Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 51

Archive 45

←

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

→

Archive 55

Parasitic Lice Classification

Phthiraptera, Parasitic Lice, is currently classified at the rank of order on Wikipedia.

Recent literature classifies Psocodea as an order, replacing Psocoptera, and places Phthiraptera and/or its children below Psocodea.

More recently, Phthiraptera has been moved from suborder (as is current in ITIS) to a descendant of the suborder Troctomorpha in literature, Psocodea Species File, Catalogue of life, iNaturalist, etc.

I suggest moving Phthiraptera in Wikipedia to a rank below the suborder Troctomorpha, in accordance with Psocodea Species File, Catalogue of Life, and iNaturalist, which are in agreement in placement (although they differ in a couple of rank names). Is this a good idea? Bob Webster (talk) 15:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I've already made this change, and I was having a discussion about it with YorkshireExpat on my talkpage. It would be good to get a broader consensus for it, given that Psocoptera has been boldly merged into Psocodea by @Cougroyalty:. Taxonomists have been moving away from linnean ranks for this reason, because geneics research shows that several higher ranked groups are nested within lower ranked ones. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm just embracing the WP:BOLD policy.  :) ...It seemed the thing to do. Are there any objections? I'm itching to do some clean-up in this area, and have already started a little bit. Cougroyalty (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and boldly redirected Acari to Mite, something which should have been done a decade ago. I also strongly think that Lizard should be merged into Squamata because it doesn't really make sense to treat then separately, though that is likely to be much more controversial. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I've merged ruminants with Ruminantia, crocodiles with Crocodylidae (instead of Crocodylinae), and I think a few others. They all made sense and didn't seem controversial. If anyone disagreed and reverted, no worries. That's all part of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Cougroyalty (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

"Lizard" is a difficult one, as it is not really an exact synonym for "Squamate", I am also suggesting a reverse merge, where the more highly viewed article (in this case lizard) into Squamate, which is likely to provoke objections. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Since Squamata is not just lizards, but also includes snakes, I think you got a tough sell there. I once considered merging whales with Cetacea, but just gave that up. (We went off topic a little bit. Oh well.) Cougroyalty (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Some of this is the reason that {{Paraphyletic_group}} exists! YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, alright. I can re-create the Psocoptera page (with the information trimmed down) with that paraphyletic template, if you think that is better. We do have Psocoptera mentioned on the Psocodea page, though. Cougroyalty (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Cougroyalty: not sure, Psocodea looks like an order to me (or something else, certainly monophyletic). {{Paraphyletic_group}} would probably be suitable for pages on Bark lice, Book lice and True lice, if they existed as pages in their own rights (sorry if I'm not helping). We just need to pick a taxonomy from a reliable source and stick to it. @Hemiauchenia:'s reference on his/her/their talk page looked reasonable, so something based from that maybe, but haven't read it fully. Sounds like a reasonable amount of work. YorkshireExpat (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Cougroyalty: I think Psocodea should replace Psocoptera, at the order rank. Keeping Psocoptera around will just confuse people.

It seems to me that Psocodea Species File is a highly reliable source for the taxonomy of this area. Most of the other "species files" are good, too, especially Orthoptera Species File.

On a related note, it also seems pretty redundant that Cockroach and Blattodea are separate articles. I'd fully support a redirect/merge of Blattodea to Cockroach. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Prototheria could also be be redirected to Monotreme. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I would agree with a single article on the order Blattodea. Termites are now part of that order and would need to be mentioned, and the termite article could remain separate. Bob Webster (talk) 02:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

On the other hand, people looking for cockroach information shouldn't find an article that also pertains to termites, so there is merit to separate articles as long as they're not essentially duplicates. Bob Webster (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia:, you know termites are in Blattodea, right?  :) --awkwafaba (📥) 01:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Awkwafaba: I am well aware, that was the point I am trying to make. Termites are deeply nested within the modern families of cockroaches, it doesn't make sense to treat them as if they were two diphlyetic orders when they are not. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of, I also think it would be good to merge Apocrita into wasp. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

That might not be such a good idea. Bees and ants are also in Apocrita, and wood wasps are outside Apocrita in Symphyta. Bob Webster (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

