Talk:Snake

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Snake article.
Article policies
Amphibians and Reptiles Portal
Snake is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use amphibians and reptiles resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Tree of Life
Biology Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree of life. For more information, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Snake was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: December 12, 2007

Contents

[edit] New legged snake fossil found

"A fossil animal locked in Lebanese limestone has been shown to be an extremely precious discovery - a snake with two legs.

...The 85cm-long (33in) creature, known as Eupodophis descouensi, comes from the Late Cretaceous, about 92 million years ago."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7339508.stm

AThousandYoung (talk) 02:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Boomslang

I doubt like hell if there's any such reptile as a boomslang —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.184.82.195 (talk) 10:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Google it. Scientific name is Dispholidus typhus; I've got a friend who has one (well, at the zoo she curates). Mokele (talk) 22:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Map

Snakes live at the top of the Himylayas, Rockies, and Alps, but not the Andes? -Jackmont, April 27, 2007.

[edit] Senses

"A snake smells through its nose" - This is not true, is it? Smells using the Jacobson's organ (sp?) in the roof of its mouth. Wait a sec...I understand that snakes have a Jacobson's organ which works in conjunction with the tongue to pick up and "sense" molecules from the surroundings. But, don't they also use their nostrils for smelling? I suspect there is an olfactory portion of the snake brain; does it receive information from the nostrils only, from the Jacobson's organ only, or from both??Psslither 17:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)psslither

That's the least of the problems with this article. Snakes are also deaf, but it recommends that you make plenty of noise tos care them off.

Snakes are deaf, but the noise causes vibrations which they are extremely sensitive to. --Neonstarlight 09:50, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
Snakes have no external ears, so cannot hear air vibrations, but have a unctional inner ear and can hear conducted (ground) vibrations.
Sound is vibration. These statements make no sense. —Keenan Pepper 00:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Uh it makes every sense. They can hear people stomping their feet, but not the bee flying around.

Bones in their heads sense vibrations FROM THE GROUND. So they can't hear a hawk's screeches, but they can sense the footsteps of a badger. Make "sense"? (Get it?) Also, they don't smell with their noses, I think that's true. They smell with their tongues. (To say it for a general audience...) Dora Nichov 09:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fix

Someone want to change "I want these motherfucking snakes of this motherfucking plane" back into just "snake"?

[edit] Uropeltidae

How do the Uropeltidae fit in ?? Thanks, GerardM 17:52, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Uropeltidae is a family of snakes that inhabit southern India and Sri Lanka. They're named that because of a large shield at the end of their tails. (Uropeltidae = Shield Tail) Neonstarlight 11:32, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Surviving snake bite=

The information is accurate only for North American pit vipers. A North Americal coral snake (micrurus fulvius (fulvius|tenere)) will produce negligible local reaction, and symptoms are often delayed many hours, with 12 hours until respiratory paralysis becomes noticeable not unusual.

Venom does NOT spread "instantaneously" or even nearly so, via the circulatory system. It is effectively a subcutaneous injection, and spreads slowly via the lymphatic system. In Australia, the standard and highly effective first aid is "pressure immobilization" - apply an elastic bandage as for a sprained ankle from the bite site as far up the affected limb as possible, to obstruct lymphaic return (but not blood flow) and keep the limb immobile. This is technically a lymphatic tourniquet, but when teaching laymen, the term "tourniquet" is generally avoided, as people confuse it with an arterial tourniquet.

Some have recommended this technique for use with digestive-style venoms such as rattlesnakes as well, but a consensus is not established. It does not appear to do grave harm, and can always be taken off if you change your mind. For toxins that must reach the body core to cause serious harm, such as paralytic neurotxins, it is highly effective.

--Why not add this information to the article? And maybe also add some of the info from that section of this page to the Snakebite article, such as the number of venomous snakes and the frequency of lethal bites?


