Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Shortcut:
WP:TOL

First, an important note for everyone to remember:

A few Wikipedians have gotten together to make some suggestions about how we might organize data in these articles. These are only suggestions, things to give you focus and to get you going, and you shouldn't feel obligated in the least to follow them. But if you don't know what to write or where to begin, following the below guidelines may be helpful. Mainly, we just want you to write articles!

Contents

[edit] Overview

This WikiProject aims primarily to represent the taxonomy and relationships of living organisms, as well as their extinct relatives, in a tree structure. Since there are millions of species, not all will be included, but we aim to handle as many as information, time, and interest permit.

This WikiProject descends from WikiProject Science. Various other WikiProjects may be based on it to better treat specific groups. Currently there are:

[edit] Article titles and common names

In cases where there is a formal common name (e.g. birds), or when common names are well-known and reasonably unique, they should be used for article titles. Scientific names should be used otherwise.

Note the following guidelines in using scientific names:

  • Names of genera are always italicized and capitalized— Homo, Rosa, Saccharomyces.
  • Species epithets are always italicized and preceded by the name of the genus or an abbreviation of it— Homo sapiens or H. sapiens, but never plain sapiens, since such identifiers need not be unique. They are never capitalized.
  • Names of higher taxa are capitalized but not italicized— Hominidae, Mammalia, Animalia.

Many of the WikiProjects listed above have defined standards for the capitalization of common names, which should be used when discussing the groups they focus on. There is currently no common standard, so no particular system should be enforced over-all.

In cases where a group only contains a single subgroup, the two should not be separated. If there is no common name, the article should generally go under the scientific name that is most often used when discussing the group, or under the scientific name of lowest rank if there is no clear preference. However, for a genus that contains a single species, the genus name should be used since it is included in the binomial. For instance the order Amphionidacea, which has the single species Amphionides reynaudii, is discussed at Amphionides.

Not all species need have separate articles. The simplest (and probably best) rule is to have no rule: if you have the time and energy to write up some particularly obscure subspecies that most people have never even heard of, go for it! As a general guideline, though, it's best to combine separate species into a single entry whenever it seems likely that there won't be enough text to make more than a short, unsatisfying stub otherwise. If the entry grows large enough to deserve splitting, that can always be done later.

A useful heuristic is to create articles in a "downwards" order, that is, family articles first, then genus, then species. If you find that information is getting thin, or the family/genus is really small, just leave the species info inline in the family or genus article, don't try to force it down any further.

[edit] Taxoboxes

iExample taxobox
Cetaceans
Humpback Whale breaching
Humpback Whale breaching
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Cetacea
Brisson, 1762
Suborders

Mysticeti
Odontoceti

The full taxobox guide is located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/taxobox usage.

Detailed taxonomic information, including notes on how taxa are defined and how they vary between different systems, belongs in the article proper. Where possible, however, a standard table will be provided to allow easier navigation between related groups and quick identification of what sort of organisms are being discussed. These are called taxoboxes. A typical taxobox is shown at right (it belongs on the top right of the page Cetacea).

There are three main sections to the taxobox:

  • A header showing the name of the group, sometimes followed by a representative image.
  • A table showing the placement of the group in a typical classification system.
  • A footer, whose content varies, showing the binomial name or a species, or a list of subgroups for higher taxa.

Some items that are often included, but are not (necessarily) standardized, include:

Position: The taxobox generally belongs at the top right corner of the article, unless it has been decided otherwise on the relevant talk page - for instance, if the article is not primarily about the biological group.

For cultivars — cultivated varieties of plants — don't use a taxobox; instead use a cultivar infobox as described at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Cultivar infobox.

For breeds of animals, don't use a taxobox; instead use the appropriate breed template; see for example Wikipedia:WikiProject Dog breeds and Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse breeds.

[edit] Categories

Major groups should be given their own categories. When possible, these should use the common name in the plural. In general, only articles about major subgroups should be added, and more specific articles should be included in subcategories. However, when there are only a few articles about members of the group, they can all go directly into the main category. Use your judgement on when to split, aiming for an approximate category size of 10-50 articles.

Note that in addition to taxa, categories may also contain informal subgroups. For instance Category:Primates may include an article or subcategory for monkeys, although they are not treated as a formal group. They may also include some other articles that pertain specifically to members of the group, although they are not about them.

