Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

"Taxa named by" categories?

I was just trying to find taxa named by Charles Darwin, and it struck me that it is very hard to find lists of taxa named by specific people. Couldn't it be interesting to have categories such as "species/genera/families/etc. named by X"? Or maybe just "taxa named by x? We already have lists of taxa described per date. FunkMonk (talk) 07:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's surprisingly difficult in many cases. In Darwin's case there is a decent list:

EOL: Species described by Charles Darwin

but often it's plain hard work. Of course, it'll be a lot of work to create lists and populate categories, but a worthwhile task if you're up for it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking that there might have been some reason for such categories not existing, as the idea seems pretty obvious. And I was thinking that if I started making such categories in scattered places, someone might complain, so better bring it up here first if someone found issues with it. But if such categories are added in a few visible places, I guess they would spread almost automatically. I could imagine someone like Abyssal, who has a knack for categorisation, might also be interested. FunkMonk (talk) 08:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Interesting to a few people, yes, but I honestly think WikiSpecies (more of a directory) is the best place for data like this (see for instance the (incomplete) Category:Carolus Linnaeus taxa). Lists or categories for most if not all taxon authors would likely not survive WP:LISTN or WP:OVERCAT discussions. There are thousands upon thousands of potential taxon authorities, who've named anywhere from 1 to thousands of taxa. While Darwinian or Linnaean taxa may be more inherently 'interesting', where do we draw the line? and should any Johnny One-Species get a category? --Animalparty! (talk) 08:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't do lists (as categories would serve the same purpose in an easier way), but I think categories for authors is just as valid/interesting and about as time-consuming as taxa by year, which we already have in abundance (see Category:Species by year of formal description), and which probably tells us even less about the taxon. Just to start, I made this parent category Category:Taxa by author, which currently has this subcategory: Category:Taxa named by Charles Darwin As for number of possible entries or subcategories to be sufficient to create a parent category, I guess there's a general Wiki policy for that. If we started with well known authors, it would probably snowball from there, if anyone is afraid of inconsistency across articles. In a perfect world, the author and year fields in taxoboxes would automatically add categories, like some maintenance templates currently do. FunkMonk (talk) 08:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that having categories by author is at least as worthy as categories by year of first description, which we already have. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree, if year of description is worth a category, then author is too. I suggest it should be first description, as we probably aren't too interested in synonyms in most cases. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, only currently valid taxa. But in articles about monotypic genera, such as for example dodo, both species author and genus author should probably have a category present, when the authors are different. FunkMonk (talk) 11:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I've hoped we would do this for years. :) For monotypic genera we should categorize the species name redirect with the species author and the genus article with the genus author. Abyssal (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Cool, it's begun! FunkMonk (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I think another guideline informing these categories might be that redirects should generally not be categorized unless they are monotypic ranks. e.g. Tiger should be added to Category:Taxa named by Carl Linnaeus, which makes the category visible to potentially interested readers. It would be redundant to categorize the redirect Panthera tigris, and if only the redirect was categorized, the container category would only be visible to folks browsing the category trees. I'd also like to put out a preemptive warning against unwarranted splitting for trivial reasons, or solely to reduce category size (e.g. even if it would be possible to populate "Category:Invertebrate genera named by X in the 1980s", it may not be particularly prudent). As an aside, should each taxon by X category also contain X? Should we make an intermediate Category:Gregory S. Paul (and similar for every taxon author) to contain Category:Taxa named by Gregory S. Paul? To me this would seem like a lot of extra category clutter, but otherwise how would readers of Gregory S. Paul quickly find his taxa? --Animalparty! (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we should create container categories for authors just for taxon categories, in the case of Darwin and Linnaeus, they already had categories of their own, since there are many actual articles within this scope. FunkMonk (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it's important to be clear as to exactly what is meant by a "taxon named by X". Strictly speaking, X is the author of a name attached to a name-bearing type. The circumscription of the taxon into which the name-bearing type falls is not determined by X; zoologists are free to adopt different circumscriptions. I suspect that to most non-taxonomists this is not obvious and not what they expect "taxon named by" to mean. Thus Schreber is the author of the species name of Pipistrellus pipistrellus, but the taxon he intended is not the modern one after the separation of P. pygmaeus (nor of course is he the author of the binomial as a whole). So it's potentially misleading to put the article on the common pipistrelle in "Taxa named by Schreber". Another problem with "taxa named by" is that it will exclude all the names currently considered junior synonyms, some of which have historically been quite important. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I think whatever categorization scheme is adopted, we should keep in mind most readers are not taxonomists, and shouldn't let technicalities in common name or circumscription prevent the presentation or organization of information. Clarity and accuracy should of course be maximized, but we don't necessarily want to send readers down labyrinthine category trees nor belabor them with unnecessary pedantics (convenience to readers should outweigh convenience to editors). I'd expect plant taxonomists might have different views on this, what with the combination author citation (original and combining author), and that some editors may defend categorizing junior synonyms; we should strive to make a manageable system that is approachable and somewhat comprehendable to non-specialists. And Wikispecies, a resource intended for specialists more than the general public, may be the best place to accommodate highly accurate categories to satisfy the taxonomist, while Wikiepdia categories may be justifiably a bit less precise. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree, the really nitty-gritty stuff is probably not for here. FunkMonk (talk) 05:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

So under what name exactly is the categorization to be? Whoever is the author currently given in the taxobox? Where is this explained? And where is the consensus for this? Peter coxhead (talk) 07:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, again, most obvious would be author of the species currently considered valid, and if a monotypic genus, I'd say genus author as well. Anything beyond that would be better at Wikispecies. Of course, binomial combinations can change, and categories might need to be changed accordingly, but that's how it goes. FunkMonk (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Whatever the practice is, it ought to be clearly documented somewhere. There are cases where the nitty gritty needs to be spelled out. I'm thinking of nomina nova (replacement names) and perhaps also names with "ex" authorship. However, "taxa named by [person]" actually seems to work better with replacement names and "ex" authors than the "Species described in [year]" categories. I take "described" to mean the first published description, whether or not it meets the requirements of availability (ex authorship) or turns out to be a homonym that needs to be replaced. "Named by" seems a little more straightforward in application than "described". Plantdrew (talk) 15:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I used "named by" instead of "described by", because in many early cases, they just slapped names on older descriptions reused in their encyclopaedias. FunkMonk (talk) 03:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Why does this article have at least 100 species that are obscure with impossible-to-find primary sources?

Article in question: Armadillidium

Notice all the red links in the Species section. The primary sources are listed, yet I search and search for them and can't find anything, not even a picture. Do all arthropods have these obscure species claims, or what? MDaxo (talk) 08:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Ideally, Wikipedia would have an article for each of the higher taxa, every family, genus and known species. This is a typical genus article, and more comprehensive than many, and lists, with a reference, all the recognised species. This enables anyone to see which species still need articles to be written and provides links which prevent articles on individual species from being orphans. As you say, some of the species are very obscure and any article on them would likely be a brief stub. Have a go and see what you can do with one of the less obscure ones! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I see you have. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

With arthropods, there are usually dozens of species that differ little from each other apart from minor physical details (at least what we know of). So mass creating separate stub articles for each is probably pointless, better to wait until someone chooses to work on a specific article and make something of it. Even many small mammal, reptile, amphibian and fish genus articles are like this. FunkMonk (talk) 10:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@MDaxo: I think you are making a mistake about "primary sources". The authority (name and date) given after the species name is not a source, it's part of the full species name. See Author citation (zoology). The source of the list is the World Catalog of Terrestrial Arthropods – see the reference list. The publication in which a name was first published is emphatically not a suitable source for the name being currently accepted.