As an outsider to this area of taxonomy, I would like to point out that articles are meant to be meaningful to general readers as well as to taxonomy-aware editors. Termites may be nested within cockroaches, but they have a very distinctive biology and are of great economic importance. I get about 84 million hits for "termite" as opposed to 62 million for "cockroach". So there's a strong case for having a separate article on termites, regardless of their cladistic position. As YorkshireExpat notes, we have {{Paraphyletic group}} for a reason. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree. It seems to me that the current configuration, with Termite, Cockroach, and Blattodea as separate articles, is good. Bob Webster (talk) 15:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC) (correction, Blattodea, not Psocodea) Bob Webster (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree. There is no question about termites having their own article. They form an important monophyletic taxon at some level (epifamily or higher). The question is whether to have both Cockroach and Blattodea or just one article at Blattodea with cockroach redirecting. I favour both. Blattodea is a particular taxonomic concept so cannot be at cockroach and cockroach is a topic readers will be looking for and they don't need to be surprised. Duplication can be reduced by restricting the scope of the taxon article to the taxonomy and evolution and putting most of the biology in cockroach.

On Psocodea, it seems clear now that it is accepted as an order. As with termites, the parasitic lice will get an article as a significant group forming a monophyletic taxon. I personally would prefer that Psocoptera be kept as a short article on a historical taxon that is no longer recognised, rather than just a redirect to Psocodea

Merging Apocrita into wasp and Lizard into Squamata are bad ideas. They are not the same topic and encyclopaedias are to explain things, not shoe-horn overlapping topics into one which doesn't reflect the science and/or common usage. I'm also unsure merging Acari into Mite is appropriate (how much overlap was there?). If the phylogenetic evidence is clear that Acari is no a valid grouping, I'd prefer a short article on the historic taxon. —  Jts1882 | talk  17:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

They are almost the same topic though. We don't have separate articles on the common usage of "Dinosaur" and the clade "Dinosauria", with dinosaurs being a paraphyletic group of Dinosauria excluding birds, because that would massively duplicate scope, yet that is exactly what Lizard and Squamata and Wasp and Apocrita are doing, essentially. A single sentence in the lead would suffice to distinguish the terms. Britannica doesn't even have a separate artice for Squamata.

Acari is a clear cut case, Acari has always been equivalent to "mite" in the taxonomic literature. Apparently the reason that the articles were separate was because the "Mite" article considered mites to consist of Acariformes + a paraphyletic Parasitiformes excluding ticks. I don't think excluding ticks (which in taxonomic literature are never distinguished from other parasitiform mites) is enough justification for a separate article that only got a fraction of the pageviews [1] if somebody wants to write a taxonomic history of mites then I think a section in the "mite" article is most appropriate.

Also, I have no idea where anybody got the idea that I was suggesting that we delete the termite article, that's obviously absurd, it's clearly a notable subgroup. The question is what scope should Blattodea have? I don't have a strong feeling about that one. The fossil history of cockroaches is poorly covered on Wikipedia at the moment, and Blattodea might be a better place to discuss that. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jts1882: In regards to Psocoptera, yeah, you're right. I went ahead and re-created the page as a paraphyletic grouping. I realized this is what we have done with similar historical taxa that are now considered paraphyletic and invalid, such as Brevirostres, Natantia, Hypsilophodontidae, etc. Cougroyalty (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Troctomorpha and Nanopsocetae really need cleaning up. Currently they just list all of the lice families mixed in with the barklice, which is not useful for navigation, I have also noticed that a lot of the lice taxobox templates created by Edibobb have their parent as Nanopsocetae, rather than the correct lice subgrouping, which needs to be fixed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Gone ahead and fixed the taxobox templates. Hemiauchenia (talk)

@Invasive Spices: I redirected "Acari" as "mite" and "Acari" have exactly the same scope, the fact that ticks might be considered slightly semantically different is irrelevant. Acari recives far less views than "mite", see [[2]]. Acari is no longer considered to be a monophlyetic group with modern molecular evidence, and so therefore the supposed distinction between the clade and the colloquial term is nonexistent. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

The mite article barely mentions ticks. none is a way that suggests the article is about both mites and ticks. The lede mentions acarology as the scientific study of both, the taxonomy section says they are included in Parasitiformes, the phylogeny sections mentions the relative relations with other non-mite groups (and shows them in the cladogram) and the anatomy section makes two mentions about how mites differ from ticks. The article, as written, is about mites. I've reverted the redirect, as Invasive Spices had already done. This change needs consensus and, if this is obtained, the mite article should be changed so it covers ticks before making the redirect. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• Yes. Evidence and discussion are required before blanking a page. Invasive Spices (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

