Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Unassessed amphibian and reptile articles

We have lots of unassessed articles can we start working on assessing them? We are quite far behind maybe we should split it up to make it easier everyone take a letter and work on that letter. That would work nicely if you guys want to try it. -- IvanTortuga 00:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I missed this somehow, but I took the assessment page from WP:PLANTS and moved it to our own assessment page. J. Hall • (Talk) 17:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

A Doing... J. Hall • (Talk) 17:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC) B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

U

V

W

X

Y

Z

Parentage

Why is this a daughter project of Project Dinosaurs? It should probably be listed separately under Tree of Life.Dinoguy2 14:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I think that Dinosaurs should be a daughter project of amphibians. The problem, I think, is that it was created before this one. --liquidGhoul 08:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I only put the Dinosaur Wikiproject there as it was created before our, but if you want to change it then we should have something other than amphibians, maybe the fish, or just The tree of life? Enlil Ninlil 09:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The Dinosaur Wikiproject shouldn't be a daughter of Amphibians and Reptiles. I think it's accepted that dinosaurs are a separate order, as are birds and mammals. Image:Tycon.jpgCoyoty 20:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Taxonomy

The Dinosaur project has adopted Benton's 2004 taxonomy [1] for use in the classification sections. Should we do the same here? Either way, we should definitely decide on a standard classification to use, since those for amphibians can vary widely.Dinoguy2 14:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

That seems alright, but does it go further than order? --liquidGhoul 08:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Benton 2004 and the Tree of Life website differ radically re early tetrapod (Paleozoic Amphibians) phylogeny. I don't know which should be used - I guess there is no consensus re early tetrapod relationships. My preference would be to show all the classification schemes on the main pages, but yeah we need to decide on one for the taxobox. Maybe Benton 2004 except where the group has been revised by more recent research M Alan Kazlev 11:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, this basically what we do at the Dino project anyway. The main point of contention for me at the moment is the inclusion of Reptiliomorphs and "Ichthyostegalians" within class Amphibia, which hasn't been done since the '60s. As far as I know, most workers now use a monophyletic crown Amphibia, which sometimes includes temnospondyls anyway. In my opinion, we should follow this, and list no class for reptilimorphs and ichthyostegalians, just superclass (tetrapoda). Lanyrynthodontia should be replaced with Temnospondyli on the main amphibian page, at least.Dinoguy2 16:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Well Laby's include Anthracosaurs/batrachosaurs as well, and these are not Temnospondyls, as well as basal groups like Colosteidae (which are Temnospondyls up until Carroll 1988, but generally not subsequent to that), Baphetidae, etc. So, yeah, I agree, scrap eccentric and not widely used classes and subclasses, and have basal groups separate (at family ranking). The problem with Class Amphibia is that it is used to mean anything nowadays from non-amniote tetrapods to Lissamphibia! M Alan Kazlev 22:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
So Benton's Taxonomy should suffice for now becaues everyone has access to it and we can come to a consenses easier. And with the class amphibia, where would we put all the non-amniote tetrapods to Lissamphibia species that dont fit? So hard. Enlil Ninlil 10:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
They don't need to have a class. Just list them under superclass Tetrapoda. Class Amphibia should only include true amphibians. I've altered a few relevant pages to reflect this change.Dinoguy2 22:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


I see we're a little paleo-biased here, huh? If anyone's interested in taxonomy of the extant groups, the whole show got a major overhaul in the past couple of weeks. But watch out, it's a 400-page pdf. [2] Pstevendactylus 01:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Reptiles or amphibians? (I am a little scared of entering at the moment). --liquidGhoul 04:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the invite. I'll add what I can. Right now, I'm working on mosasaurs and other pythonomorphs, including fossil snakes, but I can probably get in some work on living taxa, as well. --Nar'eth 18:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


Photography project

I reckon we should have a small project to get things rolling, and get people interested, and signing up. I have been trying to fill up List of Anuran families with an example photo from each family. Maybe we can ask people at the Community Portal if they have good quality, good copyright (I have been avoiding copyrighted images) frog photos of the missing families, because I have hit a wall with the ones available on Wikipedia. I have added all the Australian families myself, except of course Rheobatrachidae, as it is thought to be extinct, and need help from people around the world. What does everyone think? I think if it is successful, we could make other lists similar to this, for all the living reptile and amphibian orders. It would make for a different type of recruitment statement on the community portal as well. --liquidGhoul 14:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

That would be a great idea, I have a photo of a frog I hope you could identify? Maybe when we have time to visit a Zoo or Museum ad take some photos of reptiles and Amphibians too? Enlil Ninlil 05:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Cool, so I am thinking of the line to use in the Community Portal, how is:
WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles is looking for frog photos to fill the gaps in the List of Anuran families table. If you have a photo from a family not represented with a photo, please Upoad It, and add it to the article. Also, if you have an amphibian or reptile photo you would like identified, please leave a message on the project talk page.
Any thoughts, any suggestions? --liquidGhoul 11:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Added an extra sentence for suggestion from Enlil Ninlil. --liquidGhoul 02:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
That is fine, we should not make it to long of cumbersome, short and sweet is fine. Enlil Ninlil 03:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
It is up. --liquidGhoul 03:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Had to remove the last sentence, as it was too long, and someone saw it as a loophole to get the project "mentioned". I saw his point, but didn't want to lose chance of adding more content to the list as it is as (if not more) genuine/related to the production of an encyclopaedia than some of the other notices. --liquidGhoul 12:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Names and titles

I have removed the links to Wikiproject Birds for most of the sections in the project page, and replaced with a modified version of the text from the link. However, I don't know what to do yet for "Naming and titles". We cannot do it the same way WikiProject Birds does, because birds have strict rules in regard to common names (e.g. official common names, always capitalise). I think we should discuss this before putting it up on the project page. What do we want in regards to naming conventions? Obviously, we should name all the living species based on their most common common name (leave the judging of what is most common up to the author, if anyone disagrees to a decision, it can be discussed).

As for capitalisation, I like to have all-caps, e.g. White's Tree Frog, for species names and no caps for common genus, family etc, e.g. frog, tree frog. I think non-caps for levels above species is normal, but capitalisation for species names is contended, and there is no concrete rules - except for birds. For this reason, I think we should just follow the Tree of Life convention, and leave it up to the author of the article. This does, however, create inconsistencies that I do not like. For example, for a while, some of the species in the genus: Litoria, were caps, and some were not. As I was the main contributor to most of the articles in that genus I was able to change them all to be consistent, and no-one was against it, however I can see problems if the genus is popular and has many contributors.

I have no idea of what to do for extinct species, so I will leave that up to the contributors who contribute in this area. --liquidGhoul 11:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The genus name always begins with a Capital letter, and the species name is always lower case only (not sure if that's what you mean re Litoria)
As for extinct species, in Wikiproject dinosaurs, policy is to have the pages only by genus, but Enlil has included some pages on Permian Therapsids for individual species. I suppose if there is a lot of info on a prehistoric species, it can have its own page, otherwise the species should be included in the genus page (e.g. with Gorgonops I describe all the species, but none of them deserve their own page). In any case, even those species that do have their own pages need a genus parent page; when i have time I'll do one for Estemmenosuchus -- M Alan Kazlev 12:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I was talking about capitalisation in common names not binomial names. It is always the same for binomial names. --liquidGhoul 13:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I only done a separate page for extinct species because I lack sufficient information on the Genus, for now we should leave it and fix it up later. As with Mammals the first characters are named as in Gilbert's Dunnart with some exceptions like Slender-tailed Dunnart. I believe this should be the go. So I believe we should follow LiquidGhouls advice, he's the expert. Enlil Ninlil 07:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that is the way I do it. Actually, I have noticed that the Hyla articles use lower case for all their common names, so that is a bit of a problem. The reason I don't like them, is that they are a little too ambiguous. If you say "green tree frog", the reader is unaware of whether you are talking about a tree frog which is green (lots of them), or a specific species (still lots of Green Tree Frogs, but much less than the former). --liquidGhoul 11:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
The Hyla is not standardised as in: blue-eyed tree frog, Cope's gray tree frog and common Chinese tree frog Enlil Ninlil 22:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Of course "Chinese", "Cope", etal, are proper nouns and should always be capitalized regardless of context, whereas "green" is not, it is an adjective describing the noun. No matter how much I think it uglies up the text, I'm pretty sure most literary sources agree that the whole names, even outside of biology, are considered to be proper nouns, and is thus capitalized. -Dawson 15:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Tetrapod of Fish?

