Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

Taxonomic Translation

Anyone know of a website or other tool that, if given a taxon, would provide the meaning in English of the original Greek/Latein/Etc? For example, if I fed it "parthenoxylon" it would return "virgin wood." Something like Botanary but for all domains of life? --Nessie (talk) 21:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I only trust the original description of the taxon to describe the etymology of the scientific name. Translations are usually only a guess of several interpretations and without the reason for the name, a translation is meaningless and sometimes misleading. (I also don't trust davesgarden.com as a reliable source.) Rkitko ^(talk) 23:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That would be a problem in itself, as many of the journal articles describing a species are 100 years old or more, or atleast too old to be online anywhere. And even if the articles can be found, they don't always explain the reason for the name or what it means. Sure, if a specific name is grantii, you know it's named for someone named Grant and may not know which Grant that is, but in my previous example, I don't think there will be many alternative translations for parthenoxylon. The problem is knowing what part is what language, and what the separation between the words is.--Nessie (talk) 03:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Point is you don't have a reliable source describing what parthenoxylon means in the context of that taxon. Does it refer to some morphological characteristic? Or rather a location? Or something the authors thought would be cute? Take paradoxa - if I were to use the Botanary from your link above, I would have included "strange" in Drosera paradoxa as the meaning for the specific epithet, but in reality, paradoxa was chosen because the species initially presented the describing author with a paradox of different forms. Without that cited information from a reliable source, what would we have gained knowing one rough translation of the specific epithet devoid of context to the circumstances surrounding this species? One could even be led to infer that paradoxa was chosen because this species' habit is a little, yes, strange. All I'm saying is you don't know for certain if the translation is what the authors had in mind and giving that translation in an article is improper. Rkitko ^(talk) 23:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Direct translations also can't always interpret the intended meaning of the Greek/Latin/whatever phrase. For example, Nyctosaurus literally translates as "night lizard" and is usually translated that way, but the prefix 'nyct' simply means "nocturnal" and is often used to refer specifically to bats. The original describer did not provide an etymology, but did make a point of comparing the leathery wings of the pterosaur to those of bats, so a translation more in keeping with the spirit the describer intended would probably be "bat lizard." Similarly, a lot of names in biology are intended as portmanteaus referring specifically to other taxa. I'm thinking of the Cretaceous mayfly Epicharmeropsis, a relative of Ephemeropsis. The authors of Epicharmeropsis gave the etymology epichar meaning "beautiful" and meropsis in reference to the suffix and second half of the prefix of Ephemeropsis. Directly translated this would be gibberish. The rhamphorhynchoid pterosaur Dendrorhynchoides etymology as given is "tree rhamphorhynchoid", not "tree snout form". So, yeah, etymology isn't straightforward and a "Google translate" type service would end up being misleading at best. MMartyniuk (talk) 04:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

A more extreme example is Epidendrum pseudepidendrum, literally the "false upon a tree upon a tree", or (with less translation) the "false Epidendrum Epidendrum". What happened is that the taxon was originally described as Pseudepidendrum spectabile, that is, the spectacular thing that looks like an Epidendrum, but isn't really (straightforward enough). But then the entire contents of the monotypic genus Pseudepidendrum was moved into the genus Epidendrum, making it the thing which, upon first examination, looks like an Epidendrum, and on closer consideration is seen to be something else entirely but an even closer examination shows that it really was an Epidendrum after all. (Whew!) But it is actually an imposing tropical herb with rather small but showy and unusual flowers. In summary, it should be recognized that these Linnaean binomials should be treated like any other English words or phrases derived from Latin or Greek: the meaning is not necessarily what the original Latin or Greek meant; they are new words in their own right. — Jay L09 (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing can beat Anoura caudifer, though (tailless tail-bearer). But you're right: the etymology of a scientific name is all but irrelevant. Ucucha 06:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

As for Nessie's comment that old descriptions generally are not available: in fact, many (most?) descriptions of old taxa are now available on Google Books, the Biodiversity Heritage Library, and a few other sources. Ucucha 05:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names has a link to European Species Names and a link to Dictionary of Botanical Epithets. Also, you might enjoy Curiosities of Biological Nomenclature.—Wavelength (talk) 04:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all for all the help. I do have some responses that I'll just lump in here. First is that I know a robot-translation of a taxonomic name would not be perfect, but it would be a start. I think the article would get better faster with it than without. At the very least it's a prompt for the next, more knowledgeable, editor to add/correct the information. That's basically how Wiki works right? There is much information in that binomial, and if it even some of that can be included I think it would benefit the article. It seems like many people here know many of the oddball binomials, and I hope all that information is included in the appropriate articles. I think most binomials have a straightforward translation. Sure, with parthenoxylon one does not know what wood is virgin or why, but with a literal translation the author does not necessarily purport it to be an idiomatic translation: i.e. parthenoxylon means "virgin wood," as opposed to parthenoxylon means "virgin wood" because of.... --Nessie (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm still not seeing why it is needed in the articles in the first place though. If one has access to the authors description of the name etymology then I can see it being included but randomly including a "literal translation" to have a translation when the authors intent is not known is certainly falling into or and possibly/probably misleading.--Kevmin § 18:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. I think translations do more harm than good when they're not referenced to a reliable source that discusses the etymology of that taxon name in the context of that particular taxon. Anything other than that is a stab in the dark and may not be what the author meant. I can't find it now, but I remember reading a while ago a guideline that translations included in Wikipedia (usually as a quote from some literary work) had to be sourced to some authoritative translation of that work. The same kind of logic would apply here, as translations can be open to interpretation without context. Rkitko ^(talk) 20:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