I don't know if it would be such a great idea to add too much info from the snakebite article to this one, but number of dangerous snakes and the like would be fine. My main concern is the 32kb warning and since Wikipedia articles should preferably be smaller or equal to 32kb, it would be better to leave the articles broken up the way they are.
Also, the snakebite article isn't nearly complete as I am still working on it whenever I have the time. But regardless, I would not mind help finding snakebite pictures with Wikipedia compatible licensing to help illustrate the article. --Every1blowz 23:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Honey

is harmful to snakes?--Jondel 4 July 2005 02:35 (UTC)

Never heard that before. Dora Nichov 09:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Snake is not a game on mobile phones

This is not what snake means:

Snake is also a game, now very popular and implemented on mobile phones.

it became popular first when it was created in q basic a basic structural software used to create short programs like snake or pac man

Is that sentence wrong then? I don't think I follow you. Pcb21| Pete 8 July 2005 07:08 (UTC)

[edit] Snakes

Snakes do not have ears so it is always a mysterie how do they here when a enemie is coming. I think they here the vibration of the prey coming. Some snakes are venamous and some are not.

-Timmy Medland, age 6

Again, sound is vibration. Snakes don't have external ears, they have internal ears which give them a decent sense of hearing, especially for low frequencies. —Keenan Pepper 00:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, they sense with bones in their heads. Plus hearing is not the only sense they have. They can also smell and see, and some can sense the body heat of warm-blooded prey. Really cool. Dora Nichov 09:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boas are not Venomous

Boas kill thier prey by constriction, not by venom. I went ahead and removed Boa from the list of venomous snakes.

True. Dora Nichov 09:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irulas

Irlas are not from Andhra Pradesh. They live in Tamil Nadu.

[edit] disarticulated jaw

The article falsely stated, "Contrary to the popular myth, at no point do they "unhinge" their jaws (disarticulate their mandibular joints)." This is not a myth. Many snakes, such as the Egg-Eating Snake, do indeed disarticulate their jaws during feeding. I removed the sentence. wikipediatrix 04:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect. Though the jaw expands greatly, all joints remain in contact with one another, with the mandibular symphysis joined by a highly elastic ligament. The joints move, and the jaw opens to great lengths, but there is never anything which is technically accurate to call 'disarticulation'. - mokele 4:00, 8th of March 2006

Incorrect!? I don't think so. I thought they do unhinge their jaws as well as expand the elastic whatever in their lower jaws. Moreover, I've seen a snake unhinge it's jaws then hinge them back again when it was finished with it's prey on Discovery... Plus every source I have state that they unhinge their jaws. Dora Nichov 09:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Your information is wrong. No joints become disarticulated during feeding. Snakes have a series of jaw joints that gives exceptional flexibility, which in turn gives the ILLUSION that their jaws unhinge, but that is definitively not the case. I have personally seen cineradiographs ("X-ray movies") of snake feeding, and can attest to this. If you disagree, find me a reference from the peer-reviewed scientific literature (all other references are worthless). Names to start with are Moon, Caldwell, Mehta, and Shine. - mokele 25 july 20007

[edit] .hey

hey guys i am back you shuld include a page about the cure for rattlesnake bites in the 1800s' thanx guyz it will help on my school project

You can ask on this talk page, but you can't request an article on the web for all to see just for yourself. By the way, I don't know anything related to what you need on your report. Dora Nichov 09:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lethal List