Where there are so many species, it's often recommended to have a separate article, in this case it would be "List of Armadillidium species". See Category:Taxonomic lists (species). Peter coxhead (talk) 11:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: And just curious, why are there so many dozens of species of Armadillidium with hardly any info about them at all, and most of the time no info? The most you can find is a page on a taxonomic database with 0 info on the organism itself. MDaxo (talk) 07:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Because they're awaiting volunteers who feel like writing them. More likely is a list, as has already been stated above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

If you mean "why are there so many species in Wikipedia with hardly any info about them at all?", then Chiswick Chap has given you the answer. If you mean "why are there so many species in the real world with hardly any info about them at all?", then the answer is that worldwide there are very few specialists now in many groups of invertebrates – the golden age of natural history has passed. For an example, see this web page and note that the main information about the wasp Helconidea ruspator was in an 1889 monograph! Peter coxhead (talk) 08:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Looking for a Pet WikiProject

Please comment here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#Looking_for_a_Pet_WikiProject. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 13:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Two Pogonodons

We currently have an article about a nimravid (Pogonodon) and a snail (Pogonodon (gastropod)) both named Pogonodon, but this should be impossible due to nomenclatural priority. It would appear the snail is invalidly named (being newer), anyone know about it's current status? FunkMonk (talk) 03:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The second is definitely pre-occupied and thus Pogonodon is unavailable and invalid. Unfortunately, the only reference on the snail is the original taxonomic description in some obscure Italian journal. We should probably leave them as-is until the snail is renamed, but add a note to the page. HCA (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X pilot testing

Hello WikiProject Animals!

Based on the recommendation of Snow Rise, I am happy to announce that WikiProject X has selected this project as part of a round of pilot testing.

The goal of WikiProject X is to improve the WikiProject experience through research, design, and experimentation. On that basis, we've prepared a new WikiProject design template based around modules. These modules include features you are already familiar with, such as article alerts, but also new features such as automated work lists, a feed of discussions taking place on the 2,005 talk pages tagged by WikiProject Animals, and a new member profile system. To see what this new setup looks like, you can browse the first round of pilot tests: WikiProject Cannabis, WikiProject Evolutionary biology, WikiProject Ghana, WikiProject Hampshire, WikiProject Women's Health.

If there is consensus among the participants of this WikiProject, I will proceed with implementing this interface based on the current contents of Wikipedia:WikiProject Animals. Please let me know if you have any questions or requests. Harej (talk) 23:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Errors in "First appearance" categorisation

Several editors have noticed errors in User:Abyssal's addition of categories for the first appearances of various taxa in the fossil record. These categories seem to have been added without supporting evidence. The user may have professional or other knowledge of the fossil record, but since the encyclopedia relies on written evidence, we are starting to get a problem. This has been going on since at least July, but so far the user has not replied to inquiries. Have other editors noticed the issue, and what should we do about it? Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Why does everyone keep coming after me about the first appearance stuff? I just add a category for whatever date is already listed in the article. If it's inaccurate just change it. If it's unsourced, find a source. Abyssal (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Looking at Megachilidae and Toothed whale, I see that the infobox had the same first appearance that Abyssal subsequently added the category for (sorry for the akward sentence structure). Based on a sample size of two, it looks like the errors are with the infobox, and that if you find an incorrect "first appearance" added by Abyssal, this is an indication that the infobox was wrong in the first place and also needs correcting.--Wikimedes (talk) 00:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

It is then very likely that many other infoboxes contain similar errors. Since Wikipedia is not a reliable source, editors looking to add to articles should take care to check claims made in infoboxes or anywhere else before repeating what is said there in categories, or indeed anywhere else. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

There are literally thousands of articles requiring categorization by first appearance datum. I don't think it's reasonable to expect me to verify each one. Abyssal (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

It isn't reasonable for anyone to add anything that is unverified, and nobody is asking you to do any work if you don't feel like it. If the work of verifying facts for categories does not appeal to you, there are many other tasks you can attempt. See WP:V. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Taxonomic help needed on Rana vs Lithobates

There's a recent dustup on taxonomy on the frog artcle, and I'd like to request anyone with taxonomic experience (regardless of taxa) to weigh in. See here User talk:Ranapipiens#Rana_vs_Lithobates.

The gist is that in 2006, the genus Rana was split up and some members re-assigned to Lithobates. Some amphibian taxonomists were vehemently opposed to this, resulting in a 2009 criticism article, followed by a harsh response to that criticism. The works published since seem to support the 2006 work, but not unambiguously, and are very sensitive to taxon inclusion/exclusion, and none has made a formal taxonomic act of moving Lithobates back to Rana. Secondary sources are a mess, since the two best amphibian taxonomy sites are run by the author of the 2006 paper and the author of the 2009 critique, and the sheer duration and widespread use of Rana has lent it a lot of "inertia". Until a few months ago, WP used Lithobates because the 2006 source was huge and thus a "one-stop shop" for taxonomy, as well as being highly regarded. User:Ranapipiens moved most of the WP articles under Lithobates back to Rana, and the debate ensued here User talk:Ranapipiens#Rana_vs_Lithobates.

Currently, User:Ranapipiens advocates for Rana, contrary to the 2006 paper, mostly following the 2009 criticism, and has an unspecified level of expertise in the group. User:Micromesistius seems unconvinced (I don't want to speak too strongly for them), and appears to have some level of formal training in these matters. I, User:HCA, am unconvinced, but my training is not sufficient to really delve into the details of this group (I've published on this taxon's physiology, but have never published anything taxonomic). User:Faendalimas is an actual taxonomist, though not in this group, and based on the evidence presented, supports Lithobates based on the ICZN code and lack of formal nomenclatural changes against Lithobates. Finally, I asked for feedback from a collaborator who is an expert anuran taxonomist, but whom has COI as an author of one of publications, and he not only reiterated his support for Lithobates, but also alerted me to existence of the 2009 rebuttal to the 2009 criticism on which User:Ranapipiens seems to primarily rely, which User:Ranapipiens had failed to report the existence of.

