Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 15

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

Dinosauria

What class does Dinosauria belong to? There seem to be a lot of conflicting articles, and we need a decision so that articles don't say different things. DarthVader 10:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

This has proved to be difficult to make a decision on. Clades-only systems do not work very well for extinct groups, and in this case would require ranking numerous small groups like dromaeosaurs and carnosaurs besides birds. Ornithologists treat birds as a class, and I think there would be considerable resistance to demoting them. That means we have to use paraphyletic groups, and I think the most sensible would be the traditional class Reptilia.

However many people the strong perception that groups like Reptilia are obsolete, and as such have used other classes in an ad hoc manner. This is common enough that we might want to use a compromise system, splitting the reptiles but keeping birds and mammals separate, for instance:

• Class Anapsida
• Class Diapsida (paraphyletic) or Lepidosauria and Archosauria, but this leaves groups like ichthyosaurs homeless
• Class Aves
• Class Synapsida (paraphyletic, extinct)
• Class Mammalia

I think this is unnecessary inflation, but it might prove easier to maintain. Another possibility suggested above would be to give the Linnaean classification and unranked clades separately. This could help, but I think this is generally a bad idea, and is almost totally inapplicable to most groups. In short, I'd suggest Reptilia unless you think there is a good case to be made for Diapsida or Archosauria. Feel free to update as you see fit - when I brought this up on Talk:Chordate, there didn't seem to be a lot of strong opinions. Josh

I agree completely. The Dinosauria superorder should be in Reptilia, but it seems that they are often put in Archosauria on wikipedia. Unfortunately some articles say Reptilia and others say Archosauria, and this is inconsistent. As you suggested, I am sure that there would be lots of opposition to demoting the birds. I much prefer the Linnaean classification than the Clades system. DarthVader 08:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Common names (again!!)

Found this website with a lengthy discussion of naming South African trees:
Recommended English names for trees of Southern Africa - principles and List of names. They advocate full capitalisation. - MPF 23:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I've got to say capitalisation of names makes sense, proper nouns get caps, thats what I learned at school. --nixie 13:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

That depends if you think species are proper nouns. If it's a single ideal, Common Carp should be capitalized, like Rome. If it's a collection of related individuals, common carp should be lowercase, like computers and aeroplanes. Since this is evidently something biologists go both ways on, I don't think it makes sense to appeal to particular sources or rules, unless there's some reason to believe they're authoritative. Josh

That's a bit of a malformed arguement, Josh. "computers" or "aeroplanes" would equate better to "primates", "birds", "mammals", etc... general classes. A "jet plane" would be a more refined class within "aeroplanes", much like "owls" are a subset of "birds". "Boeing-built jumbojets" might be the equivalent of a genus, while "Boeing 747" would be more similar to a species. Even further, "Virgin Atlantic Flight xxxx Boeing 747" would be a subspecies, etc, etc, ad pedantry. If you are going to make an arguement, you should make the right one. *grins* - UtherSRG 18:44, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

You're telling me that a species or subspecies can't be looked at as a collection of individuals? How about if I replaced "computers" or "aeroplanes" with "humans" or "chihuahuas"? I think the difference between the two uses is genuine. Josh

I'm saying that a species can be looked at two ways. Yes, it's a collection of individuals, but it's also a singular distinct division within a genus (if there are multiple species in the genus, of course). However, I'm more specifically saying that in the sense of the singular distinctive division, that the name of the species should be a proper noun and not a common noun. So why, you might ask, why do I suggest we make that distinction at the species level and not on the genus level. Some of the reasons have already been given, such as the difference between a "common sparrow" (sparrows that are common in the given context) and a "Common Sparrow" (a particular species of sparrow that may or may not be common in the given context). Can these reasons be applied to high levels? Perhaps so, but most likely only on instances much rarer than the example I cite. But aren't species in general considered more distintive than the higher classifications? Granted that all the taxonomic divisions are arbitrary to some degree, but ren't species considered something of a more important division? When was the last time you heard about the danger of extinctions of families or genera? When was the last time you heard about the danger of the extinctions of species? When was the last time you heard common folks talking about families or genera at all as compared to species? We already treat species in a manner more important or more exalted or whatever than higher classifications. How can our textual writings show this distinction between species and higher classifications better than by capitalization? - UtherSRG 01:26, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

If you look, what I was saying is that those two views are the reason there is a difference in capitalization, so it's not a simple matter of right and wrong like nixie and others suggest. In my experience, people commonly talk about genera like oaks, yuccas, cotoneaster, piranhas, and bumblebees, and families like cacti, grass, pufferfish, boas, ants, and ladybugs, more often than they talk about species. When species are written, though, they're often still in lowercase plural, like coconut trees, jacks-in-pulpits, and dromedaries.

That doesn't mean we should follow that approach, but the point is it's not incorrect. The literature shows biologists are split on this issue, so we might decide which version is better for us, but we can't pretend it's the only way to do things. Reasons like emphasizing the difference between genera and species, which I don't think is all you claim, are not very good. Making obvious the difference between common carp and Common Carp is better, but I'd be happy either way. Josh

Okie dokie. I suppose it's obvious I'm on the Caps side or the argument, but I certainly agree that the officials are split on the issue. I think it's a developing issue, but I don't think that's enough of a reason to not make our own decisions as to what works best for us. - UtherSRG 02:57, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

On that note, if we think we need to make a firm decision, it might be worth checking to see how the rest of wikipedia refers to species. Redirects should be created either way, but if there's a clear de facto standard, it would probably be best to reflect it. Josh

That would imply moving this matter to a general-discussion area like Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions. Are the all-caps advocates really willing to accept the consensus of people who's main interest might not be biology? Mackerm 04:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Any updates on whether skateboard tricks should be capitalized? "Salad Grind" is fully capitalized, but not "Smith grind". Somebody might not be able to determine whether it is an actual trick. The horror. Mackerm 23:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

All snarkiness aside, why don't you see if there is a skateboarding WikiProject and ask there, or help to organize one and see if you can help the sk8ter bois figure it out. - UtherSRG 01:26, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Mackerm's point was that those in favour of capitalisation are too attached to the subject and so, like the skaters, use capitalisation to exaggerate the importance of their objects of study. Or at least, I think that is his point, but all his comments are so oblique one can't be sure. Pcb21| Pete 07:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Same old ground department: Why should Dodge Viper be capitalized but (say) Gaboon Viper not be? Discuss. Richard Barlow 08:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Title of a work of art. Mackerm 21:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

a new infobox?

Having recently helped develop the Grunion article, I have been thinking that it would be nice to have a second, more general InfoBox that could be added to organism articles to go along with the more technical Taxobox. I am thinking of something you could call "At a glance" or maybe "Quick facts". Suggested sections might include: Common name(s), range, optional range map, size, weight, food (what it eats), predators (what eats it), and at the end, any short, interesting or unusual features or facts. Any comments on this idea? BlankVerse ∅ 06:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

The common name is already at the top of the current one, and there is potential for easy adition of the range map (see orca), but otherwise, I'm not too sure what the result would be. We run into the risk of overcluttering the page IMHO. Circeus 09:39, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Categories for Renaming : ToL Cleanup

Category:ToL cleanup has been nominated for renaming under CfD, and has a Template:cfr tag on it. 132.205.45.148 16:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with this rename. - UtherSRG 10:59, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I need some help !!!

• During some time I've been writing in Wikipedia some lists of taxonomy.I've began with Shark taxonomy and now I'm beginning Equinodermata taxonomy.

The original idea was to provide a full classification of those two groups with 'all' the known species and link those lists in WTL project, assuming that a general information about the species or groups could be seen in WTL and with a link one can see the taxonomical infomation in the taxon group. I'm in fact assuming that I've created a specific kind of information and I can find some other way of presenting it as the way I've been doing. And in fact this is not a begining point to describe the species/groups but a complementary information about taxonomy.

• Today I received a message from Gdr in which he advise me to re-write all those lists in a more indented lists way, renaiming them according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions and specialy merging (not linking) some of those lists specialy the short ones in the WTL project.

As an example he even pick Shark taxonomy Order Carcharhiniformes and modified totaly to List of species of the order Carcharhiniformes. In fact I think that this new one is more confuse than the original.

• So what to do? Should I continue in the way that I've been working or is Gdr right about my work?

Thank you in advance. --JPPINTO 00:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with Gdr that the lists are better than the table. Personally I find them less visibly busy, but more importantly, it's the consensus standard.  :) I think the lists are useful, although I would also like to see all the taxonomic information propograted into the taxobox in the appropriate place. Thanks a bunch for the work! I've been plugging away at insects and recognize how time consuming it is. Wikibofh 16:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Let me say up front to JPPINTO: I think you've done very good work here and I look forward to many more contributions from you. All I've done is reformat your work so that it matches other articles in Wikipedia in style and name. I think this will help others to find your work and make use of it.

It has always been the case in Wikipedia that classification is included in the article on the taxon, for example the taxonomy of the higher groups of chordates appears in the Chordate article; the classifications of mammals appear in the Mammal article; the classification of cetaceans appears in the Cetacea article; and so on. Of course, when these lists get very long it makes sense to split them out into separate articles like List of birds and List of subgroups of the order Coleoptera, and, indeed, List of species of the order Carcharhiniformes.

