Talk:Trimeresurus popeorum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
More information about this article... ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	Amphibians and Reptiles Portal Trimeresurus popeorum 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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Southeast Asia-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article falls within the scope of the Laos work group. If you are interested in articles relating to Laos, please visit the project page to see how you can help.

[edit] Taxonomic conflict

During the past few days, repeated attempts have been made to "amend" this article. Although it would seem that the responsible party invested some time in making the changes, they cannot be allowed to stand, mainly because they do not keep to the taxonomy being used for this series of articles (Viperidae). The publication by Vogel, David and Pauwels (2004) may put forth some interesting taxonomic ideas, but for now their opinions are their own. Their research and findings may be mentioned here as supplementary information (just as many such papers are mentioned in these articles), but there are good reasons not to adopt the taxonomy of every such paper that is published.

All encyclopedia projects, including Wikipedia, are necessarily conservative. This is because it is impractical for us to keep up with all of the latest scientific research; it would be an endless task to constantly be rewriting so many articles. What's more, the various taxonomies often disagree, which means that the overall synonymy would soon break down and duplicate articles would begin to appear under competing names. That's why this series of articles follows the taxonomy for snakes available through the ITIS online database: it's based on McDiarmid, Campbell and Touré's 1999 checklist Snake Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference, vol. 1, as well as their ongoing work. I have had contact with a number of herpetologists and they all agree that this taxonomy is the most heavily researched and authoritative available for snakes. That's not surprising when you notice the list of 21 reviewers at the beginning of the book -- all senior figures in the field. Of course they don't always agree (I know that for a fact), but the point is that this book reflects a broad consensus. There's been nothing like it for snakes since Boulenger's three-volume Catalogue of the Snakes of the British Museum (1893-1896).

It could be that Dr. McDiarmid and his colleagues will eventually accept Vogel, David and Pauwels' 2004 paper, but that's not all all certain. Trimeresurus is a large and diverse group that I'm sure will be split up at some point; McDiarmid also mentions this, but opted for a conservative approach until additional information becomes available. After all, you don't want to split up a group like this one way based on flimsy evidence, only to see a paper published the next day that provides far better reasons to split it up another way.

Aside from all that, I'd be willing to let some of the changes stand (Habitat, Diet) if they were properly referenced. The rest, though, cannot be allowed because of the conflicting taxonomy. --Jwinius 13:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jaap, your long note prompted a look at the history of edits and changes. From the outside it appears that the popeiorum (for the plural Popes, Mr. and Mrs. Pope) should indeed stand per priority and fact that it was incorrectly emended. If the more recent Zootaxa reference uses popeiorum, it really should be given due consideration. Regarding the splits of the species complex, it could again perhaps be accomodated into a new section if reliable sources are cited. Species splits are definitely not so troublesome to the taxonomic status and do not involve too much work in the taxobox at least (unlike the way it is going with birds and complete family breakups!). And the anonymous author should really get a proper login name and hopefully contribute more substantially. Shyamal 15:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Shyamal! Regarding the spelling, I too find David & Vogel's (1996) arguments in favor of popeiorum compelling, which is why I included it in the Taxonomy section of this article. However, you can be certain Dr. McDiarmid and his colleagues were aware of those arguments, so we have to assume there are also good reasons for sticking with popeorum (this case reminds me of the russelii vs. russellii debate, although there are differences). When it comes to making a choice, the advantage that the ITIS taxonomy (i.e. McDiarmid's ongoing project) has to offer over one or more individual articles is that it represents a broad consensus, so who are we to argue with that? As for nebularis and fucatus, I think it's too early to include them; they've only recently been described; first as subspecies and then as species. What's next -- a new genus for the entire pope(i)orum complex? Accommodating these new forms may seem harmless enough today, but then you may find yourself having to make awkward changes next year. As I was saying, this is bleeding edge research on which none of us are qualified to make any judgements. That's why in my opinion it's best that we remain conservative. --Jwinius 18:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps popeiorum would really be the more conservative choice. There does not seem to be any attempt at genus creation. That would certainly be something that may be given time (if it happened). The Zootaxa paper is not too recent at 2004 [1]. It may be quite important to accept the raising of these subspecies to higher status and to make this more well known via wikipedia, since this can have very important conservation consequences and especially so in South Asia and Southeast Asia. I am sure the new content can be legitimately accomodated with suitable formatting and copy edits. Shyamal 04:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how going with popeiorum can be construed as more conservative than sticking with ITIS, despite the arguments put forth in Vogel, David and Pauwels (1996). Staying with ITIS keeps our taxonomy consistent, which has got to be worth something. If you want, though, I could ask Dr. McDiarmid for an explanation as to why they stayed with popeorum, despite the arguments for a change. I'm not sure how soon he'll answer, but I do know that such changes are often resisted simply because a current name has already been used so often.

As for genus creation, maybe not in this case (at least not now), but there will be changes. Off the top of my head, look up Zhaoermia and Protobothrops. There's no doubt that Trimeresurus will be split up; the only question is how and when. Regarding the subspecies, nebularis and fucatus, recent papers already give them species status, in which case they should certainly not be included here in the subspecies table. Since they're apparently related, they could be mentioned in this article's taxonomy section, and as a matter of fact, I included them in Trimeresurus#Taxonomy long ago. It's not like I don't think we shouldn't be aware of (mention) these things, but in my view changing our taxonomy for them would be going way too far (not conservative). Consequently, there would be no end to the changes we'd be making; taxonomically, all would be gray instead of a clear black and white. To put it another way, since we're not experts, following ITIS lends us a credibility we won't otherwise have.

Conservation efforts, by the way, often have little to do with taxonomic status. For example, Crotalus unicolor is on the IUCN Red List as a critically endangered species. However, some recognize it only as as a subspecies, while ITIS invalided it entirely, regarding it only as a junior synonym for Crotalus durissus. The latter reduces these animals to an endangered color morph, which begs the question why it's still listed as Crotalus unicolor the IUCN Red List. I suspect simply because some researcher submitted a paper to the IUCN using that name, and because listing it as a species is more likely to get it protected. As I once pointed out to somebody here, the IUCN Red List exists for conservation purposes only and is not bothered by taxonomy. --Jwinius 11:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)