The discussion is VERY long, and I doubt consensus will ever be reached, given User:Ranapipiens committment to the pre-2006 usage of Rana. However, my own uncertainty so far outside my field makes me think it would be prudent to get the feedback of more editors who have formal taxonomic training and experience before returning to Lithobates over the objections of User:Ranapipiens. HCA (talk) 16:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I have replied again to the discussion at User talk:Ranapipiens#Rana_vs_Lithobates if I may suggest this may need mediation to resolve. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 23:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there has been formal taxonomic action to use Rana instead of Lithobates as the correct genus for Holarctic true frogs (with Lithobates used as a subgenus for the neotropical true frogs). The use of Rana is completely consistent with all ICZN rules, and follows the most recent taxonomic revision of the group. I supplied the references for these papers on my talk page, should anyone be interested in reading the literature on the group.Ranapipiens (talk) 03:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Do not confuse taxonomic actions with nomenclatural acts, they are not the same thing. A taxonomic action is the presentation of a phylogenetic hypothesis, ie science, a nomenclatural act is the action of declaring clearly a change in name. Taxonomy and Nomenclature are not the same thing. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 03:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

There is certainly no confusion between nomenclatural and taxonomic acts on my part. The numerous papers I cited for the use of Rana as the appropriate genus take clear nomenclatural actions, completely within the ICZN rules in every respect. No one has suggested otherwise anywhere in the literature, and there is no suggestion that the use of Rana in any way violates any ICZN rule. Even the strictest interpreters of the ICZN rules, such as Alain Dubois, have clearly expressed a preference for using Rana as the appropriate genus over Lithobates (Fouquette and Dubois, 2014: A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada, 7th Ed. Volume 1—Amphibians. Xlibris Publ. ISBN 9781493170340). Rana clearly has priority over Lithobates if anyone has a question about that. If anyone thinks otherwise, then they should cite the relevant published reference or give the ICZN Article that they think applies.Ranapipiens (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I've glanced at Pauly et al. 2009, Frost et al. 2009, Hillis & Wilcox 2005 and Hill 2007, which is far from all of the relevant literature, but enough to give me some idea of what's going on. I hadn't realized how much this is a Phylocode thing. From what I understand, everybody agrees that "Lithobates" is a meaningful group within "Rana". However, the circumscriptions of Lithobates differ between Frost and Hillis. Additionally, Frost wants to treat Lithobates as ICZN named-genus, while Hillis wants to treat it as a Phylocode named clade (or possibly an ICZN subgenus?). No nomenclatural act is required by Hillis to reject Frost's genus and retain everything in Rana; the ICZN deals with nomenclature, not taxonomy. Lithobates is an available name, but the ICZN doesn't mandate that it be recognized at all; taxonomists are perfectly free to treat Rana in a broad sense with no subgenera/clades (however, Hillis's camp does want to recognize clades). It doesn't appear to me that all the Phyloclade clades named in Hillis 2005 are available under the ICZN (Article 13.1.1; they lack differentiating descriptions, though Hillis 2007 addresses this argument), but Lithobates is (from what I can tell) available as a subgenus (though not due to Hillis's work).

What does it mean for Wikipedia? Well, we follow secondary sources. Amphibian Species of the World (run by Frost's camp) is the current de facto standard on Wikipedia for amphibian taxonomy/nomenclature. Amphibiaweb (run by Hillis's camp) is another authoritative secondary on the subject. The major sources disagree about how to treat Lithobates; consistently following one source (i.e. ASW) has some pragmatic value, but we ought to present competing views, and unfortunately we can't give easily give both views equal weight (title, taxobox and running text are set up to support a single view). I slightly lean to following ASW/Frost for pragmatic consistency, but recognize that's not a very strong reason.

However, Pauly et al 2009 and Hillis 2007 lean heavily on an argument with broader implications for Wikipedia (and one well at odds with general practice in organism articles elsewhere on Wikipedia). Pauly and Hillis emphasis the importance of "stability" in scientific names, and appear to reject Lithobates as a genus largely because it replaces well known, "stable" combinations in Rana (remember, Pauly and Hillis recognize a Lithobates clade). Hillis even runs a WP:GOOGLETEST for Rana/Lithobates combinations (without dwelling on any of the ways Google tests can be misleading). There are numerous cases all across the Tree of Life where phylogenetic research has led to well known species being shuffled out of well known genera into newly recognized segregates (which are unfamiliar to all but a small handful of taxonomists).

Should Wikipedia follow Pauly and Hillis's approach and apply a Google test to determine whether new and obscure segregate genera should be recognized on Wikipedia, or should Wikipedia follow authoritative secondary taxonomic sources, even when this leads to endorsing a (to date) little used scientific name? Plantdrew (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Within the Amphibians and Reptiles Wikiproject, there was sort of a weird compromise: using ITIS.gov, reasoning that it'll be more stable than following every name change everywhere (since some of those prove to be wrong) but also keep reasonably up to date. Currently, there's a plan for some sort of formal WP mediation here , and I think your taxonomic insight would be a great addition if possible, Plantdrew. Thanks! HCA (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree this, @Plantdrew:, is an unfortunate case of Phylocode and ICZN Nomenclature not being compatible. That the two major researchers on the topic are in opposing theoretical camps is a problem. A few points though. First Hillis is misinterpreting the meaning of stability. Stability does not refer to the combination, it only refers to a name, ie the species name or the genus name, not to how they are combined. I recently had to make this point to a group of taxonomists who work with Phylocode. Second clearly both names Rana and Lithobates are available and Rana has priority when they are applied to the same generic concept but when they are not applied to the same concept then both names can be valid it is dependent on circumstances. In particular it depends on what the type species for each are and that they are not in the same generic concept. Lastly, currently Phylocode has not been presented and accepted by zoology. Much has been said about it but "officially" for want of a better word, zoology still uses the ICZN nomenclature. Hence it should be followed until this changes. @HCA: just so you know, depending on the group ITIS is up to 5 years out of date. cheers Faendalimas ^talk 16:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

ITIS is a stable compromise for Amphibian and Reptile taxonomy???; please point me to thread where this was discussed?!? I'll grant that ITIS isn't up totally to date (and full disclosure, I worked for ITIS around 2005, albeit mostly on fish, nothing on herps), but since McDiarmid is in the Frost camp, works at NMNH and is/was an ITIS data steward, going to ITIS doesn't provide a more neutral/independent resolution than ASW to the Rana/Lithobates issue. Using ITIS is a very weird compromise as the sources have developed over the last 10 years (as I see it now, ITIS follows ASW with some lag that is more attributable to low staffing levels than any taxonomic conservatism about major changes endorsed by ASW). Bring it to mediation and I'll weigh in further. Plantdrew (talk) 08:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I have submitted the request for mediation Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Rana_vs_Lithobates I did not add you @Plantdrew: as you have not been directly involved in the page though I would welcome your assistance. Everyone else, @HCA: @Ranapipiens: @Micromesistius: should read through it and sign off add extra points as you deem fit. Follow the procedure, best way at this point.