I think it would be a shame if we ended up developing a parallel set of classification articles separate from the articles on the taxa being classified. I think this would make the classifications harder to find and would result in duplication of effort. We already have had one fork of classification information; see Wikispecies:. I hope we can avoid another! Gdr 17:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

(As an aside, Wikispecies is intended to contain a degree of scientific information that would be more appropriate for the scientific community, while Wikipedia is a general knowledge encyclopedia. It's not anyone's fault that organizing taxonomic data is easiest regardless of whether it is for general purposes or scientific.) - UtherSRG 18:05, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Missing authorities for animals

These articles on animal species and subspecies lack authorities:

• Argentavis Campbell & Tonni, 1980
• Asaphus kowalewskii Lawrow 1856 — species was misspelled as kowalewski
• Clonorchis Looss, 1907
• Bonneville cutthroat trout (Suckley, 1874) — species was misspelled as clarki
• California Bighorn Sheep Douglas, 1829
• Chinese White Dolphin (Osbeck, 1765)
• Eiao Polynesian Warbler (Murphy & Matthews, 1928)
• GoldenPalace.com Monkey — no authority yet?
• Hatutaa Polynesian Warbler (Murphy & Matthews, 1928)
• Hymenoepimecis argyraphaga Gauld, 2000
• Kenyanthropus platyops Leakey et al., 2001
• Mexican Orangetip author is Butler, date ?
• Newfoundland White Scudder, 1861
• Propalaeotherium Gervais 1849
• Sivapithecus indicus Szalay & Delson, 1979
• Smilodon californicus Bovard, 1907
• Smilodon gracilis Cope, 1880
• Tacoma Pocket Gopher Taylor, 1919 (see http://www.redlist.org/search/details.php?species=21805)

Can anyone help discover who named these taxa? Gdr 20:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

You may find some of them in Mammal Taxonomy (http://www.geocities.com/mammal_taxonomy/index.html), my site, but these may not always be correct. Birds may be found on www.zoonomen.net, fishes on www.fishbase.org. In any case, I think it's very good to have authors for all animals except these few! Ucucha|... 10:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

For species and subspecies, yes, we're doing quite well. For higher taxa, not so well, alas. Gdr 15:51:51, 2005-08-03 (UTC)

I found authorities for most taxa. Only the Mexican Orangetip is left, I fear. The GoldenPalace.com Monkey doesn't have an authority yet, as you suggested. Ucucha|... 17:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! (Now there are just the plants, fungi, protists, bacteria and viruses...) Gdr 11:00:49, 2005-08-04 (UTC)

Synonyms

I've notioced that a new entry, Synonyms, has been added to the taxobox. It is extremely distracting. Synonyms should not have a "prominent" place in the taxobox, but should be relgated to an obscure part of the text. Many synonyms are so old, that they would have very limited, esoteric interest, and synonymies can be very long for some species. I think more thought needs to be put into this as it detracts from the main entry of the taxobox (usually or previously the bottom entry). Maybe not using bold will help some, but also synonyms should just run out in a list and not entered one line for one synonym. The usefulness of the taxobox as a quick taxonomic summary is essentially defeated by the present format - Marshman 04:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I have found the section useful on articles where more than one name is in common use due to a recent changes or general taxonomic confusion. I don't see it as a problem unless people are seeking out long extinct names to include in that field. --nixie 04:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. I'm not claiming that the information is not useful to some or to many. I'm saying that giving the sub-box for synonyms the same prominence as that for the final taxonomic entry (typically the "binomial" or species) is very distracting from what was intended to be a way of getting a quick overview of taxonomy. And of course, once started ALL synonymies will be included since your "unless" can not be dictated. More thought needs to be given to how this information is presented—the information should be present somewhere in the article, I agree - Marshman

Perhaps the synonyms should be limited, but many synonyms are in common use, so that readers are likely to arrive at the article by having searched for the synonym, and may be less confused if they can easily find their search term on the page. I believe that is the reason for the manual of style guideline "If the subject of the article has more than one name, each new form of the name should be in bold on its first appearance." — Pekinensis 05:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm with Marshman on this one - I don't really like the adding of synonyms to the taxobox, they should be listed elswhere in the text, much the same as alternative common names (by which people may also often arrive at pages).

For an example of what could result, the complete synonymy for Pinus mugo runs to five pages (A4 page size) in the Kew Checklist of Conifers

MPF 10:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would object strongly if you moved synonyms out of the taxobox and into the article. There's a list of articles with synonyms in the taxobox at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Taxobox_begin_synonyms. Gdr 11:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Marshman that taxoboxes are intended for a quick overview of the taxonomy. Synonyms belong in the text. Furthermore, synonyms should at least carry the date of their publication and the name of the author and thus be given in chronological order. JoJan 13:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Which if any synonyms to include, whether to put them in the taxobox, and whether they should be bolded are three questions we might want to keep separate. I propose that any synonym under which a reader is likely to have found the article (granted that this is a difficult judgment), is quite relevant to that reader, and should be present in the article and bolded as a name for the subject of the article, as with the common names. Putting them in the taxobox has the advantages of uniformity, separation of content and presentation, less time spent on wording, and encouraging the inclusion of authors and (where appropriate) dates of publication. — Pekinensis 17:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Putting them in the taxobox has the distinct disadvantage of distracting from the main purpose of the taxobox to prominently list taxonomy down to the final binomial. Seems like we could develop a separate box that just handles synonyms, goes near the article bottom (I'm not particular about location), and therefore provides a uniform, structured approach asa you suggest is helpful. I disagree with species name bolding (italics would suffice), as that implies more significance than synonyms deserve. Sure, the one guy that thought that was the name is helped, but common names from different places/cultures are more significant in that regard. Synonyms are useful, but there are websites that provide that service already. - Marshman 17:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

If I may make a brief comparison, synonyms in the taxobox could viewed in a manner similar to the subdivision section... if there are too many synonyms, then they should be separated from the taxobox. In general, we try to keep subdivision (particularly species lists) to a dozen or less. More than that goes in the article. I think a good rule of thumb for synonyms might be significantly less than that... say in the ballpark of 2-4. Certainly more than four is getting to be too much clutter, while 1-2 should be of reasonably minimal impact. inbetween I suppose it depends on how busy the taxobox already is. - UtherSRG 18:40, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I seem to recall that the philosophy behind the taxobox included the concept that the box worked its way down to the ultimate subdivision appropriate to the article title. Adding synonomies at the end violates this concept. Also, most taxoboxes do not end in a single binomial (species article), but a list of species (essentially genus articles) or sub-species. For these, a subsection of synonomies would really be a problem. My suggestion: develop a separate synonyms box for use with species articles. All others (genus articles, etc.) should probably include synonyms in the text. Because synonym lists are regarded as rather esoteric data, they are usually not prominently displayed (no bolding). - Marshman

For recent name changes, it generally seems most appropriate to mention the previously-used name in the first or second paragraph, because it quickly answers the question "am I in the right place?" for readers who got unexpectedly redirected, or are seeing what looks like a wrong name in the lead paragraph. Old synonyms are worthwhile minor data that can go at the end of the article - they should be in text because one often needs explanatory notes clarifying confusing nomenclature. In general I find the ideal taxobox to be one that fits on the screen all at once - it can't be a good "at a glance" reference when you have to scroll up and down to see it all. Stan 19:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Good points. I agree with what you are saying - Marshman 03:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Like most, I agree with Marshman on all points. May I add that thinking about what synonyms are, and what they are for, can be more useful than just what to do with them. What are they? Basically, they are mistakes! Many species have been described as new, with new names, more than once or even many times. When an author of a published article about a defined species gets a name right this usage should stick, but all sorts of misidentifications can lead to synonyms at any time. What are they for? When a wrong name (it doesn't look like a synonym) is used, eg in a useful textbook, users of the book need to relate it to the correct designation - but only once - and then, if possible, they should help others to get around the problem of needing to see them. Everything one does with synonyms should be to get them out of the way and let the correct name predominate. Some of the 'best' books about species don't give synonyms - the authors' assume the readers will believe that they have got the names right (eg Hofrichter (Ed), 2000 "Amphibians..."). You can't easily recognise a synonym - it's not just any mistaken use of a species name - most such errors are not linked to specimens and so the problem could never be resolved - these can only be ignored. As a major service for the rest of us, research taxonomists sort out, as far as possisble, what errant authors were doing; it's (part of) their job; a tough job. Synonomy is not a nice place for others to dabble in - especially if it's at the risk of making mistakes.

JoJan has here touched on a tricky point that might be worth clearing: he says "...synonyms should at least carry the date of their publication and the name of the author...". Very true, but there are important subtleties. For one species, one author can (and you wouldn't believe how often some do) use different names in different publications. To deal with this, you don't actually add "author name" and "date of publication" as separate items - you put a "reference" to a publication (an abbreviated bibliographic one); this is just the "author name and date of publication" - one item. So, (Jones 1972) and (Jones 1982) are different references. Recently I've seen page after page of species names with autor names appended to each - this is wrong, totally meaningless - if you've taken my point.218.101.117.204 02:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC) Now signing, belatedly. I keep getting logged off. Is this because my notes get too long, or what? : Stanskis 20:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

There are some misleading claims in the above. First, although some synonyms are mistakes, many are much more than that:

• Synonyms can result from independent discovery, telling you something interesting about the taxonomical history (see for example the discussion on the naming of the Oceanic Whitetip Shark). They can arise when a species is moved between genera, telling you something about the history of understanding of relationships between species.
• Many synonyms gain considerable currency and may be the most well known or most used scientific names for a species. Although new scientific texts should shun the synonyms, it is quite proper for Wikipedia to cover the history of science and give well-known names even if now invalid. Example of synonyms that are probably still better known that the valid name are Brontosaurus (= Apatosaurus) and Australopithecus robustus (= Paranthropus robustus).
• Some synonyms may still be under debate, for example Equus asinus vs Equus africanus. Some have an interesting story behind them, like Leptocephalus brevirostris (= Anguilla anguilla), or are simply amusing in themselves, like Scrotum humanum (= Megalosaurus bucklandii).

All of these synonyms are proper for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Second, placing a citation after a scientific name is standard practice. For animals we follow the ICZN, §51 [1]. For plants we follow the ICBN, §46 [2]. Obviously it would be proper to provide the full reference as well as the short (and indeed we do so in some articles, for example Homo floresiensis), but the short form is not useless. What else can "Linnaeus, 1758" refers to but the 10th edition of Systema Naturae? As it says in the ICBN, "it may be desirable, even when no bibliographic reference to the protologue is made, to cite the author(s) of the name concerned". So the practice is not meaningless, nor is it wrong.

