life#Taxonomy/Reptilia and contributing to the discussion there? Thanks! Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

This is an impiortant topic I have made a comment at the page, this is an issue that is about the role of WP and understanding it well. Faendalimas (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

U.S. state reptiles

FYI, this article is at FLC and has been since 23FEB. TCO (talk) 05:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Snakes, relative venom strength, and LD50

I'm starting this discussion here, because while Inland Taipan was the article where the issue started, it's spread to Eastern brown snake.

The articles have used studies of median lethal dosage in mice as a basis for pronouncing them the most and second-most venomous land snakes. A user has persisted in adding the following disclaimer to the article:

However, due to the fact that snake venom toxicity is not tested on humans, it is difficult to accurately determine what are the world's most drop for drop venomous snakes to humans with complete certainty.

Why is this disclaimer necessary? The article seems to have sufficiently noted the authority that backs up the claim of "most venomous." Has this issue come up before with venomous animals (of which snakes would be one of the more extensively studied groups)? Is that much of a disclaimer necessary in every article that makes a claim of relative venom strength based on animal testing? —C.Fred (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It's unnecessary, and I've had extensive talks with this user before on the topic. IMHO, the place for the discussion of test species on LD-50 is on the LD50 page, as it just clutters up the pages of various critters. I've also repeatedly stressed that, even with species differences, LD50 in mice is *far* better than any other method of assessment simply because so many variables can be controlled, while data from human clinical cases has so much uncertainty and so many confounding factors as to be effectively worthless. I thought we'd reached an understanding, but clearly not, so I suggest someone take it up with an admin as a case of WP:AXE. Mokele (talk) 03:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the issue here is not in LD50 per se, but in that administration route and animal should be specified when discussing LD50 values. Specifically, saying that "snake X is most venomous to humans based on LD50 value" is misleading because it does not mention that this is a bold extrapolation of results obtained on specific species. Even adding "in mice" or "in monkeys" would make it so much different. Materialscientist (talk) 05:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, anything that even says "most venomous" should be deleted on sight. It's the crappy sort of top-10 list based on dubious assumptions and improper understanding that's the staple of shitty TV animal shows, not a supposed reference site.Mokele (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I was once asked to help out with a "most venomous snake" article. I helped source it, ad LD50 date and so on, but in the end the plug was drawn on the whole article. The problem is that there are a number of partly quite subjective factors that goes into make a snake more or less venomous. Two obvious factors are toxicity and the amount of venom a snake will use, but there are other less straight forward questions as effectivity of delivery (placement and length of fangs plays a role) and how likely the snake is to bite in the first place.

Notice that LD50 numbers aren't entirely trustworthy either. They often differ when the dose is given under the skin, in muscle or in vicera, telling us that toxins may be specific, and that mouse data may not tell us much other that what snakes do to mice. There are bird-eating snakes whose venom is very effective on birds, but not very dangerous to mammals, so snake venoms can be specific. Taipans and brown snakes are after all primarily mouse eaters, no wonders theiir venoms kill mice easily. Writing that a snake is the worlds most most or or second most venomous snake will be understood as related to humans. Thse statements are scientifically a bit dubious, and I find the disclaimer (or some disclaimer like it) higly appropriate. Petter Bøckman (talk) 09:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I thought researchers inject the venom to the test animals intravenously (?) If not then it even less indicative because indeed the fang length is a crucial factor when snakes bite different animals - some snakes are harmless to some animals only because of that. Materialscientist (talk) 10:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

That's indeed the case! If I remember correctly, the most potent snake venom is that of some sea-snake species. The snake is next to harmless though, as the fangs sits far back in th emouth, and are really only used to subdue small fish on their way down. Petter Bøckman (talk) 10:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, sea-snakes are typical proteroglyphs, like other elapids. The main issue is that their fangs and mouths are very small, so they often fail to get a good bite or don't penetrate the wetsuit.Mokele (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I just feel it's tedious to explain this on *EVERY* page, especially when the only context is in LD50 rankings, which as dubious at best and probably shouldn't be included. IMHO, the general gist should be "Species X is a blah blah, living in blah, and is highly venomous, based on a number of human fatalities and a high LD50." It's accurate (LD50, for all its limitations, is a pretty good indicator 99% of the time), but doesn't get needlessly bogged down in details. Then, on the LD50 page, make sure there's a detailed explanation of the limitations and issues. Kinda like how we just say "the adder is a viper" without going into all the details of solenoglyphy and their phylogeny etc., which are on the viper page if needed/wanted by the reader. Mokele (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree putting it on every page would be overkill, but I feel such a warning should be included on pages claiming "this is the most venomous snake in the world", because that is an absolute claim which can't really be backed up. Also, the explanation could be trimmmed down to "... measured by LD50, which is tested on mice and may or may not yild similar results on humans". Or something in that vein.Petter Bøckman (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Attempted deletion of Herping

The article herping has been nominated for deletion here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Herping, for extremely poor and primarily bureaucratic reasons. Given that is a Mid-Importance article representing an extremely widespread practice, I think we need to all show up on that page and prevent the deletion. It's been neglected, but that doesn't mean it needs to get the axe. Mokele (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I've put in a few references. The article is rather long, perhaps trimming it would be an idea? Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

AAR Portal

Just making everyone aware of the request at Portal talk:Amphibians and Reptiles#Requested move. I did not make the request but felt WikiProject AAR should be notified as it falls under this projects scope. ZooPro 09:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation opinions

Hi. I'd be grateful if editors which an interest in disambiguation could take a look at Tristis and let me know their thoughts on its talk page. Thanks SP-KP (talk) 10:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Species common names

What's the general consensus on whether the common names of herpetofauna should be capitalized? postdlf (talk) 02:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

This project has decided to stick with the more traditional "not" capitalize.TCO (talk) 03:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Is there a prior discussion you could link to? I'd like to see the reasoning. I started out in the don't-capitalize camp years ago but was ultimately swayed. postdlf (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't have it memorized. Would have to search, just as you must.TCO (talk) 18:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

This has been a hot topic, I've only found the tip of the iceberg:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles/Archive 3#Mass article moves taking place
• Talk:Green sea turtle#Requested move to Green sea turtle

There really is more out there, certainly from our small group of people (Wikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles and Wikipedia:WikiProject Turtles)

NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow never seems to change hey, in the past we have had long long long debates on this, WP:AAR (this project) decided not to capitalize, unless a large group of users wish to change that its best not to get into a debate, just draws valuable time away from important issues. ZooPro 12:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Disappointing, but understandable. I asked because someone had started changing the capitalization on a bunch of reptile species articles I had started. I'll (regretfully) use lower case in new ones from now on. postdlf (talk) 14:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I would like to draw your attention to the document: SCIENTIFIC AND STANDARD ENGLISH NAMES OF AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES OF NORTH AMERICA NORTH OF MEXICO, WITH COMMENTS REGARDING CONFIDENCE IN OUR UNDERSTANDING, which was "Officially Recognized and Adopted by: The Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, (and) The Herpetologists’ League." In it the following statement appears, "Perhaps the major change we recommend is capitalizing the English names, which follows the ornithologists’ rule." Does anyone know of similar stands taken by other English language herpetological societies? Seems to me that we should follow their guidelines. After all it works well for the birds, the butterflies, and the dragonflies. Dger (talk) 15:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I would rather follow the New York Times and Britannica. No one gave permission to the birders to Germanicize the language. If the scientists want to be precise on naming, they can use the latinate.TCO (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No one needed to. They chose this system because it works best for the names of birds. Wikipedia merely respects that decision as we should with reptiles. Dger (talk) 06:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd go with New York Times also. We are an Encyclopedia for general readership not a scientific journal. Also a NORTH AMERICAN document recommended by an American Society doesn't present a WP:WORLDVIEW. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 16:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't really represent all the scientists or societies either. Lots of good science journals don't do that (very recent) species capitalizing trend either. See for instance: [2]

Why should it? It is never possible to satisfy all parties. Any system of naming just requires the concensus of the group mosy intimately involved. The so called birders have come up with an international naming system. Dger (talk) 06:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

To which, I would add one more argument. The term blue whale is seen as ambiguous versus a "whale that is blue"

• First, well over 90% of the time, the usage is not ambiguous. Certainly not in context.
• Second, there are many times when prose is possibley ambigious versus say a geometric proof.
• Third even on this ISSUE, if you really believed in it, then you would not just want it for animals, but for every place we use two word class nouns. This is a MAJOR redefinition of English language usage. We will know refer to a "Chef's Knife" to differentiate from a knife that a chef owns. Or eating Virginia Ham as opposed to ham from Virginia. Or I would need to say I was an Offensive Tackle during college (not a "bad" tackle). TCO (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Proper names are always capitalized in any case. Have you ever seen virginia ham on order? Dger (talk) 06:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to make a motion to move Bactrian Camel to BaCtRiAn CaMeL because camels have humps...will anyone second that? Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and we should move blue whale to BLUE WHALE to show how big it is, and Mycoplasma genitalium should be called mycoplasma genitalium because it's just too small for caps. Ucucha 20:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

That whale does have the blue already though. Should we delete the article for red fox? TCO (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

That might help emphasize the blueness. Or, we could use CSS to make the text blue. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Joking aside, there are names that are a bit more problematic. Common toad for instance, is it Bufo bufo or some locally common critter? What about small phoenix, is it any small Ecliptopera or Ecliptopera silaceata specifically? There's a number of animals with names like "common", "small", "lesser", "large", "green", "spotted" etc where this might potentially be a problem. While I am not for capitalization, I find it bad form to ridicule a perfectly valid argument. Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I prefer a common name for an article, provided the scientific name redirects to it. There should always be either an article or a redirect bearing the scientific name. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem that capitalization solves is when do the adjectives end and the name begin. In many mammal names this is usually not a problem but for many other animals their names include one or more adjectives; so how can one decide which are names and which are adjectives? Butterflies are particularly difficult because their names can be all adjectives, e.g., Red-spotted Purple or Great Southern White. Dger (talk) 06:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is there discussion still going on? Dger linked to an official set of guidelines from the largest herpetology societies (especially since all three increasingly function like a single mega-society) who run the highest impact herpetology journals in the world (none of the journals outside N.A. even have an impact factor of 1), and who, regardless of home base, publish articles from researchers all over the world. In absence of official dissent from other organizations, I see no real worthwhile objection to them, other than from non-specialist sources. Mokele (talk) 11:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to agree with Mokele, if the only published guidelines favour capitalization, then so should we. Petter Bøckman (talk) 12:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

A. I think we should follow the grammar guidance of normal encyclopedias, newspapers, etc. and not faddy innovations of fields. We are not an outlet of the Ichythy-herp Society. We are a general reader content source.