You are free to make your case at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acari. I've tried to make the relevant changes by mentioning ticks where appropriate, and removing innapropriate and seemingly out of context comparisons to ticks as if they are not mites. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

More up-to-date references may be needed to resolve lice classification. The subdivisions of Phthiraptera are not superfamilies; that is, they are not named as such (e.g., having "-oidea" endings), even if they can be "fit" into the taxonomy tree as superfamilies when Phthiraptera is treated as a parvorder (and is there a reference for that rank?). Plantdrew (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

The reference used for calling the subdivisions of Phthiraptera as Superfamilies was the "Psocodea Species File Online" linked here: http://psocodea.speciesfile.org/Common/basic/Taxa.aspx?TaxonNameID=1199156 It conflicts with this study: https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syaa075 - which instead proposed Phthiraptera as an Infraorder, and the subdivisions as Parvorders (but excluded Nanopsocetae in the proposed classification). We also struggled a bit with what to call these. Dang Linnaean classification. But at the moment, we can't call them suborders anymore, since that would rank them higher than the group they belong to. (Phthiraptera was recently found to be deeply nested well within Psocodea, in Troctomorpha.) So even though the name endings no longer fit, I think we gotta keep them as superfamilies. Cougroyalty (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

No serious taxonomist cares about linnean ranks anymore, I'd just change them to unranked clades and be done with it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm all for that as well. (But I suspect others might not be.) Cougroyalty (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Add lichens to Module:Category described in year?

Per Wikipedia:Help desk#Page is wrongly in category, can't remove & Category:Lichens described in 2009, etc.; Esculenta recently made a bunch of them, and they seem to be reasonably populated.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, please add lichens to this module. I plan to populate these categories much more. Esculenta (talk) 13:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done! Please monitor Category:Described in year unknown category (1) for any expected-but-missing container categories.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  02:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Is this page within the scope of your wikiproject?

Special:Diff/1059600733. Someone removed wp tree of life from this page. Is that correct? If so, how do I know what articles not to add to your wikiproject? Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

They replaced it with a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Marine life, which is within the Tree of Life project, so that's a good edit. It goes to a more specific project than the general Tree of Life. Thanks, SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:25, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there's ever really been any discussion about what taxa may be in the scope of this project. However, this is primarily a meta-project; articles in scope are mostly about taxonomy as a discipline, not specific taxa. Very few taxa have ever been tagged for this project. Taxa that are currently tagged are either: the main articles for one of the subprojects (e.g. plant, animal, bacteria); high level clades including organisms that fall under multiple subprojects (e.g. Obazoa/Opisthokont, which both include fungi and animals); or enigmatic fossils of multicellular organisms that aren't classified with confidence as as plants, animals or fungi (e.g. Rutgersella) (enigmatic fossils of single-celled organisms can go under WikiProject Microbiology).

Most taxa should be tagged only for the appropriate subproject(s). If you're not sure what is appropriate, it's OK to tag for Tree of Life, but eventually somebody will retag it. Plantdrew (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Notability for things like genes, gene/protein/rna families, cell lines, species etc

This discussion on the notability of RNA motifs over at WP:MolBio has expanded to be the broader question of notability for sets of topics like genes, gene/protein/rna families, cell lines, etc. Since ppl in this group will have had to grapple with similar questions on microbial species, I'd be interested in your input. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 10:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Template:Don't edit this line dagger

This template, {{Don't edit this line dagger}}, has been nominated for discussion at TfD. You can express your opinion at it's entry if you like! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 01:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

InternetArchiveBot to fix Tree of Life Web Project (ToL) links?