@Plantdrew: I believe ITIS is a kind of default goto for names, it seems to pervade many groups. The exact point where it was decided to use it as a compromise here I am not sure of. In any case in an effort to get some more up to date information on this I am going to e-mail Darrel Frost. Get a first hand look at some of the research here. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 10:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, ITIS and ASW, as seen here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Amphibians_and_Reptiles#Taxonomy. Please note that I'm not endorsing this, just making folks aware if it comes up; whatever decision led to that arrangement predated my involvement with Wikipedia. HCA (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes @HCA: the only one I have much say in is the turtles and I removed ITIS from that one years ago, I replaced it with the IUCN Checklist, which is updated semi annually and is peer reviewed. Unfortunately not all groups have the benefit of that type of list in which case they have been left with ITIS and a website. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 16:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok @HCA, Micromesistius, Ranapipiens, and Plantdrew: I have received a response from Darrel Frost, it is very interesting. I do not share emails publicly but there is some important information in it so anyone who wishes to discuss what he had to say please go to my user page user:Faendalimas and click on email user, my settings permit emails. I will discuss it with you all. I will give it a little time and try to do it as a joint email to all. I will have to make this available to the Mediation Panel also. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 17:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion Continuing

Ok one thing I do take issue with @Ranapipiens: is you have started using wikispecies as a validation here. I am an admin over there and there are no where near the number of editors as there are on WP, that said I consider the Rana pages over there out of date, however I am not updating them, or more likely finding someone to do it, until I see the outcome here. Hence it is a circular argument to use them as support. Apart from the addition of a species and some references those pages have not been updated since 2009.

Next point Linneaus certainly did not set type species since the type concept came into being over a century after his death. However, yes types have been set for both genera, what I meant was that to move species around needs the type species named because it is the type species that forms the definition of the genus.

Darrel Frost is a highly experienced and highly respected taxonomist who produces phylogenetic hypotheses using hierarchical classification from which to develop a nomenclature using the ICZN system and he did so and many other publications follow it. Alain Dubois does the same but is extremely conservative in his views and what he sees as a subgenus is usually a genus by anyone elses standards. Dave Hillis uses PhyloCode, which is fine that's his choice, but it does not produce hierarchical classifications that can be easily ported to the ICZN system, it produces PhyloCodes which means he is naming ever enclosing clades. But one thing you need to realise is that Hillis and his close nit group of supporters, which do not number that many, have been extremely vocal about their work and this has created an unbalanced view of this situation. I get the impression you may have fallen for that. Look I have 20 years experience as a professional taxonomist, not saying that to impress, from that I can tell you we can be a pack of rats. The fights between taxonomists get very loud and can be really quite stupid. But fights we have. (Cope and Marsh for an historical one) It often gets people caught up in them. Now with turtles I will stand my ground for certain names, but here I am neutral. I do not work with these species so in a way I could not care what you call them. Like I said on Wikispecies I am just going to follow what happens here, so speaking as a taxonomist who is neutral about this, Lithobates is the correct name currently for the American Bull Frog and close relatives. That is how it is appearing in the next volume of Petersons Guide by the way. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 20:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok at the request of @TransporterMan: and out of respect for @Sunray: I am making this comment here. The intention of my last comment, here, was to ask Sunray where we were at, nothing more, it was not meant to start yet another debate. @Ranapipiens: during that I lost my temper with you, that I should not have done and apologize for that. From a purely Wikipedian Editor perspective this problem stems from the fact that in July 2015 you moved all the pages from Lithobates to Rana. You were questioned on this by @Dger, Plantdrew, HCA, and Micromesistius: however your edits were not reverted at the time. In part I suspect because it would have been impossible as you apparently used page blanking and overwriting to accomplish moves which should have been done by WP:RM you destroyed the edit history. You were also over this time accused of having a Conflict of Interest, and that your arguments lacked Verifiability by referring to (although you did not cite) primary sources not yet published. It was pointed out to you that Wikipedia has rules on publication types and that we follow secondary publications not primary (WP:PRIMARY) you have never adequately addressed these issues. The WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles has set out and agreed sources by its members, of which you are not one, which you have ignored. The thing is you are satisfied because the pages are set the way you want right now, by your doing in July, and if any of the users above, or me try to put them back the way they were it will possibly start an edit war, or something. Which none of us want, and has not occurred so far, thankfully. The consensus on Wikipedia up till July was that they belonged in Lithobates, it was requested of you once you moved them all that they should all go back. That was also the consensus. You have ignored all of this stating you have "personal experience" and primary literature to back you up. So my recommendation for this is that all those pages be returned to how they were prior to you mass moving them all and if and when it is deemed necessary to move them that be done the appropriate way, in consultation with other editors and the members of WikiProject: Amphibians and Reptiles. I would also recommend that when you reply to someone it is wise to actually read what has been said, since you have also been accused on several occasions by several editors of not doing this and missing the point of discussions. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 15:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Unidentified eggs in Hainan

Does anyone have any idea what this might be? Thank you for any information you can offer. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Were they originally in contact with soil (i.e. the stone is lifted), or were they naturally hanging exposed to air as shown. Not that this would help me, but maybe someone else :) --Animalparty! (talk) 03:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Paifang

They are attached to the underside of one of the high, horizontal members of this paifang (more images). Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: It's possible these aren't eggs at all but some type of fungus or slime-mold. See for instance Lycogala epidendrum. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: Could they be pupae or coccoons? Abyssal (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak:They look like Gecko eggs which are often stuck on underneath horizontal surfaces. I am sure (from my comfy chair in Wales) that there must be plenty of Geckos in Hainan.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Seeking help with a Wikipedia editing brochure for biology students

Hello all; I'm writing on behalf of the Wiki Education Foundation, which works with instructors who assign university students to write or edit Wikipedia articles in the United States and Canada. We're developing a print handbook for students who will write or expand articles on living species, including species articles. I'd appreciate any feedback on the draft! It is open for comment until November 5th; after that we will set it to print. Thanks so much! Eryk (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

{{Animal-disease-stub}}

template:Animal-disease-stub has been nominated for deletion -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

A luminous talk that should be transcribed and enshrined on Wikipedia

Some editors on animal topics are still smarting from attacks by WP:MED editors that were the subject of a recent arbcom case. The following superb 42 minute presentation, "Are the Obstacles Academic?", from Stuart C. Ray, aka soupvector, goes a long way towards providing a redeeming perspective and balance. The talk starts at 4 hours and 36 minutes. It was given six weeks ago at WikiConference USA 2015. --Epipelagic (talk) 13:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

What an excellent insight to Academic editing! Thanks Epi. (The video is the one from Oct 10 (Day 2 of 3) of the conference).DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

"Animal research"

The usage and topic of "animal research" is under discussion, see Talk:Animal testing -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Climate change denial

There is a RfC at Talk:Climate change denial. Please contribute if you are interested. Biscuittin (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

{{Species abbreviation}}

Since 2010 there has been a template {{Species abbreviation}} which has been added to many disambiguation pages to provide links to the various species names or disambiguation pages which use the word in question (examples include Vanzolinii and Sylvestre).