The list of lethal venemous snakes is innacurate since not all the venemous snakes listed are lethal. Cotton mouths and copper heads for instance have killed less people in the U.S. then bees. Even untreated a copperhead bite can not kill an adult without additional factor or complications. The list should be renamed to simply "Venemous snakes" or two seperate lists should be created for lethal and venemous. --Surreal 12:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree. Just make venemous, as lethality has too many variables. Wikibofh(talk) 13:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
No, definitely don't name it "venomous snakes". A lot of snakes are venomous and if we were to add them all that would be one really long list. Not to mention no snake is 100% lethal all the time since so many factors come into play. So I agree, the name of the list is misleading and does need to be changed.
I’m thinking we should rename the list something to the effect of "potentially lethal snakes". That way, copperheads and water moccasins can stay on the list as removing them from the list sort of defeats the purpose of Wikipedia. --Every1blowz 04:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
The list itslef isn't structured very well since it includes species as well as families of snakes and genus (pit vipers, rattlesnakes and then lists species of pit vipers, rattlesnakes, etc). It would be a lot of work indeed to list every species. Perhaps species should be removed unless they don't fall into a family or genus that is completely venomous. I don't see a problem with naming it "potentionally letahl" since there are no real "mild" venoms that I'm aware of.
On the types of venom snakes inject- there are two common types refered to as hemotoxin and neurotoxin. Though the info in the changes (history) is accurate (there are several toxins found snake venom) their are only two types of venom distinguished. Not necessary to include so I didnt change it. Just thought I'd throw the info out. --Surreal 13:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
If no one else has any problems with "potentially lethal snakes" then I'd like to change the name to that.
As for the snake venom thing, I simply thought it'd be better to direct readers to the more appropriate and in-depth article since it's really beyond this article's scope to discuss snake venom. --Every1blowz 20:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I came across this: venomous snakes. I suggest the list of snakes under the section be removed and replaced with the link. --Surreal 08:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regions of the World?

Can someone make a section about where most snakes live in the world? I will if necessary but so far I do not have any information. --Godtvisken 15:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Nearly everywhere except the poles. Dora Nichov 09:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget, they don't live in Ireland! =P Robin Chen 02:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I second this suggestion: just a sentence in the introduction maybe? I just came to the page to see where they live. 87.198.156.76 22:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taxobox color

Is there any reason this taxobox is blue, instead of the standard pink (indicating an animal group)?Dinoguy2 22:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated Vandalism

Pardon me, but this article seems to be subject to extremely frequent vandalism, and all instances of the word "snake" have been replaced with "I want these motherf**king snakes off these motherf**king planes" as of the time I'm writing this. As a nonmember, it seems I cannot revert the article to an earlier version; could someone please make the necessary change? Thanks. Anonymous - 3/30/06

  • Actually, you can. You just need to click on an older version, edit and save. Wikibofh(talk) 00:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] While I was in Arizona....

While I was in this US state, I was told about a green colored snake called a "Two Step". This thing bites you, you take two steps before you die. Maybe some escaped from a zoo, got out of someone else's collection they got from Viet Nam, where the snake is native there, used by the Viet Cong AS a sort of a "Booby trap" against the "Tunnel Rats" during the Viet Nam War. Martial Law 01:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC) :)

  • I live in Arizona, and it sounds apocryphal to me. It would have to be a specific species, and the same species in two diverse climates such as Arizona and Viet Nam sounds unlikely. Given their geographic distances, it is beyond unlikely. Unless there is a species given, I'm going to revert the changes out. Wikibofh(talk) 03:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I was told it was a small green colored snake by another prospector. Martial Law 04:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC) :)
I was near Quartzite, Arizona itself, and near a small hill called Dome Rock. Martial Law 04:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC) :)
Maybe someone had brought a few back from "Nam" as a "exotic pet". Martial Law 04:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC) :)
  • But without a citation it's just heresay. I'm going to remove them out and if you can find a species or citation we can put it back in. Regardless, it would have to be an exageration, simply because even if it stopped your heart instantaeously (which it couldn't) you can stumble more than that.  :) Wikibofh(talk) 23:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Add Smithsonian Education link?

Hello. I am a writer for the Smithsonian's Center for Education, which publishes Smithsonian in Your Classroom, a magazine for teachers. An online version of an issue titled "Reviled and Revered: Toads, Turtles, Snakes, and Salamanders" is available at this address:

http://www.smithsonianeducation.org/educators/lesson_plans/herps/start.html

If you think the audience would find this valuable, I wish to invite you to include it as an external link. We would be most grateful.

Thank you so much for your attention.

[edit] Etymology?