So the consensus that it does more harm than good, even for things like occidentalis‎ or sylvestris‎? The way I see it, there are two main categories for binomials. The first are like occidentalis‎ and sylvestris‎ and have no double-meaning and are straightforward. However, there is no adequate translator for these that would separate Greek from Latin and give a straight definition: An editor needs to simply know these common terms. Another issue is that these terms are so common and "obvious" that the original paper will not elucidate on why the name was picked. I think these translations are useful to include because they describe the species in some way as being Western, from the forest, or whatever. Later editors can elucidate what they are West of and which forest they are from. The second main category are the tougher translations, where a machine translation would fail. These would include people's names, Chinese, English, or other languages, or the literal translation would obviously make no sense. I would think if the average Wikipedian translated Epidendrum pseudepidendrum or Anoura caudifer that would raise some red flags and prompt for further research, either by the original poster or anyone watching/reading the page. Case in point is the current Tailed Tailless Bat page just BEGGING for an update. That page may not be that great now, but imagine it without the translation. This second group of translations I think is important to include because there is obviously an interesting story there, and others would like to know why the critter is a tailess tailie. Other than those two main categories, there are the few oddballs that defy explanation and cannot be planned for. These will be special cases no matter what. I think more information is better than less, and that waiting for the perfect will stop the good from appearing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NessieVL (talk • contribs) 16:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

"Later editors"... Let's not pass off the hard work to future editors. If you want to include this kind of information in an article, do it right the first time. That usually requires excellent sources and time. Your original request was for some kind of translator or list, which caused concern. In your first group described above, yes, they are common terms, but lack any sort of meaning without context directly related to that taxon. Inserting just a translation into an article can either be misleading, incorrect, or confusing to the reader without a full explanation. More information is better, as long as it is cited with reliable sources about that taxon. I see no "perfect is the enemy of the good" conundrum here. Rkitko ^(talk) 22:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

A radical new approach

I want to start a discussion on a radical different approach to how to maintain the taxonomic data. The reason is that wikipedia seems to become more or less the most influential database for specie data. Now, we manually maintain thousants and thousants of pages with, in part, the same the information, which, ideally, should be internally consistant. However, it isn't, mainly because ongoing insights in taxonomy, especially at the higher levels, are not consistently changed in all related pages. So, what if we would develop a system in which the taxobox is database driven and automatically generated based on a limited number of parameters. The taxobox would be generated by a separate php script that uses the name of the taxon to recursively find the higher taxa and generate the taxobox. Data would be maintained by a public available page (everybody can edit has to be honoured), which allows to change the relationsships of a taxon with the next level. How to exactly do the database stuff is a rather technical but trivial issue and I would like to focus for the moment on the idea itself, not how exactly it technically needs to be done. What do people think of the idea? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

A similar idea is currently being implemented: see Template:Automatic taxobox and some of the discussion at Template talk:Taxobox. Ucucha 18:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Article name format for taxa

This was brought up at Template_talk:Taxobox#Automatic_taxonomy_generation but I didn't want to go off topic there. It would be nice to have a standard or at least guideline to article names for taxa. Someone in that discussion objected to Hadrosaurid being the title for the article about Hadrosauridae. However, the same example used Cephalopod rather than Cephalopoda with no objections. Which format is preferred? I know somewhere, possibly in he MOS it says "common names" should be preferred over scientific names in article titles, would this include examples like Animal vs. Animalia, Cephalopod vs. Cephalopoda, Hadrosaurid vs. Hadrosauridae? If not, where should the line be drawn? MMartyniuk (talk) 00:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This is well covered by existing guidelines. Note, however, that the phrase "common name" comes from Wikipedia-wide discussions, and is not the same as the use of "common name" in biology. What it means is that the most frequently used form in reputable publications is the one we should follow. If other encyclopaedias and the like all use the title "Hadrosauridae", then so should we; if they use "Hadrosaurid", so should we. A number of people have been confused by this, and assume we need to use a vernacular name, even where it is hardly used, and a number of agencies seem intent on inventing so-called English names (and even calling them "official"). This doesn't affect our criterion for article naming. My personal opinion would be that where a name is an adjectival form derived from a scientific name, we should use the scientific name (i.e. "Hadrosauridae", rather than the subsequently-formed "hadrosaurid"); note that the term "animal" existed long before zoological nomenclature started in 1758, so that can't be a counterexample. That is, however, just my opinion. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

So Cephalopod should also become Cephalopoda then, yeah? As it did not exist in the language prior to being a scientific name as far as I know. This also affects many higher-level taxa like Arthropod, Dinosaur, etc. It seems family-level names are the exception for some reason even though the adjectival form is common in the lit, where for example "members of Hadrosauridae" and "hadrosaurids" may be used interchangeably. MMartyniuk (talk) 00:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It would seem to me that "arthropod" and "cephalopod" are exceptions to the rule-- terms that are taught in biology classes, so a higher percentage of the population understands them. Exceptions should be handled on an individual basis for this issue in order to maintain the most appropriately titled articles. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

But there are lots of others—insect, animal, mammal, rodent, reptile, and amphibian come to mind. On balance, I agree with Stemonitis, though: we usually should have the scientific name as the title over an adjectival version of the same title. Ucucha 05:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguator for monotypic genera