My understanding is that the Tree of Life Web Project (ToL) is dead. Could somebody with experience with the InternetArchiveBot set it up to fix dead ToL links? Cheers, Micromesistius (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I was about to say that it is still there, but I see that only the top page and some of the project information pages are still there. All the pages about taxa seem to be gone. Damn! I've had that site bookmarked for at least 20 years. Of course, it hadn't been updated since 2011, so many of the references to ToL may need to be replaced with citations to more recent classifications. - Donald Albury 21:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

This seems to have happened to a number of websites recently. An insecure website error occurs and the page isn't found, but the website is still there if you provide certain urls. My guess is there has been some upgrade of browser security and search engine friendly urls no longer work on sites without appropriate security certificate (this explanation could be gibberish). This happened to fossilworks, where all the short cut urls failed, but the full url with complete path and parameters worked. These were fixed with a bot (about 7000 pages). If a website was closing it seems strange they would leave the home page up and remove the content. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

That said, as it hasn't been updated since 2011 (the recent update page is still there) it might be time to archive it as suggested. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:29, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

The links to domains on the top page return 404, and were last archived in November. Once you get to the top page for a doamin, the links to the whole tree under that page work, going to other archived pages. All those links in articles leading to individual pages do need to be fixed. I known nothing about the bot, so I can't help there. - Donald Albury 15:41, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

The site is working again. - Donald Albury 01:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Help with mass-messaging

Hey, the Feb 2022 issue of TOLN is ready and just needs to be mass-messaged to the subscribers. However, I don't know much about mass-messaging and after checking, it seems you need to be an admin (which I am not) to mess-message. Could someone who's an admin help with sending the mass-messages? AryKun (talk) 10:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

At WP:MMS it suggests you can ask at Wikipedia_talk:Mass_message_senders. —  Jts1882 | talk  11:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the link, made a request there. AryKun (talk) 12:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Edit taxonomy § Pencil icon, 2022

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Edit taxonomy § Pencil icon, 2022. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this is a proposal to change the current "edit taxonomy" icon from the current to . Peter coxhead (talk) 07:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Articles/Categories

Hey ToL team: looks like the titles of almost all the taxon categories match the corresponding article, either exactly if the taxon is plural (e.g. Suidae/Category:Suidae) or pluralizing the article name (e.g. Fungus/Category:Fungi); both approaches are fully consistent with pagenaming conventions. But there are exceptions, and before I proposed the exception categories to be renamed to follow the convention, I wanted to check here to see if there was logic behind the mismatches and a rule of thumb for when the differences should exist. Thanks in advance, UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Can you give an example of a mismatch you had in mind?

A type of match that has caused some dispute is when the taxon article has to be disambiguated but the other article(s) aren't the basis of a category. E.g. Linda (beetle) – there's no Category:Linda, which could have been used, but to keep the names aligned, Category:Linda (beetle) has been used. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

That one is of course fine (exactly matching the disambiguator is best); I was thinking of ones like Cetacea/Category:Cetaceans; I think it would make sense to have them in Category:Cetacea (which is a redirect) instead. Camelidae/Category:Camelids is another example. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, we'll have to disagree about unnecessarily matching the disambiguator to a genus name. As to the other example, I think it would make more sense to move Cetacea to Cetacean; note that the article begins with the English name, not the scientific name. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The Camelidae article was moved from Camelid fairly recently (2019). The previous title was likely due to the belief of some Wikipedians that WP:COMMONNAME calls for avoiding the scientific name for article titles at all costs. Camelid isn't a common (vernacular) name; it's jargony short-hand and almost everybody who uses the term knows what it's short for (if any -id title for a family is justified, cichlid is probably the best candidate; members of the family are popular with people who keep aquarium fishes, and aquarium literature certainly uses "cichlid" more than Cichlidae (but I would guess most aquarium keepers still know what cichlid is short for)).

In my opinion, in any cases where an article is at a scientific name, but the category is at a not-the-scientific-name (supposedly COMMONNAME) formed by modifying the ending of the scientific name, the category should be moved to match the article title. There are quite a few categories for fossil families created by a single editor using -ids rather than the -idae. Aside from -ids/-idae there are categories formed by adding -ns (e.g. Bryozoa/Category:Bryozoans) or dropping the last syllable (Lepidosauria/Category:Lepidosaurs). Plantdrew (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree. (Sometimes what seems to have happened is that the article has been moved, but the category left as it was, creating the discrepancy.) Peter coxhead (talk) 10:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you all. Reading the above, I feel comfortable starting the process of tagging the mismatched categories for speedy renaming at WP:CFDS, under speedy criterion C2D. I would encourage anyone who believes an article should be moved to start the RM process (or just be WP:BOLD and do it). UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Is there a way to add species distribution maps to infoboxes that highlight countries/regions? Can someone make it if not?