I'd question the relevance of having a fairly long etymology of the word "snake" in the opening paragraph, and then doing the same thing with "serpent" a bit down. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also, even if they are to be kept, I would ask that they be corrected: if it came into the English language before c. 1100 it does not "come from Old English", as Old English is the direct ancestor of Modern English, rather than a separate language from which English can borrow words; also, it is standard practice to put asterisks before reconstructed, potentially flawed words that were never written down, which goes for all Proto-Indo-European roots. elvenscout742 22:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Old English Is Anglo-Saxon And Heavily Germanic And Scandinavian and Was Used Before 1100, Followed By Middle English (after the addition influences of the normans), Then Modern 81.146.61.102 00:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Snake Food

I think that the article snake food should be merged into the feeding section. --Gray Porpoise 21:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Fine by me. use the {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} templates and we'll discuss. Wikibofh(talk) 22:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The templates are in place. --Gray Porpoise 23:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


5 families of venomous snakes

You omitted Atractaspididea. They are a family of snakes some of which are venomous, formerly classified as elapids, vipers, and colubrids. Members contain the four major types of dentition:opisthoglyphs, proteroglyphs, solnoglyphs, and aglyphous. Some of which (Atractaspis bibroni most notably) are considered dangerous to humans.--Todg 18:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] poisonous snakes

In my opinion, everyone on the internet should do some reasearch and figure out all the poisunous snakes. Children may come here(like me) and need reasearch.

no offense is intended however the correct term is venomous snakes poison is released into the air venom is injected.64.141.125.5 19:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Snakes of The Bible and The Koran

What's wrong about linking to: Snakes of The Bible and The Koran? Doesn't it fit to the passage about snakes in mythology? 84.132.131.102

the link appears to be a 1 page commercial for a book Sir-wiki 22:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

"1 page"? Have you read it? I count three pages, with some further information beyond the wiki-article. In my opinion, that site gives a good overview of snakes in old testament, new testament, Greek mythological and astrological background, and koranic and arabic mythology - all from a herpetological point of view. 84.132.131.102






from nomž 88.109.177.152 08:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Control poison?

Crotalus horridus claims that "Like all other venomous snakes, it can control the amount of venom that is delivered." If true, I would like to see that mentioned and expanded on here. -- Calion | Talk 16:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Etymology: snake-(s)erpent- erpeto-(from the greek verbe

 erpo ,erpomai )

G'day. I'm really new to Wikipedia, re. editing anything, so please let me know if I'm going wrong somewhere. I just wanted to mention that I have read that snakes do have venom yields.

I'm not sure how much you know about snakes, but *from what I've read* snakes tend to try to preserve their venom for prey. When feeling threatened, they can strike without injecting venom. I wish I still had the link so I could show you.

Well, I hope this helped and I hope I did this correctly.

Your etymology seems incorrect. According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, "serpent" dates back to PIE *serp- and have cognates as far as the Sanskrit's word for snake, "sarpah". The Greek cognate is said to be "herpein", "to creep" and not "erpomai". 66.130.177.54 20:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Life Cycle of Snakes

I think it would be useful to include a section on the lifecycle of snakes. Beyond just how they are fertilized/born, but also what they are up to the rest of the time. For example, do they hibernate in the winter, etc.

/Debb 12/7/2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Beefalo (talk • contribs) 21:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Hibernation

In some places snakes go in Hibernation. Could something be added about this? Wiki-uk 10:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needed Citations

-Absolutely needed in the "snake charming" section. This sounds as if someone saw Indiana Jones, read about snake charming on the internet, and wrote the section. its unecessary and erroneous.

- The evolution section needs Citations as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by XenosM (talk • contribs) 19:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Snakes are poikilometic animals. We may call them cold blooded animals. They can not regulate their temperature as mammals do. So, to a great extent, their life is regulated by the environmental temperature. They are at their best in temperature range of 20 degree Celcius to 35 degree Celcius (The temperature range may be different due to local adaptation or their may be interspecies differences). Their internal system gests slow and they become unfit for survival beyond the temperature range. If temperature goes above 35 degrees, they would go to some safe place, to avoid excessive heat. This is called estivation.

If the temperature goes below 20 degree Celcius, they would go under the earth at some depth, for security and also to conserve their energy. This is called Hybernation. During Estivation and Hybernation, their metabolic rate is reduced, heart rate is slow and so is their breathing. They use their stored fat to survive in this period. With a rise in temperature above 20 degree, they would come out of the safe place and start hunting again, partly to replenish the depletion of stored fat.