Do we have a standard practice for disambiguating the names of monotypic genera? I've been developing Ambondro (genus), which I found at that title, but don't really like; I think I would prefer "Ambondro (mammal)" or the binomial. Ucucha 19:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I dab fungal genera (monotypic or not) now as eg. Athelia (fungus), as in several instances I've found there's a genus of algae with the same name. Sasata (talk) 20:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Whenever I come across this situation (which may be only once so far: Orithyia sinica), I always choose the binomial. The argument in favour of placing a monotypic genus at the genus title rather than the species is relatively weak, and the binomial is at least a real title that people actually use, whereas the disambiguated form is, by definition, not used by anyone. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Another good example (and not one of my doing) is Dryas iulia. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and Polypodium hydriforme. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You present a good argument for naming according to the binomial. It's contrary to what WP:Flora guidelines suggest however, and we had some discussion there several months ago when I had a monotypic genus at FAC (see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (flora)#Naming convention for monospecific genera. What are the chances we could achieve wiki-wide (at least amongst the TOL people) agreement on how to handle these cases? Sasata (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we should use the genus name as the page title for monotypic genera (as it's the most concise), except when it is ambiguous, in which case we should use the binomial. Ucucha 20:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I can't see anything at WP:FLORA or in the (heated) discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (flora)#Naming convention for monospecific genera that deals specifically with monotypic genera where the genus name is ambiguous. The guidelines say to use the genus over the binomen (fair enough), but don't discuss what to do when that's not possible, unless I've overlooked something. I think broad consensus should be achievable on this reasonably uncommon problem. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

A couple examples I can think of where a generic name (literally "generic" in these cases, but it applies to actual scientific genera and upper-level taxa as well) was simply terrible when new species were discovered (or simply when folks realized an article was actually about a group of species-- Coelacanth, Irukandji jellyfish, Amazon River Dolphin... just to name a few that I've split so far. Moving the articles, splitting them up, creating the correct redirects and making sure the article referenced the previously known species instead of the entire category-- that's a nightmare. Please be specific and use the binomial when creating monotypic taxon articles! Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a very strong case with most monotypic genera. Certainly with most extinct taxa (dinosaurs etc.) the genus name is more common; and probably this is appropriate for others as concise and often more common. Some pages, Caecilita and Atretochoana for instance, however, have just been moved to the species name. —innotata 22:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Linking to Domain Eukarya from species and taxa within it