In a Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_27#Template:Species_abbreviation deletion discussion in April 2015 the consensus appeared to be that it should be replaced by something better, but the close was as "delete". Some instances have already been deleted, but there is now a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Species_abbreviations. If you have opinions on the best way forward, please join that discussion. Thanks. PamD 21:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Since the demise of the template, this kind of cleanup has been happening; I don't see what the problem is supposed to be.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Nowhere for "zygomatic" in general zoology to link

All the zygomatic-anything articles (Zygomatic arch, etc.) on WP are exclusively about human anatomy. At least one needs to cover this topic from a general zoological standpoint, so articles like Himalayan wolf have a link target for this jargon.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I usually just add a section about the animal version to the existing article, see, e.g. Navicular bone as an example. Can always do a CFORK if there's enough material, but sometimes just a paragraph for a target is a good start. Montanabw^(talk) 07:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Another option is to simplify and reduce the usage of jargon: see WP:TECHNICAL. In the case of Himalayan wolf, I feel little is lost, and possibly more is gained, by stating simply "maximum widths of the skull" rather than "Zygomatic widths of the skull". "Skull width, measured from cheek bone to cheek bone" might be another way to phrase it. --Animalparty! (talk) 08:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Or..., wiktionary links might be appropriate if all that's required is a definition, not an encyclopedia article on say zygomatic arches in humans and canines and giraffes and in popular culture... See wikt:bizygomatic breadth, which I believe is an interchangeable term with zygomatic width. Another option could be to have a glossary of skull terminology and common measurement axes in Wikipedia, in the same vein as Fish measurement. As an example, File:Lemur catta skull measurements.jpg --Animalparty! (talk) 08:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Merging Category:Human blood to Category:Blood

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_March_6#Category:Human_blood for a discussion to merge the human blood category to the general blood category -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested move of Corvus (genus)

There is currently a requested move of Corvus (genus) to Crow at Talk:Corvus (genus). Please join the discussion. No such user (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Related discussion (Category:Species threatened by climate change)

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force#New category Category:Species threatened by climate change. jonkerz ♠talk 15:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Hungarian animals

Shocked? Hungarian animals needs a rename. Please visit Talk:Hungarian animals to comment and/or boldly move. Thanks. Rush job. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Taxobox discussion

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Redundancies in the taxoboxes for a discussion about the format of taxoboxes for species and below. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Mammal for GA

I've nominated Mammal for GAN. Please start the review if you feel like it. Thanks   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

BioRxiv support in citations

Main page: Help_talk:Citation_Style_1 § BioRxiv_support

This project's feedback would be appreciated in this discussion, as this could greatly (and positively) affect biological citations! Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Automated taxobox errors

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs#Automated taxonomy system errors for a discussion about taxobox errors in bird articles such as Abavornis and Enantiornithes. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, what are the advantages of having automated taxoboxes supposed to be? To people who are unfamiliar with them like me, they make things much more difficult, and you cannot copy them into new articles, but have to build taxoboxes for them from scratch. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

To deal with the second point first, the only information you have to put into an automated taxobox is that which specifically relates to that article, so would all have to be added to a manual taxobox anyway. The bits you have to copy for a manual taxobox are generated automatically, once the necessary taxonomy templates exist. See Template:Automatic taxobox/doc/intro.

The prime advantage is consistency between articles. There's also the ease of updating higher ranks/levels. Thus if a plant family is moved to a different order, say, or a family of any kind of organism is moved to a different or new superfamily, then if the articles all use automated taxoboxes, changing one taxonomy template will automatically update all the taxoboxes in all the relevant articles. I've found this important for spiders, where there are few active editors and molecular phylogenetic research is still radically altering classifications. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Right, thank you for your reply. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge of High-altitude adaptation and Organisms at high altitude

Feel free to join in the discussion at Talk:Organisms at high altitude#Merge? —hike395 (talk) 14:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Evo-devo

I'm rewriting the top-level article on evolutionary developmental biology. I've completed a first pass, so the article now stands as a summary of the history and science of the topic, with the main sections as I see them. These have images and main links, and a minimal set of examples.

I'd be delighted if a few biological editors could take a look and suggest what needs to be added or otherwise done for GA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Seasnail taxon

I'm doing some category cleanup on Commons and there is one image but 3 categories

• c:Category:Splendrillia laeta
• c:Category:Clavus laeta
• c:Category:Clavus laetus

and by now I couldn't find out which is the right one and which are to be redirected. Can anyone help? --Achim (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Pinging JoJan --Achim (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I made the necessary redirects. JoJan (talk) 12:40, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

JoJan, thank you very much! --Achim (talk) 10:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciations for Latin taxon names

Please see a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style regarding pronunciations for Latin taxon names. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 05:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

New article Edward Burton (zoologist)

Improvements would be welcomed - and I've posted some puzzles for historians of taxonomy on the talk page. Narky Blert (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages

Greetings WikiProject Animals/Archive 11 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

• Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 17:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Missing topics list

My list of missing animal topics is updated - Skysmith (talk) 12:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Organ (anatomy), which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

WikiJournal of Science promotion

The WikiJournal of Science is a start-up academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's scientific content. It is part of a WikiJournal User Group that includes the flagship WikiJournal of Medicine.. Like Wiki.J.Med, it intends to bridge the academia-Wikipedia gap by encouraging contributions by non-Wikipedians, and by putting content through peer review before integrating it into Wikipedia. Since it is just starting out, it is looking for contributors in two main areas: Editors See submissions through external academic peer review Format accepted articles Promote the journal Authors Original articles on topics that don't yet have a Wikipedia page, or only a stub/start Wikipedia articles that you are willing to see through external peer review (either solo or as in a group, process analagous to GA / FA review) Image articles, based around an important medical image or summary diagram If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 10:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Human-centric

On Wikipedia the medical project has historically claimed dominance over the animal project by demanding they own the anatomy and physiology projects in their entirety, and insisting that their own values and guidelines apply there. Editors who challenge that position are demonised in the standard Wikipedia ways. I did challenge their position a bit some time ago by establishing the animal anatomy project. But the fact is that animal editors hardly ever risk going near the overview or core article if they include humans, and I gave up myself some time ago. Recently an editor on animal issues wrote Template:Human-centric, which could be used to template the worst of the many overview or core articles which do little justice to nonhuman animals. Predictably, the medical project wants the template deleted. The discussion is here. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Taxonomy templates updated

Project members who create taxonomy templates, please see Wikipedia talk:Automated taxobox system#Taxonomy templates updated. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Support for future commons challenge

Hi. In commons:Commons_talk:Photo_challenge/themes#Animals_interacting_with_plants a very interesting theme was proposed but with a strong requirement of species/genera identification. I think we can manage to organize it only if we can rely on a "task force" of expert users to help the uploaders. We need people who revise the label descripotion and title of every upload and inform/correct when they are wrong.

Is anyone interested here? If so, just say you are supporting and I will contact you when the challenge starts. It takes some months usually to finalize the schedule.--Alexmar983 (talk) 07:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Default number of parent taxa displayed in an automated species taxobox

Please see Template talk:Speciesbox#Default number of parent taxa displayed for a question about the default number of parent taxa to be displayed in an automated taxobox for a species. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Subgenus in taxoboxes

How should a subgenus name in a taxobox be formatted for a taxon whose name is governed by the ICZN (i.e. a zoological name)? There seem to be two styles at present, which I'll illustrate by Equus subgenus Equus:

• Subgenus: Equus – as at Wild horse
• Subgenus: E. (Equus) – as at Przewalski's horse

Peter coxhead (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no comment on which form is preferred, but I would ask why should subgenus even be included in Taxobox? Seems like more clutter for sake of pedantry. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

So that's actually a subset of the broader scientific debate of "Should we have subgenera at all? If it warrants subgenera, maybe we should just split the genus?", and there's honestly no definitive answer at the moment. A particularly salient example is Monitor_lizards: Genus Varanus has 79 species spanning a huge range of morphological and ecological diversity, and this genus is split into various monophyletic subgenera which are actually fairly informative - a Varanus can be anywhere from 25 to 300 cm long, eat anything from fruit to people, and live anywhere from Botswana to Brisbane, while an Odatria is a small (<=60cm) carnivorous monitor, probably from the Australian outback.