[edit] Evolution

there are two sections entitled "Evolution" and "Evolution of Snakes". The second really doesn't have anything to do with evolution. Perhaps it should be called something along the lines of "Families of Snakes"? - Im.a.lumberjack 19:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] what does snake eat

what do snake eats i dont no much —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.107.159.46 (talk) 12:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

check diet of the main snake page.64.141.125.5 14:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Venomous snakes

In the main article it gives a list of various toxins including neurotoxins and hemotoxins which are accurate however it also says bungarotoxins which according to the www.mereksource.com website are (bun·ga·ro·tox·in) (bung²g[schwa]-ro-tok¢sin) a strong neurotoxin from the venom of kraits (Bungarus); three electrophoretic fractions, a-, b-, and g-bungarotoxin, have been identified. a-Bungarotoxin, the chief fraction, binds irreversibly with acetylcholine receptors, producing neuromuscular block.

This indicates to me that it is only from kraits and therefore should not be included in the main snake page if included in wikipedia at all. it also says that a bungarotoxin is an neurotoxin. 64.141.125.5 14:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The section ends with "snakes bites with venom can lead to hair loss,aids,t-cell supression,and scarring". Citation? AIDS? Huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.168.152.20 (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism by a phallic obsessed weirdo who was off his ritalin.--Mike Searson (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent vandalism

We should watch this article more carefully. A certain edit inserted extraneous text that disrupted the article very badly; it wasn't until approximately four hours later that it was corrected. Just a word of warning. +A.0u 04:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religion/Symbolism

Why is Islam seperated in the religious section, when there are other religions discussed under the symbolism section (Ancient Pagan, Judeo-Christian, Hindu etc.)? I think these two sections should be merged into one section. Once this is figured out, I will also add a bit about Norse mythology/faith. JanderVK

[edit] symbolism

can't we just keep all religous related information under symbolism? it keeps sneaking its way into other parts of the page. The main theme deals with the BIOLOGY of snakes. thank you.

On the snake as symbol of Jesus Christ, see John 3:14 and http://www.keyway.ca/htm2003/20030818.htm 82.74.189.42 23:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Dissuaded": terribly unclear

"Snake charming as a profession is now dissuaded in India as a contribution to forest and snake conservation."

Several problems:

  • Dissuade, used in this way, is archaic [1] and hence not good use for a reference work like wikipedia that must be understood at the very least by all native speakers of English (who are not pathologically impaired in cognitive ability, obviously)
  • Passive voice is bad - who is dissuading whom?
  • Is this enforceable? If indeed there are no legal implications, what is the vehicle of the dissuasion? Is it a campaign with leaflets, for example?

Basically, you need to also make a stronger point for notability.

Once you have clarified the points above, please make sure your changes are carried through to the more detailed article, snake charming, which currently has no mention of any such "dissuasion" — consistency between articles is a must.

Regards,

Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect range map

The range map is incorrect regarding the distribution of seas snakes in the world. According to everything I've read, sea snakes do not occur in the Atlantic or in the Red Sea. There may be eels in the Caribbean and around the Canary Islands that look like snake, but those are fish. By far the most widely distributed sea snake species, Pelamis platurus, probably would be found in the Atlantic were it not for the cold currents off the coasts of Chile and Namibia that keep them from entering it. Regarding the Red Sea, one theory has it that the elevated salinity level there keeps them out, but I suspect the fact that the Red Sea gets pretty cold in the winter may also be a factor. Whatever the precise reason, Pelamis has not made it to the Atlantic via the Mediterranean and the Suez Canal. It hasn't made it into the Caribbean via the Panama Canal either, although that and the Sargasso Sea would be prime habitat. Finally, the range for sea snakes on the left and right sides of the map do not match up. I'm currently working on a replacement for the sea snake article that's fairly complete, so perhaps I'll make a proper map for it as well that can serve as a new start for this one. --Jwinius 00:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] deleted reference

I have deleted the following reference as it leads to a subscriber page: [2] --Technopat 09:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What about intellect?