The section 1st author (The Mysterious El Willstro) temporarily concedes the topic, and will open a new section pending further biological coursework on his part.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It would not be easy, but since Domain is now considered a major rank, all Articles on eukaryotic species and taxa should link to the Eukaryote Article via "Domain: Eukarya" in the TaxoBox. It was actually announced a few years ago that Kingdom was no longer the highest major rank, what with Domain being no longer considered a minor rank. Besides, this has already been done for Articles on species and taxa within the other 2 taxa at this highest rank, the Domains Bacteria and Archaea. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Has anything changed since this idea of yours got firmly rejected at Talk:Human/Archive 31#Stop removing domain taxon and Template talk:Taxobox/Archive 16#Domain? Hesperian 03:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Yes, context has changed. The latter of your Archive sources expressly states "If this is to be done, it should be done for all eukaryotes, I think, since the arguments would be the same as for Human. I think the best way to carry out such a change would be by tweaking the taxobox to automatically include the domain when |regnum=Animalia, |regnum=Plantae, |regnum=Fungi etcetera is called. Ucucha 03:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)," which clarifies that the inconsistency created by attempting to do this 1 Article at a time would create. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Uh, sorry, what has changed? Something that was said in the discussion back then, obviously can't represent a change since then. Hesperian 06:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) I don't see how that means circumstances have changed; my comment was only related to implementation. I was opposed to including the domain, and see no reason to change my opinion. Ucucha 06:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC) What's outdated is not the Discussion itself, but rather the current Wikipedia modus operandi for taxonomic InfoBoxes. After the founding of Wikipedia (but well before I graduated from high school in 2008), the biological community outside Wikipedia ceased to consider Domain a minor rank. (It had been a minor rank when 1st clarified to exist as a rank at all in the early 1990s.) The following article [1] clearly states that there are 8 major ranks, not 7 as there were historically. The bottom of the home page [2] says "Written by online collaboration with certified experts," which means that unlike here on Wiki, only experts on with appropriate degrees can actually edit there. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC) You're arguing the wrong point. The domain for eukaryotes is unnecessary as it's the same for all of them. Bacteria and Archaea, on the other hand, have similar visible morphology but vastly different evolutionary relationships. Those are the taxoboxes that need the domain parameter. Everyone knows a eukaryote is a eukaryote. It would be more appropriate to say that for eukaryotes, domain is a minor rank. The domain parameter on a species or genus article among eukaryotes tells us nothing we don't already expect from Plantae, Animalia, etc. and isn't meaningful except in the context of the other domains (the main reason the domain rank exists at all was Woese's work on Archaea). By the way, you're not going to win any arguments by saying that we, while only some of us have advanced degrees in this subject, have not fully considered this point in the past discussions. If you have some meaningful new information or argument that might sway someone, I'd be happy to hear and discuss that. Rkitko (talk) 23:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC) At any rate, it is equally well known, for instance, that all mammals are animals. Therefore, why not also exclude Kingdom Animalia from the TaxoBoxes for field mice, humans, dolphins, and aardvarks? It is technically the same logic as excluding the Domain Eukarya. We all already know that all animals are eukaryotes. We all already know that all mammals are animals. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 01:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Point taken. So, in summary, we all agree that we want our taxoboxes to be as useful as possible, and that seems to require a tradeoff between completeness and conciseness: we want to include those ranks, and only those ranks, that are needed to reasonably concisely represent the taxonomy in a reasonably complete way. What is "reasonably concise" and "reasonably complete" is ultimately a matter of taste, so other than looking to what our reliable sources do,[3] we can only be guided by consensus. Four months ago, consensus was that the domain should be omitted for plant, animal and fungi taxa of low rank. Judging by the direction this thread is going, consensus has not changed. Hesperian 02:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Reliable sources are great, but your link does not go to one of them. It goes to another Discussion instead. Wiki is no crystal ball of course, but as a Biology Major and knowing the trends to a fair extent, I can add that as future years pass, an increasing number of scientific articles will treat Domain as a full major rank, in the same respect that Kingdom and Phylum are major. Then again, keeping the old policy until this trend has come to pass to a greater extent would be in keeping with earlier history in our field (which is still not a statement of agreement). The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC) If we're looking for reliable sources in biology, then an encyclopaedia run by the Moonies (your two links) is not the place to look. The concept of major and minor rank is only used here as a guideline to help assess what ranks to include in our short summary tables (taxoboxes). In almost all cases, Eukaryota is not relevant there. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC) I wasn't aware that the Moonies ran it. Anyway, let's see how much more highly Domain is regarded as a rank by the time I get my Ph. D. in (hopefully) 2016. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC) That won't change anything. Perhaps by then we'll have changed the text to better reflect consensus, and it will say "only include major ranks (except domain), ...". --Stemonitis (talk) 05:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC) The issue isn't so much major and minor ranks—it's the information we're trying to communicate. The taxobox classification serves to place the taxon in context. Since "animal" and "plant" and "fungi" are already well-known enough, we don't need to place them into context further by adding a more obscure higher rank. "Euryarchaeota" and "Crenarchaeota", on the other hand, are quite obscure, and so we do place the more well-known domain Archaea in the taxobox. So we exclude a "major" rank from the taxoboxes; on the other hand, our taxobox guidance states that we should sometimes include "minor" ranks even when they're not directly above the taxon in question—bamboo, for example, and crustacean. Flexibility is good. (I would, by the way, not oppose the removal of "Animalia" from taxoboxes for vertebrates, which isn't necessary either.) Ucucha 09:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Stemonitis, it would be a tragedy if you were right that exoconsensus (by which I mean consensus outside Wikipedia in the scientific community at large) can not change Wiki policy. It's a sad day when Wiki runs wild into Wikiality, a possible false reality from consensus among mostly laymen. I very much doubt that there is a consensus outside Wikipedia about what information should be placed in a taxonomic summary box in an online encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Of course not, but there is consensus outside Wiki, among biologists, on what constitutes a major rank. Major ranks are not the same thing as Wiki TaxoBoxes, even though the latter are supposed to be based on the former. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Ucucha, your point just now makes a lot more sense. The only place we're not seeing eye-to-eye is the notion that the Domain Eukarya is at all obscure. Ask any Biology Major who catches your eye, at any university of your choosing, and I lay odds that he or she will know what the Domain Eukarya is. How then is it obscure? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Relatively obscure: a lot more people know what animals, plants, and fungi are than know what eukaryotes are. And those who know what eukaryotes (which should include every self-respecting biology student) are, are bound to know that animals, plants, and fungi are eukaryotes, I think. Ucucha 06:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC) They are also bound to know that all mammals are animals, or all vertebrates for that matter. Laymen should not be expected to know what a taxonomic rank is, let alone what is in what taxon at what rank, or what makes a rank major or minor. That is to say we should assume everything to be new to non-biologists, as the 1st rule of reports and encyclopedias is not to assume common reader knowledge. Minor ranks are often called "intermediate ranks" as another way to distinguish them from major ranks, which is my other quandry here. Domain, the very highest possible taxonomic rank, is clearly not intermediate (with a major rank above and below). Then again, being the highest rank is pretty distinguishing in its own right, which kinds of makes it notable. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC) http://www.jstor.org/stable/4451669 is an interesting read. Lots of relevant background, though nothing that actually settles this dispute. Among other interesting points, it notices that domain names cannot be validly published under any nomenclatural code, because each code governs taxonomic names within a given kingdom. Hesperian 07:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Cedar - a disambig outreach request

Hi all, over at the Disambiguation pages with links project, one of the thornier disambigs has been Cedar, with approximately 123 links. Could someone give us some guidance on how to fix these? It's been on our list for months and no one is comfortable enough with the topic to start working on it. Thanks, --JaGa^talk 11:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Nearly all of the individual species are rarely called just "cedar" and therefore are partial title matches and should just be removed wholesale. That'll clear it up a bit. Rkitko ^(talk) 14:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

{{italic title}} RfC again

I wasn't aware of this ongoing RfC until today. The original question wasn't about whether or not we should use {{italic title}} at all, but it's sure turned into that. Several folks are !voting for no italics in article titles, including taxa (the original question dealt with literature, which previously could not italicize article titles since there was no consensus on that point at the last RfC). I've only seen a few TOL editors over there voicing their opinion and think it would be good if a few more spoke up. While you're there, opine on the use of the template/formatting for article titles other than taxa if you have a strong opinion one way or the other. Rkitko ^(talk) 16:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Organism Pages

I have noticed that throughout Wikipedia, the articles on organisms (any kind) have basically similar sections in the article. Anatomy, ecology, evolution, taxonomy or classification, etc. However, many of the articles use different names or have it ordered differently with evolution at the bottom or top, anatomy in different places, behavior, etc. I am suggesting a new system to unify and organize all the animal and other organism pages into similar and navigational articles with sections located in the same spots and a similar or identical heading names for basic information about the organism. It really won’t take much (if any) additional information, it would just be a reorganization and policy (or guideline for lack of a better word) for the articles on organisms.