Hi all

I've recently been writing a lot of plant articles and and would really like to add species distribution data from Plants of the World Online. Is there any way to do this currently? If not it would be amazing to have a field where you could just list countries and a map is drawn using Template:Graph:Map or similar. I guess there could also be different colours for native and introduced/invasive etc.

I guess how this might work in practice is for an extra feature in Template:Speciesbox, maybe using the existing range_map field where people could just list the names of countries/regions/oceans etc and it draws the map for them. This is similar to how Plants of the World Online do it e.g here.

Also currently there doesn't appear to be a way to simply describe the range in text in Speciesbox, or am I missing something?

Who might be able to enable something like this?

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The big problem with listing countries or bodies of water, is that they are not indicative of what a taxons range is, especially countries or similar, since they are arbitrary human divisions. Having a map that shows Cicindela columbica native to all Idaho, and was formerly native to all Washington and Oregon would be false, as its restricted to very specific habitat regions along the Columbia and Snake river systems. Similarly a marine algae or mollusk that is native to the pacific coast of Japan should not have a map indicating all of the pacific ocean as its range.--Kevmin § 21:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

And by extension, colouring in large countries like Canada or Russia when the range may be limited to very small border regions is also not an accurate display. Loopy30 (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Loopy30 and Kevmin, I agree that country level is not a good solution (except for island nations etc). I will investigate much smaller areas and if these can be used on a map. What do you think about simply a plain text field? I feel like distribution is really important but knowing how to draw maps seems like a really high barrier. Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Distribution is indeed very important, and should be summarized in the lede as well as included in a separate paragraph on distribution and habitat. However, (long) lists of countries often make it more difficult for the reader to infer the complete range. It is preferable to condense these lists to a spread of countries (eg, from southern Mexico to Honduras) or a specific region (eg. the Indian subcontinent or western North America) rather than just a list of countries, especially when alphabetical with no consideration for geography. Biogeographic ranges are preferred over countries (eg. New Guinea instead of Papua New Guinea and Indonesia). If a proper range map exists, then that would greatly help the reader and should be added to the taxobox. Loopy30 (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Loopy30 thanks for this, a couple of questions:

Is there any guidance written down on how to do these summaries?

How do range maps get created? Is there a tool or a process written down? Or is there one or a few people who generally make them?

How do you think range descriptions in the infobox would work best? I assume a free text box with a line of guidance written about it?

Thanks again

John Cummings (talk) 10:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I do not know of any formal guidance to write the range descriptors, which would be a style issue, only that various projects might state that the range should be included in a specific paragraph in the text and summarized in the lede (eg. WP:BIRD which also suggests standard colours for range maps)

I do not know of any range maps that were created automatically. Each that I have encountered appears to be individually hand drawn. You can always click on a few and follow it to Wikimedia Commons to see who the original uploader was.

I do not think that text range descriptors would work in a taxobox. There is already enough text there and that is what a range map could better accomplish.

'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 51
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Plantae
Clade:	Tracheophytes
Clade:	Angiosperms
Clade:	Monocots
Order:	Asparagales
Family:	Asparagaceae
Subfamily:	Asparagoideae
Genus:	Asparagus
Species:	A. stipularis
Binomial name
Asparagus stipularis L.
Synonyms
Asparagus horridus

Alicia at Wikimedia Sweden has kindly helped me put together an example of how this could possibly work using data from Plants of the World Online to find issues etc, these are the issues I can see so far and what features would be needed to fix them:

Issues:

• Islands and other areas of countries which are not countries cannot be listed
• Areas listed on Plants of the World Online like 'Gulf States' needed to be added individually
• Its a whole world map, not just zoomed in on the area needed
• You have to convert country names to two letter codes every time, time consuming and fiddly and easy to make mistakes
• The map doesn't render in 'preview' so you can't see if you've done it right until you save

Needed:

• More areas selectable in the map, areas of countries, states etc
• Able to zoom in on the map
• Able to use names, not just codes
• Able to see map in preview or guidance on making map in sandbox

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 11:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomenclatural acts published in "predatory journals"

Hi, when a taxon is named in a journal that Wikipedia editors have deemed as predatory (Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Predatory journals), is it still worth including the link to the paper with the nomenclatural act as a primary source? This is in particular in reference to List of organisms named after famous people (born 1950–present) and the stonefly species Nemoura hugekootinlokorum Wang, 2021, first described in an article (doi:10.12677/IJE.2021.101001) in 世界生态学 / International Journal of Ecology ISSN 2324-7967. I acknowledge that this journal is one by Hans Publishers, Inc., listed by Beall's List as a predatory open-access publishers, and understand that as a general rule of thumb Wikipedia should not make use of this journal as a secondary source.