I've heard that snake's are mostly instincts. Can they learn anything? Reason? Recollect? The article doesn't touch upon those topics. --Anss123 19:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That's because there's almost no research on reptilian intelligence. There's a single study documenting learning, but that's all. --Mokele 12:08pm, 3 Nov. 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 16:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taxonomy

The taxobox needs revision; Serpentes are ranked as an infraorder in modern works, because some "lizards" are closer related to them than to other "lizards". So snakes are united with those "lizards" closer to them in the Scleroglossa at superorder rank versus the most distant "lizards" (the Iguania).

This creates a problem: Though higher ranks can be dealt with freely, this does not hold true for superfamilies and below. And superfamilies are what the present infraorders would become, if one would not use "parvorders" which is not usually done (it was done for the songbirds, but turned out to be unneccessary and was dropped). But superfamilies have standardized endings; they would be "Alethinophidoidea" and "Scolecophidoidea". The problem is that present-day revisors would use phylogenetic taxonomy which would treat them as unranked clades and hence not need to change the names.

In fact, it seems that the superfamily-rank taxa are not even formally established. Thus, being under ICZN regulation, they cannot be used on Wikipedia; that would create nomina nuda and our standard has simply become too high to make such mistakes ;-)

We have a similar problem with bird superorders/infraorders where a rank change was necessary that was used only in a handful of papers in the late 1990s, before phylogenetic taxonomy was adopted by most all systematicists working these groups. But there, since none of the ranks are formally regulated and since the now-necessary use has been used in a scientific publication, it can be done freely; in a nutshell, anyone can "invent" or re-rank taxa above superfamily; the challenge is to have them accepted. But is is a Very Bad Thing to re-rank at superfamily-level and below with no prior formal publication, and "inventing" such taxa is entirely verboten; to do it habitually is a good way to get derided and scorned by taxonomists and systematicists.

A solution might be to threat the snake taxa as unranked (unranked_familia in this case would produce the correct placement).

Also, I usually avoid citing authors if the taxon has already a separate article (where the author is in the taxobox). Because it is common for non-experts to threat the describer as part of the scientific name, which is not really correct (it is the second most common taxonomic mistake, after capitalizing species names). If the author must be given, I use small font for it; scientific publications often employ small caps which can be done with {{aut|}} and actually this might be preferable, but since it is a bit more complicated markup (I was looking for it on-again off-again for like a year or so til I found out how it's done) small font is Wikipedia standard and there's no reason to change it, really. All that is necessary is some way to denote that the author/date is an addition to but not a part of the taxon (actually small font is better because it makes it really clear what the constituent parts are - the normal-font and possibly italics scientific name, and the small-font author/date). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Good observations. I corrected the "Author" names with the small font, as a matter of fact, I'm about to go and do that to a bunch of other pieces I've worked on where I did not do that. Thanks for pointing that out. As for the suborder vs infraorder...I'm going with what ITIS has listed. I've been admonished before that this is the standard for the Reptiles and Amphibians Project, so it should be what the Taxo box reflects. I am in no way discounting what you say, in fact if you have credible sources could you point them out to me and I'll see if we can work it into the Taxonomy section of the article? If you want to jump in and have at it, by all means, please help out. My only agenda is to keep the reptile articles on here from sounding like a bunch of half-assed caresheets or myspace pages devoted to keeping pets.--Mike Searson (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of December 13, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Fail. The very first problem I noticed is that there is no section up front to explain what a snake is and what its characteristics are. Instead, the first text section is a table listing subgroups. Several sections and paragraphs consist of a string of facts that are not put into context of how they are related (e.g. the first paragraph of "Digestion and diet" and the paragraph under "Symbolism" dealing with Christian symbolism). A list written in paragraph form does not become a well-written paragraph. Additionally, there are numerous typos and run-on sentences throughout (see e.g. the last sentence of the fourth full paragraph under "Locomotion": "In spite of appearances..."). There are also many topics introduced suddenly without context, and the overall sequence of topics could (and should) be improved.
2. Factually accurate?: Pass
3. Broad in coverage?: Fail. The article fails to discuss the diversity of snakes, such as the number of genera and largest groups. There is nothing on brood/clutch size, nor the number of offspring produced in a snake's lifetime. There is no information on the expected lifespan of snakes. There is no information about the fact that snakes are cold-blooded and their means of temperature regulation. There is nothing on the hibernation of snakes. In short, there is much anatomical information, but little ecological information. The topics that are covered could benefit from a discussion of specific examples. The section on Taxonomy has no citations at all. The section on Evolution makes almost no mention of molecular phylogenetic studies, and certainly cites none. Knowledge about phylogeny is no longer confined to an understanding of morphology and fossils as it was forty years ago.
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass (sort of). "Consumption of snakes" is the only section that doesn't quite seem NPOV. The opening sentence should point out that many cultures do not eat snakes and consider them unacceptable for consumption, not lead with the sudden "surprise" that some cultures do.
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Pass, although an image of a snake with eggs or young would help the "Reproduction" section.