B. If the scientists want to opine on scientific names or science itself FINE. I don't think there even ARE "official common names. So, they have no role changing grammar.

C. Your argument about adjective ambiguity applies ALL OVER the English language. Should we also refer to a Chef's Knife or a Virginia Ham or an Offensive Tackle? If you really beleive your argument, then you would. Then this thing gets huge and then you are making a big change all over the language and away from normal usage.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs)

If it wasn't for the scientists we wouldn't have valid information in the articles. It is their job to organize complex material such as taxonomies. Do you seriously believe that is the role of newspapers? Wikipedia does not follow newspaper formats or rules, in any case. What is a Normal Encyclopedia? Let's stick to the issue at hand. We are only talking about one group of animals. For example, mammologists don't capitalize; ornithologist do. Herpetologists seem to favour capitals. It is not Wikipedia's job to impose a system but to follow accepted practice. Dger (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I have a "union card" as a scientist. So puh-leeze. They don't scare me none! It is not the scientist's job to opine on and/change common names (which really don't have a status anyway) or to mess up normal grammar and notation. Plus...you still have avoided the "Chef's Knife" point. And the "accepted practice" is what the English grammar books say. Not scientists. They need to concentrate on sequencing DNA and reporting that and the like. Not grammar wars.TCO (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

So do I, only not in that field. I have nothing to say about Chef's Knives or other Red Herrings and this issue has nothing to do with changing grammar. Dger (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

So TOC, appeal to authority then, is it? You know it is a logical fallacy, right? I too happens to be be a herpetologist, without that having any real bearing on this issue. Petter Bøckman (talk) 06:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

appearance of scientific names in lead of species articles listed at their common names

I've created Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Biology#Consensus how scientific names are displayed in the lead of species articles listed under common names to get an idea of whether we should streamline. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Dave Peters Strikes Back

Just a heads up: Cosesaurus. Dave Peters has added a whole lot of material to this article based on his "unique" interpretations, heavily citing himself, and including many of his nonsensical images. Don't have time to go through it now but it could certainly use a copyedit. MMartyniuk (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Amphibian identification

I'd like some help identifying these two toads I saw in Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area. bibliomaniac15 04:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks like an American toad to me, but the location is wrong. I'm fairly certain it is a Bufo though. Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a red-spotted toad (Bufo/Anaxyrus punctatus). Mokele (talk) 12:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

What an expert bunch we have on here, Lucky cause I woulda just called it a toad :P. I just want to make a note of this to everyone that this is what a WikiProject is all about, collaboration, assistance and working together. What a great bunch of people we have in our project.ZooPro 12:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks ZooPro! I am really no expert on American species, but here's a picture of a B. punctatus couple from a compareable angle. The markings and pale hands/dark nostrils relly look similar to me, but I'm not too sure about the eyes. It can be regional variations though: [3]. Petter Bøckman (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Food web

Food web is currently being rewritten, and will hopefully go to FA. Any contributions from people in this project will be much appreciated. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, try to keep it understandable. Too much "definition by bluelink" is a killer. It's not awful right now (have seen worse)...I just want to stick up for the reader. Pitch it at least so the average non-biology scientist finds it accessible. Also, I think "food chain" is a better title for the page. (Somewhat building on the previous point.) But no biggie...I know how people are on page titles. Other than that, would go ahead and do one web that is full page width image (I think you have a very strong rationale for doing so here...would do so in a book.) I'm not crazy about the lump of chum picture at the end...totally reliant on caption and shows not much. Think about the article and find some other concept to show and better illustration of it.TCO (talk) 06:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Pterosaurs

Pterosaur has been requested to be renamed Pterodactyl, see Talk:Pterosaur. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Virgin Islands dwarf sphaero

I have spent the day researching and re-writing the article Virgin Islands dwarf sphaero. I still have a few things to do, like create a nav box for the genus, archive the web sources, and recreate the range map as a higher-res SVG file. Otherwise, the article has been nominated at DYK and GAN. I plan to take it to FAC. This is my first reptile article, so any feedback would be welcome, even if it is not an official review. There are also a few sources I left in the "Further reading" section. I cannot access them, but if someone can help me confirm that these sources do not contain unique information, I will delete the section. Thanks! – VisionHolder « talk » 06:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Iberolacerta monticola

Iberolacerta monticola redirects to Iberian Rock Lizard.

Iberolacerta cyreni starts with "Lacerta monticola ssp. cyreni Müller & Hellmich, 1937". Should that be removed?

The article about Iberolacerta cyreni previously included File:Iberolacerta monticola.001.JPG until Dysmorodrepanis (talk · contribs) removed it [4]. However that image is still used on ca:Iberolacerta cyreni. Should the image be removed from that ca.WP article? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Iberolacerta cyreni was apparently recently spit from Iberolacerta monticola (IUCN). Previously, cyreni was a subspecies of monticola (and thus called "Iberolacerta monticola cyreni, or in IUCN-speak Iberolacerta monticola ssp. cyreni).

Based on locality (Galicia) and the ranges the IUCN gives for the several Iberolacerta species, it would seem that that image is indeed monticola, not cyreni. Ucucha 11:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Rainbow Toad

FYI: Than, Ker. "'Extinct' Rainbow Toad Rediscovered, Photographed for First Time." 14 July 2011. National Geographic News.

71.56.222.63 (talk) 23:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to assist in adding donated content: GLAM/ARKive

Hi,

I am the Wikipedia Outreach Ambassador to ARKive, who have kindly agreed to donate an initial 200 article texts about endangered species from their project, to Wikipedia, under a CC-BY-SA license. Details are on the GLAM/ARKive project page. The donated texts include many about amphibians and reptiles Your help, to merge the donated texts into articles, would be appreciated. Guidelines for doing so are also on the above page. Once articles have been expanded using the donated texts, we are also seeking assistance in having those articles translated into other languages. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns, on the project's talk page, or my own. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The animals they cover are pretty notable. For some like Hawkbill, I would be unlikely to want to cut and paste their prose. Our article is already an FA and longer. Even if they had good stuff, would need to integrate it properly and probably just get the base citations and write it in without an Arkive attribution. At the most, it is another competing article on the Hawbill, which I might choose to read and learn from, but no priority for me.

There are a few though, where we have almost nothing (e.g. Common Box Turtle) where just grabbing their prose would make an article pretty quick. could see this being value add. After all we have let it languish for years. Yeah, we could build it from scratch, but have not. So why not take the content. I know Citizendium to Wiki project built some content this way.

Few things I'm not clear on:

• How to attribute to Arkive? I mean their text itself is referenced, so what we take from them is the prose. Is a citation appropriate for that, or some edit history remark? And what are the exact nicities around it? I guess a good citation would make sure we spec the date and webpage and all that.
• Is this "approved"? HAve copyright issues been thought through? Is this more than a one person initiative? Imagine running one of these by Mottenen.
• how physically to cut and paste the text (especially the cites). Or doees that need to be done all manual or any tricks?
• Anything else to watch out for?

TCO (reviews needed) 02:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

All this is explained on the page linked: for example to attribute for CC license purposes a talk page template (as with articles translated from other language Wikipedias) is used, and the ARKive page and its references can be used as is desired to verify. —innotata 14:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I did common box turtle. We had nothing and they had text.TCO (reviews needed) 14:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Questions answered at Wikipedia talk:GLAM/ARKive#comments/questions. Thank you for your contribution. More, please! Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on getting you a DYK. Then I will finish all the turtles. We had like nothing for that CBT article (for years for a very common animal) so the Arkive really added quickly (and we were NOT bothering to write it ourselves). It is not FA quality for sure, but significant content = a DYK. Figured you could use that as a little cap feather and tell the 'Kivers that their stuff won an award and was on Main Page. Image donators or the like always appreciate that sort of feedback. (I am such an asskisser.)TCO (reviews needed) 20:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't comment on your latter point, but I'll be happy to make the DYK nomination, when you're ready. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Now nominated for DYK. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I've just added a load of amphibians to the list. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Update: ARKive have just released another batch of texts, including several more amphibians & reptiles. I've added these to the list on the project page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Liolaemus and Sceloporus

Don't you find it odd that the Shining Tree iguana (And other species in Liolaemus) look JUST like they'd belong in Sceloporus? It's weird...here, lemme show you a picture:

Don't you think this...

...looks like this?

It's funny, really, because not only are they separate genera, but they are in separate families as well. But it would make sense, seeing as how they are both in the Americas. Is there anything stopping us from considering them to be the same? Convergent evolution is one possibility, but could it also be that other members of Sceloporus simply went further south? Eublepharinae spans from the United States to southwest Asia...so I don't think it would be too strange to have Sceloporus members at South America, would it? --72.197.35.238 (talk) 05:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The only thing that makes them look similar is the rough scales. Superficial appearance can be misleading, which is why proper taxonomy relies on either deeper morphological characteristics or molecular data. Mokele (talk) 12:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Just the rough scales? What about their heads? Their heads are shaped almost exactly the same. They can't be too terribly far apart. It would make sense if they were at least in Phrynosomatidae. But I would like to know more about this big difference, if there's anything at all on the subject. --72.197.35.238 (talk) 08:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Assistance request

Hello everyone in WP Amphibians & Reptiles:

I'm the head bureaucrat at a wiki called Reptipedia. We've existed for quite some time now, but activity has been low the past couple of months, and we only have 3 active admins doing all the contributing. We've just now started kicking things up a notch, and now it's starting to look great. But here's the thing: We really, really can not do this alone. It's fairly organized and decent, but decent isn't good enough. We need experienced people who know how to organize a wiki, as well as people who are very educated on the subject of herpetofauna. This isn't exactly a request for plain contributors (I'll do that later, in the proper place), but more of a request to help us make the wiki more professional. My hope is that the wiki will become a place where people from professional herpetologists to people who are simply interested in the hobby can all come and acquire information from the wiki.

So come on, take a look, and if we are ever to be so worthy, please come and help us out! TangoFett (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I might take a look. ZooPro 02:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Not what i expected but each to their own I guess. ZooPro

What do you mean? Is there something wrong? --TangoFett (talk) 03:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Had a look at it I assume this site is in its infancy. I will look into helping. I am a professional turtle taxonomist. Will look into it later today. Faendalimas (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

List of reptiles of placename

Is there agreement on such articles? What is the objective? To have all taxonomic groups at all regions? At what region level? Continent,country, state, district? At what taxonomic rank is suitable to cover? Amphibians and Reptiles (List of reptiles and amphibians of Gibraltar) or separately(List of reptiles of Great Britain) or more split such as List of turtles of Africa, List of snakes of South Asia? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Sea snakes of the Southern Ocean - ID?