I found this article on the National Science Foundation and don’t know what to make of the species called Tiktaalik, its like diplocaulus(my fav) or Ichthyostega amazing. New Fossils Fill the Evolutionary Gap Between Fish and Land Animals Tiktaalik hay there quick.

Also this might be of interest?Anatomy Enlil Ninlil 06:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

List for Features

I don't know if this would work, but it would be good to have some goals to achieve. So, I will make a list of the article that most need to become featured quality. This is based on how much they would be visited. I am mostly going to do frogs, so can someone do the prehistoric AAR, and the reptiles I miss.

Featured articles:

Cane Toad (FEATURED)
Poison Dart Frog
Gastric-brooding frog (probably not all that visited, but it is an important animal)
Tuatara (lots of people are working on this at the moment)
Snake (has a lot of content so may be close)
Turtle (little less content, but also has lots of potential)
Sea Turtle (not too sure about this one)
Lizard

Featured Lists:

Tree Frog (maybe featured article, depends on the amount of content available)
List of Anuran families (FEATURED)

I could add more, but I am a little scared, as that list is starting to get large. I will be working on the Cane Toad article next. If you are bored, please try and tackle one of these articles next. Wouldn't it be great for all those articles to be featured? --liquidGhoul 23:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Cane Toad naming discussion

Can I get some people's input into the current discussion at Talk:Giant Neotropical Toad#Common name. I thought it would be relatively easy, but it seems there are people there that are making it difficult. --liquidGhoul 23:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Capitalisation of common names for species

After having an incredibly long and useless discussion on Talk:Giant Neotropical Toad, I would be very happy in having a concrete rule for capitalisation of common names, for species, within our articles. Here is a pole, just to see where everyone is at. It would be incredibly brilliant to just fight it out here, and never have to discuss it at length for each article.

Complete Capitalisation (e.g. White's Tree Frog, Superb Fairy-wren)

  1. liquidGhoul 13:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Justin chat 18:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No Capitalisation (e.g. green tree frog, Chinese tree frog)

Other (please state)

Obviously this pole will not have any power, as that is not how concensus works. So, I will be placing below, a pro and con table for each option. Please add to it.

- Pro Con
Complete Capitalisation *Removes ambiguity as to groups of animals. E.g. "Martin pointed at three green tree frogs", and "Martin pointed at three Green Tree Frogs". In the first statement, you are unsure whether Martin is pointing to three frogs which are green or a specific species known as "green tree frogs", they could all be different species. In the second statement, it is obvious he is pointing to three specimens of a species commonly known as a "Green Tree Frog".
*Specific species should be proper nouns, as it is describing something unique.		 I don't know, someone else could fill this in.
No Capitalisation Someone who supports this can fill this in *Ambiguous, as stated in other pro

A belated reply

This is a bit belated, but since the issue of capitalization is coming up again, (see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Animal_capitalization) it might make this more interesting. Justin chat 18:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Flickr trawl

I had a look at Creative Commons frog pictures on flickr, and there are quite a few; however, they are not usually identified. I don't know whether anyone here would feel competent to identify them to genus or species based only on a photograph?

Examples: http://www.flickr.com/photos/kakissel/133257780/ (I think this is a Grey Treefrog Hyla versicolor, but could be wrong. Also H. versicolor and H. chrysocelis are technically impossible to tell apart without genetics or voice. Pstevendactylus 15:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC))

http://www.flickr.com/photos/80415664@N00/116289244/in/set-72057594089433807/ (White's Tree Frog, Litoria caerulea)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/80415664@N00/116285264/in/set-72057594089433807/ (he/she has a whole bunch of them) (Dainty Green Tree Frog, Litoria gracilenta)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/clearlyambiguous/131680007/ (This is an Agalychnis for sure, but I'm not comfortable naming the species from the photo)Pstevendactylus 15:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/merfam/122951245/

Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The person with a whole bunch of them has only L. caerulea and L. gracilenta. I have labelled them above in brackets. We have plenty of L. caerulea photos, but no L. gracilenta, so I would be happy to use them, however I do not know the licencing behind them. Anyone know? I will ask User:Pstevendactylus if he can identify the others. Thanks alot. --liquidGhoul 23:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Woops, just read above, I will import the best Litoria gracileta one now. --liquidGhoul 13:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, I have uploaded the image, and created the article. --liquidGhoul 13:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Mesosuchia

Ok im back and bad as ever, need more info and some references for ths article. Can anyone help like Dinoguy2? Enlil Ninlil 05:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The only good ref online seems to be the phylogeny at [3]. The problem is that Mesosuchia is a paraphyletic group, and I doubt you'll find much information discussing the group as a whole. Better to look up individual families or genera.Dinoguy2 12:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I found some links but will put on later. Enlil Ninlil 17:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Cane Toad for peer review

Cane Toad is up for peer review here. If you would like to contribute, please do. --liquidGhoul 06:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Cane Toad is now up for featured article candidacy. Please vote for it here. Thankyou --liquidGhoul 05:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Cane Toad is now featured!!! Thanks to all who contributed and voted. --liquidGhoul 02:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Genera lists

I got bored and I made these lists.

So you know what you're up against in terms of these prehistoric reptiles ;) Dracontes 15:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Edited list of pterosaurs and created a list of pterosaur classifications Dracontes 18:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Those are neat lists! I added the category for each page. Strictly speaking for the list of pterosaur classifications, you should include bibliographical references as well. M Alan Kazlev 07:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
More or less done, (you should give a gander to make sure). I also made a list of ichthyosaurs. It's a bit short but hopefully with more discoveries it will fill up ;-) Dracontes 17:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Cool, those references look good! (I don't have access to all the papers, but it looks legit). And all those alphabetical lists are really good too; maybe there should be a category called something like "alphabetical lists of genera" wellyou can decide what to call it). That way all the lists can be easily accessed from one page M Alan Kazlev 23:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I copy/pasted them from Mikko's pertinent references for lack of a better source :-] I'm not too sure if David Peters's classification is all that legitimate and also of the URL of his former site.
I have quite a number of those lists in my to-do list so you can count on them to fill in the Category: Lists of Genera and also, why not, Category: Lists of classifications (with the pertinent lists, of course). Dracontes 17:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I've got pretty much all the primary lit on most mosasaur taxa, including the 19th-Century lit, and I've been meaning to make more headway from the mosasauroids, but keep getting distracted by dino articles. I'll try to post a list of mosasauroid taxa sometime in the next few days.--Nar'eth 19:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Dracontes, Mikko's website is very good, although obviously not an authoritative refernce. However he certainly has made it heaps easier than combing through all the primary references!  ;-) I did a write up on his site, so when you refer to it just add a link (Also if you want to add more to that page please feel free). Eventually I want to have brief bios and stubs on all paleontologists, major books, journals, publishers, paleontology websites etc.
I don't know of anyone who follows David Peters theory that Pterosaurs evolved from Prolacertiformes. Anyway if Pterosaurs were warm-blooded (which seems to be the case because of their fur) it is unlikely they would have evolved from ectothermic Prolacertiformes; rather they share the same sort pof "protofeathers" as dinosaurs do, indicating that endothermy may be an ornithodiran trait (so Bob Bakker was right after all!). I cannot comment on Peters' pterosaur cladograms; I just aren't knowledgable enough in that field. But I did love his website; it's a crying shame it was taken down; I always regret not archiving it beforehand :-(
Nar'eth, a Mosasaur list sounds good! I notice you've created some excellent mosasaur pages too!
M Alan Kazlev 00:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
User:Dracontes/Working_With#Mosasaur_Genera_List
Seems I beat you to it ;-) Comment and alter at will. Dracontes 18:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Done! List of mosasaurs Dracontes 11:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

List of Anuran families FLC

Could people please vote at this nomination. I put it through FLC last week, but it only got one vote (which was support). It needs more people to vote. Thanks --liquidGhoul 23:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

New list - please help!