The most serious issue is the poor quality of writing, from the level of word choice and individual sentences tothe overall article organization. The specific items noted above under criterion (1) do not constitute an exhaustive list. There were so many writing problems that I gave up keeping track of them halfway through my examination of the article. The second serious problem is the failure to cover major topics that will be of interest for readers looking for general information about a common group of animals. There certainly has been a lot of research done, and a lot of work put in to the article already, but there still is considerable need for rewriting and proofreading the article before it will achieve GA status.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— EncycloPetey (talk) 00:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Lifespan and clutch size are the only things you have mentioned that I have a problem with implementing. I think it would make the article overly long and exhaustive, as with hibernation(or for more species of snakes brumation) I think these are better handled in articles written on individual species. Thanks for the review (sort of)I thought I made a good dent in it from what it looked like 2 weeks ago.--Mike Searson (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Not all the details of course! But it would be nice to know that when a snake has young, the range of variation possible among species, or the fact that such things can be affected by the age or size of the female. For lifespan, even a note about the known longest-lived snakes and the typical lifespan would be helpful. Certainly such figures will be highly variable between species, but the issues really should be mentioned and some indication given. When I suggested them, I did not mean a full treatment of all species, just some basic facts and possibly a link to follow (in such an article exists). --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Understood, I'll make what changes I can in the next few days. You know i almost scrapped it and completely rewrote it a dozen times over the past two weeks. I was also surprised to see the reptile article lacking in information that I assumed would be there. I'll plug away at it some more, get all the facts straightened out and sourced and then work on the prose. Thanks again for taking the time to review it. It's been hard to get a second pair of eyes to read it because of the length, etc.--Mike Searson (talk) 01:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First Sentences

I think I stand unopposed in stating the first sentence was just ****ing awful, so I rewrote it. Previously, it was a long string of adjectives which made it nigh-unreadable and often merely repeated things evident from their classification as reptiles. In my re-write I de-emphasized the commonalities, and put more emphasis on, to put it simply, what makes a snake a snake. I'm going to continue to try to make edits to the intro as a whole to improve the wording, and hopefully we can reach GA status. Mokele (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Good deal! Thanks for the help. I keep wanting to scrap it and start over, myself!--Mike Searson (talk) 02:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New section for locomotion

Here was an idea I had for improving the locomotion section...

I didn't copy all the links, nor all the text, but this is just a rought draft version (I suppose...)