The UK's National Archives has started a collaboration with Wikimedia which should mean we receive a load of good material from them. It would be nice to show them (and their bosses!) something of what Wikipedians can do for them, so here's a little challenge - can anyone identify these "Sea snakes of the Southern Ocean" from 1846? Le Deluge (talk) 14:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The leftmost is Pelamis platurus, and the right is Laticauda colubrina. The center one, I don't know, though it could be an oddly patterned (or badly drawn) Pelamis platurus. Mokele (talk) 15:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks - I'll pass it on. Le Deluge (talk) 02:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

WT:TOL#The biggest clades of them all...which ones belong on Wikipedia?

Please see the above link. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Turtle ID?

Hi guys; I know this is a really bad photo, but does anyone know what kind of turtles these North American turtles are? Thanks! Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Impossible to tell for sure, but they look like some form of Emydid. If they're pet store turtles, best bet would be red-eared sliders. Mokele (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Frog id

Thanks. Samsara (FA • FP) 09:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Given location (Western Ghats) and coloration, either the golden frog Hylarana aurantiaca ([5]) or the bronzed frog Hylarana temporalis ([6]). More likely the former. Golden frogs have tympana of more or less of equal size as the eyes, while in bronzed frogs, the eyes are twice as large. If you can remember its call, the golden frog also has a soft 'chik chik chik' call, while the bronzed frog has a loud 'krac krac krac' call. See Checklist of Amphibians: Agumbe Rainforest Research Station and A Field Key for the Identification of Amphibians at Hiniduma.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 15:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I've requested a rename and am now expanding the article.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 02:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I would lean towards H. temporalis - the tubercles at the base of the foreleg I think are said to be distinctive and if I remember right, most aurantiaca show a narrow pale stripe along the canthal edges that continue along the dorsal edges of the body. Shyamal (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

PS: Daniel, J.C. & A.G. Sekar (1989). Field guide to the amphibians of Western India. Part 4. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 86: 180-202. gives the key as "Tibiotarsal articulation reaching between eye and the nostril - aurantiaca and Tibio-tarsal articulation reaching nostril or tip of snout, or a little beyond- temporalis" In the diagnosis it gives 1/2 or 2/3 orbit for tympanum in aurantiaca and tympanum 3/4th eye diameter in temporalis. Shyamal (talk) 16:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hm... curious. Two other books state the opposite when it comes to eye/tympanum relative sizes. Namely that the tympanum is relatively larger in H. aurantiaca than in H. temporalis to the eye.

• R. J. Ranjit Daniels (2005). Amphibians of peninsular India. Universities Press. p. 228–231. ISBN 9788173715143.

Describes H. aurantica as having equal eye and tympanum sizes. Uses extent of webbing on toes instead for diagnosis. Less webbed on H. temporalis, more on H. aurantiaca

• G. A. Boulenger (1920). "A Monograph of the South Asian, Papuan, Melanesian, and Australian Frogs of the Genus Rana" (PDF). Records of the Indian Museum. XX. Zoological Survey of India.

Uses the following key (descriptions follow). Tympanum in H. aurantiaca 3/4 to eye. Smaller in H. temporalis at 3/5 to 3/4 to eye. I'm guessing it might actually be useless for diagnosis. Nevertheless take a look at Boulenger's descriptions (I've collapsed them):

Species key (snipped)

Tibio-tarsal articulation reaching between eye and tip of snout; tibia 6 times as long as broad ; toes 2/3 webbed ; dorso-lateral fold narrow ... R. aurantica Blgr. Tibio-tarsal articulation reaching far beyond tip of snout; toes 3/4 webbed ; dorso-lateral fold narrow ... R. sanguinea, Boettg. Tibia usually longer than foot, never shorter ; first finger longer than second ; tympanum 3/5 to once diameter of eye. Dorso-lateral fold narrow or moderately broad ; male with internal vocal sacs and a humeral gland. Head as long as broad or a little longer than broad ;vomerine teeth extending beyond level of posterior borders of choanae ; tibio-tarsal articulation reaching nostril, tip of snout, or a litde beyond ; tibia 4 to 4 and 1/2 times as long as broad ; discs of third and fourth fingers not more than 1/3 diameter of tympanum ; toes 3/4 webbed ... R. temporalis, Gthr.

Rana aurantiaca

Vomerine teeth in short oblique series between the choanae, nearer the latter than to each other. Head much depressed, longer than broad ; snout obtusely pointed, a little longer than the eye, scarcely projecting beyond the mouth; canthus rostralis distinct; loreal region nearly vertical, concave ; nostril much nearer the tip of the snout than the eye ; distance between the nostrils equal to the interorbital width, which is a little greater than that of the upper eyelid ; tympanum very distinct, 3/4 the diameter of the eye and 3 times its distance from the latter. Fingers long and rather slender, the tips dilated into very small discs which are longer than broad and have the upper surface separated from the lower by a groove ; first finger a little longer than the second, third a little longer than the snout ; sub-articular tubercles moderate. Hind limb rather long and slender, the tibio-tarsal articulation reaching between the eye and the tip of the snout, the heels strongly overlapping when the limbs are folded at right angles to the body ; tibia 6 times as long as broad, 1/2 the length of head and body, shorter than the fore limb, as long as the foot. Toes with the tips dilated like the fingers , 2/3 webbed ; outer metatarsals separated nearly to the base ; subarticular tubercles rather small ; no tarsal fold ; inner metatarsal tubercle oval, feebly prominent, 1/4 the length of the inner toe ; a small, round outer tubercle. Skin smooth; a narrow glandular dorsolateral fold, from above the tympanum to the hip, its distance from its fellow, on the back, 6 times in the length from snout to vent. Orange above, without spots on the back or bars on the limbs ; a black band along each side of the head and body; upper lip, canthus rostralis, and dorso-lateral fold white ; terminal discs of toes black ; lower parts white. Nasal bones small, oblique, widely separated from each other and from the ethmoid, the upper part of which is uncovered and very obtusely pointed in front. Male Unknown

Rana temporalis

Vomerine teeth in short oblique series originating between the choanae and extending beyond the level of their posterior borders, equally distinct from each other and from the latter or a little closer together. Head as long as broad or a little longer than broad, much depressed ; snout rounded or obtusely pointed, more or less projecting beyond the mouth, as long as the eye or a little longer : canthus rostralis well marked ; loreal region feebly oblique or nearly vertical, concave ; nostril nearer the tip of the snout than the eye ; distance between the nostrils equal to or a little greater than the interorbital width, which is equal to or a little less than that of the upper eyelid ; tympanum very distinct, 3/5 to 3/4 the diameter of the eye, 1 & 1/2 to 3 times as long as its distance from the latter. Fingers long and slender, terminating in small discs which are longer than broad and bear a groove separating the upper from the lower surface ; first finger longer than the second, third longer than the snout; subarticular tubercles large and very prominent. Hind limb long and rather slender, the tibio-tarsal articulation reaching the nostril, the tip of the snout, or a little beyond, the heels strongly overlapping when the limbs are folded at right angles to the body; tibia 4 to 4 & 1/2 times as long as broad, 1 & 2/3 to 1 & 7/8 times in length from snout to vent, shorter than the fore limb, longer than the foot. Toes ending in small discs, similar to those of the fingers; web extending to the discs of the third and fifth, two phalanges of fourth free ; outer metatarsals separated nearly to the base ; sub-articular tubercles rather large and prominent ; no tarsal fold; inner metatarsal tubercle oval or elliptic, about 1/3 the length of the inner toe; a small, round outer tubercle. Skin smooth or finely granulate above ; a moderately broad and very prominent glandular dorso-lateral fold from above the tympanum to the hip, its distance from its fellow, on the back, 4 & 1/2 to 5 times in length from snout to vent ; a glandular fold from below the eye to the shoulder. Lower parts smooth. Yellowish brown to dark brown above, usually without, exceptionally with, small darker spots ; dorso-lateral fold usually with a dark outer edge; a dark brown or black streak below the canthus rostralis, continued on the temporal region, and sometimes on the side of the body ; a more or less distinct light streak on the upper lip and below the temporal spot ; limbs with dark brown cross-bands. Lower parts white, uniform or spotted or mottled with brown on the throat and breast. Males with internal vocal sacs, with the fore limb strong and a large flat gland on the inner side of the arm ; a strong pad on the inner side of the first finger, covered during the breeding season with a greyish brown velvet-like horny layer. Nasal bones narrow, widely separated from each other and from the frontoparietals ; ethmoid largely exposed above, truncate or rounded in front, not extending to between the nasals. Terminal phalanges with short transverse distal expansion.

Problem is the angle and shadowing of the picture pretty much makes it impossible to use the characters described. >.< -- Obsidi♠n Soul 20:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I tried a bit of colour manipulation to enhance the contrast to estimate the tympanum and it appears to be large in this photograph unlike as in a typical aurantiaca as here (by User:Kalyanvarma). Shyamal (talk) 04:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I did too, it's still too faint to see, imo. And as I was saying there are now three sources which state that the tympanum should be larger for H. aurantiaca, including the original author himself - Boulenger. I'm suspecting that it may actually not be useful for diagnosis and may vary depending on the maturity/size of the frog.

Anyway had a look at other pictures. One thing I noticed (and used by Boulenger) is that H. aurantiaca does not have the distinct cross bands on the hind limbs which are present on this picture.

H. aurantiaca: [7], [8],

H. temporalis: [9], [10]

So yeah, I think you're right. It's H. temporalis. That leaves us again with no picture for H. aurantiaca then. :( I was wondering though, is there any chance that these photos of yours File:R temporalis.jpg, File:Hylarana aurantiaca.jpg might have been misidentified? (Though I think this File:Rana temporalis amplexus.jpg might have been color morphs). Compare leg patterns with the pictures in previously given pics:

• 
  ''Hylarana temporalis
• 
  Hylarana aurantiaca?

What do you think? -- Obsidi♠n Soul 09:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I am just as undecided about the identity, although I ran those photos that I uploaded through several folks for identification checks. When I first saw the colour of the upperside, I actually thought of Hylarana malabarica which tends towards red - but as you have seen the state of identification material is poor and the variation is great. I will point this discussion to some herp folks with better experience and resources. Shyamal (talk) 12:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

That would be great. :) I'm currently trying to beg a photo of H. aurantiaca from flickr. At least that's what he labeled it to be, heh. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 12:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: the reddish lower rim of the eyes also makes the picture more likely to be H. aurantiaca. Any updates?-- Obsidi♠n Soul 21:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Page view pattern suggests that the link I posted did get some eyes but seems like we have no response. Shyamal (talk) 01:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yay. Someone kindly donated a picture of H. aurantiaca from flickr, so it's all good. :) -- Obsidi♠n Soul 18:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for attention on the King Cobra and Black Mamba articles

Hello! Sorry to disturb you. I would like to request for the attention or intervention of administrators or users who have related knowledge about snakes in the king cobra and black mamba articles to check the accuracy of them. In the king cobra article, while everything is referenced, a user kept removing them and claimed that they are myths. In the black mamba articles, I believe that there are a few exaggerations. For example: the sentence In extreme cases, when the victim has received a large amount of venom, death can result within minutes. The reference cited is the National Geographic website where it doesn't state that thing. Another thing is that the sentence Many herpetologists, including South African-born herpetologist Austin Stevens, regard the black mamba as one of, if not the most dangerous and feared snakes in the world due to various factors including the toxicity and high yield of its venom, its high level of aggression, it's speed, agility, size, and other factors. is referenced by Austin Official Website where again doesn't have such statement but only states that the black mamba is the most feared snake Austin thought while the B.asper is the most aggressive he met. So, citing such reference may be confused and misleading. There are quite a lot of things needed to be discussed. So, I would like to request the attention of you. Thank you !