I just created List of Lacertilia families, in the same format as List of Anuran families. I created it from the taxonomy section of the Lizard article, so if you know anything about lizards, please go over it and look for errors. I have not yet gone through commons to look for more photos. I want to give it a rest for a while as I have been working on the list for over an hour. I did not include any of the extinct families. I am still considering whether I should do this, and am leaning towards doing it. If I do, I will need some help from the people here, as I know nothing. Thanks. --liquidGhoul 01:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I have decided to include the extinct lacertilians, as I want to be able to get rid of the taxonomy list in Lizard. Can someone go over the listed extinct families in the lizard article and see if it is "complete" (up-to-date is probably a better phrase)? --liquidGhoul 09:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone have a resource which lists the authorities for Lacertilians? I am having difficulty finding many. --liquidGhoul 12:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Euroherp[4], ITIS[5] and Wikispecies (though unsourced there) have many. -Dawson 15:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
How come I can never access ITIS. I have tried heaps of times, but it always times out. I assumed it was shut down, but I'm guessing it isn't? Thanks for the links. --liquidGhoul 15:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Their database is notoriously unreliable. Some days it is really snappy, other days it is just glacially slow, and other days it is down entirely. Often, searching their system with Google is a faster way to find what you want, and that way you can also look at cached stuff if their database is being stupid. -Dawson 16:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I have tried that also, and I get the Google banner at the top, but the rest of it doesn't load. I am thinking it doesn't like my computer (doesn't support Linux?) --liquidGhoul 16:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Ignore that, the Google cache is just beginning to work, it is extremely slow though. --liquidGhoul 16:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

While we're making fancy lists, I threw together List of Serpentes families, using your Lacertilia list as a template but I based the sections on superfamily rather than infraorder just to split it up a big better. I'm rather dismayed at the number of redlinks, looks like there is some work to do. :) -Dawson 20:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The lack of images is kind of bad aswell. I can understand though, most people don't take photos of snakes. Also, I think having a family which has half the species of all snakes doesn't help either. There is only one more list I want to make (I think), which is List of Testudines families, however that group also has extinct families, and I am still unsure of what to do with them. --liquidGhoul 05:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have created the table list in the Salamander article. It turned out really good, only one family without a photo! --liquidGhoul 08:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Crotaphytus bicinctores

Can anoyone please verify that the picture that I included in the taxobox is correct? I am not an expert, but this image apeared to me as this species owing to location. Thanks, Leonard G. 01:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's a Crotophytus. I'm pretty sure it's Sceloporus. Looks like S. magister, but I'm not absolutely sure about the species. Pstevendactylus 02:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Here are some links with pictures.

1 2 58.107.40.63 08:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Therapsid pages

It seems to me that, since there is only one species of Eotitanosuchus, Eotitanosuchus olsoni should be renamed Eotitanosuchus. Also, Biarmosuchus tener should be renamed Biarmosuchus. Unfortunately I had already made redirect pages, so these would have to deleted. Does anyone here have admin privelages to be able to do that? Otherwise we can ask at the double redirect page

We can keep pages for each of the two Estemmenosuchus species because they are quite distinct in apperance, and there are separate illustrations for each on the internet. M Alan Kazlev 07:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

An accepted convention used in Wikipedia is that one a genus or family is monotypic the article is named for the species and the family and genus are redirects, exactly as Eotitanosuchus olsoni is now. Example, Osprey. Joelito (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that another convention is to title the article after the common name for a species. The title of your example isn't Pandion haliaetus, it's Ospery. For most prehistoric species, the generic name is as close as you're going to get to a common name. Full binomials are hardly ever used, especially for monotypic genera, with rare exceptions like Tyrannosaurus rex. For this reason, related projects like WP:Dinosaurs has a guideline that only generic names be used as titles. I'd take that into consideration when deciding what to do with the prehistoric species in this project as well.Dinoguy2 17:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I definitely think there should be the option for a separate page for each paleo-species, just as there are for recent species. Especially since the genus is an artificial category (okay we'll ignore philosophical problems of defining a species, especially in organism like bacteria that reproduce by binary fission, but I'm talking about metazoa here). Most vertebrate paleontologists like to give each species its own genus, so it is obvious that many current dino genera are oversplit, and cladistic trees don't help matters with old (but otherwise valid; i don't mean wastebin taxa) paraphyletic genera, each species has to be given its own genus since it constitutes a distinct terminal taxon e.g. Plateosaurus (now split into several genera). But if a new cladogram shows the original genus to be monophyletic, what happens to all the secondary genera? The same problems apply to other groups, e.g. ichthyosaurs; consider Excalibosaurus and Eurhinosaurus. So in this context yes, the generic name can serve as a sort of informal common name, e.g. "Excalibosaurus" (without the italics if it is a common name) would in that case be the common name for Eurhinosaurus costini (McGowan, 1986). Even so, each of the various species of Tyrannosaurus definitely each deserve their own page, as there is more info on them than on many less well known dinos. Same could be said for other well-known species of the same genus which differ - e.g. Stegosaurus, Apatosaurus, Pteranodon etc M Alan Kazlev 09:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Amphibian/Reptile Barnstars

Just a thought, but maybe we can have a couple of barnstars for people that do excellent work on Amphibian and Reptile articles. I know some people would already deserve one. I've knocked up an Amphibian barnstar. Maybe someone else could make a reptile barnstar.

Image Name Description
Amphibian Barnstar The "Unofficial" Amphibian Barnstar The "Unofficial" Amphibian Barnstar may be awarded to an editor in recognition of his or her knowledge and exceptional contributions to Wikipedia's articles on Amphibians .


Image Name Description
Reptile Barnstar The "Unofficial" Reptile Barnstar The "Unofficial" Reptile Barnstar may be awarded to an editor in recognition of his or her knowledge and exceptional contributions to Wikipedia's articles on Reptiles .


Good idea or not? Please leave comments. Froggydarb 07:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is neccesary (although it looks brilliant, good work!). We only just got the Image:Bio barnstar2.png, which is for Wikipedia: WikiProject Biology, and its descendents. Not enough users would qualify to make this one official, though you can just issue it without the need for officiality, as there are lots of strange awards out there, like the "Mail Pouch Barn" award for User:Fir0002 and I have the "Potentially Aposematic Tadpole Award." --liquidGhoul 07:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I like it, and don't see why we can't have a few of our own "unofficial" barnstars, if for any reason to draw more attention to the project via userpages. -Dawson 17:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah thats what I meant, not really having it as an "offical" barnstar but maybe just on the on the AAR project page as an award. :) Froggydarb 03:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I like that idea. You can put it on the main page under Awards or something. --liquidGhoul 03:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I've uploaded an Reptile Barnstar if no one objects I will put it no the project page. Froggydarb 09:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
No objection, but could you make the scales go further back, so they stop at the inside corner on the left of the star? I have also removed the extra "the" in the above sentences. --liquidGhoul 09:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Yep that is alright. Is that what you meant? Froggydarb 11:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. --liquidGhoul 11:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Collaborative project?