Of course, if you'd like to help add the relevant references, that would be great! Gdr 05:03:10, 2005-08-01 (UTC)

I've given full and fair comment on these points under < Type species >, below. I'm very willing to help with relevant taxonomic work, but not at the expense of taking time and attention away from trying to solve the present environmental crisis - in which good taxonomy has a major part to play. Please be forward looking. Stanskis 20:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Type species

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature says of type species:

Recommendation 67B. Citation of type species. The name of a type species should be cited by its original binomen. If the name of the type species is, or is currently treated as, an invalid name, authors may also cite its valid synonym. [3]

Should we follow this recommendation? In particular, I am thinking of {{Taxobox section type species}} entries in the taxobox. I edited Gorilla as an example since if I understand correctly, the original name for the Western Gorilla was Troglodytes gorilla Savage and Wyman, 1847; however this is invalid because the genus of wrens, Troglodytes Vieillot, 1809 has priority.

Other examples of taxa with {{Taxobox section type species}} whose type species has changed name include several species listed at Simia and these:

• Woolly lemur - Lemur laniger Gmelin, 1788
• Gray langur - Presbytis entellus Dufresne, 1797
• Woolly spider monkey - Ateles arachnoides É. Geoffroy, 1806
• Ruffed lemur - Lemur variegata Kerr, 1792

I don't propose to change these or any other articles with type species unless there's consensus that it's the right thing to do. So, comments? Gdr 14:50:04, 2005-07-29 (UTC)

What you are talking about is essentially a synonym, and we are discussing above NOT to include synonyms in the taxobox. I think what you did to Gorilla is confusing as all get out. That information should go in an appropriate place in the text (IMHO) - Marshman 03:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

There may be a good case for listing the original name on the species taxobox, probably as part of the attribution instead of a larger synonym list. I don't think it should be listed on the genus box. Type species are interesting and somewhat important, but I think the section on gorilla is much too much. Josh

Let me make it clear what I propose. I am suggesting that if an article specifies a type species in the taxobox, then we should follow the ICZN recommendation and identify that type by its the original name. I am not suggesting that we add a type species to all taxoboxes, just that we apply the ICZN recommendation to existing taxoboxes. Sorry for not making this clear.

So can you confirm whether you are arguing (1) having a type species in the taxobox is desirable but you don't think we should follow the ICZN; or (2) you don't think having a type species in the taxobox is desirable at all? Gdr 12:20:53, 2005-07-30 (UTC)

I don't think having a section devoted to the type is desirable. Aside from calling attention to which species (or genus, family, etc.) is the type, it's just going to repeat material that belongs on the species page. If it has to be included in the taxobox, I'd prefer a simple way of marking the type in the subdivision list, or combining it with the attribution. The last would probably require giving the attribution its own section, though, which was decided against at some point. Josh

At the Dutch Wikipedia, we have a similar template nl:Sjabloon:Taxobox section genus type, of which I am the most important user, however, there have not been any persons who did not like it. I use the original name as the type. Ucucha|... 19:51, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I see that you don't give the modern name for the type (see for example nl:Marmotten) which makes sense since obviously we can deduce what it must be! (But why not link to nl:Alpenmarmot?) Gdr 20:22:43, 2005-07-30 (UTC)

Yes, Mus marmota becomes Marmota marmota, Troglodytes gorilla becomes Gorilla gorilla, it's not really needed to give that.

About the linking of Alpenmarmot, that's a good point. nl:Mus marmota can be a redirect to nl:Alpenmarmot. See nl:Oligoryzomys for a case when the type is a synonym. Ucucha|... 10:50, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Tread softly with legal systems. This section got off to a false start with a quote out of context. The quote is from Chapter 15 (ICZN): "Types in the Genus group." Recommendation 67A is about terminology. It says, "only the term 'type species' ... should be used in referring to the the name-bearing type of a nominal genus ...". This definition replaces use of the term 'genotype' which, in deference to genetics, etc, had become misleading. But what 'type species" really should be replaced with is the term "type species of a Genus". Similarly Gdr's quote, Recommendation 67B, is only about Genus names. Now, realise that Linnaeus, and other early taxonomists, gave 'original' names which sometimes, in part, are wrong. This happened because these workers were unaware of many species and so were unable to divide groups of species into Genera as we do now, so the names were subsequently changed as Genera were described. End of discussion, I think. Stanskis 09:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Stanskis, you are being completely unclear again. In what way is recommendation 67B taken out of context? How would you cite the type species of the genus Gorilla? Gdr 10:07:04, 2005-08-01 (UTC)

Hi Gdr, Unclear? But all good theory! Let's apply it to Gorilla. Early taxonomists couldn't get the Genus names right because they were unaware of close relatives of many species that they were naming. With hindsight, the Gorilla needed its own Genus, but even so, S&W, 1847, were wrong in using a name that had been applied to another animal species. All this is history and will not save species from extinction. The way to designate the Gorilla, is < Gorilla gorilla (Savage & Wyman, 1847) >. The brackets around 'S&W, 1847' carry the meaning (formally) that this bibliographic reference had the wrong Genus, ie, different from the one used now, and that this (new) Genus is assumed (for now) to be correct. It's helpful to see this in black and white, ie RIGHT v WRONG. Taxoboxes are to show a minimum of essential information, so you could put the < name (reference)>, or, ideally, just the < name >. What's needed is just what is likely to be really useful. Where there is room, Common Names, in any language are more likely to be useful than historical errors. Stanskis 20:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I know all that. That wasn't what I asked. I asked about how to cite the type species. Recommendation 67B seems quite clear: "The name of a type species should be cited by its original binomen". And the example that follows seems to back me up. Gdr 20:52:23, 2005-08-01 (UTC)

And the text, not the taxobox, is the appropriate place for that information (IMHO) - Marshman 04:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Gdr. Got it. The "type species [of the Genus Gorilla]" is Gorilla gorilla (Savage and Wymer, 1847). The clue is that section 67 of the ICNZ is about "Name bearing types". I've spent a couple of hours on this, getting nowhere, just deeper into detail (but I've done some of this before and can enjoy it (within limits)). How I solved it was to then discuss the whole thing with a taxonomist who is daily working with this type of problem. I was not about to give an opinion; eg, I couldn't see how the example (ICNZ, under 67B) of Astacus/Homarus/Cancer helped with Gorilla. Maybe you can, but I would strongly recommend that you leave this level of taxonomy, not only to experts, but to relevant group experts. In time they publish results that lesser mortals can follow. But, for our level of work on Wikipedia, the use of "original designations" and other such references is too esoteric - and not for our readers. There is much more to be done. Stanskis 10:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. On Wikispecies I've listed the type species of a genus exactly as it is listed in MSW 3rd ed; which for the Gorilla genus is "Troglodytes gorilla Savage, 1847" (not Savage & Wyman, according to Groves in MSW 3), and I have it linked to the Gorilla gorilla article. This link is more than sufficient for the Wikispecies user. The same is done here (original name with link to current name), and the taxobox heading for that section links back to biological type to help the reader understand. Perhaps that article could have some brief explanation about name changes? Even better might be a readers' guide to taxoboxes, an article explaining the sections and giving information that isn't quite appropriate to the articles the taxobox already links to. - UtherSRG 11:48, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

I think we're talking past each other here. Of course the Western Gorilla as a species in its own right is Gorilla gorilla (Savage, 1847). This is what Stanskis is talking about and he's quite correct. But named as the type species of the genus Gorilla recommendation 67B strongly suggests that it should be Troglodytes gorilla Savage, 1847. That's what UtherSRG and I are talking about. See for example [4], a discussion of the type specimens of a selection various proposed Gorilla species.

Taxonomists do follow this recommendation. Some examples:

• [5] Pagrus Cuvier, 1816 (type species Sparus argenteus Bloch & Schneider, 1801 = Sparus pagrus Linnaeus, 1758) ... Chrysophris Cuvier, 1829 (type species Labrus awatus Bloch & Schneider, 1801) ... Pagrosomus Gill, 1893 (type species Labrus auratus Bloch & Schneider, 1801).
• [6] Genus Schwegleria RIEGRAF, 1980 Type-species : Nannobelus feifeli SCHWEGLER, 1939 ... Genus Alsatites HAUG, 1894 Type-species : Nannobelus feifeli SCHWEGLER, 1939

This usage is by no means universal. But since it's widespread among taxonomists and the ICZN recommends it, I think that we should go with the recommendation. If something is worth doing at all then it's worth doing right!

By the way, I completely disagree with Stanskis' claim that "original designations and other such references is too esoteric". The history of names is often very interesting and is certainly encyclopedic — see my list of examples a couple of sections above. However, I'm inclined to agree with Marshman that it may be not be appropriate for the taxobox. Gdr 15:57:10, 2005-08-02 (UTC)

As to Savage vs. Savage & Wyman, Groves convincingly argues for Savage in [7]. Gdr 15:57:10, 2005-08-02 (UTC)

OK. "Savage, 1847" it is - I'm not spending time checking on historical details. But on more general matters I do want to make the point that you guys are only scratching the surface. The ICZN (and other Codes) are complex legal systems. What seems to make sense in isolation may be a wasp's nest.

Let's take Gdr's example of "Pagrosomus Gill, 1893; type species Labrus auratus Bloch & Schneider, 1801". What is the type species? Here are some relevant bits of information from the New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshweater Research (1990) - the valid name 'appears to be': Pagrus auratus (Bloch & Schneider); Pagrus Cuvier is a senior synonym of Chrysophrys Quoy & Gaimard, Chrysophris Cuvier, and Pagrosomus Gill. Pagrus auratus (Bloch & Schneider) is a senior synonym of P. major (Temminck & Schlegel). Chrysophhrys major (T & S, 1843) is one of 17 synonyms of Pagrus auratus Paulin, 1990; others are Sparus auratus Houttuyn, 1782; (1 homonym)(but unavailable in synonomy) and Labrus auratus Forster, 1801; ...