User:Fearingpredators (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You have been warned by Administrator EdJohnston to revert your edits in the king cobra article or face, yet another block. The black mamba article is fine, while the king cobra article is being destroyed by non another than you. Bastian (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Dimensions of specimens

Today’s featured picture, from the article "Dwarf yellow-headed gecko", lacks information about the dimensions of the specimen pictured. A measuring line in the picture would be helpful. (This talk page is on my watch list, and I will watch here for a reply or replies.)
—Wavelength (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a wild animal in a natural environment. Unless it was sitting on a ruler or otherwise in a calibrated space, any indication about it's dimensions would be random guessing at best, misleading at worst, as it implies knowledge and data that doesn't exist. Mokele (talk) 02:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

What I had in mind was that someone could find out the missing information, and then provide it by means of a measuring line, a ratio, or one or more dimensions such as the length from nose tip to tail tip and the distance between the eyes. Information about the stage of growth (for example, juvenile or adult) also would be helpful. I used the word specimens in the plural, because finding out and providing such information would be helpful for articles on any species.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

From a single camera view without calibration? Impossible. Since you have only one camera view, any ratios will be wrong because the animal is not oriented parallel to to image plane. Even if you had ratios, they'd be useless, since most reptiles show pure isometry during growth, so juveniles will have the same proportions as adults. I appreciate that it would be nice, but speaking as someone whose scientific career largely revolves around getting measurements of animals & their behaviors via imaging (still & video), you need a calibrated space or to actually catch & measure the specimen to have anything approaching tolerable accuracy. It's a huge pain in the ass in the controlled environment of the lab, and a thousand times worse for animals in nature. Personally, I don't know of any method that doesn't require over $10,000 in equipment, hours of setup time, or both. Mokele (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

When I mentioned ratio, I meant the ratio of length in a picture to length in real life. It might have been clearer if I had used the word scale.

Wavelength (talk) 00:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Without a calibrated camera as mentioned previously by Mokele this is not possible. Many cameras are now equipped with zoom lenses making it even more difficult to scale an object unless there happens to be a ruler text to the object you are photographing. If a coin (of known dimensions) happened to be beside the object you could give an estimated length. Unfortunately, this rarely happens in real-life photography. Dger (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion, why not just mention the average lengths of the species in the photo description? Measuring specimens in wildlife photography is a bit asking too much. If it wasn't or couldn't be recorded in the first place, chances are any attempts to guess its size afterwards would be inaccurate. Anyway Lygodactylus luteopicturatus has an average length of 80 mm (3.1 in) and a maximum length of 90 mm (3.5 in).-- Obsidi♠n Soul 18:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and the specimen in the picture obviously has autotomized its tail at some point and it's still regrowing it. Given that the tail is approximately 50% of the body length, it adds another uncertainty factor to any approximations based on the photo.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 18:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Obsidian. I added the information to the article. Dger (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all for your replies.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Article title naming

I have been looking at many articles concerning Lacertilia specifically concerning Iguanidae. It appears to me that there is a severe title naming problem. This project states, "This project follows guidelines discussed at WP:WikiProject Tree of Life#article titles and WP:Naming conventions (fauna)". The naming conventions (fauna) is a guideline that documents an English naming convention and all three are clear on title naming following the most common name. Otr500 (talk)

Perceived problems

The problem is there are inconsistencies with names. Many articles use the scientific name instead of the common name. I can understand if there is a species that is not commonly known or does not have a common name such as Brachylophus bulabula. Using Ctenosaura pectinata for the Mexican Spiny-tailed Iguana does not make any sense. The reasoning for using the most common name is for ease of navigating Wikipedia. Conolophus is a start class article that is really only a stub of a description page for three other articles. The same with Brachylophus that includes the species Brachylophus bulabula. It would appear that a redirect to a disambiguation page would be better. If I have stumbled onto something that has been hashed out with consensus I would like to know about it. Otr500 (talk)

Discussions

If I have listed something where there is sound reasoning for it being as it is I would appreciate knowing of this. My above entries are because I see what I perceive to be problems and I want to get other views on this instead of making edits that are reverted. I can make a case following consensus and spend the time hashing it out but sometimes it can be easier to just get opinions and ask questions first. Articles that are using the scientific name, where there is a common name, need to be renamed. A redirect would take care of this but not actually solve the problem. Any thoughts, comments, or ideas? Otr500 (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

There are differences in naming but mostly from a matter of individual taste, and lack of structure or ruling on article name to use in my view. Sorting them out is a very time consuming issue, because determining the most common name is often not straight forward and then you find that in most cases the common name exists as a redirect so that has to be deleted first. Later change the article so internally it reflects the new article name. These things take time, lots of time. My experience was with renaming WP:TURTLE articles, it took over a month and most of them are done now. In addition to using the most common name, sentence case is recommended by WP:CAPS, so the above example Ctenosaura pectinata would be renamed to Mexican spiny-tailed iguana or maybe Mexican spinytail iguana (see, researching those variants takes time also). I'd recommend just doing some and make clear in the edit summary it is because of WP:FNAME and WP:CAPS. I imagine there will be little resistance unless the most common name is unclear, in which case discuss it on the talk page or leave with existing article name. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Usually, the English name is more common, but not always, so I'd definitely not say all articles for species with English names using scientific names need to be moved —innotata 23:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the scientific name as the least ambiguous of all names. Common names for lizards have a lot of variants and are not quite as 'common' as they seem to be. Some share the same common names with each other. I also don't quite see the problem. Redirects can be made and disambiguation pages of species with the same common names is easier to do when the articles for both are in their scientific names which can not be shared.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 02:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Obsidian Soul on this, scientific names are better for the articale and use disambiguations etc to link common names. I have worked with too many species that have up to a dozen common names, none of which are wrong or less used. The scientic name is failrly set though and even when this does change it is still easy to deal with. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 05:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

If you think WP:COMMONNAME is incorrect then you could try raising a consensus for it's amendment on the appropriate talk page. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It is already covered in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)#Article title. Specifically "Don't use common names when it isn't clear what the name refers to." For an example see Leaf-toed gecko. How many people would actually refer to species with common names of doubtful wide usage like "Péringuey's Coastal Leaf-toed Gecko"? If you take a closer look at it, it's really just an adaptation of the scientific name Cryptactites peringueyi.

And forgive me if I'm not overly thrilled at the Otr500's suggestion of demoting both Conolophus and Brachylophus into disambiguation pages or redirects just because both happen to use the genus name in the absence of common names. These are not trivial names. Simplifying to the point of sacrificing scientific accuracy is a bit too much. I also really don't understand why there is so much fear at presenting scientific names at article titles. It's not as if the common names aren't used or mentioned in the body of the article anyway. And really our redirects are more or less seamless. Most people don't even notice they've been redirected to an article using a scientific name at the title after typing out a common name(s).

As for Ctenosaura pectinata, see Ctenosaura. There are over a dozen species, almost all of them are found in Mexico. Thus the utility of a common name like "Mexican spinytailed iguana" is dubious at best.

Not saying using common names is bad, they apply in things like "Giant Panda" or "African Elephant" quite uncontroversially, but are scientific names really that bad? It's also far easier to decide on Ctenosaura pectinata than choose between "Mexican spiny-tailed iguana", "Mexican spiny tail iguana", "Mexican spinytail iguana", "Mexican spinytailed iguana", "Mexican spiny-tail iguana", "black spiny tailed iguana", "black spinytailed iguana", "black spiny-tailed iguana", "black spiny-tail iguana", "spiny-tailed Iguana", "spinytail iguana", "spinytailed iguana", "black iguana", "iguana negra", "black ctenosaur", "western spiny-tailed iguana", "western spinytail iguana", etc. etc. You get the idea. All of those have been used to refer to Ctenosaura pectinata.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 16:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you misread what Faendalimas is suggesting, which is the use of a scientific names even when it's clear what the common name refers to. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

No I think he just took it further. However, I stated my preference not a suggestion. I would agree that there are species in which using the common name makes sense, but most do not. We should also look at the impact of this at the mechanics level. As what is basically a website, the name of a page has a lot of impact on the mechanics of the site. Although encyclopeadic in nature WP is differennt because of the constraints of a website. A more stable and more widely accepted name is batter for the links etc within the site. A paper encyclopaedia, eg Brittanica, has a Propaedia and Micropaedia to glean through the multitude of names for organisms, this site has the effect of soft and hard links and search engines to do this. So comparisons to a paper encyclopaedia will always come up short. The operational mechanics of the two is different and significantly so. The scientific name is accepted in all languages, and is hence more stable. My opinion is its a better option, however, I don't think the issue is worth loosing sleep over. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 01:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

WOW! Thanks guys. See, that is what I was seeking. Sound reasoning to ascertain why there is such inconsistencies. I know, without a doubt, that the policies and guidelines are clear on naming. I also am fully aware of the fact that scientific names are unambiguous. The problem is that to the average reader, trying to look thru these names, they might as well be in a foreign language. The scientific name may be universal to the scientific community but this is not a scientific encyclopedia. I know that has to make sense. To someone that has interest, say they just bought one, in looking around for information, it is hard. My daughter actually started me looking at this. She is 25 and did buy one. She said it was confusing and she is just an average user and does not edit. That is why if there are clear references to a common name, it should be so. As mentioned above, by many references, those with ambiguity problems need to be left alone. Those that a hyphen is the supposed ambiguity difference is not actually a problem as we all know. I didn't have any problems finding multiple references to Mexican spiny-tailed iguana and gave examples with references as to the common name. However, my intentions are not to demote any article or title name. To find a solution, if possible, to a problem does not help if the collateral damage ends up being more problems. This happened when the criteria for orphaned articles was relaxed and now there is a potential extra problems. The discussion is to see if there is a way to have consistency, while following Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and make this an encyclopedia that is easy to use for all that want to. Thanks, Otr500 (talk) 14:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we've worked with: use common names if they exist, unless they aren't actually more common or are too ambiguous; that should be enough. —innotata 15:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem with "common names", particularly among reptiles, amphibians, and insects is that often they are simply incorrectly used. Ctenosaura is a perfect example of this. There are several species which can be called "Mexican spinytail iguanas". Part of the problem with amateur collectors buying animals at pet shops is most species are misidentified. I've seen large Sceloporus misidentified and sold as "Chilean Chuckwallas", miscellaneous agamids sold as "crocodile lizards", and even protected species banned from import/export sold as completely different animals. On obscure species like these, or those where there are a multitude of overlapping common names, scientific binomial nomenclature should be used with a common name disambig used to link to those pages.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Using statements out of context or improperly is so not cool and might be perceived as a lack of civility. "I'm not overly thrilled at the Otr500's suggestion of demoting...", should have been worded better. Assuming good faith, that it was unintentional, this should have been a personal observation because I never stated or suggested anything meaning to demote. "I also really don't understand why there is so much fear at presenting scientific names at article titles.", is a very strange statement. As I was the one that first stated above concerning the again mentioned "Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)#Article title", I am aware of the instructions. I am also aware that Policy states, when deciding on an article title; The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists. The policy on consensus states, "...that is aligned with Wikipedia's principles". I also know "The quality of articles with combative editors is, as a rule, far lower than that of articles where editors take a longer view.". To me the word fear as used means concern over why there is such a dogma to use a scientific name if it is not absolutely necessary.