For example the whale article has Taxonomy, Anatomy, Life History/behavior, ecology, relation to humans, and evolution. Fish has diversity, taxonomy, anatomy, diseases, evolution, importance to humans, conservation, culture, and terminology. Nautilus has anatomy, physiology, ecology, evolution, and taxonomy. These are three articles that have similar headings, but are all organized differently. Some of the headings could be titled the same and other parts are specific to the article.

I suggest we have a linear list that should apply to all articles. For example, all the articles should start with the lead, then evolution, taxonomy, anatomy, physiology, behavior, ecology, distribution, etc. This would not be the exact order, but for articles that needed specific sections or omitted a section would just place or remove it from the order while keeping the overall system clean and precise.

Thing such as “fossil record” would be part of the list but omitted in articles that do not have information on it. Headings such as “relation to humans” or “importance to humans” would not be part of the list, but would be added at the end of the systematic list in each individual article.

Does this make sense? Suggestions? Comments? A. Z. Colvin • Talk 22:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand your concern (I used to feel this way myself), but see no reason to standardize headings, although we certainly could debate when it is appropriate to use "life history" versus "life cycle", etc. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The Great Bot Debate: item 2, value of species stubs

One of the core issues of this BRFA is whether or not a species should be represented by a stub comprising only a one-sentence description, a taxobox, and a reference.

• Some think that such stubs are useless and may not even pass the general notability guideline.

• Some think that all species are inherently notable, and such stubs are worthwhile, so that further information and images can be added over time.

What do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that such stubs actually are useful (they can provide useful info from the taxobox, such as synonyms/authorities), or perhaps the single sentence says something that no one could justify having squeezed into the genus page. I find myself searching for oddball species all the time and appreciate even so much as "the oddball whoop-dee-doo is a small frog from Iraq." "Small" and "Iraq" wouldn't make it to a long list of species on the whoop-dee-doo genus page. However, I'm typically pretty biased against bot-created articles, since they're unable to add in this helpful information. A bot, though, could make its own articles useful by including the authorities, synonyms, and fossil range. I'd definitely support a bot capable of that. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I definately like having stubs, even empty articles are a step in the rught direction. Each one is progress because it gets all the basic set-up work done and invites contribution. They are like little black holes of ignorance, empty spaces that have a way of attracting people to do something about the problem. Some people don't like finished articles, they like a challenge. Ok, so no one knows anything more than that about the anti-laser or Chinese Shrew Moles? Lemmie at it, they say; that's their idea of fun. Just make sure that empty articles pass notablity guidelines, which means in most cases that they have references. They don't even need text, just checkable citations that the thing exists and is notable. Then just sit back and watch Wikipedia go to work. It's an amazing thing. Chrisrus (talk) 05:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Chrisrus: Why did you write that the "thing exists and is notable"? If a species exists (I assume that is what you were referring to), then it is inherently notable. My goal with Wikipedia (and why I joined ToL), is to have an exhaustive list of all species known to man and, eventually, an article for each. A bot-generated article with a "one-sentence description, a taxobox, and a reference" is definitely a great start. --Thorwald (talk) 07:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I rambled off topic, I was speaking in praise of stubs, lacuna articles, red links, etc in general. Also, I guess I hadn't really thought about whether every species is inherently notable. I think all modern, multicell species probably are, but I have no idea but I guess there are probably millions and millions of species of some kind of protist or bacteria or some one-celled animal, and I didn't want to take a position as to whether all of them are inherently notable or not. My initial thoughts are that many of them probably are not. How many species of bacteria are there, for example? Would this bot that creates an article for each species actually create billions of new articles? I'm on record complaining about having a separate article for each meteor in the main belt, as most mock notablity guidelines. Chrisrus (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Most described organisms are actually insects; I think we know only a few tens of thousands of bacterial species. Every named species has received some significant coverage in the form of its species description. They have certain characters, a distribution, taxonomy, differences from other species. It is probably possible to write reasonable if relatively brief articles about every species—I've written some articles, like Aonchotheca forresteri or Lagrivea, on species that have very little more than a brief original description. In reality, we're not going to get decent articles about all or even most species anytime soon. Ucucha 16:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

All published taxa are inherently notable, and quality one-sentence stubs are, in my opinion, unobjectionable. From past experience, a bigger issue is whether it is possible to program a bot to mass-create articles without introducing vast numbers of errors. Hesperian 05:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