Back to Gorilla - is Troglodytes gorilla Savage, 1847, similarly "unavailable in synonomy"? I won't give an opinion; it's not my area. (For the fishes, above, I see things that I would have to query, and research, and then I'd still defer to Chris Paulin, Ichthyologist, Wellington, who did the above work). I'm not trying to be clever; I just want to pass on the message I failed to get across above. Don't dabble, please, please, please don't. But the Type species of Gorilla Geoffroy, 1853, is Gorilla gorilla (Savage, 1847) - if my daring taxonomist friend is right. I think he is.

And as for UtherSRG's suggestion of a "Readers guide to Taxoboxes", where would this lead ...? 203.167.171.120 21:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC) = Stanskis 21:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Your friend is wrong. Look it up in Mammal Species of the World. Or better yet, I'll email you a PDF file of the entire primate chapter, complete with note by Colin Groves. - UtherSRG 21:47, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

The line "Pagrosomus Gill, 1893 (type species Labrus auratus Bloch & Schneider, 1801)." is quite straightforward: it implies the following sequence of events: Bloch & Schneider published a description of the snapper in 1801, naming it Labrus auratus because they believed it is closely related to species of the genus Labrus Linneaus 1758. Then in 1893 Gill published a work arguing that the snapper belongs in a new genus which he named Pagrosomus, specifying Labrus auratus as its type. So at that point the snapper would have been named Pagrosomus auratus.

Sure, your quotations from the Paulin paper [8] make it clear that the taxonomic history didn't stop there, but those developments aren't hard to understand either, at least not as explained by Paulin. However, it seems clear that Sparus auratus Houttun, 1782 is unavailable because it is a junior primary homonym of Sparus aurata Linnaeus, 1758 and so is permanently invalid (see ICZN rule 57.2).

The phrase "unavailable, in synonomy" that appears on the web page you quoted [9] just means "unavailable as a synonym (that is, for Pagrus auratus)". For Troglodytes gorilla to be unavailable it would have to fail to meet the taxonomic rules in some way. But plenty of taxonomists — from Thomas Henry Huxley [10] to Colin Groves [11] clearly believe is it is available, because they continue to use it.

Stanskis, you are trying to make out that taxonomy is so obscure that laymen must leave it alone. Of course the work of taxonomy requires a great deal of expertise. But we are not doing taxonomy here. We are writing encyclopedia articles reporting on the work of taxonomists. I know nothing little to nothing about Gorilla taxonomy. But Colin Groves is respected in his field and I trust his claims about the taxonomic history of Gorilla. And I think it's fair to use his papers as a basis for articles in Wikipedia. Gdr 01:29:45, 2005-08-03 (UTC)

I shall see "Mammal Species of the World" in a couple of hours. Meantime, I suggest that quoting facts (as from MSW) would be OK, but interpreting such facts would be fraught with difficulty and would end up counter-productive. Quoting for an encyclopedia article is great, but may I suggest that all that is appropriate here is to quote the Groves reference with page number, and let others argue, if they wish. [User:203.167.171.252|203.167.171.252]] 02:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC) = Stanskis 02:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Seen it, and the Gorilla entry is as you quote and as I expected. What I want is to interpret this. Seeing the MSW entry by Groves (p.276-7) gives some clues, but following inconclusive discussion on this yesterday, my taxonomy friend (Harris: eg, Fauna of New Zealand 32: Sphecidae) has located better information which I should receive by snail mail tomorrow. It will be worth waiting for.

Meantime, I recall recently reading the most interesting information about Gorillas that I've come across for many years - about their extended guts and methane output. This made me think of the Giant Panda and equally iconic and equally endangered (but maybe in remission) New Zealand Kakapo. Both of these are restricted to a low-energy plant diet and must process vast quantities of food. If there are overlaps with their problems and those of the Gorilla, then new insights, and new lines of research enquiries could open up to aid conservation of these species. I'm in favour of returning this, potentially important, source information to the Gorilla site. Stanskis 07:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Back at the ranch... Gorilla is relatively easy compred to Mandrillus. The reference I have for the type species for the genus is "Simia maimon Linnaeus, 1766; Simia mormon Alstromer, 1766 (= Simia sphinx Linnaeus, 1758)". I understand this to mean that both Linne's S. maimon and Alstromer's S. mormon were published at about the same time (and we can't figure out which came first, so we don't try) and that they both end up being junior synonyms to the previously named S. sphinx. How should this be listed in the taxobox (regardless on whether it should or should not be listed at all). I've (for now) made the change to put "S. sphinx Linnaeus 1758" in the taxobox. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:45, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Simia maimon and Simia mormon are the syntypes that Ferdinand August Maria Franz von Ritgen specified when naming the genus. They have both been synonymized to S. sphinx, but its the original types that are important — if Mandrillus had to be split taxonomists would use the original descriptions of S. maimon and S. mormon to determine which species stay in Mandrillus, and not the original description of S. sphinx. You should name both, and can also give the synonymy if you like; see Macaque and Tamarin for examples (but with only the one type).

Ah! Got it. Ok, I've updated Mandrillus with the two syntypes. I'm not really happy with the way it comes out. Perhaps we need some variations on the template? - UtherSRG (talk) 22:10, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I think this kind of thing shows that types may be bit too technical to put in the taxobox! This quote from George Wald seems to be relevant:

In the original version of this table, Nuttall mentions Cynocephalus mormon and sphinx, omitting their common names. I have learned since that one is the mandrill and the other the guinea baboon. Since Nuttall wrote in 1904, these names have undergone the following vagaries: Cynocephalus mormon became Papio mormon, otherwise Papio maimon, which turned to Papio sphinx. This might well have been confused with Cynocephalus sphinx, now become Papio sphinx, had not the latter meanwhile been turned into Papio papio. This danger averted, Papio sphinx now became Mandrillus sphinx, while Papio papio became Papio comatus. All I can say to this is, thank heavens one is called the mandrill and the other the guinea baboon. Anyone who supposes, as Nuttall apparently did, that he improves matters by giving their taxonomic designations is only asking for trouble, and is more likely to mislead the reader than to inform him.

Gdr 21:27:37, 2005-08-04 (UTC)

Yes, that's taxonomy! But let me pass on the info. gleaned about the type species of the genus Gorilla.

Opinion: Two genotypes of the genus Gorilla Geoffroy, 1853, (originally for the Western Gorilla) are, Gorilla gorilla (Savage, 1847) and Troglodytes gorilla Savage, 1847.

Validation - following Blackwelder (1967; Refn. below), Chapter 25, and accepting the former as the currently valid binomen, it is, to paraphrase Blackwelder, "only while the species is in Gorilla that it is eligible as genotype, and it has always seemed … that this is the most important binomen to cite". The latter is the original designation and can "show a part of the history" It is recommended, but not required, by the ICNZ, 1961; (not seen in 1985 edn. or 2000 edn.). Blackwelder, 509 notes: "The history should be given also, in definitive studies." (my emphasis, Stanskis.]

Discussion: Blackwelder, 1967, Ch. 25: 502-515+, gives the most exhaustive account of the topic 'Genotype' (and the most complete account of Linnaean Taxonomy). He notes, p.512, "One of the most detailed and complex sets of rules about any subject in zoological nomenclature governs the determination of genotypes".

Reference: Blackwelder, R.E. 1967. Taxonomy. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd New York. I-xiv+ 1-698. Chapter 25: "Genotype and the Types of Genera": 502-515 (seen) and 516 - ?.

Recommendation: While anyone can publish an opinion on points of taxonomy and nomenclature that are simply recommendations by the ICZN, it must be realised that in many cases (and possably for a majority of Genus names) it is likely that two to several outcomes could be argued without resolution being possible. [Eg, neither Genotype given here for Gorilla is totally "right", nor is the third option of giving both.] Given the structure of WikiPedia, such arguments would never be able to be finalised (???). My recommendation to WikiPedia, is to define what any particular entry, eg in a Taxobox or other structured information format, is intended to achieve and for whom, and then, where options are open, to seek or apply a taxonomic opinion that can achieve this functional outcome. These two point would also largely invalidate blind acceptance of decisions by experts. I appreciate that all this is likely to be problematical for WikiPedians, but the alternative to proceeding with eyes wide open, is to go around in never-ending circles. I hope and trust that this example is a useful step in the right direction towards streamlining future taxonomic issues. I suggest, we focus on needs, with forward-looking priorities. Stanskis 04:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be something missing in the above. You say that "Two genotypes of the genus Gorilla Geoffroy, 1853, (originally for the Western Gorilla) are, Gorilla gorilla (Savage, 1847) and Troglodytes gorilla Savage, 1847." But these ultimately refer to the same type, namely Savage & Wyman's description of the Western Gorilla ("Notice of the external characters and habits of Troglodytes gorilla, a new species of orang from the Gaboon River; Osteology of the same", Boston Journal of Natural History, 5:417-442, 1847). So what is the other type? Are you referring to I. Geoffroy's 1852 description ("Sur les rapport naturels du gorille: Remarques faites à la suite de la lecture de M. Duvernoy", Comptes rendus de l'Académie des Sciences 36:933-936)? Gdr 13:12:39, 2005-08-08 (UTC)

The term "genotype", as advocated by Blackwelder, is a general term that covers four separate concepts including the "type species of the genus", in this case the type species of Troglodytes and of Gorilla - hence two "genotypes" - two "type species of [different] genera". You are correct to detect an anomaly, but it is only apparent because the term "genotype", quiet usefully, does not involve distinguishing "types" from "names of types". In this case there are two different "names" (binomena) for the same species. In dealing with genera, as we are here, note that the word "type" is not a "species" or a specimen. You say, "But these ultimately refer to the same type, namely Savage's ... description of the Western Gorilla...". But "Savage's description of the Western Gorilla" refers to a species, and your words "same type" are also referring to a species, and so this use of "type" is not relevant to our discussion of genus. Similarly you would be in order to quote both binomena to inform about the current standing (1) and history (2) of Gorilla gorilla. Cheers, Stanskis 11:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Identifying gumnuts

I think this is the best spot to put these up for identification. They are photos of a common gumnut (at least that is what we call them - I'm assuming they have a more scientific name.