Since Cane Toad is now featured, thought perhaps we could as a group and try to bring New Caledonian crested gecko to featured quality next, since we use it as our example for a taxobox on the project's page, would probably be nice if it too was a FA as well. Thoughts? -Dawson 17:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm in, though I cannot do heaps of work until I finish exams on Monday. I would like to have collaborations as a normal thing on here, though they should be proper collaborations, where we don't go onto another project until the current one is finished. New Caledonian crested gecko is a nice and long article, this shouldn't be too hard, though it needs lots of references. --liquidGhoul 03:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Ick, exams... guess it is that time of year. It is a nice long article, with a lot of information in desperate need of referencing - though a good chunk is dedicated to captive care, which sort of falls under a "How to..." and thus by many people's standards, WP:NOT. -Dawson 05:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Paleozoic tetrapod families

Just finished Carboniferous tetrapods, to go alongside Permian tetrapods. Lot of red links there - obviously most of these families are poorly known! I'd like to eventually have a page like this for the periods of the Mesozoic, but it depends when I get round to it. M Alan Kazlev 08:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

identification

Can anybody identify this critter?Circeus 13:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a Rana species, where abouts is it from? I think it is probably a Moor frog or Common frog.--Tnarg 12345 12:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


Frog template

I created this template, based on the butterfly family templates. Should I add it to the frog and frog family articles? --liquidGhoul 06:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, sounds good. However, I think that the family names should be aligned to the centre. Froggydarb 07:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Unidentified lizard

Unidentified lizard
Unidentified lizard

Hi. I took this picture of a lizard in a French forest (near Lyon). I posted it on WP:TOL but no one could ID it for me. Any suggestions? IronChris | (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to ask someone who can speak French to ask on the French Wikipedia. --liquidGhoul 14:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Featured list candidate

Another list is up for featured list, this time List of Testudines families. The voting page is here. Please have your say. Thankyou. --liquidGhoul 00:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

So far, only a few people have voted. It needs at least four votes to get through, so if someone has the time could you please vote. I don't mind if it is oppose, as long as it is something I can fix. I just don't want to have to unnecessarily go through the process again, like I did with List of Anuran families. Thankyou. --liquidGhoul 10:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, it is now a featured list! Another to add to the list :). --liquidGhoul 13:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Toad pictures I took

Could someone take a look at these pictures I took of what I think is a toad and tell me what type of toad and whether I should bother uploading any to wikipedia/commons? They were taken in the middle of Connecticut. Thanks. Salur 00:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC) Front view of toad with flash Side view of toad with flash Side view of toad without flash Front view of toad with flash (blurry)

It is very hard to tell with those photos. There is usually very little differentiating the species of toad. The best indicator, are the shape and size of the parotoid glands (on the back of the head). Do you have any top down photos?
I will give you a quick guide of how to photograph frogs/toads for identification. One side on (like the 2nd photo you took), one of the belly (E.g. this is harder for some species as they don't like being on their back), one of the inner thigh (e.g.) and one straight down on their back. But, try not to stress the frog out, and be very gentle. Also, clean your hands after handling. This is for two reasons. A lot of the toads are very poisonous, and you can spread disease if you handle more than one frog. Thanks --liquidGhoul 04:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I have any top down photos good enough to help you tell. This one is the closest thing I have to a top down photo but it's probably too blurry to help. This one is more a view of the back side of the toad than a top down, but it's less blurry. In both of them there's a lot less background and a lot less toad than the other 4. Sorry if that's not enough. Salur 17:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
American Toad, (Bufo americanus). Here is what I used to identify. Thanks --liquidGhoul 23:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Section and figure illustrating taxonomic features

I am thinking of section with illustrations showing how nostril, tympanum, eye, vomerine teeth, toe discs, leg extension (tibiotarsal articulation reaching eye!), tubercles, webbing etcetera are used for identification. This would go into the frog article and be referred to in descriptions. Any comments/suggestions. thanks Shyamal 04:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Frog zoology was created ages ago. It was reduced during the expansion of frog, but is reserved for the more complicated things to do with frogs. --liquidGhoul 04:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I was unaware of that article. That seems to be the place for all boring stuff to go ;) Shyamal 04:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Green and Golden Bell Frog

The Green and Golden Bell Frog article has recently gone through a peer review and is now up for FAC, please vote here. Thanks -- Froggydarb croak 02:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Snake scales articles

Hi, I am writing an article on snake scales which is presently located here. Comments desired please. I also request if you can point me to any free or suitable resources for this article. Thanks, AshLin 23:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It is looking good. I will give it a copyedit once you have released it onto the main namespace. It is well referenced as well. The main thing at the moment, would be to get rid of the "Introduction" header, that text should be above the TOC. I don't know any free references. --liquidGhoul 00:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree it is very good with basic english which is important, as to technicle an article a lay person wont understand. I will look forward to its completion. Enlil Ninlil 06:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi all, am upto version 0.5 of User:AshLin/Snake scales. Have incorporated material from govt websites (what I consider public domain). Have footnoted them too. Comments please on the talk pages of this effort of mine. Regards, AshLin 09:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is now up on main namespace and open for cpeds. I have added images, more references , reorganised and now request cpeds & peer review. Regards, AshLin 12:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Images repository

I see a request for the community to help add images to a category:frog images. IMHO this is correctly a WikiMedia and not meant for Wikipedia. It may be more appropriate to add a project page for users to understand Wikimedia. AshLin 14:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you got things a little mixed up. There was a call for photos for List of Anuran families, but this was outdated, and I have removed it. The cateogory for frog images was created during the expansion of frog to featured status. It is just to make it easier for people to find the frog photos on Wikipedia. It is not really a project, just a convenience. Thanks --liquidGhoul 14:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Templates

Please add a section for stubs, templates, family boxes etc as has been done for WikiProject Arthropods. AshLin 14:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added the stubs and categorisation information. I don't know what a family box is, and couldn't find it on WikiProject Arthropods. Thanks --liquidGhoul 14:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
For want of a term, I called it a family box. Actually I was referring to the template you already made Template:Anura and one I made following your lead Template:Snake_families. Regards & thanks. PS looking forward to your cped on snake scales. AshLin 15:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, well I don't think it is necessary to add it to the page. If you have created one for the snakes, add it to all the snake family articles as well as snake. There is no need to inform people how to do this, as it will already be done :). I will do the copyedit this Thursday or Friday, I am pretty busy at the moment. Thanks --liquidGhoul 15:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't like having the family tables on this page. They are not described properly, and look as though you should add them to every frog or snake article. They should only be added to the family articles, like Bufonidae, and the parent article, like frog. This doesn't take much effort (and is already done for the frogs), and doesn't really need to involve the community. Thanks --liquidGhoul 22:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the display and changed the wording to a more appropriate one. I however feel, it should continue to be mentioned in the section for sake of completeness. AshLin 02:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
They only need to be added to the family articles. Once that is done, the task is complete and doesn't need recruitment from other AAR members. It is already complete with the Anurans, and if you want I can do it to the snake family articles for you. --liquidGhoul 07:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
You are welcome to add the snake family template to any other articles. As regards displaying, I still feel that the project page should show all the work and related information (albeit with changing importance). If you do not concur, you are welcome to remove the family templates. I was only following standard practice of WikiProject Lepidoptera where I hang out (or rather, used to). AshLin 12:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean by work and related information? --liquidGhoul 13:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Like the templates for example, they are concerned with the Project and should (imho) be displayed to show what work people connected with the project have been doing. This is just an opinion and projects can be either extremely 'well-furnished' or 'sparse' as the project wikipedians want. I was only expressing an opinion, I am willing to go along with the project wikipedians especially since I am new and not a major contributor. BTW, the Project really deserves a congratulations for getting Cane Toad up as a FA. My personal congratulations to all contributors.AshLin 18:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Categories

Just to let u know that the category situation for all animals is in a mess, I started a category for New Guinea, as the species on the Island are faily indiginous and ample. Category:Fauna of New Guinea. Thankyou Enlil Ninlil 07:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC) This was in reference to area of habitation not Taxa.