But when the article is being used as a primary source, particularly when it's in reference to the etymology the author has provided for the taxon the stated eponym of this specific epithet, I think it's still worth providing. And in general, when a nomenclatural act has been recognized by other sources and the taxon described as valid (in this case see the Plecoptera Species File), I think it's still useful to provide a citation to the original paper as a primary source, even if it isn't otherwise made use of for information.

Editor Headbomb disagrees [3], but I'm curious if this issue has come up for articles about taxonomy on Wikipedia before. I was told to then cite the ICZN authority/document that makes this recognition -- this name appears in ZooBank (see ICZN 78.2.4), but of course in an article about the etymologies of various taxon names, the ZooBank entry is quite useless compared to the original paper.

Like I said, just curious if the issue of predatory papers issuing nomenclatural acts has come up before and what other editors think. Thanks for any input. Umimmak (talk) 03:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

It has come up in the past indeed. See a very similar case at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_286#Paleobiota of Burmese amber, where a user insisted on using the predatory source as a primary source because "The article referenced meets ALL criteria for an ICBN accepted formal description of a taxon". Turns out that primary source wasn't recognized by anyone, and that the analysis was found lacking. If some authority recognizes the nomenclature/taxonomy, then that it's that authority that should be cited, not the primary sources. This is true in general of all taxonomic determinations, but particularly important in the case of alleged taxonomies found in predatory journals. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Note that the original paper could be cited alongside the authority. But on its own, it's not sufficient. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

So, to clarify, the original paper could be cited as a primary source in terms of what the authors have said is the etymology of the epithet they wrote so long as there is, say, as second citation to ZooBank to show that that species name is on the ICZN's list of available names? This particular article is not limited to valid names, but I understand that if the article were about the taxon an additional source would be needed to show it's a valid (in the zoological sense), e.g., it hasn't been synonymized, is still in that genus, hadn't had a replacement name, etc., and secondary sources would be needed for all the information about the taxon. Do I have this right? Umimmak (talk) 03:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Like would something like this (with the {{Predatory publisher}} tag to clarify to readers) be okay in the article:

References

I think ref bundling here makes the most sense since neither ZooBank nor Plecoptera Species File are being used as references about the etymology (which is what the reference is being used for), just that N. hugekootinlokorum is a name that exists. Would this work for you? Umimmak (talk) 04:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Journals with shitty editorial policies absolutely can issue publications that satisfy the standards of the nomenclatural codes for establishing scientific names. WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES assumes scientific names are exclusively established in journals with non-shitty editorial polices. I'm not digging deeply into this particular case, but a shitty journal that satisfies the codes ought to be a citable source for etymologies that are explicitly discussed therein. Plantdrew (talk) 04:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

"for etymologies that are explicitly discussed therein", yes, assuming that the taxonomy is recognized by an authoritative source. I could publish a paper in that journal saying I discovered Nemoura biggusdickus, named after the famous Monty Python skit, and claim it complies with all the ICZN guidelines. But that wouldn't make it so. My paper might be reliable to established the etymology, but it's not reliable to establish that Nemoura biggusdickus is a legitimate species, recognized by any authority. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. A reliable secondary source is needed to show that a taxon is accepted; if so, the primary source can be used for information like the etymology. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

If a scientific name is being used then the publication it comes from should be cited, however as said above some evidence the name has been accepted in the mainstream also should be presented hence I would suggest going to major international checklists for this. The name if being used in all likelihood meets the nomenclature code, the article may be garbage but this is irelevant, the name is being used hence we should be recognising that. Whether or not a journal is on the list of predatory journals has no impact on the validity of the names within it, names must meet the code and they have no say on the ethical practices of a journal. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 22:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

"the article may be garbage but this is irelevant, the name is being used hence we should be recognising that." That's the thing. Predatory journals do not establish that the name is used, or that the species is legitimate. That's why you need to cite an authoritative source. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