In terms of WP, I think it should have a notability test of sorts, and a fairly simple one: does anyone other than the authors who proposed the subgenera actually use it in scientific papers, and has it been used in the past 10 years? HCA (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

From the point of view of the code all subranks can be ignored in communications, ie subspecies, subgenera, infraorders, superfamilies, all of them. The only names that have to be included are species, genus, family etc... However, if you are writing any form of technical review it is best practice to include all named ranks using the relevant code for the taxa. I would personally argue that when presenting a taxon for purposes of creating a reference/ review of a taxon you should include all named ranks that come under the relevant code to the species in question. By that I am saying you should include subgenera. If presented in the taxobox I would suggest the clearer method would be Genus: Equus Subgenus: Equus (those being on two lines in the taxobox) inline in the article the other method should be used ie Equus (Equus) or E. (Equus). If you are labeling something as subgenus in a box, the correct answer is a mononomial name, not the name or initial of the Parent taxon also. Cheers, Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 21:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

My only concern at present is how to format a subgenus name governed by the ICZN in a taxobox; there are always going to be at least some cases where there's a consensus to include this rank. It matters particularly in autotaxoboxes, where the formatting has to be automated to some degree. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I understand. To me is should be formatted as a name, ie Subgenus: Equus. Names are only written out Equus (Equus) in sentences. For example one I did Chelodina (Chelodina) canni. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 00:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

There is currently a merger proposal for the article Clam to be merged into Bivalvia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The first sentence in the article seems to support this: "Clam is the general common name of any mollusks within the class Bivalvia." FunkMonk (talk) 11:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

But the fourth sentence contradicts this "These characteristics distinguish the true clams from other bivalves, such as oysters, mussels, and scallops." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, but we should discuss this over there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Egyptian mongoose

The woes of the Middle East have come to Egyptian mongoose where IPs have started warring over Palestine vs Israel. Could do with some eyeballs? Le Deluge (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of solitary animals

The article List of solitary animals has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

If done properly, this list will include probably almost all animal species in the world

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MiguelMadeira (talk) 13:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

You have removed the PROPOSED DELETION (PROD) template yourself from the article, but have left it here. If you think the article's deletion should be discussed, then articles for deletion is the proper place. FWIW I'd say you were right, the article's scope is far too wide and it would include hundreds of thousands of species (including a lot of beetles) which would make it unworkable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:American Pekin

I invite you to Talk:American Pekin/Archive 1#RfC Previous and Current Revisions, where revisions of the American Pekin are discussed. --George Ho (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Photo challenge May 2017 is "Mammals"

See commons:Commons:Photo challenge/2017 - May - Mammals. It starts in few days. It is going to be difficult, because pets and animals in zoo are excluded, but we hope to get enough new nice images. Please take a look. It is probably going to last two month, not just one.--Alexmar983 (talk) 05:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Animals/Archive 11/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Animals.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Animals, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about template "Template:Taxonbar"

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Taxonbar#Proposal: Switch Taxonbar template to use Module:Taxonbar, which is about a template that is within the scope of this WikiProject. There is a proposal to use a Lua module as the basis for the template, which will result in some changes to the template's appearance. Thank you. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Bull riding

I happened to notice that Bull_riding#Animal_welfare is sourced almost entirely to a professional rodeo website. Obviously advocacy groups are not a good source of reliable, balanced/neutral content, just as it would be inappropriate to draw only from PETA. I'm traveling and not in a good position to rewrite but thought it was worth mentioning here as watchers of this page may be more likely than me to have good sources at hand. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Extra eyes requested

Hi. There's a draft here that is probably notable, but it needs someone experienced in these areas to bring it up to standard before it's moved to mainspace. Anyone able to give it a look? Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I have made some improvements to the article and rated it as start class. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Manzonia

Does anyone know who the genus of snails Manzonia (Brusina, 1870) is named for? I have the strongest possible suspicion, but no proof.

Until today, the only Manzoni I had heard of was Alessandro Manzoni, the Italian poet whose death inspired Verdi's Requiem. It turns out he was also a malacologist - or as this citation puts it, "Wrote on the marine shells of Elba; also known as poet". (That "also" might be called ungenerous - he received a state funeral.) He was binomial authority for at least Alvania macandrewi, Melanopsis bonelli, Rissoa mirabilis and Talassia coriacea. I've added a sentence and the citation to his article, and added him to Category:Italian malacologists and to List of malacologists.

Can anyone prove (or, indeed, disprove) the connection? Narky Blert (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Biographical Etymology of Marine Organism Names lists Angelo Manzoni, 1842-1895, Italian geologist and palaeontologist, yet suggests the poet may somehow be involved (the true eponymy seems unclear to me). --Animalparty! (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Animalparty: Frustrating, isn't it? I suspect that a look at Brusani's Monographie der Gattungen Emmericia und Fossarulus (1870) might be needed. The dates and places work for both of them - both as binomial authority and as named-in-honour. The persons might be different, too. Alessandro was hugely famous in 1870; but I can find nothing online about Angelo. If the citation I found is plain wrong, I would cheerfully squish it. All that matters is getting the facts right, Narky Blert (talk) 23:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

(Oh, and anyone who described four species sails through WP:GNG for me, and merits an article whatever their given name was.) Narky Blert (talk) 00:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

There appear to be at least a few articles in Italian: e.g. Tabanelli 1989 & 1992 (see here), and a couple brief 1895 death notices (English and Italian). While Manzoni the geologist may very well merit an encyclopedia article, without further knowledge I'd say it's a bit hasty to say simply naming 4 species merits an article: I know several non-notable grad students and early career scientists who have described multiple species. Wikispecies, as a directory and not encyclopedia, is a good place for such biographical info, pending confirmation of WP notability. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

User talk:DrChrissy

Hi, all. One of our most erudite and passionate editors, DrChrissy, has died. He was actively involved in animal topics, and I felt that those who worked with him, or are interested in knowing about him, would want to know of his death. Thank you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Expansion requested: Drosophila saltans species group

Would anyone be willing to expand this, the current shortest page in this WikiProject? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 01:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

done and done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

New article - Sydney Savory Buckman

If anyone knows more about him, please improve. I haven't got access to the online DNB, and there more be more info in there. (I have a sneaking suspicion that a search for the specific name buckmanii might turn up empty, but you never know.) Narky Blert (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Color scheme for taxobox template

There is a proposal to simplify the taxobox color scheme at Template talk:Taxobox#Refined proposal. The color scheme for animals is not affected. Please weigh in if you have an opinion. Kaldari (talk) 05:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Megafauna categories nominated for discussion

Hello, Category:Megafauna and its "Megafauna of Foo" subcategories have been nominated for discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 December 26#Category:Megafauna, with the issue particularly revolving the definition of the term. Any input from editors who are knowledgeable on the subject is appreciated. Thank you. ℯxplicit 04:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

What is "Oceania" in classifying fauna by distribution?