• 
• 
• 
• 

Thanks for you help! --Fir0002 11:03, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Gum trees are trees in the genus Eucalyptus. Can you say where you took the photos and can you provide one showing the whole tree, with trunk? Gdr 14:35:49, 2005-08-02 (UTC)

Photo was taken in Chadstone, Melbourne, I don't have a photo of the whole tree, but I've uploaded a shot of the flowers. --Fir0002 04:41, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

The flowers are very helpful. Comparing them with photos on the web, they look a lot like the Red-flowering Gum, Eucalyptus ficifolia now Corymbia ficifolia. See for example [12] [13]. Gdr 05:17:30, 2005-08-03 (UTC)

I wouldn't put money on it, there are at least 600 sp of Eucalyptus, and there are many popular hybrid varieties with smilar pink flowers. I don't think it looks alot like the species Gdr has listed, the base (I can't think of the botanical term) is a different shape and colour, and the stamens are on average shorter in Fir002's pic, and they are not red enough, the red gum is very red. If you wanted to narrow it down you could try and find out which varieties were flowering when you took the picture. Otherwise you might have to be satisfied calling it Eucalyptus spp.--nixie 05:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Another note, if it is a hybrid it may not have a binomial name anyway.--nixie 05:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

To add to the confusion it may not be a eucalypt, but a species of Corymbia--nixie 02:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I think I'd favour corymbia now that you mention it. --Fir0002 00:03, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Plantago pics

I've just noticed the same picture is on the Plantago page twice captioned as P. major and P. media. The image is called "Plantago major3" but I'm pretty sure it's not major. Would someone with more knowhow than me be able to sort this out? Richard Barlow 13:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The Commons page refers to it as Plantago lanceolata. which I think is probably accurate (although I must say the Plantago lanceolata I see in quebec are very different from these.) Circeus 13:51, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

It does look similar to some lanceolata I've seen and that was my first thought but I don't have much experience of other species so I couldn't be sure. Thanks for that. Richard Barlow 14:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed with P. lanceolata - MPF 20:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Identify water beetle and spider?

File:Waterspider-01.JPG	File:Waterspider-02.JPG	File:Waterspider-03.JPG	File:Waterspider-04.JPG
File:Water-beetle-01.jpg	File:Water-beetle-02.jpg

Any help on identifying these two animals? Both pictures were taken August 3 in Chandler, Arizona in a retention basin that filled on August 2. I suspect the beetle survived for the roughly one week period between this filling and the previous time. The spider is roughly .5 inches across (1.5 cm). The beetle is roughly 2 inches (5 cm) long. The spider was clearly mobile on the surface and the beetle an obvious swimmer. Sorry about the resolution on the spider. Shot with a 75-300 and he moved pretty quick. Best I could do without my shorter lens. Wikibofh 04:49, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

The beetle looks like a Hydrophilus sp to me. I'm afraid I don't know anything about American species though I'd imagine the large size will narrow the options a bit. The spider doesn't look like anything I'm familiar with, sorry. Richard Barlow 07:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll accept your identification of "spider"; spider it is! And RB is is almost certainly right for the Beetle being Hydrophilus sp, Hydrophilidae. The short hind legs, long middle legs and rather pointed head seem to discount Dytiscus water beetles. Happily, if the above is correct, the species is H. triangularis, because there is only one for North America. Stanskis 05:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Taxonomic puzzle: what is the valid name for Gongylus (Scincidae)?

There are two animal genera named Gongylus: (1) Gongylus Linnaeus 1758, a genus of mantids now in the family Empusidae; (2) a genus of skinks. I can't find an authority for the latter, but unless it was named in Clerck's Aranei Svecici (rather unlikely!) it is a junior homonym. So our article Gongylus (Scincidae) needs to be moved somewhere. But where? What is the valid name for this genus? Gdr 12:44:35, 2005-08-04 (UTC)

Of the two species named in the article, G. aldrovandii seems to be a synonym of Eumeces schneideri, while Gongylus brachypoda seems to be a "real" name (although possibly a synonym of Lygosoma chalcides). See http://srs.embl-heidelberg.de:8000/srs5bin/cgi-bin/wgetz?-e+[REPTILIA-Species:'Gongylus_SP_brachypoda'] the EMBL Reptile Database. I think this is a previously unknown homonymy, but I am not sure. Ucucha|... 13:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The external link is http://srs.embl-heidelberg.de:8000/srs5bin/cgi-bin/wgetz?-e+[REPTILIA-Species:'Gongylus_SP_brachypoda']. The software doesn't recognize it, it seems. Ucucha|... 13:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. Maybe a letter to the Journal of Herpetology is in order? Gdr 13:57:24, 2005-08-04 (UTC)

I sent a mail to Peter Uetz of the EMBL Reptile Database. If he doesn't answer, we may try the Journal of Herpetology, yes. Ucucha|... 16:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Taxonomic puzzle: origin of Felis domesticus

The name Felis domesticus is widely used in the scientific literature for the domestic cat (Google scholar has more than 750 hits). The name is of course a junior synonym of Felis catus Linnaeus 1758. But I wonder about the origin of the name. Is it an available scientific name (in the technical sense of "available")? If so, who should be credited with it? Or is it just a Latin description of a domestic cat mistakenly taken for a binomen? Gdr 12:52:47, 2005-08-04 (UTC)

It seems to be valid available. MSW 2 (http://www.nmnhgoph.si.edu/msw/) lists it as a synonym of Felis silvestris. The author is Erxleben, 1777, apparently. Ucucha|... 05:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Please, can we similarly have the last word here on any conflict between Canis lupus and Canis familiaris? Stanskis 05:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Both names come from Linnaeus, 1758. He used C. lupus for the wolf and C. familiaris for the dog. If you consider these two to be separate species, then you can continue to use both names. If you consider the dog a subspecies of the wolf, then you can refer to opinion 2027 of the ICZN [14], which "conserved the usage of 17 specific names based on wild species, which are pre-dated by or contemporary with those based on domestic forms". So for taxonomists who consider the dog a subspecies of the wolf, the wolf remains C. lupus and the dog is C. lupus familiaris. See [15] for an explanation of the issue. Gdr 18:22:56, 2005-08-07 (UTC)

Optional template parameters now available

Well actually they have been available since argument templates were introduced... it's just that we didn't realise it until some clever chap/chapess showed us how.

Now ToL templates are an obvious candidate for the use of these (as those were took part in the original "how shall we use templates" will attest). The question is that under the hood they use some pretty whacky machinery. Take a look at Pamela Anderson and see if you think the same notation should be introduced for taxoboxes. Pcb21| Pete 15:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Any change in syntax would need to support cases like Tuatara (three authorities), Vampire Squid (four authorities), Aye-aye (five authorities), Right Whale (four species in two genera, range maps for two species), Brazilian wandering spider (five species in one genus) and other variations. There are taxoboxes with two pictures at the top and others with a picture at the top and one at the bottom. (Also, someone would have to update all 11,000 taxoboxes. I've recently done a mass updating for several thousand taxoboxes and I don't fancy doing another! So, are you volunteering?) Gdr 18:28:29, 2005-08-07 (UTC)

Those cases are interesting because they involve repeated use of the same template to create the box, definitely something to bear in mind.

However I think it is definitely worth thinking about seriously. If we can get a workable solution, it will be the first time we have true separation between presentation and data, which would be awesome for several reasons.

I appreciate that you have did great work with your bot. Yes I would be willing to step up to the task if the people on the page agree on how to do it, though I might benefit from your experiences if you would be willing to share any tips :). As for doing it again so soon after the last round, I think that's ok - taxoboxes have been in almost continuous upgrade for as long as I can remember. Pcb21| Pete 21:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

If we want to repeat sections, we have to stick with multiple templates, but I think there are only a few cases like the ones Gdr mentions and there are other ways to approach them. However, I did some experiments, and although parameters can be left blank, it looks like they aren't really optional. A giant template that forced everyone to list every possible rank would be worse than what we have now. Josh

Sorry I wasn't being clear. Someone very clever has found a way such that they are truly optional. If you look at the detail of the Pamela Anderson infobox, you will see that the parameters relating to the "Playboy Bunny of the Year" are omitted and the line relating to that just doesn't appear on the Pam page (she hasn't been such a bunny, apparently). In particular, there is no ugly blank line. However other people who have been such a bunny do have those parameters defined and an extra line appears. It might be a good idea for me to knock up an example in the context of taxoboxes. I'll try to do that in the next 24 hours. Pcb21| Pete 08:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't being very clear, either. Although the parameters are omitted from the displayed table, If defined call1 and its friends still require them to be mentioned in the article source. If we always have to mention all the possible options, I think it will quickly become harder to edit than the current system. Josh

A feature of the current system that I have found useful is the existence of {{Taxobox section binomial simple}} and friends. This means that taxoboxes, at least at the species level, lacking authorities are easily discoverable via Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Taxobox section binomial simple. Gdr 18:40:50, 2005-08-08 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, I thought I'd tested that but you are quite right. This problem means the technique is indeed not useful for us in its current form. Sorry for the noise! Pcb21| Pete 07:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Subspecies

Does anybody know of a good website or up-to-date publication that lists mammalian subspecies? --nixie 02:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Websites vary in quality, but also have the drawback, for use as sources, that they are updateable without traces. Hard-copy publications are preferable, being able to be held to account. But you ask about a "good website" - Wikipedia. Stanskis 21:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The most important source is, I think, Mammalian Species (can't give the URL now). MSW 3, which will appear this year, will include subspecies as well as species. Ucucha|... 18:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Missing authorities

These articles on species lack authorities. Can you help find them?