No newly described taxon is demonstrated to be used, usage comes with time through review. Also whether or not a name represents an actual legitimate species is a taxonomic issue not a nomenclatural one, hence also of no relevance to the circumscription of the name. This is also determined through further review. But to cite a name then to be nomenclaturally correct you must cite the publication it first appears in, if that happens to be a crap journal such is life. Of course you can then also cite further papers discussing the issue and it would be remiss not to. But you cannot ignore the paper that circumscribed the name no matter where it was published. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 23:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

So shall we add Nemoura biggusdickus to that list? Species that aren't real/recognized don't belong in Wikipedia. This is a matter of both WP:DUE and of WP:RS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@Headbomb:, PEER REVIEW IS NOT REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH A SCIENTIFIC NAME. Linnaeus wasn't peer reviewed; peer review didn't exist in the early history of taxonomy. Reputable scientists today continue to publish names in sources that aren't peer reviewed (e.g. books, which may have an editor, but not a committee of peer reviewers). Nemoura hugekootinlokorum is a "real" name (the publication meets the requirements of the ICZN). For purposes of writing articles about species on Wikipedia, we want a secondary source that shows that a species is "recognized" by the taxonomic community (i.e. not regarded as a synonym). Plecoptera Species File is a secondary source that recognizes Nemoura hugekootinlokorum. As far as I'm aware, there hasn't been any consensus established whether or not the lists of organisms named after famous people are restricted to "recognized" names (I think it's likely that some of the red-links in the lists are regarded as synonyms).

You can decide that your pet cat is a new species and self-publish the name Felis biggusdickus for it. If your self-publication follow the requirements of the ICZN, Felis biggusdickus will be a "real" name (but it definitely won't be "recognized" by the taxonomic community). The biggest hurdle to meeting ICZN requirements is that you'll need a printing press (for physical publication, a laser-printer will not do), or an ISSN (for electronic publication).

Cite Zoobank to prove that Nemoura hugekootinlokorum is "real", cite Plecoptera Species File to prove it is "recognized" and cite the predatory journal for the etymology. Plantdrew (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say a peer reviewed source was required, I said a reliable source was required. A predatory journal isn't reliable. Zoobank (or equivalent) is reliable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

ICZN doesn't assess the reliability of journals to decide whether a naming is valid or not. It only requires that its rules are followed, and "reliability", however you want to define it (peer-review is generally considered a part of it) is, sadly, not one of them. (read about Raymond Hoser, for example, who has named hundreds of species in his self-published "journal". Serious scientists rightly consider him a clown and a vandal, but his names are mostly regarded as valid by ICZN). It will be for the scientific community to determine, in future papers, if Nemoura hugekootinlokorum is really a distinct species, or if it needs to be synonymised, like so many others have in the past; but regardless of that, the nomenclatural act happened and was valid under ICZN rules. Even if it becomes a synonym, and therefore falls into disuse, the name now exists forever. El monty (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, there hasn't been any consensus established whether or not the lists of organisms named after famous people are restricted to "recognized" names (I think it's likely that some of the red-links in the lists are regarded as synonyms).

The following has been in the lead for quite some time now:

The scientific names are given as originally described (their basionyms): subsequent research may have placed species in different genera, or rendered them taxonomic synonyms of previously described taxa. Some of these names are unavailable in the zoological sense or illegitimate in the botanical sense due to senior homonyms already having the same name.

And to my knowledge all editors who regularly edit the article, El monty being the main one at the moment, have been following this.

Also, even for names someone else has shown is cospecific with another species, we'd still mention them in the Wikipedia article about the senior synonym--that's what the |synonyms= parameter is for in the infobox. Unless a source/name gets formally suppressed it's still going to get cited (and even then it might still get cited as part of the context for the suppression in a larger discussion of taxonomic history.) Umimmak (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

just a couple of points here and I will use the ICZN code here as I am more familiar with it. You must remember that names are divided in time, pre 1930 names have much less requirement to be available, to the point where basically if you can figure out the application of the name that is enough, names prior to 2012 cannnot be electronically published those after can, but if they are must be in ZooBank. ZooBank is not a be all end all affirmation of a name as only electronically published names have to be in there, others do not. As such there are many names not in ZooBank that are available under the code. You should be citing the original publication and the most recent review, be that a checklist or another paper. Names should be listed as TNU's which gives both the original author and the current treatment author in the citation. Then you will get to a good understanding of the currently valid names. Neither peer review nor predatory journals are relevant to this at all as neither is covered by the nomenclatural codes. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 02:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Reviving the Newsletter?