When classifying plants by their distribution, there's a well explained and sourced scheme at WP:WikiProject Plants/World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions, which is used by many reliable secondary sources, such as the IUCN, GRIN and the WCSP.

For fauna, there seems to be no equivalent explanatory page nor source (or have I missed them?), but you can start at Category:Fauna by continent and work your way down. However, it's not then clear to me what exactly the boundaries of "Oceania" are. The article Oceania has a map that includes, for example, the island of New Guinea, so Oceania seems to be more-or-less equivalent to the WGSRPD's Papuasia + Australasia + Pacific. However, when I look at Category:Fauna of New Guinea, for example, it's ultimately placed in both Oceania (directly) and Asia (via Indonesia), which can't be right, not least because this isn't hierarchical as categories are supposed to be. What are the correct boundaries of Oceania as regards fauna distribution? Peter coxhead (talk) 11:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the CIA world factbook is a decent source, providing this definition of Oceania, but I don't know what would be definitive. — soupvector (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

This definition excludes the WGSRPD's Papuasia, which is inconsistent with the article Oceania, but consistent with the ultimate placement of New Guinea in Asia rather than Oceania. There needs to be a wider discussion of the definition to be used. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that one system of categories is based on political boundaries, the other one on geographic boundaries. The West Papua problem should apply to all countries sitting on two continents. Egypt, Russia and Turkey come to my mind (and what about the Spanish enclaves in North Africa?). I do not see an elegant solution to this, other than removing continent-based parentage of country-based categories... Micromesistius (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

It's clearly necessary to allow politically based categories to cut across continents, but my understanding was that we had agreed, for animals as well as for plants, to have the main system biogeographically organized, with extra political categories. My question is about the biogeographical concept of Oceania. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

For animals, what I have always used is Oceania basically being everything on the Australasian side of the Wallace line, including New Guinea, Australia, New Zealand and pacific Islands. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 18:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

That's what I would prefer, but has there ever been a discussion and consensus? Peter coxhead (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I do not know, sorry. Breaking this up politically basically includes all regions part of Indonesia as south east asia, and hence half of New Guinea. Whereas breaking it up zoogeographically splits Indonesia between the two. My own view is that this should be a zoogeographic region irrespective of the political borders. But as you say this may need some discussion. Anyone checked IUCN definitions? Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 21:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The IUCN Red List definition is here. It puts the whole of Indonesia, including the western part of the island of New Guinea, in Asia, but Papua New Guinea, the eastern part, in Oceania. The IUCN uses a hybrid system in which political countries are treated as units (I guess this necessary for legal and political reasons in creating and enforcing conservation laws), but the subunits of countries are those of the WGSRPD system. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

If you are looking for consensus on this issue, I will add my support. I am opposed to using political (as opposed to geographic) areas for describing ranges of flora and fauna, particularly for a region such as the island of New Guinea. National boundaries and names seem to change at a much faster rate than even the fastest geologic time. As for category names, I don't get too fussed over them, mostly because some categories seem arbitrary at best, and without supporting logic at other times. Loopy30 (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Loopy30: I agree with both your points: dividing the island of New Guinea makes no biological sense; and there's no point in being over-fussy about categories and their names, because the category system is such a muddle overall, and (at least in my view) of limited value. It does seem to me, though, that we should be able to agree on the continents! Peter coxhead (talk) 09:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes, the specific question at hand. Bio-geographically, the boundary between Asia and Oceania should be the Wallace Line. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 12:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to change guidelines on the naming of articles about monotypic taxa

There is a proposal to change the guidelines on the naming of articles about monotypic taxa at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Monotypic genera. Please join in the discussion there. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

adding articles

hi please make bot for creating articles from catalogueoflife.org/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.75.54.10 (talk) 14:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Organ (anatomy), which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Proposed guideline on the use of the term animal

I propose the animal project provide a guideline on the use of the term animal. Whether the term can be used without qualification to indicate non-human animals is a constant issue in animal articles. The latest example is this thread. For an extended discussion see here. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree such a policy would be useful. Since there are so many ways to think about non-human animals, I think we should be guided by WP:VNT and try to follow the conventions used in relevant sources. As I wrote at the linked thread, a common solution in animal studies is to use something like "non-human animals (henceforth 'animals')" on first use of the term, sometimes with "henceforth animals" in a footnote rather than a parenthesis (examples), and then use "non-human" only when necessary to avoid ambiguity.

Other fields definitely have different norms, though. For example, in biomedicine, authors often refer to "animal studies" and take it to be obvious that this does not include clinical trials—although the standard biomedical term for macaques, capuchins, etc. is "non-human primates", and people will spell out "non-human animal" in detail-heavy technical contexts like patents. In animal agriculture texts, "non-human" is always assumed.

My point is, any guideline would have to be sensitive to this kind of variation from field to field. Also, given the encyclopedic nature of WP, where we often treat a single topic from the perspectives of multiple fields on the same page (e.g. animal testing), there will always be ambiguous cases, and it might be helpful to have a standard recommendation to default to. FourViolas (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there's good sense there. For biologists, "animal" includes humans by definition. For people in animal husbandry and medicine, the picture looks different. I think that in biology articles, we should normally speak of animals to include humans (no reason not to), so if a distinction is required then "non-human" is mandatory. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Our priority needs to be the reader, as per WP:TECHNICAL: "The content in articles in Wikipedia should be written as far as possible for the widest possible general audience." In everyday language, animal and human are mainly used to denote non-intersecting sets (as are other pairs like ape–human and monkey–ape). Writing for the general reader means always being clear when the article's usage departs from everyday usage. There's no harm in writing "animals (including humans)", especially in the lead. Once this is clear, though, it doesn't need constant repetition within an article. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Peter coxhead. In article titles, use of the term animal generally defaults to refer to non-human animals, as in animal migration, animal welfare, animal euthanasia, animal consciousness, altruism in animals, rabies in animals, emotion in animals, personality in animals, laughter in animals, animal love, cruelty to animals, extrasensory perception in animals. Replacing the term animal with "non-human animal" in these titles, with further replacements every time the word animal is mentioned in the body of the articles, cuts right across the conventional use of the English language, where the default is to omit "non-human" when the context is clear. Otherwise this project would have to be called WikiProject Non-human Animals. Again, because of our inherent anthropocentrism, articles that refer to the corresponding matters in humans also omit reference to humans, as in migration, welfare, euthanasia, consciousness, altruism, rabies, emotion, personality, laughter, love, cruelty, extrasensory perception. Again, it is an established convention that the term human does not need to be added. The pedantic addition of these modifiers everywhere is awkward and unnecessary. However, to keep things really clear, animal articles could state in the lead paragraph that the article is about non-human animals. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, broadly yes, but the distinction can't simply be "human articles" and "animal articles": the "animal articles" if medical/veterinary/animal husbandry are clearly "non-human articles", whereas if biological/taxonomic then they mean Animalia, i.e. including humans (though 99% of the time, nobody will think of humans in the context, they'll be thinking eukaryotes, or insects, or primates, or whatever).