Categories related to the biota of a region should should be based on the common grouping of that region used by zoological, botanical, mycological etc. publications. For example, if it is common to separate a region based on political boundaries (as in parts of Europe), categories should be separated by countries. If it is common to separate regions based on geographic features (such as New Guinea), categories should be separated by geographic region.

[edit] Taxonomic resources

The taxonomy of many groups is in a state of flux, and it is not always possible to find a single satisfactory classification, and we would be doing a great disservice by pretending otherwise. The best would be to try and find out what the current consensus is, if there is one, and make notes on variant systems. In this, the following resources may be helpful:

[edit] General taxonomy

[edit] Animals

  • Vertebrata - Japanese language, but the structure's fine and the names are in Sciencese!)
  • FishBase - Huge database giving basic info on thousands of fish.
  • Animal Diversity Web from the University of Michigan - Very informative
  • Avibase - database including all the world's bird species
  • CephBase - superb information about Cephalopod classification. Permission granted to use their images (see image:Orangeback_Squid.JPG for example
  • Lepidoptera and other species (mostly related to Lepidoptera, such as popular butterfly plants, etc.). Info collected from other sources, not sure how accurate it all is. Interesting note: he has a (open source) perl script generating range maps automatically from distribution text.
  • BugGuide.net--extensive resource on taxonomy and identification of North American arthropods. Experts in many fields visit and help with taxonomy.
  • Mammal Species of the World - Internet edition of one of the leading works about mammalian taxonomy.
  • Mesozoic mammals - Containing much information about Mesozoic mammals and relatives.
  • Mammal Taxonomy - Database of living and extinct mammals of the world (by User:Ucucha).
  • Fauna Europaea - Database of all European land and freshwater animals.

[edit] Plants

Likewise, the following sites can help find taxonomic authors and abbreviations:
  • IPNI, authors search Note that the author database is separate from the plant name databases: the author database is authoritative. The plant name databases are "as is" and should be used as a search aid (invaluable as such) rather than as any kind of authority.

[edit] Fungi

  • Index Fungorum - database of fungus species, genus and higher names, with all historical synonyms and indication of current name
  • Also see ITIS, which covers other kingdoms as well


[edit] Protists and Prokaryotes

[edit] Other resources

Photos

  • Stock.xchng - thousands of photos (e.g. over 9,000 in category 'animals', over 7,600 in category 'plants'), mostly free use ({{PD}}); many un-named, but a good source for those able to identify the pics