While I fully agree that every taxon is inherently notable, that doesn't mean that a separate article is the best way to deal with them all. If all the content that the bot will produce is a bland taxonomic statement ("Aus bus is a species of cephalobranch."), then it may be better to combine many such articles into a nicely formatted "List of cephalobranchs", which would inherently contain the information that each of the species belongs to that taxon, together with the authority and date. I think such lists are far more informative, because they allow the reader to see, at a glance, what else is related, how many species there are in total, whether it's in a diverse family, whether it was described sooner than or later than other species, and so on. Having to click through countless substubs to discover the same – or less – information is not helpful. This is what I've been doing, manually, to replace fairly large numbers of Acari articles that have appeared recently. I also concur with Hesperian's concern that the bot's programming is unlikely to be perfect, and could create the need for thousands of manual edits. Much better to produce a single excellent list than thousands of dubious one-liners. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Stemonitis. Another argument is that it is far easier to update the taxonomy to update just a list or genus article to update than a ton of stubs. Ucucha 11:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm in complete agreement with Hesperian on this. I favor species stubs over lists any day (though lists have their place in complementing stubs); isn't this why we have stub templates? I've created many two-sentence stubs and they are far more likely to gather new information, images, and interwiki links than a list of species. Bot creation of articles is a bad idea, as we've learned in the past. Rkitko ^(talk) 12:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

My concern is that large numbers of bot created stubs can swamp people's ability to either check them or create larger articles. In the linked to discussion, the bot supporters agree that the source they are using may itself contain errors which would be undetectable - although they do check it for formatting type errors that would throw the bot off course. Also, they do not have a plan to check the bot output (it was proposed by others that they check by sampling, but I'm not sure this was supported). The ambition is to put 40,000, 60,000 or 100,000 (figure varies) bot created articles onto wikipedia to cover all gastropods. I admire their dedication to making available all the information there is about slugs and snails, but I'm just not sure all those bot created stubs is the answer. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Elen: Please forgive my boldness in saying so, but I would like to see this thread remain on the topic of the worth of species stubs, and not the issue of bots. I will presently post at the BRFA to express my agreement with your position. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Might have been better not to label it "the Great Bot Debate" then. Or refer to the BRFA discussion. However, I have said my piece, so I won't mention the bot again. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, touché, my friend. Catchy title though. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Hesperian that “all published taxa are inherently notable, and quality one-sentence stubs are, in my opinion, unobjectionable “. The taxoboxes of the gastropods contain the latest taxonomy (in contrast with most handbooks and websites), they also contain synonyms (very useful for finding one's way through a maze of synonyms), the authority and eventually the type species, These stubs also invite further involvement, such as adding a photo (we're in the process of adding about 2,500 photos of shells and we need at least a stub to put these photos into).

His (and also Rkitko's) doubt about programming a bot to mass-create articles without introducing vast numbers of errors, however, is unfounded in this case. The database we are relying on (World Register of Marine Species) is maintained by the best specialists in the field. Changes in taxonomy can be reported by another bot, as has been done in Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastropods/Unaccepted. I'm almost finished checking all these changes.

In short, these stubs, created by a bot, are very useful, Since Ganeshbot has been halted, I had to create long list of species, most of which had red links. With the bot these links could have been blue, linking to articles with minimal (but useful) information. With the bot, it could have saved me already many hours of work. JoJan (talk) 14:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Stemonitis; if a species stub contains nothing more than its classification and authority, then I prefer to see it in a list instead. I find it frustrating to go to a genus article and see a list of blue links for species, only to find that every single one goes to a stub with no more information than the genus article itself. Having vast quantities of stubs also obscures the presence of higher-quality articles for those who want to browse, and areas that require further work for those who aren't familiar. -- Yzx (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Stubs are bad because it makes it difficult to browse? Stubs are bad because you get frustrated with overwhelming blue links that lead to only stubs? Wikipedia is a project still in progress and likely always will be; there's no reason to assume stubby articles will always remain that way (meta:eventualism). I gave concrete reasons to support stubs over this information in lists above (stubs gather new information, photos, and interwiki links much faster than lists). I can think of a few more for you: lists of large genera become cumbersome and unwieldy and we don't redirect species names to list articles, so searches on a specific species would be hindered. If people want to browse only our best articles, there's a link on the main page to featured article content with contents sorted by subject area. To expand an article, you must first have a stub to work on. Rkitko ^(talk) 21:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

My feelings are with Hesperian on this - it is also easier to expand from a stub than de novo. If one views them as a facilitated redlink then it is not such an issue I think. 'Species' seems to be a natural classification level that people gravitate to, like pages of a book. If folks want to develop a genus or family level page, then the presence or absence of stubs shouldn't impact on this (i.e. developing species vs genera articles needn't be mutually exclusive). But I do worry about bots making errors...Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Hesperian that each individual published species of metazooan is inherently notable. I agree with Rkitko that the question "are stubs on individual species a good idea or should they be reduced to lists instead?" is the classic debate on Wikipedia between the "Eventualists"[4] and the "Immediatists"[5] a philosophical debate that is endemic to Wikipedia, an encyclopedia which is now and will continue to be a work in progress. I agree with Casliber that having stubs already in place make it enormously easier for anyone to rapidly add in content such as images and other helpful information. It's discouraging to have to slowly create a new stub by hand every time you find a good free image and/or other useful info. This is the main reason that we supported the idea of numerous stubs, because it greatly facilitates expansion. (As we all know, bots were created in order to carry out routine tasks that are boring and excessively time-consuming for humans to do. As for bots making errors, so far in our recent bot stubs, the only things that have been objected to are arguably not errors at all, and in any case were to do with choices (of wording etc) that were made by humans, not in anyway an error on the part of the bot.) I also agree wholeheartedly with everything that JoJan said concerning all of these points. Invertzoo (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. I think (properly written, taxonomically accurate) stubs lay the foundation for the Wikipedia of the future, and should be encouraged. The presence of these stubs will make it much easier for academics to add material (as opposed to them having to figure out how to create an article from scratch). That said, bot-creations should be carefully monitored, but based on this conversation, I don't think that's an issue in this case, as the Gastropod group, although small, is active and enthusiastic. To Yzx, in your preferences (under "Appearance") you can specify a "stub-threshold", and any link to an article under whatever number of characters you choose will be a different color. Sasata (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for taking the time to respond. It has been very helpful. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we can say that (despite some opposing views), we seem to have a consensus that species stubs are valuable. Invertzoo (talk) 13:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