I do not mind discussions as long as my intelligence is not trying to be impugned or that my desire to work with others, and not make mistakes, is not perceived as either a weakness or ignorance of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. My ignorance (lack of knowledge) in general is astounding. My ability to lessen my ignorance through reading and research leads me to be able to broaden my horizon on a wide range of subjects.

My desire to work with Wikipedia, in areas where I see problems, is to make improvements that the average person such as myself, my family, and others just seeking information, can navigate through more easily. Some of the comments listed above makes sense and some are on the very weak side. Scientific names are not "really that bad", especially if there is clear ambiguity or confusion, but we shouldn't use a lot of extra words to make it appear these are evident. Examples;

• "Mexican spiny-tailed iguana" (Ctenosaura pectinata, Weigmann 1834) ): "Mexican spiny tail iguana", "Mexican spinytail iguana", "Mexican spinytailed iguana", "Mexican spiny-tail iguana", with the first being much more common as I have seen by references, are just spelling variations of the same species. Wikipedia is designed to accommodate this.

• Black Spiny-tailed Iguana (Ctenosaura Similis): "Black spiny tailed iguana", "black spinytailed iguana", "black spiny-tailed iguana", "black spiny-tail iguana", "black iguana", "iguana negra", "black ctenosaur", with the first being much more common as I have also seen by references, is a separate species that also includes spelling variations.

• "Spiny-tailed Iguana" (Ctenosaura) is a genus not a species and "spiny-tailed Iguana", "spinytail iguana", "spinytailed iguana", are just spelling variations.

• "Western spiny-tailed iguana" (Ctenosaura pectinata): "western spinytail iguana" (spelling variation), is the Mexican spiny-tailed iguana and references point to the name being used concerning those located in the United states. This species is also referred to as the "Pacific spiny-tailed iguana".

Confusion

Is there confusion? Yes, and a good way to minimize this is with information which would be a good thing for an encyclopedia to provide. Lumping a bunch of names all together that gives the appearance of mass confusion with the lead, "It's also far easier to decide on Ctenosaura pectinata than choose between...", could cause one to wonder of the intent. The Center for North American Herpetology (CNAH) provides some information concerning two species; "Ctenosaura similis and C. pectinata are closely related species but differ in a number of morphological and molecular characters (Kohler and Streit, 1996; Kohler et al 2000)." The information states:

• Ctenosaura similis has 0-2 (usually zero) scales seperating the dorsal and caudal crests, two complete rows of intercalaries between whorls of enlarged caudal scales near the base of the tail, and some (usually a high) degree of dark dorsal cross-bands (Kohler and Streit, 1996)
• Ctenosaura pectinata has 2-14 scales separating the dorsal and caudal crests, three complete rows of intercalary scales between whorls of enlarged caudal scales near the base of the tail, and no dark dorsal cross-bands. Colors may be different on juveniles but the above information holds for all age classes. The reference is here. Now we have information that lessens confusion if someone bought an iguana and was trying to look it up. What I do see missing is information in the articles that discusses things like this.

Conclusion

My research so far indicates that there is less confusion, obscurity, or ambiguity than purported. The possible fact that, "All of the above names have been used to refer to Ctenosaura pectinata", is not sound reasoning to use only the scientific name. The scientific classification is not 100% as proposed anyway. When there is a discovery, correction to a discovery, new study on existing work etc.., the persons name and a year is used, sometime in disagreement with another, and thus can be confusion. When scientist(s) agree to classify a group in a family; Iguanidae, and a subfamily; Iguaninae (Schulte et al, 2003; Pough et al, 2004; Vitt and Caldwell, 2009), other scientists (describers) can disagree and decide Iguanas should have full family status (Frost et al, 2001; Hollingsworth, 1998, 2004; Conrad, 2008). The Ctenosaura pectinata (Zarza et al (2008), demonstrates that there are at least eight distinct lineages that deserve taxonomic designation,([11] here). Why does this suggest to me that there is current confusion in the scientific world concerning ambiguity?

"The Galapagos Land Iguana" (Conolophus subcristatus, Gray 1831; Fitzinger 1843) is different from the "Galapagos Pink Land Iguana" (Conolophus marthae, Gentile and Snell, 2009), that is pink in color. Using the word "pink" is not unambiguous?

People that are not familiar with the scientific classification, and do not have knowledge of a particular species will still make errors regardless of the use of a common name or a scientific one. Editors on Wikipedia can not possible stop all confusion or even ambiguity but we do not need to make up scenarios that "might possibly" be a reason for "scientific" clarity.

Now that I have had to look up all these supposed confusing names I believe that the majority can be discarded or included in the articles for disambiguation, that a consensus of discussions can determine the best common name, and that using the scientific name just for the sake of it, is not warranted and certainly is against policy. The statement, "On obscure species like these, or those where there are a multitude of overlapping common names, scientific binomial nomenclature should be used with a common name disambig used to link to those pages", is true and I am researching to see which do not fall into this category.

Scientific names that are not used for disambiguation, or lack of a common name, will eventually face the "common name" discussion. There are many sites, including government ones (here) and (here), that use established common names that show no ambiguity or confusion. The question is if there can be some actual productive dialogs? A discussion of a list of those titles that can be renamed without any ambiguity or confusion, as opposed to say the subspecies of the "Cape Spinytail Iguana" (Ctenosaura hemilopha) would be great. If there are errors, perceived errors, questions, or comments in what I have presented, then I have no problem with discussions as long as they are civil. Otr500 (talk) 05:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I am currently very busy in real life but will take the time to answer this. First of all, please do italicize scientific names amidst regular text, capitalize the first letter of the genus name but not the species name. It's not a big deal, as we all know what we're talking about here, but it's wrong and distracting when talking about nomenclature. And no, there has been no hostility in any of my posts whatsoever so please do not label all my previous posts as unproductive just because I disagree. My reasons are my reasons, and your initial post was worded thus to give me that impression. If that was not the case, then I apologize. It would help if you would clarify your wording though.

Nonetheless, the first thing I want to say is that we are actually a scientific encyclopedia made accessible to the layman (if we weren't, I wouldn't bother with Wikipedia at all). The first rule about that is that you don't, under any circumstances, modify scientific accuracy in the interest of convenience. Dumbing down our content would do no service to the readers. Indeed, it would be misinformation. This is what all encyclopedias strive to be, unless it's one for children.

We are not, admittedly, a scientific journal. That's why juggling wording around so it wouldn't be too opaque to a regular reader can get difficult. But I repeat, neither should it mean that we should take the shortcut and dumb it down. At least give the readers a little more credit than that. Trying to hammer in scientific articles to fit with the depth of the rest of the more mainstream articles is wrong in oh so many ways. Furthermore, it's high time that laymen actually realize that scientific names are very important. If a common name is like calling someone "Bob" or "Mary's neighbor" or "Tom's sister", a scientific name is the name you see printed on birth certificates, IDs, official documents, etc. Scientific names, in a sense, are their real names. Unless a person has an informal name so distinctive or so famous, we do not use them for article titles do we?

Taxonomic disagreements exist, true, but since these are all in the interest of making the designations more accurate, pointing them out as reasons for trivializing scientific names is inappropriate. Binomina are also quite stable. Your example is on higher taxonomy, the classification of organisms above the level of genera. And those things do not normally affect binomina, though it might lead to species being transferred to other genera in some cases (objective synonyms). The important thing to note here is that the binomina themselves are meant to refer to one and only one species, and only one name can be valid at any time. Though in practice, this can sometimes be problematic in cases of cryptic species complexes or taxa with subspecies/population complexes (subjective synonyms), the intent is to accurately name one and only one species in accordance with naming conventions that ensure there can be no (or as little) confusion as possible. Any confusion that exists has legitimate scientific basis, can be resolved with further study, and all synonyms are kept track of.

A common name, on the other hand, can and are quite commonly used to refer to several species or entire groups of organisms that might not even be closely related to each other. Neither does it follow rules or convention. Heck, we don't even have a consensus on whether to capitalize common names in Wikipedia or use sentence case. Any confusion that arises from taxa which share the same common names arises for very arbitrary reasons. As Mike pointed above, it could be as simple as making a species being sold in the pet trade sound like something more exotic, rarer, and thus more expensive. It has even been used to escape legal notice in protected or banned species (as the case of the importation of potentially ecologically destructive snakeheads into the US earlier this year). In most cases, it's just ignorance.

Further examples: a "toad" can be anything from Anura though it should only properly refer to members of the family Bufonidae, people call anything that looks like a wartier drier version of a frog a "toad"; a "glass snake" is not a snake; a "puff adder" can refer to the highly venomous Bitis arietans in Africa or the quite harmless members of Heterodon in North America; a "bullfrog" can mean any large warty toad, etc. As for your "Galapagos pink iguana" argument, night lizards are not nocturnal at all, estuarine crocodiles are not restricted to estuarine habitats, brown snakes are not all brown, the "sand viper" Vipera ammodytes don't exist in sandy habitats (and furthermore refers to several other species), etc.