Task List and Progress

We need to do something to make this list more useful. Maybe create a table or subpage with our highest priorities, and put the progress on them. If we show the progress on everything, it might inpsire people to work on a particular article. Also are all the order articles created? --liquidGhoul 03:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What list? -- Froggydarb croak 05:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
On the project page, under "Task List and Progress". --liquidGhoul 08:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Yep, I agree with you. Maybe something like this:
  • Create article for each Order and Family

(a list of Orders and Families that haven't been created, or have been created and are stubs)

  • Create article for each Genus

(a list of Genus that haven't been created, or have been created and are stubs)
etc, etc.
-- Froggydarb croak 08:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

General taxonomy

There are many herpetological checklists available to use as a reference for classification. However, even if you don't own any actual books, just from hunting around on the Internet it soon becomes apparent that there are many different taxonomies out there. Yes, different: they often conflict. The question is then: who's taxonomy should we use?
My pet project around here is the Viperinae section, comprising about 100 taxa. When I started out, I quickly realized that I needed a single, taxonomic reference. I began by using the EMBL, which seems to be pretty popular; it's also used by the Animal Diversity Web, for example. However, it didn't take long before I started to notice... certain inconsistentcies. After a number of email discussions with Dr. Peter Uetz (they guy who's owns this project), I discovered to my dismay that many of the common names are simply made up (to be found nowhere else), that the geographical data is often interpollated and thus not accurate, and worst of all, that the taxonomy is sometimes pretty arbitrary! Finally, Dr. Uetz is a geneticist, not a herpetologist, and seems to gets much of his herpetological support from Dr. Wolfgang Wüster of the University of Bangor, Wales (mentioned as the consulting expert). As a result, it often seems to me that Wüster's personal opinions (and those of his associates!) seem to get preferential treatment at the EMBL -- hardly an example of consensus if you ask me.
Luckily, at one point or another this year I discovered another taxonomy source: ITIS. It may be more spartan than the EMBL, but it's a much bigger database and is certainly more authoritative; just check out the contributing sources! For info on snakes, their one and only source is McDiarmid, Campbell and Touré's 1999 Snake Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference, vol. 1 (in which Wüster is only one of 21 reviewers). This book can be ordered on-line (I got mine from Koeltz Scientific Books) and is probably the most important taxonomic reference since Boulenger's Catalogue of the Snakes in the British Museum (Natural History) (1893-1896). I used this book together with ITIS as my primary taxonomic reference for the articles in the Viperinae section.
I would like to suggest that we all use ITIS as much as possible as a taxonomic reference here at Wikipedia, at least for articles on reptiles and amphibians. In a nutshell, it's authoritative and is also up to date without being too progressive: perfect for Wikipedia, since we don't want a source that changes its taxonomy too often. On the other hand, I still include EMBL links in all of my articles, if only to give readers an extra source of information and occasionally an alternative point of view. --Jwinius 14:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't fully agree. Yes, we should use as little variation as possible for our taxonomy, but I find the American Museum of Natural History so much more useful for the amphibians (unfortunately it doesn't have a database for reptiles). It is very up to date. However, I still have reservations about it. I think it is a little too up to date, and too conservative. It has split the Myobatrachids into three families, which was proposed a while ago and has since been refuted (it is being conservative here, as it is still belived to be by some, mainly Americans). It has also merged all Australian hylids, which is a problem, as the paper which merged them recently said that they weren't confident about it, and should wait for a paper (currently in progress) to come out before Australian Hylid taxonomy is changed (which will probably result in the creating of many genera). It jumped there far too early, hence the too up to date. I have one major problem with ITIS though. I have only ever been able to access it once without it timing out on me, and that time, I got to the home page, and nowhere else. I have since given up trying to access it, it pisses me off way too much. It is run by the US government, they have the money to buy servers!!! --liquidGhoul 14:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
From your description, the American Museum of Natural History is even more progressive than the EMBL! Is there an on-line version? But, it sounds like a minority opinion, so why bother? I admit that ITIS was having availability problems back in April-June of this year. It was frustrating: they were busy with some major hardware upgrades and migrations, but that's all behind them now -- they've been just fine for the past few months. --Jwinius 17:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, there is an online version, here. It is very common to use this instead of ITIS, the French Wikipedia, which I think has an article for every genus, follows this to the tee. I still can't access ITIS. I don't know if they block out Australia, but I have never able to on any computer. --liquidGhoul 22:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Are we going to adopt the changes to Myobatrachidae (it wasn't split into 3 families, Rheobatrachus is under Limnodynastidae)? I was going to write a taxonomy section on Rheobatrachus but didn't know whether to say that it was in Myobatrachidae (as Wiki has it) or Limnodynastidae (as it really is (at the moment anyway)). -- Froggydarb croak 08:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The splitting of Myobatrachidae occured a while ago, and has never been accepted. I think Tyler shoots it down every time it occurs. The AMNH doen't want to seem controversial, but they haven't really succeeded. --liquidGhoul 11:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't jump too fast into adpoting the changes, there was lots of controversal stuff in that paper (merging Ascaphidae and Leiopelmatidae, aus hylids etc.) and Rheobatrachus along with Mixophyes were moved into Mytobatrachidae not Limnodynastidae. I think we should wqait a while for more papers to come out.--Tnarg12345 11:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Considering the major part of that paper required living frogs, or DNA/RNA/protein, I can't see any justification for moving Rheobatrachus. I haven't read anything about the Leiopelmatidae, but am more inclined to believe it as less frogs need to be studied. They did not take enough specimens of Australian frogs to create a proper phylogenic tree, and they stated so in the paper. We need to wait for rebutals from Australian herpetologists before we implement any changes. --liquidGhoul 11:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi! Knowledge about phylogenetic relationships for amphibians is much more advance than for reptiles. Amphibians are the subject of much more phylogenetic research than reptiles (in a worldwide perspective); and amphibians are, in a way, more charismatic than reptiles. Thus, public databases and available checklists are, usually, more complete for amphibians than for reptiles. The online database "Amphibian Species of the World 4.0, an Online Reference" and its main source the "Amphibian Tree of Life" published by Frost et al. (2006), provides the most updated information and phylogenetic classification for amphibians. The online database is unique in terms that it covers every amphibian species, and presents information based on trustable references (=scientific publication). The analyses by Frost et al. (2006) covered a wide range of species, and studied genetic information, together with morphological and behavioral data. I think that their results and conclusions are by far, very good. But as always in science, many new questions and new hypothesis araised. Also, some species and taxa were not either available or sampled enough as to get the best phylogenetic conclusions. I would suggest to follow the "Amphibian Tree of Life" as the most updated source for amphibian classification in a worldwide perspective, but not as the final word. New scientific publications will for sure, either propose new hypothesis, or confirm those presented by Frost et al. 2006. Since Wikipedia is not a place for original research, therefore, if some decides to follow Frost et al. 2006, it must be cited... if someone decides NOT to follow them, it must be cited why, and also who they are following instead. In terms of reptiles... McDiarmid et al. 1999 is the best available sources for reptile taxonomy... however, now there are many new publications that have changed the classification of some groups. The ITIS database is much more updated, and it must be used together with McDiarmid et al. 1999. The EMBL is useful, but it is not complete, and sometimes it does not cite all sources. None of them however, have their results based on phylogenetic analyses... because phylogenetic analyses are not available for most taxa of reptiles. Thus I would suggest that if some is interested in reptile systematics, look for primary sources: recent scientific publications... some places to find them are: HerpLit, Center for North American Herpetology, Nemys Euroherps Best regards! ----DFCisneros 03:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That's sounds good enough for me: the AMNH together with Frost et al. (2006) for amphibians, and ITIS together with McDiarmid et al. (1999) for snakes. As for the rest of the reptiles, I'm not so sure anymore, but if DFCisneros thinks we should use ITIS for this too, then I think we should accept his judgement in this, since it looks like he's the expert here.
Naturally, McDiarmid et al. (1999) is to a certain extent out of date compared to ITIS. There have been many updates to the ITIS database since the publication of that famous checklist (now seven years old). However, all of those updates come from Dr. McDiarmid. As a matter of fact, while many ITIS database entries mention McDiarmid et al. (1999) vol. 1 as their only reference, some mention vol. 2 which has yet to be published.
As for the phylogenetic research regarding reptiles, I'm aware that the positions of many species of snakes are still unresolved. In the mean time, I feel the best solution is indeed to stick to ITIS, but at the same time to mention more recent research in the taxonomy sections of the different articles. --Jwinius 14:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Wait for the paper by Donnellan et. al. before we make any changes to Pelodrydinae, as is stated in Frost's paper. --liquidGhoul 14:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I just do snakes! I'm perfectly happy to let you and DFCisneros worry about Pelodrydinae. :-) --Jwinius 16:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Following this discussion last year, did anybody bother to translate it into an official policy rule? If not, how does that work and who's supposed to it? --Jwinius 20:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Care sheet information