A more detailed synopsis would be that there is universal support for species stubs that contain real information, but mixed opinions on very short stubs that merely refer to the parent taxon without adding further information. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm really on the fence here. If these stubs could be created with some species-specific information (distribution, habitat, whatever)—even if only a sentence or two—I'd be completely sold on the idea. As it stands, however, these stubs provide zero additional information compared with a species list that includes binomial authorities. Note that I'm talking about this information being included upon article creation, not added at some later time. mgiganteus1 (talk) 23:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Zero additional information being included upon article creation ? These stubs also provide synonyms (this can be very handy), eventually the type species and accession date to the database. As I said before, these stubs also invite further involvement, such as adding new information, images, references, and interwiki links. But, what is even more important, changes in taxonomy in the database referred to, can only be picked up by a bot if there is at least a stub in wikipedia to compare with (see : Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastropods/Unaccepted). Without such a stub, these changes will go unnoticed for a long time. JoJan (talk) 05:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant species-specific information being included upon article creation. mgiganteus1 (talk) 10:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

mgiganteus1 has a good point. Were we preparing the ledes with as much information common to that group as we could? Species-specific doesn't sound practical, but Family-specific does. Examples such as this and this show little information other than "marine". Are there are things common to whole families or genera that could safely go in lede sentences, eg. "...small...", "...predatory...", "...brown...", etc? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Genus Sus

Currently the article about the genus Sus occupies the page name Pig, which is semi-protected so IPs cannot edit it. As an article about a genus, it is poor quality: full of tangents copied from related articles, and lacking discussion of the genus itself. Would anyone here like to clean it up? 69.3.72.249 (talk) 21:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I do find that interesting-- the article skirts around the wild pigs altogether. Thanks for bringing this to our attention; I'll place an appropriate notification on the specialized project pages. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Several related articles and disambiguation pages are getting attention. See Domestic pig, Wild boar, Razorback, Pig (disambiguation) and their talk pages. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 03:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This Discussion would be better handled at WikiProject Animals or WikiProject Mammals, I would suggest moving it there so editors that are more familiar with the subject can assist you better. Regards ZooPro 07:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:TaxonIds

Trouble is brewing at Template:TaxonIds. One editor insists on making numerical identifiers invisible from this template, while others prefer to keep them visible. I would like to ask as many editors as possible to make their opinions known at Template talk:TaxonIds#Identifiers to help reach a clear consensus. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Automatic taxobox bot request

I don't remember leaving any formal note here regarding Template:Automatic taxobox, an attempt to simplify the process of adding taxoboxes and create consistency in the taxonomy used in Wikipedia. You can read more at Template_talk:Taxobox#Automatic_taxonomy_generation.

I'm currently moving ahead with the implementation of this template, and have an open bot request in progress; feedback is very welcome and if anyone wants to chip in ideas either at Template talk:Automatic taxobox or on my talk page, you are warmly invited to. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 17:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:Taxonomy disambiguation

FYI, there is a proposal about the use of {{Taxonomy disambiguation}} on Template:Taxonomy disambiguation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) talk page, see Template talk:Taxonomy disambiguation. -- 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Date categories and replacement names

Categories for taxa by date of description are now in widespread use across Wikipedia (e.g. Category:Animals described in 1815, Category:Plants described in 1910). Normally, the date is fairly obvious: it is the year in the binomial_authority in the taxobox for animals, and can generally be found from IPNI for vascular plants. I have just come across a situation which seems to my mind less clear. Eucalyptus parvula was a replacement name coined in 1991 to replace "Eucalyptus parvifolia Cambage", a junior homonym, described in 1909, of Eucalyptus parvifolia Newberry (a fossil, which was presumably described in the 1895 The Flora of the Amboy Clays). Thus, although the [valid] name wasn't published until 1991, the species was described in 1909. For the moment, I have left that article with Category:Plants described in 1991, but I'm not sure whether that's right. (Of course, ultimately, the article should be long enough to take a "Taxonomic history" section which would explain all of this.) This isn't the same situation as taxa which were only informally described, since here Richard Hind Cambage tried and intended to erect a new species, but was unaware of a prior homonym. I guess it comes down to a question of what we're trying to achieve with the date categories. I am of two minds. What does anyone else think? --Stemonitis (talk) 10:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Maias and I discussed these issues some time ago at User talk:Maias#Year categories. There are some other questionable items, and I suggested that renaming these categories to "Animals named in ..." etc. would be less ambiguous, but I never got around to doing that. Ucucha 11:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

For plants, I created this essay which will eventually be linked to from each "plant described in year" category. And each category should get some small explanation, like the one at Category:Plants described in 2010. My take on it was that we want to categorize it by the first valid publication. The case Stemonitis brings up here is kind of rare, so the vast majority of pages will be categorized where first description = first valid publication. I mostly settled on suggesting valid publications to avoid problems in botanical authorities with ex in them where dates for the first invalid description are hard to find easily (I give an example at the essay). I think since this is such a rare case, you can WP:IAR (not exactly a rule) and put it in the 1909 category. Or if that's too confusing, you could just not categorize that species in the year cats. I do that when IPNI doesn't list the date or it has a range of dates when publication was uncertain (e.g. December 1888 or January 1889?). Rkitko ^(talk) 13:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Algae talk page tagging

I have asked a user with a project tagging bot to start tagging wikiproject algae articles. The conversation is here if you would like to comment, make suggestions.