[edit] Related WikiProjects

[edit] Participants

  • andy Mostly adding taxoboxes where I spot them missing, and occasionally adding articles on Amphibians
  • Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason - going to help with changing the taxoboxes over to the new template syntax.
  • Belizian I just take nature pictures in the Jungles of Belize, request welcome.
  • Bibliomaniac15 - I like and research organisms in general. However, why isn't there a WikiProject for Reptiles or Amphibians?
  • Bjwebb - I'll do any animals I can
  • Chinasaur Going to try to add some images from the largely public domain NSF Image Library.
  • Coyoty Disambiguations, proofreading, etc.
  • Al-Ghazali
  • Cryoboy I started the Cnidarians Wikiproject, I am also interested in primates.
  • Dalf | Talk - Right now mostly doing house keeping stuff and mostly that in the extinct animals space.
  • Dan Koehl I am now trying to implement the templates on the swedish wikipedia.
  • DanielCD My main interest is in plants, fossils and extinct animals/organisms; adding taxoboxes where I find them missing, etc.
  • Dante Alighieri | Talk If I happen to be working on a plant/animal article with a missing taxobox, I usually try to put one in.
  • DarthVader Trying to sort out classification, especially problems with Dinosauria and Primates.
  • Dawson - Primarily reptiles and amphibians, photography.
  • Demi - slow and desultory contributions on fish, esp. elasmobranchs like bat rays
  • Dinoguy2 Dinosaur-like birds, bird-like dinosaurs, and taxonomy.
  • Eclecticology
  • ElCharismo - I've always had a passion for taxonomy, and I'm very intrigued by this WikiProject. Here's to the proliferation of taxoboxes, untangling of reference roots, and healthy branching of the Tree of Life: Víva Biology!
  • Froggydarb - Mostly Australia frogs, other Australian animals and other frogs.
  • Furius Just fleshing out Bovidae animals
  • Gangleri I arrived here because I saw that some Tree of Life articles, categories (maybe also lists) (also from other languages) are not linked to la.Wikipedia. Having Icelandic Sheepdogs I search dog related articles in other Wikipedias and link them together for the dog breeds project.
  • GerardM Mainly in using information for use in other wikipedia's and for promoting the universal taxobox in stead of an only en:taxobox.
  • Graham Created a template ({{TSN}}) for the common ITIS link, and am trying to apply it where appropriate. (See Springtail for an example.)
  • Hadal Currently focusing on fish but will write about anything with a heartbeat.
  • Iorsh Wild flora of Israel. I'm an amateur - most my contributions are stubs with taxobox and a photo.
  • Ingoolemo Currently mammals, will probably end up doing a lot of stuff on various organisms. I try to be as scientific as possible, but the problem is that taxonomy and biology aren't exactly the areas I specialise in.
  • IronChris 18:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • jaknouse Plants in general, especially ferns; have done some members of non-plant groups when noticeably missing
  • Jim mainly birds
  • JoJan : mostly Project:Gastropods; taxoboxes; common names
  • Josh Grosse Mostly though not entirely protists.
  • Jurriaan Mostly reptiles and amphibians
  • Jwinius Snakes, mostly viperids, entire viperine subfamily.
  • KimvdLinde Drosophilidae, birds and general taxonomic, nomenclatorial etc stuff.
  • --KQ (intermittently, when something has been dumbed down enough to be legible to the unwashed masses)
  • Trevor Dykes (I'll try. My main interest is Mesozoic mammals and the like. I do wash, but I'm strictly an amateur.)
  • LDan
  • liquidGhoul Mostly Australian frogs, but also any Australian animals/plant and any frog.
  • Magnus Manske
  • M Alan Kazlev - interest in history of life in general. Most familiar with various Paleozoic and Mesozoic amphibians and reptiles, and some invertebrate groups, e.g. Molluscs (especially nautiloids, gastropods, etc). Disclaimer: I'm a lay-writer and armchair enthusiast only.
  • Marshman Mostly angiosperms, but some invertebrates groups as well (Annelida, Arthropoda) from my previous life
  • MattDP General editing on natural history, with an emphasis on the taxonomy and study of dinosaurs and extinct arthropods.
  • maveric149
  • Merovingian: I'm most interested in Bacteria, Archaea, Fungi, Protista, etc.
  • Miwa Primarily birds, but I'll Wiki-spackle just about anything where necessary.
  • Monk of The Highest Order I'm a bird man... na na na na na na... oh wait? Oh yeah, I just have a boxload of eastern north america bird books, so I'll be... processing the information onto wikipedia. If you know what I mean.
  • MPF Main interest in Pinophyta, also trees and other plants more generally
  • Mr. Lefty Pretty much whatever.
  • Neutrality (hopefully!)]] (endemic species)
  • Mycota - Where are all the mycologists? As always, the fungi have been ignored. Sigh...
  • Nighthawk4211 I'm working mainly on the Orchidaceae.
  • NoahElhardt - Mainly carnivorous plants and California natives.
  • Pengo - Red List Categories ("Conservation Status") and the taxobox
  • nixie works on all organisms and viruses too, currently interested in increasing coverage of various plant pests
  • Peter1968 - helping out with Australian flora, mainly rainforest species.
  • Peter Maas: mainly mammals and extinct species.
  • Phlebas Dinosaurs and fishes, mostly. Oh, and ostracods maybe too.
  • OldakQuill General, alot of bacteria so far.
  • Onco_p53 Mostly bacteria, some algae.
  • Pierre Abbat
  • Qwertzy2 Taxonomy of higher plants above all, but some small animals (crustaceans, insects or even birds) from time to time as well. No particular specialist knowledge.
  • Ram-Man Mostly for fish, but maybe some plants too.
  • Richard Barlow - I've been working on moths for a while. Planning to do some butterfly stuff. Probably will dip into virtually anything! (Strictly layman - do NOT call me an entomologist!)
  • Sabine's Sunbird - Birds, mostly, but I'll contribute to anything I know something about. Seabirds are my speciality.
  • Sambostock intend to standardise mammal pages. work on birds and everything else.
  • SB_Johnny I'm an organic farmer and horticulturist, interested in the practical side of plant articles.
  • seglea I have some specialist knowledge on birds, rodents and primates (which need a lot of work), but I have ready access to the technical literature and am willing to turn an amateur hand to most taxa.
  • Shyamal - fauna and flora of the Indian subcontinent
  • The Singing Badger No specialist knowledge but interested in improving stuff especially the prehistoric sections
  • Soo I seem to have become an accidental contributor to this project, but I thought I'd sign myself in anyway.
  • Spawn Man 22:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC) Happy to help the tree of life anytime!!
  • Stan Shebs fish, plants, insects, exotics - ideally material only in print previously, gives WP unique online content
  • Stanskis: Classification; Standard lists; Taxonomy in the service of Conservation and other uses. Broad background and dirty hands.
  • Stefan Mostly sharks and fishes. Started WikiProject Sharks
  • Stemonitis: chiefly Crustacea, but also anything else I come across.
  • Stephen Gilbert (interested in working on dinosaurs; I'm also one of the unwashed masses.)
  • Superfo Ducks, primates, marsupials, etc, I'll do whatever I can... I love life!
  • Svartulfr1 Mostly interested in animals, particularly mammals. However, I am interested in all living creatures and will participate where I find the time and the interest.
  • Tannin Mostly birds and mammals, particularly Southern Hemisphere species.
  • TeunSpaans Mostly plants, perhaps occasional insects. Creating interwiki links, adding a hand at expanding some stubs.
  • Tkinias I just realized I'd never added my name. I've started WikiProject Fishes.
  • Tnarg Frogs, mostly Australian. However reptiles and other animals as well.
  • Ucucha Taxonomy of mammals, mainly rodents, insectivores marsupials and bats but no carnivores and ungulates.
  • UtherSRG General cleanup. Taxobox creation, formatting, maintenance. Projects Primates and Cephalopods.
  • WormRunner (earthworms, some other invertebrates and some plants, especially herbs, medicinal plants and Oregon natives.)
  • Yummifruitbat Photos (my own) and content edits to pretty much anything; very slow translation of good articles from German wikipedia