I just noticed a bunch of edits to Burmese Python yesterday that added a whole mess of captive care information to the page, while the information is not entirely incorrect, the simple policy of Wikipedia is that it is not a 'how to guide'. The majority of Corn Snake is the same way and it badly needs a cleanup. I just thought I'd mention it in hopes that the project goals could include pruning of this kind of information and keep articles encyclopedic instead of instructional. -Dawson 16:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The corn snake article needs to be completely rewritten. It looks to me like it was mostly written by a avid corn snake enthusiast; most of the current "Corn Snakes as pets" section can be seen as original research, which is not allowed here. The author also included info that seems to come from a commercial reptile breeder; I'm pretty sure all of the color morphs described were created by captive breeding programs (incl. hybrids!) and have little to do with the species' natural history. Basically, this article needs to be rewritten completely.
The Burmese python article is a little better, but needs references. Again, the sections for Diet, In captivity and Variations seem to be written from the point of view of a keeper. I also dislike the albino pictures: they are freak specimens hardly ever seen in nature. By the way, has anyone noticed that the Burmese python is mentioned nowhere in the Indian python article? The two are somewhat related, you know. --Jwinius 21:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Recent pertinent activity...

Got dibs (and refs) on Crocodylus cataphractus so don't go messin' with that one  ;-P Dracontes 10:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Good work, you are of course welcome to contribute in this way :). I have copyedited Dwarf Crocodile. There are still some problems with it (mostly gramatical and style), but it is a good article. We need a reptile article to be featured as only frog articles are at the moment. I'm hoping you'll dedicate yourself to one of your articles enough to achieve this. There are plenty of people willing to help. Thanks. --liquidGhoul 11:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Decline in amphibian populations

Hi Guys,

I think we need to do an informal collaboration of this article. I consider it the most important article that this project can do, along with Amphibian and Reptile. Having it on the main page could hugely increase awareness of what is going on in the world. I am going to try and put some work in it (though I won't be able to get really stuck in until after November 10), but the article needs some contributors from around the world. If I were the only one to work on it, most (if not all) the examples will be about Australian frogs, and we need examples from frogs, salamanders and caecilians from across the world. Also, I am sure there are some issues which are not occuring in Australia. I hope some people can help. Thanks --liquidGhoul 01:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

2 lizards

I'm having trouble with 2 lizard pages. Flying dragon (Draco volans genus) on google is referred to "Common Flying Dragon" and "Common Gliding lizard". The problem is there is another new page of a genus "Draco sumatranus" which too is referred to on google as Common Gliding Lizard. Even wierder is before i renamed it to "Common Gliding Lizard" the author of the page named it "Common Flying Dragon". So Im confused as the name that should be given to this 2 different genuses. Please help, thanks. - Tutmosis 14:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Also regarding the Flying dragon name should be a disambig since other similar pages exist such as Flying Dragon and Flying Dragons. - Tutmosis 14:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
There should certainly be a disambiguous page, but I think they are both currently correct in their article name. There are some variations, but that is common with common names. It would also be useful to have a genus page for Draco, as the taxobox currently bolds the genus, where it should link to it. --liquidGhoul 15:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Personally I think the lizard articles are in bad shape. Can you direct me to any online sources from which I can be certain to get the right information? - Tutmosis 15:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I work on frog articles, and since they are in so much danger from extinction, there is a lot of information becoming available. Unfortunately, it is not as easy for lizards. I agree that the articles are in very bad shape, and the only site I can recommend is ITIS (though I am not recommending from personal experience as I cannot access it!). It should have the taxonomic information neccessary. Good luck! :) Oh, and if you ever want any help finding some specific info or a copyedit of an article, ask here (if its related to the subject of course). --liquidGhoul 15:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Just last month, the ITIS database got moved to a new location in Colorado and now has its own domain name: itis.gov instead of itis.usda.gov (although the latter still works). Perhaps now you'll be able to access it. As far as I can tell, it's now faster than ever. --Jwinius 15:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, that works now. --liquidGhoul 07:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
This is a good example of how common names often lead to confusion. Reptile species frequently have many different common names, none of which ever have any kind of official status. To avoid this kind of mess, I suggest doing things a little differently. Example: gaboon viper. I agree with Tutmosis that common names -- especially when they are used for multiple species -- should be used for disambiguation pages instead. Example: rock viper. --Jwinius 15:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Definetely. Also doing some research on ITIS and other sites there alot of conficting names about family of species etc. I do not wish to edit anything since I do not want to screw anything up. I just brought this up here since this is what you guys do and wanted to bring the issue to light especially concerning those 2 lizard articles I happened to run into. - Tutmosis 15:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Heres an example: Agamidae articles states that its suborder is Sauria. On ITIS, if you search for "Agamidae" the suborder is "Iguania". At first I thought "Iguania" is a different name for "Sauria" but apprently not considering it has its own article "Iguania". - Tutmosis 15:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The Common names vs Scientific names debate flares up every once in a while on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life and Wikipedia talk:Village pump (policy) pages, but sadly the official policy is still to use common names over scientific names. I'm hoping some day this will change, but that really depends on us. Personally, I like to keep this page and the aforementioned ones are on my watch list and will keep bringing this subject up, or supporting others who do so, in order to raise awareness. In the mean time, I'm encouraged by the fact that Bitis gabonica and Bitis arietans were recently granted GA status, despite being different.
As for the taxonomy issue, I started out following the EMBL for all viperid articles, but switched when I realized there were too many problems with it. I now follow the more conservative, but far more authoritative ITIS site instead, together with a a copy of Snake Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference, vol. 1, by McDiarmid et al. (1999). A similar checklist together with ITIS may be best for lizards, but we've heard from one herpetologist that many prefer the AMNH for amphibians. --Jwinius 17:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Nyctiphruretus

Can you people pretty please proof read this article and change what is needed. If so leave comments would be great too. Toodaloo. Enlil Ninlil 06:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I've done a copyedit and left some comments. --liquidGhoul 07:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Amphibian Tree of Life

While searching for information on Eleutherodactylus I stumbled upon this 371 page work on amphibian taxonomy. [6] I would like some comments and discussion on this work. Should we adopt their classification schemes? Joelito (talk) 13:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It is currently being worked in, but it is slow progress, as it is basically only Isfisk, and he also works on German (?) Wikipedia. See Opisthodon for an example. If you want to adopt a particular taxonomy, make sure they are confident of the change. They merged all the Australian tree frogs into one genus, but were uncomfortable with it. I think it was because their testing on Australia Hylids were limited, and there is obvious distinctions between them. It also says that a paper in progress will address the problem (which has been around for a long time). I would be happy with including most changes. --liquidGhoul 14:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 23:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sample article for reptiles

I'm looking for a sample article for reptiles, but all of the samples seem to be on amphibians. bibliomaniac15 Review? 00:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep, we have yet to have someone stick to a reptile article enough to feature it. We tried with New Caledonian Crested Gecko, but ran out of sources. What article are you working on? Thanks --liquidGhoul 04:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting to work on Komodo dragon, since it's a commonly known creature and would have a wealth of sources. bibliomaniac15 Review? 04:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is on the right track. Change the "population" header to "Conservation status" and merge Recent develoments with ecology and behaviour, and remove all references to the current time (like recent). I haven't fully gone through the article, but post here when you're ready, and a couple of us will be able to do a copyedit. Thanks --liquidGhoul 04:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