• Araucarioxylon arizonicum Knowlton 1889
• Bacillus natto — now considered a strain of Bacillus subtilis
• Plasmodium ovale Stephens 1922
• Plasmodium vivax Grassi & Feletti 1890
• Saccharomyces uvarum Nguyen & Gaillardin ex. Beijerinck
• Schistosoma japonicum (Katsurada, 1904)
• Schistosoma mansoni Sambon, 1907
• Erythroxylon coca — genus was mispelled: should be Erythroxylum

Gdr 11:10:49, 2005-08-09 (UTC)

Are some of these synonyms? References to authorities are necessay for synonyms so as to assist taxonomic researchers to sort out taxonomic mistakes and ultimately to end up with a "correct" name. Once found, these valid/available names stand without such support. The absence of a reference to an authority can be seen as indicating that the name is not in dispute. What is needed to back this up is user confidence in quality postings - as we aim for.

Turn this argument for simplicity up-side-down, and you find that by giving authority references you are suggesting that the names are in contention. This further implies that users are in for a rough ride - needing to get involved in taxonomic hassles that nobody else has sorted out, even when all the user wants to do is something different.

To assist users who wish to do taxonomic research, provide lists of synonyms, headed by the preferred binomen with attributes, but as a discrete item near the bottom of any article.

Note: "Authorities" are people = authors' names, whereas "authority references" are dated (hard-copy) literature sources. Stanskis 20:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. You can't turn the argument upside down (that's the fallacy of affirming the consequent). Contentious names need authorities, but use of authorities does not imply contentious names. As for your nitpick about "authority references", I can't find anyone who uses the terms in the way you suggest. Gdr 18:10:36, 2005-08-10 (UTC)

Oops, again! Taking your phrase, "[Contentious] names need authorities, ...". You are right, 'in fact': so am I, 'in intent'. (My "for simplicity" was intended to cover this.) But, do names, as such, have needs? Surely the real point is: Who needs authority names? For what purpose do they need them? Do they need this help from Wikimedia? Please, what are your answers, my reasoning considered? I believe I have given answers, clearly spelled out, above. Have I made any vaild and useful points?

Now that you've invoked the term "nitpick" (I hope you're not suggesting "nit-picking"), I think we should change tack. I will; I've no time to spend on argument without potentially great benefits. If you have any suggestions for a way forward, I'll be happy to co-operate. I note, with respect, your various areas of expertise, great enthuasism, tremendous drive and initiative, your helpful replies (eg, domesticated species - thanks), etc, and I deeply regret that we are at odds on any point: Hey, they must be important points! All my comments are intended to be constructive and to add to the value of our postings. I'm certain that you are similarly motivated. BUT, my points are intended to focus all (your, an other, large-scale) taxonomic postings on uses, such as pending needs [in a world faced with massive species extinctions] and in this way to maximise the benefits of our Wikimedia mission. For present purposes, here are my suggestions:-

Should you wish to get a broad picture of where I'm currently finding inspiration, I would refer you to a series of 19 papers, "Taxonomy for the Twenty-first Century" Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London. Biology (2004) v 359: 559-739 (especially Quentin Wheeler's "Taxonomic triage and the poverty of phylogeny": 571-583). I'll be pleased to send notes, analyses, and my comments on some of these - if, for now, requested by e-mail, stan<at>biolists.com - to help speed up anyone's grasp of these important documents.

I'm thinking of summarising my main (Wikipedia) suggestions to date, as a focus for discussion, if anyone wishes to join in. But first, perhaps you would care to comment on some of my main suggestions - what I term my "forward looking" ideas.

Also,I'm trying to sort out some background information, and current ideas, for my user page. 218.101.117.24 00:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC) & Stanskis 00:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Gdr, Your revert (earlier today) is fair, balanced, reasonable and, for me, salutory. I will undertake not to be so blatently annoying again.

I see my points as importance from my point of view which is life-sustaining conservation and to which I attach urgency. I shall mellow my utterances and try to exemplify my points in encyclopedia-like examples.

At base, I hope and trust that there is great potential for Wikimedia to show important leadership in areas where, for example, Wheeler and the other authors in the series quoted above are, in my long-considered opinion, short on realistic ideas. That's why I'm impatient for basic, but radical yet valid, changes to conventional practices.

As, before, I look forward to your suggestions, otherwise it can be business (almost) as usual. 218.101.117.14 10:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC) & Stanskis 10:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Conservation status in taxoboxes violates Wikipedia policies

The conservation status indicated at the top of the taxobox is not NPOV and introduces neologisms and original research.

It is not NPOV because it expresses, in the majority of cases, the conservation status according to the IUCN, an NGO with a stated mission of encouraging conservation of species. Correct NPOV language would clearly state “IUCN Conservation status”, or “Conservation status according to the IUCN 1994 Red List.”

Furthermore, the conservation status of a species is not always the most interesting thing about it. In many cases, such as cat and human, it is entirely obvious. The prominent inclusion of this fact at the top of the taxobox suggests the authors of the article wish to draw attention to it and thereby to the issue of conservation in general. The impression is to me like that of a WWF trading card, rather than a neutral encyclopedia article. It would be NPOV to include IUCN or other conservation status below the photo of the organism, but this item should not be singled out by putting it alone above the photo.

The use of colours is also a violation of NPOV. We have red for critical, pink for endangered, yet green for “secure.” With the usual association of red with bad and green with good, there is an obvious POV here. For example “According to USA today there were 1,435,000 abortions performed in the USA in 1994” is NPOV but the same sentence with the figure highlighted in red is obviously anti-abortion and POV. IMHO colours also make a less professional-looking article. I suggest eliminating them.

Finally the “conservation status” used in the taxobox introduces neologisms and original research. The statuses of “secure” “prehistoric” and “fossil” are not used by the IUCN. It is not clear what the source for the conservation status of a given organism is. What source states that Homo floresiensis is Prehistoric but Homo erectus is a Fossil? Wikipedia has repeated the work of the IUCN and The Nature Conservancy, created its own original criteria, and applied them without clear sources. This is original research and a violation of Wikipedia policy. The article should give the conservation status according to published lists from the IUCN or other organization. For species without a status, either nothing at all should be stated, or a statement that the species is not listed.

This is a very insightful set of criticisms and I agree with much of what you have said. Removing the non-IUCN statuses and relegating the others to a less inflammatory position and color seem to be appropriate. --Yath 07:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Interesting - I've not been totally happy having conservation ststus in the taxobox, looks messy, especially with the unecessary colour scheme. Secure is pointless anyway. I'd support moving conservation status to the text, where the reasons for any problems can be given. If, as I suspect, this does not find favour, at least put all statuses in black text. jimfbleak 07:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I generally disagree. We should be more explicit about the sources of the material, but as it stands now one need only click on the status to find an explanation of what it means. IUCN status is given where applicable - despite their stated agenda, I think their assessment is generally trusted. In cases where it isn't, it is not original research to list something else if it is justified. Why is H. florensiensis listed as prehistoric and not fossil? Clicking on the status, we find it's because there are specimens that haven't fossilized, as stated in the article.

Pure neutrality in terms of selection and arrangement of material is not possible. However, I'd argue that whether or not a group currently exists is ok to single out at the top of the taxobox, and conservation status is a natural extension of this information. Noting secure is pointless in many cases, but it does serve to indicate that the status has been checked. That leaves the colours. I don't really care about them, but if the only argument against them is that using green and red for healthy and unhealthy is an unacceptable promotion of health, I wouldn't think it worth changing. Josh

Whether a species is extant or extinct is surely one of the most important things to know about it? I think it's worth devoting space in the taxobox. The wording could perhaps be improved, the text debolded and the colorus less garish, but the line is fine. The original poster seems a bit confused as to the meaning of NPOV — this means that we should report all relevant points of view, not that we should suppress them in pursuit of balance. Gdr 09:00:18, 2005-08-12 (UTC)

For the overwhelming majority of species, NPOV doesn't come into conservation status, because there is only one opinion. There are plenty of exceptions of course when money is involved. E.g. the dispute of the security of Minke Whales for example. In this cases we should be prepared to special case the taxoboxes in whatever we see fit.

As for the rest of it, I agree with Josh. Change the colours if people like, but the rest of it seems unnecessary. Pcb21| Pete 09:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

The category "Extinct", meaning post-1500, could usually be augmented with the known date of extinction. With just a standard extra 5 character spaces, this would be a significantly helpful addition. Suggested form: < Extinct; 1500 > Stanskis 10:45, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Just write something like {{StatusExtinct|when=1681}}. See Dodo or most pages on Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:StatusExtinct. Gdr 11:01:31, 2005-08-12 (UTC)

The specific objection appears to be to the apparently unnecessary presence of "Conservation status: Secure" on articles like Human and Cat where this information is thought to be too obvious to mention. If that's the case, be bold and take it out of those pages, then resolve any disputes on an article-by-article basis. The "Conservation status" isn't compulsory for taxoboxes, but I don't think you're going to get agreement for it to be forbidden either. Gdr 13:04:32, 2005-08-12 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I understand and agree that the colorized version of the status information is and or can be un-NPOV. I suggest we de-colorize the templates (and the documentation as need be) and eave the rest as is, taking Gdr's stance of be bold for articles where other changes would be a better idea as well (such as the proffered articles). - UtherSRG (talk) 02:52, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Done. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:39, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

{{Scientific classification}}

I stumbled on this while doing taxo-categorization. An attempt at having it deleted didn't work, though I guess I should have pointed it out to TOL first.