Again this does not mean common names should not be used when they clearly refer to only one species/taxon, but common names will not ever be something "better" than scientific names when it comes to accuracy. Efforts to nail down a common name to one species just so it's easier for people to read about when it's not as clearly delineated in actual usage is counterproductive. I've come across numerous such inaccuracies when common names that refer to several different species (or genera) are sometimes given to only one species with no explanation whatsoever in Wikipedia. Or worse, with the implications that the common name refers to only that species and nothing else. That is the case with C. pectinata, and no amount of reasoning or consensus here will make people stop referring to other species of Ctenosaura as "Mexican spinytailed iguanas". By bowing down to incorrect common usage, we are not educating people at all.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 18:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move of Black mamba to the scientific name

See Talk:Black mamba#Requested move. From the discussion above at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles#Article title naming it seems that none of these questions are simple. Anyway the proposal is: Black mamba → Dendroaspis polylepis. I have no opinion on the wisdom of the move but believe that the WP:AAR project could have some interest in applying consistent standards, whatever they turn out to be. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much Ed, I appreciate this. Yes please go to the discussion and get involved. Most snake articles use the scientific name of the snake as the title of the article (ie. Puff adder, Saw-scaled viper, Kraits, Lancehead, Death adder, Gabon viper, Russell's viper, Sea snakes, and many, many others). So I think the Black mamba shouldn't be any different. Thanks much guys. Bastian (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I have commented at Talk:Black mamba#Requested move. Otr500 (talk) 11:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

(sighs) How many times do I need to tell you that there was no hostility in any of my posts in the previous discussion? You on the other hand have consistently accused me of not assuming good faith and have now resorted to taking potshots at me in other discussions. Please stop it, I do not want to turn this into WP:NPA2.

As you pointed out, article titles should be unambiguous. Your previous proposal to switch out scientific names in favor of ambiguous common names contradicts policy. And just so you realize, I oppose this proposal as well as "black mamba" unambiguously refers to only one species. But this is almost always not the case in other species (examples given by Bastian above). This is not mere pedantry as proper identification of venomous species can mean the difference between life and death in some circumstances. I think it's best if I stop contributing any further to your "discussions" at this point. Good day.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 13:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

First, I would like to dispel a notion you have that I want to "change" all articles to a "common name". I was exploring as to why there were such inconsistencies concerning scientific names and "specific" common names. Second, to explore if there were any agreed upon articles that did use a scientific name where a specific common name would be better. I suppose my being naive in thinking anything that would be beneficial to Wikipedia, as being a good thing, clouded my reasoning. If I had just wanted to make changes I would simply have picked one, changed the name, and battled through the Wikipedia process, when it was reverted, to see if it had community support.

You have commented (more than once) some perceived notion of hostility, that you seemed to think I felt you directed at me, of which I have never mentioned or even portrayed. You twisted words and I called you on this citing evidence and mentioning civility. In those comments I specifically called attention to the incidence and offered that I felt, assuming good faith, it was unintentional. From this you somehow reached a conclusion that I consistently accused you of not assuming good faith. That is false and you would have some trouble trying to convince others of this since all our comments are publicly displayed. There was even the statement, "please do not label all my previous posts as unproductive just because I disagree.", and this is an assertion that I in fact did this, which is also false.

It is not hard to re-read comments and to even ask for clarity if there are doubts (I mentioned this) but you chose for some reason to entertain thoughts of hostility and direct these assumptions towards me. Hostility is not the only form of incivility as twisting words, that is more than an accident, is uncivil, and was my point.

Twisting my words (appearing to me as bending them to your liking) by stating, "Your previous proposal to switch out scientific names in favor of "ambiguous common names" contradicts policy". I have never suggested these things. I mentioned "most common name" and now realize that should have been stated "specific common name".

As far as "potshots" you actually commented, "Furthermore, it's high time that laymen actually realize that scientific names are very important.". This blows my mind. This encyclopedia has a large number of laymen editors and a concept that anyone can contribute. It even seems to me to be callous of someone to state this and to many might be one of those "what was I thinking" moments. Then there was the added, "Please stop it, I do not want to turn this into WP:NPA2.", a comment concerning your accusations, as affirmation that I was the villain.

The "...proper identification of venomous species can mean the difference between life and death in some circumstances." is absolutely true. I would like to believe that the simple act of using scientific names in lieu of a common name or even a specific common name on Wikipedia would save lives. It does make for an excellent argument but less over-dramatized when adding "on Wikipedia" after venomous species.

• With all that said, and the fact that "if" you misunderstood me you offered an apology, and to this I will counter. I will offer that "if" you will not add words to my comments by mistakenly inferring what you think I said or meant, that appears to me to be twisting my words, I will assure you that I will not "assume" or label any of your posts, as unproductive just because I disagree. I will also not assume any "hostility" in your posts, and maybe only consider that you have a dryness in your responses (could be thousands of reasons why) that "to me" appears to exude sarcasm. I also offer an apology for any of the above reasons that you find offensive. If this is not acceptable, or beyond your capabilities, then I actually would appreciate you sticking to the offer of not contributing any further to my comments.

I explored one name in particular, the "Mexican spiny-tailed iguana" and the reply to prove ambiguity was a bunch of spelling differences. I did a web search on all 17 of the listed spelling examples of supposed ambiguity (and a few more to cover the etc's...), and did not find any ambiguity. I commented on this and broke it down for clarity. Using an example of "toad" as proof of ambiguity of a "common name", or even the unmentioned "Fire-bellied Toad" (eight species) does not prove ambiguity to the "specific common name" of "European Fire-bellied Toad" (Bombina bombina) which is a distinct species. If you did refer to my inquisition of the "Mexican spiny-tailed iguana" as evidence of a desire to use "ambiguous common names" then I would have to respectfully disagree, and from what I have found so far, there is not the ambiguity on a lot of the titles that is being portrayed as reasoning to use the scientific names.

I did an exhaustive search on the above mentioned "Black Mamba" and the only possible ambiguity I could find would be if one supposed Kobe Bryant to be confusing. The Bitis arietans ("Puff Adder") and the Heterodon is another example. The purported ambiguity between the two, that are from different continents, would actually be what, a supposition that these two can be confused in the country of the other? The Heterodon hisses and raises its head like a Cobra, has nicknames such as "blowing adder," "flathead," "spreading adder," or "hissing adder.", none of which are confused with the "Puff Adder" (African puff adder or common puff adder). There could be ambiguity between the different species of Heterodon such as the Heterodon platirhinos ( Eastern Hognose Snake) with nicknames such as "spreading adder" or "hog-nosed snake", and the Heterodon nasicus (Western hog-nosed snake). This snake is also referred to as the "plains hognose snake", "Blowing adder", "blowing viper", "blow snake", "bluffer", "common western hog-nosed viper", "hog-nosed snake", "faux viper", "North American long-nosed snake", "prairie hog-nosed snake", "puff(ing) adder", "sand viper", "spoonbill snake", "spreadhead snake", "spreading adder", "spreading viper", " Texas hog-nosed snake", "Texas rooter", "western spreading adder", "western hog-nosed adder", "western hog-nosed snake", "plains hognose snake", but also "puff(ing)adder" —from the article— and has been referred to as the "Puff Adder". The argument is not so much as a distinction between two snakes from separate continents, one non-poisonous and the other venomous, that "might" share a common name, but some confusion between related species that might even inhabit areas close to each other. The fact is that the precise and specific common name of "Western hog-nosed snake" is distinct from the "Puff Adder".

The "water moccasin", is a very common snake with three species. 1)- "Eastern cottonmouth" (Agkistrodon piscivorus), 2)- "Western cotton mouth" (Agkistrodon piscivorus leucostoma), and 3)- "Florida cottonmouth" (Agkistrodon piscivorus conanti). All three articles use the scientific name and none refer to the unambiguous "specific common name" in the lead. The use of a scientific name, when there is a clear undeniable specific common name is when I question the use of a scientific name as the only alternative.

I have concluded that there are scientific names that might be better left as they are and to this end I will defend certain scientific names. In my opinion this does not include the "Black Mamba" of which I can find absolutely no evidence of ambiguity. I got side tracked and have not yet made a decision on the "Mexican Spiny-tailed Iguana". Some of the rhetoric above did not help as much as research and I feel there are many instances when a "specific common name" would be better, especially for laymen, and is most certainly in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Otr500 (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Is that supposed to reassure me? No I definitely won't offer an apology for the NPA2 comment now. You called it 'perceived' yet freely admit that you "called [me] on this citing evidence and mentioning civility". That makes it pretty clear that you did accuse me of being uncivil, doesn't it? Just answer me this: what possible reason would I have to be uncivil with regards to the subject anyway? And why exactly would I "bend" your words? And just so you realize, I wasn't the only one who interpreted your words as such.

Of course, I'm positively pissed in my last two replies so you can safely accuse me of incivility without fear of being way off mark now.

And do read. I did, in fact, agree that "black mamba" should be retained as the article title. As for the rest, consider these circumstances: a person sees a snake in a terrarium or somesuch, someone tells him it's a puff adder. He searches the web for it, sees our article for "puff adder" which has been given as an article title for Heterodon. He reads about it and it says it's harmless. So he confidently strolls up to it, attempts to pick it up, gets bitten, and dies because it was actually Bitis arietans. Fun, eh? The fact that you just enumerated dozens of "common names" for a single species should give you an idea of how common and how useful they are (a fact already mentioned from the very first responses to your proposal). How do you determine which is the "most common" then? And just to drive this home: there are no "specific common names" because there are no rules or conventions regarding the use of common names. "Puff adder" is just as valid as "hog-nosed snake". What a certain species is called by people depends on a variety of factors, none of which are official or binding. Your research uncovered nothing we didn't already know (you're arguing to people who actually writes the articles, remember that).

Of course some of your arguments have merit, but if such changes are to be made, please propose them individually. A one-size-fits-all approach to an issue like this will never work, and trying to apply the same criteria used in mainstream articles to taxonomical articles is perhaps one reason why nobody ever takes Wikipedia seriously. If this is really what you meant in the first place, then I'm pretty sure this is already the status quo and already mentioned in the naming guidelines of taxonomical articles. That said, I won't reply again. Cheers. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 01:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Taxobox needed categories

Would anyone object if I retargeted {{WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles}} to use Category:Missing taxobox rather than the recently resurrected Category:Amphibian and reptile articles needing a taxobox? The parent category is generally very small (currently empty), and any articles arising in it are dealt with very promptly (typically within a day). Placing amphibian and reptile articles in a separate category actually makes it harder to find articles that need taxoboxes, since extra categories need to be searched, most of which will normally be empty. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 17:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done. If this proves problematic, it can easily be undone. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

U.S. state reptiles to be on main page on 12JAN

FYI, "State reptile" will be the FL on the 12th. Kudos to project reptile.TCO (talk) 19:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Well done everyone :) ZooPro 02:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Northern Leopard frog (Burnsi Morph)

I would like to create a section on the Northern Leopard Frog page about color morphs and upload a picture or two of burnsi morphs I found over the summer. Can anyone help me with this? I am new to Wikipedia and would appreciate the help.Loba Wolf (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Images are uploaded to Wikimedia (rather than Wikipedia) so that they can be shared between all the Wiki-projects. Go here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard and follow the instructions. Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the help. I have managed to get the picture and data on there but, there is now an annoy gap between the section heading and the words. Any suggestions on getting rid of that?Loba Wolf (talk) 02:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Problem fixed. If you don't specify, images are placed on the right side. But since the taxobox is also there the image has to go below and hence the white space. The left option stacks the images on the left side with the text between the images and the taxobox. Dger (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I really appreciate it.Loba Wolf (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep bugging with questions. Glad you figured out Commons donations. Here is a nice essay for newbies, too: [12]

TCO (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Today's Main Page FP is a reptile!