A couple of the viper articles I've worked on have Good Article status: Bitis arietans and Bitis gabonica. A few others that are also pretty complete are Daboia and Vipera berus. In my view Komodo dragon may look nice, but it doesn't cite any references (which is different from just listing a few). I sure do wish editors would do more than just pay lip service to this issue. As for what a "Conservation status" section should look like, I think Vipera albizona includes a good example (if not I wouldn't mind hearing some comments). --Jwinius 18:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Why does the article use the scientific name as the main article? Couldn't you use "Puff adder" and "Gaboon viper" respectively? bibliomaniac15 Review? 00:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Because it makes more sense to do it that way. Here are some reasons (in no particular order):

  • Articles names at Wikipedia have to be unique anyway, so why not use the only ones that are always unambiguous?
  • It avoids conflicts; do you have any idea how many different black snakes, green snakes, diamondbacks, sand vipers, lanceheads, adders and asps there are? If you use common names for article tiles, then one gets the "good" name and the others have to be, um, different. Why is that such a good solution? Presentation?
  • Why should we have to make a choice when two or more common names can apply -- just because one shows up more often in Google? That is arbitrary and unscientific.
  • Selecting one common name for a species over all the others gives people the impression that it's more importance of more official than the others, even though that's the case. An exception might be the AOU where they've tried to make certain common names for birds "official", but that's only for American species and even Wikipedia aren't following their lead.
  • Using scientific names avoids petty conflicts between editors: no more fights about Siberian Tiger vs. Amur Tiger or Puma vs. Cougar.
  • Common name tiles make category overviews pretty useless: just compare Category:True vipers with Category:Sharks and you'll see what I mean.
  • Using scientific names for article titles can teach readers more about how organisms are related: "These names are weird, but look how the first names are all the same... maybe they're all related!"
  • Using scientific names for article titles can also help editors to be more aware of how species are related: notice how Burmese Python is mentioned nowhere in Indian Python even though the former is a subspecies of the latter? That's bound to happen more often when scientific names and taxonomy are treated as an afterthought.
  • Scientific names are universal while common names are not; people in one (English speaking) country may not be familiar with the common names in another.
  • Using scientific names for article titles promotes better continuity when linking with other articles inside and outside of Wikipedia.
  • When common names are used for article titles, people tend to spend a less time wondering whether the corresponding scientific name is correct or not and often don't even bother making a redirect for it.

Finally, someone complained to me once that using scientific names for article titles makes it confusing for people when they click on a link like "puff adder" only to end up on a page titled "Bitis areitans". Perhaps, but the same can be said for people who click on "Siberian tiger". Also, I figure that my solution of listing a few of the most common names clearly at the top of the article fixes that (plus it simplifies the introduction). --Jwinius 04:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Wildlife Barnstar

There is currently a barnstar proposal at Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals#Wildlife Barnstar for a barnstar which would be available for use for this project. Please feel free to visit the page and make any comments you see fit. Badbilltucker 15:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Veterinary medicine project

There is now a proposed project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Veterinary Medicine to deal with matters of veterinary medicine, a subject which currently has disproportionately low content in wikipedia. Any wikipedia editors who have an interest in working on content related to the subject are encouraged to indicate as much there. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 22:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Cladistics FAR

Cladistics has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Sandy (Talk) 23:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Topic:Paleontology

Hello at Wikiversity there is a disipline in development on palaeontology that needs help. The courses could help with te development of articles on wikipedia so it is a long term program. Interested people can go to this URL: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Topic:Paleontology#Content_summary Thanks for reading Enlil Ninlil 02:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Sauropsida vs. Reptilia, part 2

A while ago it was decided to follow Benton's taxonomy, including the use of class Sauropsida instead of Reptilia, and a seperate class Synapsida. What still bothers me is that there is a ton of variation between pages, what they link to, etc. I still see pages that are linked to Reptilia but say Sauropsida, or list Class Reptilia. There are also seperate pages for Reptile and Sauropsid, when each page is talking about the exact same group, and Sauropsid is basically just an expanded classification section that could easily go into Reptile. A possible solution to all this is to use Reptile as the primary article discussing this class, merge the present contents of Sauropsid into the classification section there. We could list Class Sauropsida (Goodrich) in the taxobox and list Reptilia (Linnaeus) as a synonym. The distinction is already discussed in the text of both articles. This would fix the taxobox linking problem, since all variations (Sauropsid, Sauropsida, Reptilia) would be redirects to Reptile. This also satisfies the Wiki guideline that article titles should be common names when possible, as Reptile seems to still be the common name for members of the class Sauropsida. What do you guys think? Dinoguy2 01:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea. I haven't really though about it, but now I think of it, I have seen Reptilia in the taxobox a bit. Everything there makes sense. could we get a bot to fix all the taxoboxes with Reptilia in them? --liquidGhoul 01:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, since nobody else has chimed in on this, I'm gonna be bold and make the changes. If anybody comes out with objections, I'll direct them here. Dinoguy2 22:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

What is this?

See Image:King's Skink001.jpg and Image:King's Skink 002.jpg. Taken on Rottnest Island, Western Australia. I saw three and they were each about 250-300mm long and ran really fast across the soft sand. They were very tame. I'm guessing they are Egernia kingii but would appreciate confirmation. Regards —Moondyne 09:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Sauria vs. Lacertilia

If the information that Sauria is a clade and Lacertilia the suborder is correct (at least the article Sauria says so), then someone should go and replace all the links to Sauria with Lacertilia (ordo = Sauria -> ordo = Lacertilia) in the taxoboxes. This would be most conveniently done using WP:AWB. I would do it myself but I am working on a public computer, so I can't use AWB. --Eleassar my talk 09:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Discoglossidae vs. Alytidae

Per [7], Alytidae should be used instead of Discoglossidae. Could someone knowledgeable comment on this? Thanks a lot. --Eleassar my talk 10:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The same with Bufo viridis -> Pseudepidalea viridis and Bufo calamita -> Epidalea calamita. --Eleassar my talk 10:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Komodo dragon

Are there any suggestions to make for Komodo dragon? I've been working on it for some time, and I'm pretty sure it's A-class or so. bibliomaniac15 00:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do with it. :) Shrumster 14:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD for Madtsoiidae

The article on Madtsoiidae is listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madtsoiidae. Someone from the project should take a look at the article and see if it merits deletion, or if it should be cleaned up instead. To me, the family looks notable and the article looks well-referenced, but not formatted very well. I'm not part of this project, though, so I'll defer that judgement to someone else. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer reviewed journals, important books

I have noticed that on occasion editors in commenting on AfDs, such as the above, will question references because a journal cited is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. So it seemed to me that it might be worthwhile to create Wikipedia articles for the primary herpetological literature. There is a new category Category:Herpetological literature and I have added an article on the turtle journal, Chelonian Conservation and Biology. What are the primary journals and books that should have their own articles? See, for example, what has been done with Category:Ornithological literature. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bejnar (talk • contribs) 18:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

I would just like to put in a plea for any of you bibliophiles for more articles in Category:Herpetological literature; it remains under-populated. Do other people not think that the literature is important? Could we add this under the section "Task list and progress"? Or should I just forget it? --Bejnar 23:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

article Elaphe bimaculata in need of love

The article Elaphe bimaculata is a snake article in need of some serious TLC. It lacks a taxobox and needs to be expanded and wikified. I tripped over it while doing some cleanup work, but it is beyond my scope of knowledge to fix. I figured I would refer it here for some expert help. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Add Elaphe carinata and Elaphe conspicillata to the list too. All three are apparently species of ratsnake. They all need about the same kind of help. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Caspian turtle

Found this today and it needs a bit of work but it's out of my area. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CambridgeBayWeather (talk • contribs) 04:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Wolf-lamb

Image:Dimetrodon2.jpg

A permian lamb in wolfes clothes: this so called Dimetrodon is an Edaphosaur!(?) Any objections: Image talk:Dimetrodon2.jpg? Otherwise I'm going to honor the Edaphosaurus page with this image, and Dimetrodon has to be content with only two illustrations. Said: Rursus 09:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Crocs Cat