Anybody think we can do aomething with it? Circeus 08:44, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

No-one uses it, so I don't think it's a big deal. Gdr 08:54:54, 2005-08-12 (UTC)

Deleted. Classic example of why centralized voting is often ineffective. Pcb21| Pete 09:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Infobox standardisation

There is a proposal to standardize the CSS for all infoboxes throughout Wikipedia. This standarization would affect the ToL taxobox class. If you wish to participate in this discussion, please see Wikipedia talk:Infobox standardisation. -- hike395 17:44, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with holding the dialogue elsewhere. It is not engaging the community of WP:TOL to say "we're making decisions bout you over here, come join us if you wish." Concensus building requires engaging the people you wish to work with to form concensus. Any meaningful discussion about the future of taxoboxes will best be done here or on a Taxobox subpage. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:50, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

If we talk about infoboxes in general here, it will tend to exclude participants from all other WikiProjects. By limiting discussion here, any discussion of general infobox strategy or guidelines will be excluded.

I absolutely want to include ToL participants. It's very very important that one or more active editors from ToL make their wishes known in this process. I strongly encourage you, Uther, and any other ToL editor to participate in the discussion. Otherwise, we are stuck with individual WikiProject disputes, which just leads to more chaos.

Besides, take a look at Wikipedia talk:Infobox standardisation --- I think you'll like the direction that the discussion is going. The current idea on the table is to try to make similar infoboxes look similar, giving up on a global infobox class. That is exactly what ToL is doing --- all species look alike, regardless of whether they are mammals or protista. If this proposal becomes the consensus, it should have absolutely no impact on the ToL taxobox.

Again, I cannot understate the importance of participation. Please don't boycott the discussion just because it does not occur in this WikiProject.

Thanks in advance for joining the discussion! -- hike395 23:33, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

A desire to have us join in the discussion has to include a bit of understanding of this Wikiproject. It's huge. As Gdr has said, the taxobox is included on some 11,000 articles. Some of the folks on ToL do nothing outside of the Wikiproject on the 'pedia. If you want inclusion, you have to understand that the discussion about txoboxes will only fully happen here. Obviously, if you'd checked, before you replied here I'd already added my 2 cents on Wikipedia talk:Infobox standardisation. And yes, I agree that much of what's been said there recently reflects the reality of the diversity of the infoboxes acro the 'pedia. This only emphasizes the need to hold these discussion on the various WikiProjects and not in some centralized place - especially when part of that driving force behind a cenralized discussion will ignore diversity needs and instead put in place an ultra-conformist mindset. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:34, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's asking for a lack of diversity or ultra-conformism, just some common discussion between projects. -Harmil 01:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Ed has certainly been pushing for ultra-comformism, insisting that all infoboxes use "toccolours". I've reverted his changes to the taxobox on no less than three occaisions. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:17, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Seagulls

Hi, I was wondering if I could find out some positive ID on these seagull photos, and whether or not the color of their legs has anything to do with their age. Thanks! --Fir0002 09:37, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 

Hi Peter - they're all Silver Gulls. Yes, leg colour depends on age, with first-year birds having paler, yellowish legs; also note the patches of brown feathers on the wings and filly black wingtips (no white 'mirrors') - MPF 12:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

So would it be accurate to call the yellow legged seagull a juvenille? --Fir0002 01:23, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Peter - not quite; this is a first-winter bird (between 5-10 months old). A juvenile (1-4 months old) would have an all-brown back and wings, very similar to this (this one is a juvenile Black-headed Gull, a close relative of Silver Gull from Europe, but the juveniles of both are very similar):

• 

So what do you think the caption should be?

I'd call it a first-winter, or a first-winter immature to be clearer for general readers; if you want to be really detailed, you could specify the age as 5-10 months old (assuming it fledged Dec or Jan, this could be narrowed down even more knowing the date the pic was taken) - MPF 13:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Identification of a flower

Hi, I recently took some photos of a flower. It was taken in Melbourne, Australia during winter:

• this one's from a different tree but it looks similar despite the difference in color
  this one's from a different tree but it looks similar despite the difference in color
• File:MG 5455.jpg
• File:MG 5456.jpg
• 

--Fir0002 12:17, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

• It's a Camellia, but I can't tell you the exact species.--nixie 12:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, a Camellia; it is a double-flowered cultivar, not a naturally occurring species (in which the flowers have a single ring of five petals) - MPF 12:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Someone on the reference desk suggested that it was camellia japonica. Would that be right? --Fir0002 01:29, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

It could be derived from that, or from a hybrid between that and any of several other species - take a look at Camellia#Cultivation and uses and you'll see some of the difficulty in identifying it . . . garden Camellias are a real mess! - MPF 09:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Mammals

Any one interested in updating the mammal articles to conform with MSW 3, please join the discussion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mammals#Mammal_Species_of_the_World.2C_3rd_ed. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:35, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

taxo-categorization trouble

As I implement slowly category:birds by classification, My requests for renaming category:grebes and category:Hummingbirds have been noticed by user:JohnCastle, who went on to start on category:Apodiformes. While I appreciate the help, he sticks to what is within categories (leaving other articles not in the hierarchy) and tags categories with {{cfd}} without refering to CFD, he also moved everything from grebes and hummoingbirds without waiting for a decision in CFD. I now need to have category:Trochilidae deleted because of this, and as I wil soon have to disconnect and he yet has to aknowledge the message I left on his talk page, it'd be greatly appreciated if someone could have look so he doesn't overstep too much. Circeus 00:05, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Broad-billed Sapayoa, Sapayoa aenigma, Can somebody investigate the current status of this species? Circeus 22:44, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

According to ^[16], Sapoyoa is closely related to the genera Calyptomena and Smithornis in the broadbill family Eurylaimidae, and to the genus Pitta in the family Pittidae. If their phylogenetic tree is correct then it looks to me as though Pittidae will be subsumed in Eurylaimidae, since some broadbills are more closely related to pittas than they are to other broadbills. ^[17] confirms that Sapoyoa is not closely related to the New World oscines. So you could place Sapoyoa in Eurylaimidae, or you could leave it incertae sedis and explain the issue. Gdr 00:03:29, 2005-08-19 (UTC)

P.S. I found the papers by searching for "Sapoyoa aenigma" on http://scholar.google.com/. I recommend that search engine highly.

1. ^ Jon Fjeldså, Dario Zuccon, Martin Irestedt, Ulf S. Johansson, Per G. P. Ericson (2003). "Sapayoa aenigma: a New World representative of 'Old World suboscines'". Proceedings of the Royal Society of London: Biological Sciences. 270: 238–241. {{cite journal}}: External link in |title= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
2. ^ R. T. Chesser (2004). "Molecular systematics of New World suboscine birds". Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 32: 11–24. {{cite journal}}: External link in |title= (help)

Identification of photos

Hi! I have some more photos for identification:

• Parasites or caterpillar eggs?
  Parasites or caterpillar eggs?
• 
  Taken in Melbourne Australia, during winter months
• 
  Taken in Melbourne Botanical Gardens. Is it a strangler fig?
• 
  Taken in Melbourne Botanical Gardens. I've already named it a strangler fig, but I'd like to have a second (or more!) opinion

Thanks again! --Fir0002 05:50, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Hi again!

1. is a gall on a Eucalyptus leaf, probably caused by a gall wasp
2. is a Kniphofia, native to southern Africa, commonly grown as a garden plant
3. and 4 are both banyans (Ficus subgenus Urostigma) of some sort - the Strangler Fig (Ficus citrifolia) is one particular species of banyan, but not necessarily the one you have; there are many others, including several native to Oz (e.g. Moreton Bay Fig Ficus macrophylla and Port Jackson Fig Ficus rubiginosa). If they are in Melbourne BG, they should know what they are (was there no label on them? - if not, ask them why not!!) - MPF 09:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your help MPF! Those trees didnt have signs, they were just in a kind of foresty spot you walk through. Kinda like this photo: Image:Melb botanical gardens04.jpg --Fir0002 08:14, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I disgree - "strangler figs" are any hemi-epiphtic figs (and sometimes used for Clusia spp. too) that start growth in the canopy, grow down to the ground and eventually strange their hosts. More to the point, I don't recall F. citrifolia growing as a strangler - the ones I have seen were free-standing, IIRC, and not stranglers at all. Guettarda 19:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

In the 4th image it appears that there is a host and a hemi-epiphyte, so I would be inclined to call it a strangler. The 3rd image is harder to tell - either it is a free-standing fig, or it has already strangled its host - no way to distinguish based on the image. Guettarda 20:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

If so, then the current Strangler Fig page needs to be moved - presumably to Ficus citrifolia - and a new page re-done as required. AFAIK, all the hemi-epiphytic figs are in subgenus Urostigma (currently covered at banyan) - or is that not so? I guess that page may need some re-working too? Whatever, I think we can leave Clusia out; while it may be a strangler, it isn't a fig. - MPF 20:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Ridiculous over-categorisation

I've been seeing a number of cases of ludicrous over-categorisation around the place, with minuscule categories sometimes with just two or three articles in them. One example I've just dealt with is Category:Auks which has subcategories Category:Guillemots, Category:Murrelets and Category:Puffins. I've edited all the auk articles so they are now all in Category:Auks (still just 20 entries), but the empty subcategories resulting could do with deleting.