I note in passing that the distinction between medical (animals not humans) and biological (animals inc humans) cuts right across the Biology and medicine GA category, and right across many Wikipedians' thought categories, probably. G'night. Chiswick Chap (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Well WikiProject Medicine takes strong ownership of articles they consider to be under their scope, and any guidelines we develop here should not be regarded as having any relevance to those articles. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

To an absurd extent, indeed, and at the boundary/overlap zone they're just plain difficult, but my point is not that. It's that an article with (say) veterinary or animal husbandry interest will inevitably contain an assumption that animal=non-human, whereas an article, possibly in a closely-related or indeed overlapping area which is seen as more biological will not. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree "non-human" should stay out of most article titles, with a few exceptions (e.g. animal testing on non-human primates), but that's a WP:COMMONNAME matter without direct bearing on article bodies.

Maybe a guiding principle could be that "non-human" should be used in articles as little as is necessary to avoid ambiguity, recognizing the range of likely readers? That would allow editors to be sensitive to field-specific contexts (e.g. no need to clarify in animal husbandry), and discourage edits like this which, as Epipelagic notes, are pedantic and unnecessary, but support parenthetical clarifications where they're useful. FourViolas (talk) 03:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

So does anyone object to FourViolas formulation of the guideline immediately above? That seems like a reasonable balance to me, providing clear direction as well as room for flexibility when common sense exceptions arise. To formalize it a little, are there objections or suggested improvements to:

In general, avoid using the term "non-human" to modify "animal" in articles and article titles. Possible exceptions are a clarification in the lead paragraph that humans are excluded, and any other common sense exceptions that a group of editors can readily agree with. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with everything discussed however, I would like to point out that the guidline WP:TECHNICAL mentioned by Peter coxhead could be viewed from a different angle as well. So far in this discussion I feel like the main focus was to make articles as understandable as possible to an audience unfamiliar with the use of the term non-human animals opposed to animals. People from a different background, may find the uncientific use of the term confusing. In my opinion a clarification at the beginning of an articles should be mandatory. DrownLies (talk) 06:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I think we're narrowing in, but I'd prefer something in between: In general, avoid using the term "non-human" to modify "animal" in articles and article titles except where necessary to avoid ambiguity. Possible exceptions include clarifying in the lead paragraph if humans are excluded, especially in topic areas where such a clarification is common, and in article text when conflicting senses of the word "animal" have been used.

There's also something we haven't been discussing explicitly: this is sometimes a WP:NPOV question. Especially in areas like ethics or critical theory where authors are trying to get readers to rethink how society understands non-human animals, "non-human" is used rhetorically as a reminder that the "everyday language" human/animal binary is only one possible way of thinking about animals (including humans). In articles where we're trying to describe these debates, like sentiocentrism or biopolitics, NPOV requires us to avoid taking sides, and as part of that we should try to avoid using either "animal (implying non-human)" or "non-human animal" in a way which reads as trying to delegitimize non-WP:FRINGE arguments. FourViolas (talk) 14:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

it really depends on the context of a sentence, like for the sentiocentrism article where it says, “...a comparison between slavery and sadism toward animals,” it’s sort of implied that it’s non-human animals   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

FourViolas, I interpret WP:NPOV in a way that urges to represent reliable sources as well as possible. That could mean you have to consider the prevelance of the usage of the world in a specific topic rather than what you percive to be neutral (WP:VNT).

This issue has more delicate aspects as well. As an example: Is it scintifically more percise to say 'humans and animals' or 'humans and other animals'? DrownLies (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Category:Echinostomida has been nominated for discussion

Category:Echinostomida, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for merger to Category:Plagiorchiida. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Sex

Please see the latest discussion at Talk:Sex, which proposes to restrict the scope of the article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

A link to a DAB page

Black-spotted cuscus contains a link to the DAB page masseteric. Can any expert in marsupial anatomy help solve this problem? Narky Blert (talk) 13:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

So "masseteric" is just an adjective, meaning "pertaining to the masseter muscle". There are, as the DAB suggests, nerves and arteries which get this label, but also fossas, foramina, processes, arches, and anything else. The paragraph appears to be referring to the masseteric process of the zygomatic, a site for masseter muscle attachment, which has no wiki page. Honestly, I'm not even sure why the paragraph exists; it's highly jargon-filled and for those who can read it, it just says "here's the two traits which justify its taxonomic placement". HCA (talk) 14:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I've turned the ambiguous link into a link to the Wiktionary definition. I suspected that a link to one or more of the Wikipedia articles might leave readers none the wiser, and you've confirmed it. Narky Blert (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

IP at Lek mating

An IP is repeatedly deleting a cited claim at this article. Help appreciated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. WP:SILVERLOCK should do. Narky Blert (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Another link to a DAB page

Detritus links to the DAB page moon shells, saying that they feed on it. However, family Naticidae (the moon shells) seems to consist of predators. I suspect maybe the wrong common name in the detritus article. Can any malacologist here help solve the puzzle? Narky Blert (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Viviparity

There is a suggestion on its talk page that the Viviparity article should be split in two, so as to separate the different ways in which the term is used in botany and in zoology. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Animals described in 1757

Should there be any articles ending up under Category:Animals described in 1757, given that Art. 3.1 of the ICZN says that "The date 1 January 1758 is arbitrarily fixed in this Code as the date of the starting point of zoological nomenclature"? (See [1].) I put an explanation re spiders at Category:Spiders described in 1757, but another view is that these should all be moved to "... described in 1758". Peter coxhead (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Ending the system of portals

Hello, there's a proposal to delete all Wikipedia portals. Please see the discussion here. --NaBUru38 (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC on categorizing by year of formal description

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Request for comment: categorizing by year of formal description for a discussion on possible guidelines for categorizing by year of formal description of a species. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Categorizing year of description under "deuterostomes"

I can discover no discussion or consensus to introduce a few random occurrences of "Deuterostome" categories into the "Animals described in YEAR" system of categories, so I've emptied them. I think there needs to be some stricter oversight of these categories, which risk becoming a useless mess. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Then you should also empty (and arrange to have deleted) the "Protostomes described in YEAR" categories, and perhaps also the "Ecdysozoa described in the 21st century" and its brethren. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'm certainly in favour of that too. What's needed is a clear policy. In my view, "description categories" should only be created

• for taxonomic groups where there is a reasonably active Wikiproject that will maintain them
• as a more-or-less complete set, not just for a few random years or decades.

Peter coxhead (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Hard to disagree with that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I have today cfd'd the above mentioned (inter alia). Oculi (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Is Category:Eukaryotes by century equally irritating? Oculi (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Oculi: in my view, yes. However, if the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Request for comment: categorizing by year of formal description succeeds in establishing guidelines on categorization by year of formal description, then we will be in a better position to sort out the strange mess of top level categories. So I urge editors to comment there and add your !votes as you think best. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)