[edit] Sample articles

A number of articles under this WikiProject and its descendants have been recognized for their excellence by the Wikipedia community as featured articles, and may serve as good models:

[edit] Cleanup

Please add {{ToLCleanup}} to the talk page of ToL articles in need of cleanup. In addition to adding some text indicating the article needs some work, it will also add the article to Category:Wikipedia cleanup and Category:Tree of Life cleanup.

Please add {{missing-taxobox}} to the talk page of articles that need taxonomic information.

[edit] Articles needing attention

  • Biology pages needing attention (cleanup, expansion, wikification, expert needed, etc.)
  • Coelenterata currently redirects to Cnidaria, which is wrong, since this group acutally includes comb jellies too. There is a dispute with User:Dalbury, he reverts to redirect regardless arguments that this is a redirect from general concept to its subset. There is an article, but its extremely short, hardly a stub. Can someone with expertise in biology please create at least a 2-paragraph meaningful stub, or at least support my arguments that this redirect is confusing? --Maxxicum 02:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Do you have a reference for that? I've been out of school for a while so I'm not up on the latest cladistics, but last I heard, Cnidaria and Ctenophora were coranked at the phylum level, placed in the subkingdom Radiata. Coelenerate was an outdated synonym. On scholar.google.com I can't find a reference to the infraphylum you suggest, although that's not necessarily gospel, obviously. tolweb.org also ranks them as sibling phyla, and that's how ITIS lists it, too. (see Template:TSN). --Grahamtalk/mail/e 07:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Although it has been claimed on Talk:Coelenterata that Ctenophora was once treated as part of Coelenterata, that has to have been a while back. A 1965 textbook I have (Simpson and Beck. Life: an Introduction to Biology 2nd Ed.) lists 'Coelenterata or Cnidaria' and 'Ctenophora' as separate phyla under 'Metazoa'. Given the inherent conservatism of textbook writers, that is likely to have been the generally accepted classification for a while before 1965. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 13:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia%7EWikiProject_Tree_of_Life_65b4.html"