Ideally, categories should have 100-200 articles in them - that optimises searches for "Related changes" by locating changes to a large number of pages at a single click, instead of having to plough through dozens of subcategories. 200 seems to be the maximum permitted to show on a single category page. Obviously somewhat smaller cats for clearly defined smaller groups (like Category:Auks, still only 25 articles even when every species has a page) can be kept, but really small cats are a confounded nuisance

Could everyone be on the lookout for silly tiny categories (e.g. of genera), and lump them together into single decent-sized categories (families or orders). And some help getting rid of the empty subcats after would be very nice! (needs an admin). Some other silly small categories I've noticed include Category:Zanthoxylum (now empty, articles re-catted to Category:Sapindales); Category:Sterna and other subcats of Category:Terns (yet to be pulled together); and Category:Vaccinium (should be merged into Category:Ericales). I fear there may be many more - I havent been looking very hard yet - MPF 23:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I am deeply sorry if this is upsetting. I (and User:JohnCastle, who recently helped me) am likely the culprit as far as Bird articles are concerned. I have started an attempt at cleaning away individual bird articles from category:birds by moving them into a categorization tree duplicating their taxonomy, with orders feeding into category:birds by classification. As far as small cats are concerned, I'd say a great majotiy of cats in Wikipedia probably do NOT actually reach 100 articles. Circeus 23:40, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Circeus - Thanks! I certainly agree with cleaning individual birds away from Category:Birds into a taxonomic structure, that makes excellent sense (I've often done the same with moving things out of the similarly unweildy Category:Flowers and Category:Trees). You're right about average cat size, the only one over 200 articles that I've seen is Category:Plantae by family over at WikiCommons. Don't worry about upsetting; the great thing about wikipedia is changes are easy :-) - MPF 00:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, then could you give us pointers to how we should handle this? I'm guessing that wa can reasonably go down to family level without trouble. Circeus 00:22, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

With medium/large families, yes; with smaller families (e.g. those in Caprimulgiformes), orders would be sufficient, or perhaps group closely related families (like I did for Taxaceae and Cephalotaxaceae at Category:Taxaceae; some botanists lump these two anyway). Most plants are currently by orders, though I suspect some of those may eventually get too large and have to be split into families - MPF 01:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I have come across a few "Biota of Foo" categories (e.g., Category:Argentine fauna), and I was wondering what people thought of that. These cats could get into the thousands, and individual species could end up in many countries (Rattus rattus, anyone?) Guettarda 00:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I've seen these too - not sure what's best. Generally I've let them be, but maybe they could be changed to cat by continent rather than by country? - MPF 01:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Biota of foo are child of Category:Animals by geography, which is just fine a way to sort them, as far as I'm concerned, but it'd be hell for the cats of wide-ranging species! In the end, it might just not be worth it. Cats by continent or wide regions is probably better. Circeus 01:37, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Amen to that - how many countries have House Sparrow feral pigeon or Barn Owl? jimfbleak 05:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Transparent taxoboxes??

printscreen from fig

Section header underlines are now crossing through taxoboxes (since yesterday evening) - it's never happened before on en wikipedia, tho' I have seen it on some other language wikis. Anyone any idea why this has started happening, and how it can be remedied? It looks awful! - MPF 13:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Looks fine when I look at the fig article. Maybe a broswer setting? - UtherSRG (talk) 13:54, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I've not changed any browser settings, so that can't be it (and it applies to all articles with "==Xxxx==" headers). Checked out a few other language wikis - it isn't happening in any that I looked at. So it seems to be confined to en: at the moment - MPF 14:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Strange, I don't know whats causing it but its happening to me too. Some tables seem to be fine though (see here. --βjweþþ (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

It's to do with skin settings. A brief experiment revealed I get the problem only if I use chick or simple skins. Under IE6, the simple skin is a mess. I'll stick to the classic, which seems to work fine (no underlines at all). JohnCastle 00:49, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Seems they've changed it - the problem has stopped now (yippee!) - MPF 12:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Tree of Life and the reference desk

Hi there! I hope this is the right place to ask this. We are considering adding some extra links from the reference desk to well established Wikiprojects which might be able to answer more specific questions and supplement the answering service on the WP:RD. Would it be okay to add a link to the Tree of Life from the reference desk front page? Please let me know! Thanks! --HappyCamper 00:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why not. I think this would be a good thing. Send 'em on over! *grins* - UtherSRG (talk) 04:00, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Crab

It's a long shot but can anyone identify this crab, spotted on the south coast of New South Wales, Australia?--nixie 11:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Mystery crab

As it appears to be running on a beach, my guess would be a ghost crab (Family Ocypodidae) - Marshman

That narrows it down, only three species fit the locale, it doesn't look like Ocypode pallidula [18] or Ocypode ceratophthalma [19], so it must be Ocypode cordimana (Smooth-handed Ghost Crab). Thanks. --nixie 05:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree it is not O. ceratophthalma which I am familiar with - Marshman

Is the enlarged claw always on the same side or does it vary with individuals?--nixie 03:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

You would ask! Seems like in my earlier incarnation as a marine zoologist I knew that, but man, my mind... I think it is like right-handedness in humans, mostly always but with rare exceptions. Of course not all crabs have vastly dimorphic chaelae - Marshman 05:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Many thanks for the identification. It seems probable that the crab is Ocypode cordimana (Smooth-handed Ghost Crab). I took another picture at the same time (Image:BBayCrab2.jpg) which shows better the characteristics described on the Australian Department of Environment and Heritage page on this species.--AYArktos 11:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Calling botanists

Am I missing something, or am I right to be surprised at the rather poor state of several plant anatomy articles. I've just set up a stub at style (botany), and I can't make head nor tail of pistil. -- Solipsist 20:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

You are right. Some person(s) has/have been creating lots of definition pages in the botany subject area. Most are haphazardly written at best (doing definitions requires a good knowledge of the subject matter). I've been working my way through them, moving many to Wiktionary where they belong. Please mark any you see as Botany stubs as I am working off that category listing. I'll move to these ones you point out next. - Marshman 01:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the redirects to Carpel are a good idea. It is confusing and a waste of effort to try a describe each element in isolation. -- Solipsist 04:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree. In an encyclopedia (as opposed to a dictionary) the deciding factor in creating a "new" article should be the amount of material (text) existing. Any of those terms could eventually become an independent linked article if enough gets said about them in the carpel article. Until then, consolidating makes sense by reducing stubs. Contributors know where to add new material and the project grows in a more orderly fashion. I'm always amazed by the poor linking characterizing a collection of stubs (not always, of course; some editors do a good job of linking up to existing relevant articles. - Marshman 18:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

New taxobox

The Dutch Wikipedians (I, mainly ;-)) have made a new taxobox, nl:Gebruiker:Ucucha/taxobox, now, which includes only one template. There remain some problems to be solved, but it'll probably make things easier. Fyi, Ucucha|... 16:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

So long as blank options have to be filled in, it will be hassle for groups above the rank of species and anything that needs special components, such as intermediate ranks. Until that problem is solved I don't think it would be simpler in practice. Josh

That's my opinion too, yes. Hopefully we'll be able to solve this problem. Ucucha|... 12:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Translations of scientific names in taxoboxes?

I'm not sure whether this has been suggested before, but it occurs to me that it might be nice to provide rough translations of the meanings of binomial and trinomial names in taxoboxes. What do other people think of this suggestion? 80.255 20:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it is a great idea for the article text and is very often done. I think the taxoboxes are supposed to be as clutter-free as possible and still provide the basic taxonomic information, which "translations" do not qualify as. - Marshman 21:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

One reason I suggest it is that it, although it is sometimes put in the text, in many cases it isn't, and the existence of a facility built into the taxobox might result in more of this information being added.

Conservation status is not really 'basic taxonomic information' either, but is provided in boxes; although there's obviously a limit to how much information can be put in, I still think a rough translation or transliteration of root words would add greatly to the understanding readers have when looking at a name. 80.255 22:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it is not always in the text because people do not always know the "answer". And I would not really want to see a "blank" box to encourage people to add anything. There is lots of work to do here, so I'm too concerned that it is not all done yet - Marshman 23:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Authorities

Hi guys, is there a good resource for working out common abbreviations in authorities. Everyone knows L. is Linnaeus (L. even links there!), but there are others that are less obvious. In particular I'm trying to figure out who Anaphalis DC is, but it's a general problem. Perhaps we should have a List of taxonomic authority abbreviations? Or does this already exist? --Chinasaur 21:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

See list of zoologists by author abbreviation and list of botanists by author abbreviation (we have two lists because the conventions for abbreviation are different: Carolus Linnaeus is "Linnaeus" to zoologists but "L." to botanists). You can see on the latter list that DC. is the botanists' abbreviation for Augustin Pyrame de Candolle.

If you can find a botanical abbreviation on the list of botanists by author abbreviation, the International Plant Names Index has an author query. Gdr 21:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Changes to various nomenclature articles

Anon User:83.117.... has added (from at least eight different IP addresses!) several changes to various nomenclature and taxonomy pages which need verification (see 83.117.7.230 contribs, 83.117.4.76 contribs, 83.117.21.83 contribs, 83.117.23.63 contribs, 83.117.24.248 contribs, 83.117.5.153 contribs, 83.117.22.88 contribs, 83.117.14.217 contribs) - it seems he knows a fair deal and has provided some good data but also a burden of his own perceived superiority and some weird ideas. I don't know quite enough to be 100% certain where he's right on what, but they all need careful checking (I think some has already been reverted, but not all). - Thanks, MPF 17:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Zones

Should plant taxoboxes list the zones a plant will grow in? (Please drop a note on my talk page if you respond. I'll probably forget to check back here otherwise... Thanks) --Wulf 05:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

No, but the article could mention them. Gdr 11:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Generally no, as they are not very meaningful - a zone 8 oceanic climate such as Shetland is very different to a zone 8 continental climate such as northern Florida, and the plants that will grow in them are completely different. All that the two share is the same winter minimum temperature, nothing else - MPF 00:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Alliances

Does anybody know how to include alliances into taxoboxes ? This is especially useful for orchids species. Thanks.Qwertzy2 15:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Up to now, I've marked them in the taxoboxes as {{Taxobox alliance entry | taxon = }}. JoJan 19:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

clades

Can you create taxoboxes for clades that are between families, orders and classes e.g. the clade Ferae? I am relatively new here at wikipedia, so I can use some assistance. I'd like to be a part of the Tree of Life, I know a few things on mammalian taxonomy. However, English is not my native language, so can someone check my contributions (until now only carnivora\phylogeny and ferae) on spelling and grammar? And can you add extinct groups to taxoboxes, or do you prefer to use living groups only? What about creating stubs? I am creating several taxonomic articles on probosed super-orders (Atlantogenata, Meridiungulata), but there is not much to tell about them, so they are destined to remain stubs for a while. Is that a problem? DaMatriX 12:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)