See: User:Ajl772/Snake locomotion

Ajl772 (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Please post disscussion either here, OR on the revision's talk page... Ajl772 (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Here is Version 2 of the information. If no one objects to its implementation, I will post it on Friday, February 8th, 2008.
Ajl772 (talk) 21:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it looks good, nice job! Go for it! This article needs alot of work and its good to see a step in the right direction.-Mike Searson (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you delay this for another week? I wrote the original (or at least what's being revised now), and am one of the tiny handful of people studying snake locomotion, and would definitely like to contribute to this re-work (which is indeed badly needed). However, I'm visiting another university tomorrow, and won't have time to revise this until I get back (Saturday at the earliest). I think the revisions are good (I just sort of did an info-dump and left it), but with a little work, we could make it truly outstanding (complete with peer-review literature references, mechanics, neural control, evolution of locomotion, and more). Mokele (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I can delay it for a while more. Ajl772 (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'm back. I edited the first bit, but haven't gotten beyond lateral undulation yet. I don't know how to do wikipedia references, so I just dumped the full refs in for someone more knowledgeable on that than I. I'll probably expand on the text some more before moving on to the other modes. What do you think so far? Mokele (talk) 04:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Not too bad, I formatted the first one, but I'll need some more info on those other refs before proceeding. Gray's first name would help on the first.--Mike Searson (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, all I have on the papers is his initial. I think everything there should be enough for a proper citation - I just used JEB format, since I'm familiar with it. Mokele (talk) 04:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Something was weird with the references; all it said was 'gray', with no other info. I 'fixed' it, but I'm not sure how wikipedia properly cites peer review articles. Mokele (talk) 05:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
No, it was fine. You undid what I did. You see, the point of reference templates is to write it out once. Then subsequent notes to the same reference just go by the name (in this case "Gray"). You don't see it in the sandbox, because there's not a "reflist" at the bottom of the page. You would just see a blue number. When incorporated into the main article it would have looked fine.--Mike Searson (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
IS there a way to add that reflist in the current version? It just makes me nervous to see the information 'disappear' from the edited page, especially since I have to type most of these references in my hand. Plus it helps me keep track of which refs I have already added and which I haven't yet. Mokele (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I just added it. Also, don't remove previous refs, multipe refs are allowed and encouraged, especially on an article like this. Also if you actually have those cited journals, I prefer to write out the full name and as much info on the authors (if it's the Gray I'm thinking of, he has an article on wiki, the same as Cogger, Cochran, etc.--Mike Searson (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, though I must say I'm a bit baffled why to keep non-peer-review sources in, since all they do is either re-state the peer-reveiw research, or mis-state it (aka referencing Gans, whose work has an high level of, shall we say "data-free assertions"). I actually do have all the articles I've cited (snake locomotion is my thesis work, and I'll be citing my own papers on arboral locomotion), but they don't give the full name of Gray - all the articles just say "J. Gray". Mokele (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Cogger is a Herpetologist and has named several species of Gecko, etc (even has his own wiki article). The book is a source for much of the article, same with Ditmars, etc. It's not exactly a crap book. I don't believe that work in particular has misstated anything. The peer reviewed journals are excellent and I'm not saying to exclude them, nor do you need to replace what's there. However, I've seen a few (not the ones you provided) that are spurious at best and junk science at worst. You'll find as the article moves through various reviews that some reviewers prefer books, etc. It seems that the preference for FA is that every sentence contain a source. I prefer multiple sources to a sentence, myself. If you are a herpetologist, you may want to join the Reptiles and Amphibians project, we could use you!--Mike Searson (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure it's a good book, I just sort of figured it was a bit superfluous, since the original articles are now all publicly available (JEB is good about giving full public access after 6 months). And yeah, there's some crap articles out there, in every field. I'll look into the Reptiles and Amphibians project, but my work makes my contributions very spotty. After this, I'll probably do something on snake dentition, since I actually have example skulls (and thus can take creative commons pictures) of each of the 4 types (though no Attractaspis, sadly). How does on join such a group, just add one's name to the list? And is there a list of "things which need to be done or currently need help?" Mokele (talk) 02:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I've basically finished. If anyone can clear up the references, I think it'll be good to go. I tried to avoid getting too technical, but let me know how it reads - I'm so used to biomechanics that I can't tell what's lay-person level anymore. Mokele (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I formatted the refs and pasted it in! Good job, everyone! --Mike Searson (talk) 05:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks very much to everyone who put up with me during the process. Mokele (talk) 04:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
"Thanks.", "Your welcome.", and "It's awesome!". Ajl772 (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC) P.S.: Sorry I wasn't able to help any more than I did; I was sick last week... (Oh, sadness...)