Is there any interest in reviving the TOL Newsletter? AryKun (talk) 10:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd be interested in reading it, not so sure I have the time to contribute. starsandwhales (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@AryKun: i wish i had time to help. I think it was a little overwhelming for @Enwebb:, and I wish I could have helped more then. But I did like reading it and would like to again, so I would certainly not stand in the way of you reviving it. --awkwafaba (📥) 17:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• I've started the page for Issue 18 of the Newsletter and gotten through updating the recognized content, nominated content, and DYKs, hoping to get it ready by the end of the month. Any help would be appreciated (ideally, there should be around 4–5 people working on the newsletter). AryKun (talk) 11:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

  I liked it, good effort with starting it again! FunkMonk (talk) 11:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Why is it Kingdom, Clade Clade Clade, Order instead of Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order?

Maybe I missed the memo since science class but what happened to Phylum? PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 02:25, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Clades are unranked taxa and can go anywhere in the taxonomic hierarchy; as our understanding of the evolutionary relationships of taxa has improved, it has become apparent that a taxonomic system based solely on the standard taxonomic ranks of kingdom, phylum, class, order, and family is not practical. Clades, which are unranked taxa that correspond to "branches" of the tree of life, are more widely used by many taxonomists now. It might be helpful if you pointed to what specific page you're having trouble with. Ornithopsis (talk) 02:57, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

The traditional ranks are still there for groups whose taxonomy has been long established (e.g. see cat). The clade "rank" is used when the taxonomy has been revised and/or become more complicated. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Take a look at Evolutionary grade. Traditional ranked groups were defined as grades (which may be paraphyletic), rather than clades (which are always monophyletic). Reptile is often cited as an example of a class that is a grade, rather than a clade. The class Aves is both a grade and a clade. It is also part of the clade Archosaur, which also includes the Crocodilia, but no other living reptiles. Donald Albury 16:32, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Here's another way to think about it: we now know that animals in the class Aves (birds) are evolutionarily nested among animals of the class Reptilia (reptiles), while the subphylum Hexapoda (insects and kin) is nested within crustaceans. This is incompatible with Linnean taxonomy (KPCOFGS), which was invented in the 18th century without the context of evolution. Cladistics simplifies the situation by describing taxonomy as a system of nested branches (clades). Some clades correspond to Linnean classes, but others use a broader definition. The clade Aves is one of many clades (alongside squamates, crocodilians, turtles, etc.) within the clade Reptilia. So the clade Aves is pretty close to a Linnean class, but the clade Reptilia includes birds despite how much Linneaus would protest. It's a bit unintuitive when looking at solely living animals but it's very useful when evolution and prehistoric life are accounted for, especially with some extinct animals (like non-avian dinosaurs) which do not fall into clear Linnean categories. That's the best way to think about it: the KPCOFGS system was about categorizing living animals, while cladistics is about understanding the origins of a given animal. Many school curriculums are simply outdated and think the former system is widely used in science, which hasn't been true for a few decades by now. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Global Species List Working Group

I have made a post on Wikispecies to request information from Wikispecies, Wikidata, and Wikipedia editors who work with species taxonomy. I am aware of WMF policies, but this is a crucial gathering of information and I believe its important that editors here on WMF have their say as you are producing checklists. Thanks everyone, cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 18:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Infrataxa redirects

Is there a specific redirect template one should add to a redirect from an infraspecific taxon (variety, form, subspecies, etc.) to its nominate taxon? Asking for Haematomma fluorescens var. longisporum. Esculenta (talk) 13:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

There is {{R from subspecies to species}} and {{R from variety to species}}. These template are currently redirects to {{R from subtopic}} and don't produce their own categories, but you should feel free to use them anyway (if they are used enough, that provides support for creating the appropriate redirect categories). Plantdrew (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Taxonomy/Accipitriformes

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Taxonomy/Accipitriformes. This edit request concerns taxonomy and I'm not able to identify the source given as correct or to disprove it as such. The template is highly visible (hence why it's semi-protected) and this is the reason I'm also asking for attention to the issue here besides using the Expert needed talk template. Thanks in advance for any advice or insight you could offer. Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 21:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)