Go check out blue boy, looking fine and angling for some lizard babes...TCO (Reviews needed) 17:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I looked but couldn't find what you were refering to. Dger (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

[13] scroll down to JAN 5.TCO (Reviews needed) 01:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks cold. Dger (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Collared lizard identification question

Could somone please look at the two images of a common collared lizard (mountain boomer) on state reptile? One is in the lead and one in the list, at Oklahoma. I am concerned that they look so different. Lead is blue and spotted. List is tan and striped.

Note also, though, in the article for common collared lizard, there are both types shown as well. Spotted and striped.

Anyhoo. this article is due for the main page in 40 hours. So, just want to make sure my lead pic is not an embaressment! If it is messed up, I can either find a different common collared lizard or just change theme and show a different animal or something.TCO (Reviews needed) 05:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Both are common collared lizards, You will find the lighting is responsible for the drastic colour difference as is the body temp of the lizards. ZooPro 07:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.TCO (Reviews needed) 14:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

State reptile on front page

Check it out...TCO (Reviews needed) 03:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Mass moving of amphibian article to lower case titles

User:ErikHaugen has begun a mass move of article to the lower case equivalent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/ErikHaugen) in order to enforce WP:MOS. There is a concerted effort on the way by some editors to enforce this wikipedia wide. Part of that discussion can be found at the talk page of WP:MOS. Currently this has lead to capitalization inconsistency across the salamander articles. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

AAR has always been lower case (although there were people who disagreed). That said...I know this stuff is a downer, I do, I do (from either side). Like with the dash warriors at MOS. All that said, there are huge unwritten aspects of content. Why are alligator and common snapping turtle not GA? They have huge holes in them. I don't know the answer since if you roll over, then the "other side wins". and it is really a downer, when doing all the content...to ahve someone else force a format on you. I actually think we should give preference to the writer adding content. It is so discouraging. Umm...hope that was heartfelt.

TLDR: I agree with lc per se, but disagree with gnomes forcing format edit wars on top of writers.  :-(

TCO (Reviews needed) 01:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Just one more reason experts leave wikipedia behind.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I really don't see any reason to start a war over something that isn't really a problem in the first place. As TOC wrote, there's plenty of problems that are far greater than inconsistency in upper/lower case names. Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

World's smallest vertebrate

I've started an article on what is now considered to be the smallest vertebrate in the world, the frog Paedophryne amauensis. Please help expand this tiny stub. (|Link to pic of it perched on a dime.)Speciate (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice pic, but what is the diameter of a dime? Roger (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

GAR

Black mamba is undergoing a good article reassessment. Interested editors are invited to comment. Danger ^{High voltage!} 10:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Danger ZooPro 12:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Article naming guidelines redux

I am sure we've had this discussion and it flares up on individual articles. We currently have a hotchpotch of articles between common and scientific names. Currently the consensus appears to be "If there is one clear-cut most common name then that is the location, otherwise it should be at the scientific name." My concerns with this are (a) inconsistency even among closely related species, and (b) inevitable arguments over how much consensus there is for a particular name, hence we have Collett's Snake which is pretty much the most common name, though I've seen "Collett's black snake" which is more exacting as it locates it in the genus Pseudechis, and some other names. Pseudechis australis is very commonly known as the king brown snake, but the alternative name, mulga snake, is pushed to avoid the mistake of giving brown snake antivenom (brown snakes are Pseudonaja and require a different antivenom). We have Gaboon viper at Bitis gabonica despite having a clear cut common name, but it does have some alternate names (how common are they?).

• So there are three options - if we just clarify which we have consensus for we can go from there (please read differences between options 1 and 2:

Status quo

Use common name if there is a clear-cut consensus common name, otherwise if doubt, scientific name. Decide how much consensus there is on a case-by-case basis. One issue here is I am not clear what proportion of reptiles and amphibians have common names, or consensus most-common names.

Support Status Quo

FYI

 – User:JCScaliger has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Pmanderson (blocked for another year for abusive sockpuppetry).

1. I am not an expert on snake matters. But the status quo seems about right. If there is not a clearly most-common name and there are instead a plurality of names commonly in real-world use, it would be improper to attempt to place an emphasis on choosing one that seems *best*. That would result in editors descending upon Wikipedia to help change the world and it is not the job of mere wikipedians to exploit Wikipedia in hopes of Leading By Example®™©. For the most part, these decisions should be left to those wikipedians who are expert in all-matters snake. I encourage these snake expert / wikipedians to be mindful that Wikipedia is a general interest encyclopedia and that it should best serve a general-interest readership, where novices who have taken a fancy to snakes can find what they want and—after typing a common name—not be hit in the face with Latin, particularly when the snake is not generally labeled with its Latin name when being sold at pet stores or when being discussed amongst normal (typical) snake aficionados while on nature hikes. Greg L (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
2. This sounds reasonable to me (and I don't think it's all that different from the second option below). We should avoid using any English name that someone has ever slapped on a species, but I don't see why we shouldn't have a well-known species like Rhinella marinus under its more recognizable name, cane toad. Pet species are probably an area where we'll often need scientific names, since their common names are often extremely messy. Ucucha (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Readers should be able to tell when they have the right article, without being biologists. (Biologists have other, more reliable, references.) When a name is ambiguous, don't use it; when no English name is in common use, title with the scientific name. But we should no more have the cane toad under Rhinella marinus than we have the housecat under Felis catus.

   This last illustrates a problem with scientific names, not often enough considered. They change; if the common reader is looking for cats, he will expect either cat or Felis domestica - passing by the article he wants because of a recent reclassification defeats the purpose of having article titles at all. JCScaliger (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

4. As a compromise. However, determining if there is a "clear-cut consensus" should be done very strictly. If there is even a faintest possibility that the common name might be shared by another species, use scientific names instead. In other words, the default should be scientific names, unless there is strong evidence of a unique and widely used common name. This excludes "common names" derived from the scientific names themselves which are not common. Honestly though, I am more comfortable with scientific names only and won't object to it either.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 00:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
5. I support this proposal, but it probably isn't really the status quo on the ground; I think a random common name is probably picked more often that this guideline would suggest doing. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

   True, I'm sure, though they aren't actually being randomly picked. The IUCN name might be used, for example. And no matter what we want, the current situation will have some badly named articles, like now those put at foreign language names by Polbot. Wikipedia isn't perfect. —innotata 02:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

6. Per UcaTCO (talk) 03:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
7. I'm not an expert either. I'm just someone who tried to make sense of frog-related articles which seem to be in a bit of a taxonomical mess. I support the status quo per reasons stated by JCScaliger, but some pointers as to how to determine the "most common name" should be developed. There are tons of obscure species which were referred to by two or three English-language names in a handful of scientific publications and it is unclear to me what to do with these. Timbouctou (talk) 05:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
8. I'd rather not go so far as Obsidian or perhaps the proposal (which might not be the exact status quo). Let's follow the perfectly sensible Wikipedia guidelines: use the most common name, unless it is ambiguous. If a common name is truly overwhelmingly used for one species, we probably should use it, but this can be addressed case by case. —innotata 02:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
9. I'm certain that most readers don't know or care what a scientific name even is. The only cases where a scientific name is appropriate for the title is when scientists make up a "common" name, or when secondary sources complain about confusion with the common name(s). Speciate (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
10. Support. Petter Bøckman (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Status Quo discussion

• Even if you agree with consensus as is, please reiterate it here so we can confirm existing consensus on this.

• Here is are a couple of articles to consider then - Bitis gabonica I've always known as the gaboon viper. Now it does have some other names, but I suspect most are quite colloquial or localised. Is this simpler to work out if we have "status quo" or option 2 below? Also see Eunectes murinus, obviously known as the anaconda, but technically "green-" or "common anaconda"..so where should this be at and is it easier with the wording for what we do now...?Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Emphasis on common names where possible

This would be similar to status quo but to push for most common name in cases where species are known by a few names.

Support common names where possible

1. The status quo is fine, but if there is a common name, we should use it, and if it has several, let's use the most common name. It's okay to use a mix of common names and scientific names because that's what the sources do. For example, reptiles that are commonly used as pets have common English names which are used to refer to them in pet reptile books, magazines, etc. But some rare species have only scientific names, and so it is. We should reflect how our topics are referenced in "the real world", not dictate a particular naming scheme without regard to that. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
2. OKTCO (talk) 03:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Supporting this, we must remember wikipedia is for everyone and even the pros get a bit lost with all naming stuff. ZooPro 13:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
4. Apply WP:COMMONNAME strictly. Use the binomial only when a clearly unambiguous and unique English common name does not exist. I cannot think of a single valid reason why this project, or any other for that matter, should be permitted to overthrow WP:COMMONNAME. Remember WP does not exist only for professional herpetologists. Roger (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
   1. There are two different meanings of "common name"—one is a vernacular name for an organism also known by a scientific name, the other is a name that is used commonly in actual English. Our policy says that we should use the latter kind of common name, but many "common names" under the first definition aren't actually common under the second one. For example, the frog Rana sauteri has several vernacular English names that have never been used for any other species, but those names have also been used extremely rarely for this species; in contrast, the name Rana sauteri has been in use for decades in the English-language literature on this species. It is the common name for the species under the second definition of "common name", and should be used as the article title. Ucucha (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
5. Support per Born2cycle, but NOT strictly as Roger suggests as in many cases the most common name gives the reader a false impression i.e use of "Common" for endangered species. Also tend to favour native names to a name used half way around the world outside an animals range. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
6. This is a no-brainer. Wikipedia is an common encylopedia, not a specialist reference work. Petter Bøckman (talk) 10:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
7. Common names are good. But I do think "where possible" needs to be taken carefully. IF a common name is used of several species, then careful disambiguation needs to be done. I see no reason that the articles may not reside at "Foo snake (mamba)" and "Foo snake (viper)" in many cases, however if it is "Bar viper" used of several in the same family, then why not disambiguate to "Bar viper (Bitis wikipediensis)" Rich Farmbrough, 04:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC).
   