Sorry for spamming this in a few locations, but algae on wikipedia need a lot of help. --KMLP (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Common names capitalization redux

Just found the following:

The American Fisheries Society and American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists Joint Names Committee (the governing committee in North America that determines the scientific and common names of fishes), has decided that the first letter in each word in the common names of fishes will now be capitalized. [...] This decision has been accepted by the AFS Executive and will be reflected in the upcoming seventh edition of Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico, AFS Special Publication to be published in 2011.

As it seems, there may be a trend towards capitalization but there definitely is no trend away from it. Which seems logical - breeds and cultivars are (almost) universally capitalized, so why should species not be? But I wouldn't suggest changing the rules yet (I would support it though if the majority of editors supports it); the present equivocal stance is quite appropriate given that most organisms (plants and arthropods) do not yet follow the caps rule widely (as common names are not standardized as much as for birds, mammals, and - increasingly - herpers and fishes). Eventually (say by 2013-2015) we may find it advisable to implement a caps rule, but at present it's better left to the individual editor's discretion, except where caps are generally used (which is largely concurrent with the establishment of standardized common-name lists, an ongoing process that is only completed yet for birds and mammals). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 08:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

A standard set of common names for North American fishes has been established for some time, so the announcement isn't surprising. However, considering there are as many species of fish as all other vertebrates combined, and on average how little is known about most of them compared to the other vertebrate groups, I would be extremely surprised if any unified, global list of fish common names emerges in the near future. -- Yzx (talk) 08:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Taxonomic articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Taxonomic articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

IUCN Red list maps needing placed in articles

I found this on the home page of the Commons this morning:

The IUCN Red List has released rights for the reuse of their distribution maps of species that have been evaluated (currently around 25,000 maps are available). If anyone is interested, the maps need to be reproduced using the spatial data (I assume there is special software out there to do this) and then placed in the Commons. Additionally, any maps in the Commons can now be placed into the appropriate articles.

commons:Commons:IUCN_red_list - About this project

commons:Category:IUCN distribution maps - Maps are being added to this category. You might consider browsing it and placing the maps included in this category into the appropriate articles.

Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the List of cutaneous conditions

There are a number of unitalicized phyla names used in the intro of one of the sections in this list. Could someone look at the list an italicize them if they should be? ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Mimulus guttatus

I wonder if someone would be kind enough to comment on taxobox photograph selection at Talk:Mimulus guttatus, please? Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you to those who commented. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment needed

More eyes are needed on the Plasmodium article. There are a couple of problems being discussed on the talk page and its is possible that at least part of the article may be OR. All comments are welcome!--Kevmin § 23:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The articles Leukocytozoon, Sarcocystis, and in the worst case Eimeria also have the same taxobox problem. --Kevmin § 00:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Article title capitalisation

See Talk:African Wild Dog#Requested move for a discussion relevant to this Wikiproject. Help appreciated. Andrewa (talk) 06:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Article titles Host-Parasite Relations

How should this article, Sarcocystis: Host-parasite relations, be properly titled, and what about similar articles? While descriptive, I wonder if someone can come up with better? Thanks. --Kleopatra (talk) 21:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

List of hosts of Sarcosystis? Ucucha 21:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking for....

Resolved

fulltext of:

Community-level changes in Banksia woodland following plant pathogen invasion in the Southwest Australian Floristic Region Author(s): Bishop CL, Wardell-Johnson GW, Williams MR Source: JOURNAL OF VEGETATION SCIENCE Volume: 21 Issue: 5 Pages: 888-898 Published: OCT 2010 Times Cited: 0

I can only get this journal till 2004 :( cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

On its way. Sasata (talk) 03:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

thx +++ Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking for fulltext of...

this one - much appreciated if anyone can get it :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I've got it. Send me an e-mail with your address and I'll reply with the pdf. Rkitko ^(talk) 01:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Ack! Ucucha just sent it through. Thanks anyway Rkitko :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Dang! I was scooped. No worries :-) Next time I'll be faster. Rkitko ^(talk) 03:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking for another fulltext...

Of this, my uni's online link to this journal is glitched..dunno why...much appreciatedCasliber (talk · contribs) 20:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC) And also Schlee, M.A. 2000. The status of vultures in Latin America. Pp. 191-206 in International Zoo Yearbook 33:159-175 - same journal. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Just beat Rkitko again on the first one. I think the second citation is wrong; it should be Schlee, M.A. 2000. The status of vultures in Latin America. Pp. 191-206 in R.D. Chancellor and B.-U. Meyburg (eds.), Raptors at risk. World Working Group on Birds of Prey, Berlin, and Hancock House, Blaine, WA. It's probably not online. Ucucha 20:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thanks for that x 2. Got it now and digesting...Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Automatic taxobox

Hi, just a quick note that we're looking for feedback on Template:Automatic taxobox; if there are any suggestions for improvement, the would be welcome now, before we roll out the template on a larger scale. Comments gratefully appreciated at Template_talk:Automatic_taxobox#Request_for_comments. Thank you! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)