8. I think I support strictly following WP:COMMONNAME, which means to use a vernacular name if it is most commonly used in RS or the binomial if it instead is the most commonly used. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
9. Obviously this is way to go. It's the site-wide consensus, and random projects should not try to buck it and make up their own rules. There are fiends in which common names hardly exist, and there are cases where two "authorities" assign the same common name to the different species, cases where the "common name" as given in taxonomy isn't actually used by anyone at all in real life, and cases where the same organism has many common names, with little hope (often it's a WP:ENGVAR issue) of deciding which is "the most" common. All of these are good candidates on a case-by-case basis for using a binomial, but there shouldn't be some hard-and-fast rule about it, because the circumstances often differ widely. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 22:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Common names where possible discussion

• I believe this is the status quo (as Ucucha also noted); broader Wikipedia guidelines urge using the most common name everywhere (the rest is just 'this is complicated', really). —innotata 02:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Uniform use of only scientific names

This proposal calls for all articles on amphibian and reptile species to be located at their scientific name (binomial name). Common names should be redirects to the scientific name. Note that in general, common names are (or should be) bolded and mentioned prominently in the lead of these articles.

Support uniform use of only scientific names

1. narrowly, I am most comfortable with this one, but can live with any option really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Scientific names are used for a reason. What I refer to as a Blue iguana is in reality Cyclura lewisi, but someone from Central America may call a local variant of Iguana the same thing while referencing a local color morph. One of the "common names" for the Eastern Hognose snake is the puff adder, do we really want to add to the confusion?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
3. All animals will have a sceintific name but many reptiles and amphibians don't have an English common name. Thus, it is consistent to always use scientfic names as the title. The common name(s) can appear in the lead or in the name field of the taxobox. Dger (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
4. Relatively few species have universally known common names. Off-WP I've been compiling lists of species in Japan and it's remarkable how little agreement there is even with large mammals. The default should be the scientific name with all 'common' names as redirects. English common names should be used only in special cases. --Kleinzach 01:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose uniform use of only scientific names

FYI

 – User:JCScaliger has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Pmanderson (blocked for another year for abusive sockpuppetry).

1. Plant and mushroom articles are way confusing (e.g. hard to refer to in discussions or lists and know what the heck it is). Keep reptiles COMMON and keep the emphasis on engagement with readers. They are what matters and do not get enough of a vote, enough attention. But they are the reason for the whole shebang.TCO (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

   Readers are served worst when a naive insistence on "common" names leads us to a mess of confusing and rarely used names. No one knows the difference between a Tuft-tailed Spiny Tree Rat and a Tufted-tailed Spiny Tree-rat; readers who are familiar with this group, at least, will understand what Lonchothrix emiliae and Mesomys occultus are. Ucucha (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

   What a fabulous example of the idiocy of made-up common names! Peter coxhead (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

   I thought about making some smart-ass comment about the notability of such articles. (wink, wink) But you have been so freaking decent about things, no way I would do that. Plus the defending picta (I mean painted, and btw, check it out on French wiki...the fro Gauls loved it.)  ;-) I actually pretty much agreed with your take above. Actually get kinda confused with the three options here as well as the ability to support and oppose each (not just choose among the three...and btw, why don't we have a normal poll option like other forums, but I digress). In any case, my bias is to max content AND max outreach. I love someone like Feynman who was such a badass to understand the most abstract, superhard concept. Yet so ballsy to try to engage the common man as well. I think whatever we do...we should have a love for the reader and a desire to move the most knowledge in the most painless manner! (/editorializing) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs)

2. Scientific names, when common names work satisfactorily, should not be used for Wikipedia, which is general-interest encyclopedia. Those wearing pith helmets, wading around in the jungles of Brazil don’t generally come to Wikipedia anyway. Greg L (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Are we seriously suggesting moving king cobra to Ophiophagus hannah? Is there something different between this proposal and moving lion to Panthera leo—that is, does this make more sense for reptiles than other groups for some reason? I think we should probably use binomials more often than we do, but this proposal seems like a nonstarter to me. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
4. Is this even something to discuss? Common names where they exist and are clear and unambiguous, scientific names otherwise. Seriously people! Petter Bøckman (talk) 14:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
5. I appreciate the attraction of an easy-to-implement/no-muss-no-fuss solution to all reptile article titling issues, but we need to prioritize titles in favor of our readers, even if that creates more work for us. To use the scientific-binomial name as the title of an article about a reptile with a widely used common name is inexcusable. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
6. Let me distinguish. We should oppose any guidance which imposes "all scientific names"; but we should also not say "no scientific names." There are cases in which no common name exists, and many more where it is a nonce word; somebody asked, once, "what's this species in English?" and one biologist made something up. In such cases, the neo-Latin makes sense; but in such cases, nobody will know or care about the English name to make a move request. A guideline needs to spend a sentence acknowledging that such cases exist; but using the Latin name will be uncontroversial and uncontested. JCScaliger (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
   • No one is saying or implying "no scientific names". There are three choices in this poll, and "no scientific names" is not one of them. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

     It's fine to be clear, though, since you titled this section "Oppose all scientific names"—I certainly don't want to oppose all scientific names, I just wanted to oppose the "all scientific names" guideline proposal. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

     Doh! Did not realize that connotation. I changed it to Oppose uniform use of only scientific names, not great, but better. Feel free to improve it. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

7. Wikipedia is a general encyclpedia, not a specialist encyclopedia. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 19:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
8. This is really the worst possible choice for a broad coverage encyclopedia. Maybe if this encyclopedia was restricted to animal articles or science, then this type of guideline would make sense. People use English and when a clear English name is available, why not use it? This option almost reeks of elitism. If there is no clear English common name, then yes, this makes an excellent default. But it is clearly the wrong first or preferred option. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
9. Opposed to "always use scientific names", not to "never use scientific names". I.e., it's a combination of WP:COMMON naming and WP:COMMONSENSE. "Always scientific" is certainly the worst possible choice for a general purpose encyclopedia like this. PS: Petter Bøckman's comment really hits the nail on the nose. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 22:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

All scientific names discussion

• Most accurate and internally consistent. Also allows for disambiguation pages more easily without extra formatting or info in parentheses. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• I've never really understood why editors get hung up on the title of a article, when there can be any number of redirects. The title is just an identifier; ideally therefore it should be unique. Scientific names best approach this, since there are authoritative rules as to which is the correct name, whereas common names vary greatly and there's often no clear way of choosing one over the other. I don't buy the argument that this doesn't serve readers. If I know that the animal I want to know about is called a Bolivian Bamboo Rat, then I'll find the article even if it's really at Dactylomys boliviensis. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Still, plant, bird and fungus guidelines do this for accuracy."—Bird articles are essentially all common names, not binomial names. Is this a mistake or are you talking about something else? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I mean that often the Proper name is more exacting than the casual name, hence we have Corvus corax at Common Raven, not "Raven", and see magpie, blackbird etc. - for reptiles, consider what Eunectes murinus should be....Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Then this proposal is poorly worded—can you fix it? People are going to think it calls for moving Common Raven to Corvus corax (if it was in the scope of the project, of course). "Scientific name" tends to mean binomial name, at least to some people. I don't think any proposal here would call for moving Eunectes murinus to anything else, so I'm still not sure what we're discussing here. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, never mind about Eunectes murinus pertinency to this sectin, but is very pertinent to options 1 and 2 above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't help, Casliber—the proposal says "This proposal calls for all articles on amphibian and reptile species to be located at their scientific name (binomial name)", yet you say "bird...guidelines do this for accuracy". They certainly do not do this. Can you clarify what you mean when you say bird guidelines do "this"? And what do you mean by "Proper name"? Nothing here is a proper name? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 04:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

(moved from proposal and should have been in the discussion section from the get-go) "This gives us consistency and clear unambiguity. But diverges from existing wikipedia guidelines. Still, plant, bird and fungus guidelines do this for accuracy." Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Per Peter coxhead redirects obviate any real problems with this, though obviously we need guidelines for editors. A problem here is that while binomial names are well defined, 'common names' are not. In species, 'common names' are rarely universal. (Calling them 'casual names' makes sense.) Some very familiar ones like dog, cat and horse are universal and it would go against common sense to use binomials, but the vast majority of the others are localised. For example, Oak came up in a previous discussion. The genus is all over the world, but what we actually have in our gardens can vary enormously. In my case I see a deciduous tree with very large leaves that go brown in the autumn, but don't fall until April. It's Quercus dentata or 'common name'(?) Daimyo Oak. Some one mentioned the Live oak — which I thought might be some kind of 18th-century prosthesis! Its binomial name Quercus virginiana is more meaningful for those who don't live in the SE of the USA.

The wider problem here is that the general WP policy WP:COMMONNAME is also seriously flawed IMO. I've raised this issue here and I'd appreciate contributions to that discussion. Thanks. --Kleinzach 02:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Right—Live oak is not an article about a particular species, because it isn't, Quercus virginiana is. As it should be, no? Whether Quercus dentata should be moved to daimyo oak should be decided based on whether it is overwhelmingly called that and if daimyo oak is ambiguous or not. That's the current guideline for naming—does it seem reasonable to you? I'm not sure what flaws you see in WP:COMMONNAME or how they relate to this discussion. (The phrase "common name" there means something different than it does here in "Use common name if there is a clear-cut consensus common name, otherwise if doubt, scientific name" of course! Very confusing.) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 04:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there are a few cases of the opposite situation too. Some animals change scientific names (edible frog has had three for the last 15 years), and some animals have an uncertain phylogenetic position making formal scientific naming difficult (e.g. the red wolf), yet the vernacular names are stable. An "all scientific names" policy, while solving a number of problems is not a perfect solution either. Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

True, and that's why I placed the Noronha skink (whose scientific name has been quite unstable) at its vernacular name. But common names tend to be much more unstable than scientific ones, and they lack formal rules that promote stability. Ucucha (talk) 03:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I wanted to point out that using all scientific names is not a cure-all solution. Petter Bøckman (talk) 10:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Our system of redirects already takes care of "lost users" anyway, and the most common name will be highlighted in the first paragraph and the taxobox. At the same time, an all-scientific name convention makes pages consistent, makes disambiguation far easier, and prevents the usual catfights involving which common name is more common or which capitalization scheme to use - problems caused by using common names. In short - a lot less headaches. Mind you, I !voted for the first option but can see why this also makes sense. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 05:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

  We'd still argue about capitalization, of course, but I don't think anyone is arguing that an all-binomials-all-the-time policy wouldn't have compelling advantages. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

  Of course binomial names are in a state of flux right now, and (per the synonym sections in taxoboxes) are not the simple one name for one species that was intended (let alone complexities like sub-species, cultivars, etc.) Rich Farmbrough, 04:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC).
  

  Not really. I think you're misunderstanding what synonym actually means.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 12:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)