I noticed Category:Crocodiles is a bit of a mess. The cat page says it's for members of the order Crocodilia, but presently includes an arbitrary assortment of non-crocodilian crocodyliformes as well. Should we restrict this to true crocs, or have it be inclusive up to the level of Crocodylomorpha? Crocodyliformes? Suchia, maybe? If we keep it restricted, a whole lot of stem "crocs" get dumped into Category:Archosaurs. Dinoguy2 14:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

template proposal

WP:TOL template

I'm working on a proposal to subsume all the WP:TOL project banners into a single one. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Template union proposal and its talk page. Circeus 19:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I propose that the {{AARTalk}} be amended so that it can take the article quality and article importance parameters as in the case of {{LepidopteraTalk}} which can be entered in the format {{LepidopteraTalk|stub|low}} on a talk page. Please comment.AshLin 18:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal:

I'd like to ask that you remove WikiProject Dinosaurs from your "Descendant Wikiprojects" on your main project page. Everyone knows (well, almost everyone) that dinosaurs are not reptiles & therefore, shouldn't be placed underneath them on wikiproject lineage lines. I'll update TOL, but since I'm not a member of Wikiproject Reptiles etc, I thought it'd be better if you did it here. Thanks, Spawn Man 07:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Err... what? Of course dinosaurs are reptiles, unless you have you're own paraphyletic definition of reptilia different than the one everyone else uses (or used to use). Dinoguy2 09:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Now I'm confused. I was pretty certain that dinosaurs weren't reptiles (could've sworn I read it in numerous books). I thought dinosaurs split off from archosaurs & that they were warmblooded (according to Bakker) & therefore couldn't be reptiles. Pterosaurs wasn't removed because they are classsified as prehistoric reptiles. So now I'm pretty confused as I've always been brought up with dinosaurs being warmblooded, thus not being reptilian? Am I wrong or am I debatedly wrong? Spawn Man 09:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
No worries, see your talk page. Also, if you're classifying based on warm-bloodedness, some dinosaurs might end up being reptiles and othrs not. And pterosaurs were almost certainly warm blooded. Dinoguy2 15:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow, ok I've never heard that if you have a refrence I must read it! So if you can remember what book/s you found that information in that would be really helpful, thanks. -- IvanTortuga 13:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Komodo dragon

Komodo dragon is up for FAC. Feel free to comment and help fix concerns. bibliomaniac15 BUY NOW! 17:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Micropholis

I've read many phylogenetic positions for this taxon & I don't really know what it is. The Dissorophoidea page on Wikipedia (and I suspect some other pages on the internet, but I'm not sure) claims that it's an extinct amphibian. A google search on it will show many pages that claim that it's a tree. The Wikipedia page for Micropholis is even more confusing; it's contents claim that it's a modern salamander & it's classified as an amphibian article in wikiproject Reptiles and Amphibians, and it's taxobox claims that it is the aformentioned tree! WHAT GIVES?!!! What exactly is it?!. - 03:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Template question (EMBL)

At least, I think it's a question about templates. I'm hoping someone here will either know the answer, or know where to find someone who can help.
I've been busy with a series of articles on vipers, many of which use a template (?) that makes it easy to create external links to entries in a particular online database. An example would be the first link in this external links section, the markup language for which looks like this:

  • {{EMBL species|genus=Bitis|species=gabonica}}

These links used to be for records at the Reptile database at the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL). At one point late last year, the EMBL stopped hosting this database, at which point the man responsible for it, Dr. Peter Uetz, went looking for a new hosting site. In the mean time, the code behind this template at Wikipedia was changed to work with the Species2000 database, even though Species2000 carries only a subset of the original EMBL Reptile Database. Finally, about two months ago, Dr. Uetz's database went online again here, but it seems that the folks here at Wikipedia who maintain the EMBL template have not yet discovered this.
My question is therefore, how can I find out who maintains this template, or where can I find someone who can change it to query the Reptile database at its new location? Thanks! --Jwinius 09:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I edited the template. Can you check if it is working fine. Shyamal 16:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Shyamal! Thanks for helping out. The new link works okay, but now there's a errant hard return included in the code between "Species" and "<name_of_species>". Have a look here to see what I mean. If you can remove it, we'll be all set. Oh, in case this involves a browser incompatibility, I'm using Linux and get the same thing with three different browsers: Konqueror, Firefox and Mozilla. --Jwinius 18:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Fixed this time hopefully. Shyamal 01:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Yup, you got that one. Thanks! But now I have one more for you. It looks like this:
  • {{EMBL genus|genus=Atheris}}
You can find an example of what the result currently looks here. It's pretty dead at the moment, but if you can fix that too I think that'll really be all. --Jwinius 02:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Done, but this has a search page form at the end of the results. And the stability of this depends on that website. Shyamal 03:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You concern is noted. It's for this reason that I much prefer citing books and journals for the articles that I work on, but Uetz's Reptile Database is one of only a handful of websites that I attach any value to. By the way, these templates seem to be a bit of a mystery to many people here. If you hadn't been around to fix it in this case, where's the best place I could have gone to find information on this subject, as well as a possible solution? Thanks for your help! --Jwinius 10:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You could try the Wikipedia_talk:Requested_templates for new template requests, or look at the Template:EMBL genus page history and contact someone who associated with it. Or just post a notice on WP:TOL, someone will help for sure. Shyamal 04:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Excellent! I've now figured out how to manipulate these templates myself. Thanks! --Jwinius 14:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

On the occasion of your 6000th amphibian stub (or so)...

The {{amphibian-stub}} stub type is now horrendously oversized: I've proposed splitting them, largely by family. Please comment there if you have any thoughts, most obviously on the naming issues. Alai 17:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Categories for Deletion: Elapids

This category is up for deletion.Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_3#Category:Elapids Or rather for merging. Would some snake folk provide guidance on how you generally do your categories and decide the best merger, if any, for this? Thanks. KP Botany 21:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes please contribute! -- Prove It (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
The measures proposed are fine with me. Generally, I would prefer that everyone simply use a common taxonomy for categories, as well as for articles. Of course, it may not always be practical to strictly follow a taxonomy for the lower taxa (e.g. families, subfamilies), since I think ultimately we all want to avoid creating categories that will end up containing too few or too many articles, but the higher taxa should not be a problem. --Jwinius 12:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Capitalisation debate at main WP:MOS

There is currently a debate underway at the main wikipedia manual of style regarding whether common names of animals should carry an initial capital letter (horse or Horse) when used in the body of the text. It is looking strongly like the rules are going to be changed in favour of no-caps (except for birds), and since this may impact you guys, please visit Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Common names of animals. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

That's fine with me: I've been using the no-caps style ever since I started here. "On his farm, he has Pigs and Chickens..." -- that just never looked right to me. I'll be sure to let them know what I think. --Jwinius 23:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Animals project proposal

I think it's both a pity and somewhat illogical that we have no animal WikiProject despite the fact that there are over 20 projects that are basically its daughters. There are also other projects that could emerge from it in the future, such as one on animal behavior. The project would provide a central place for people from all animal projects to talk, a central set of guidelines for articles on animals and zoology, and an assessment system for articles related to animals. If you are interested in creating such a project please visit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life#Animals project to discuss. Richard001 08:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The following projects would come under the parentage of this project:

Red-eared Slider

This page needs alot of very serious help. It's written more like a caretaking guide, and I have 0 experience handling this type of article. I don't know where to start. I would really appreciate some help there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DurinsBane87 (talk • contribs) 00:29, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Inferring Philautus

We have the comprehensive paper by Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda (2005) online for free; numerous extinct species of these frogs are mentioned in it. These are only known from alcohol specimens, but it might be possible to infer their coloration in life by comparing the color of living and alcohol specimens of extant species. The paper (and its also for-free follow-up) provide all the info we need. If anyone is interested to piece together the info (such as on the genus' talk page) and see where it gets us, send me a message. Dysmorodrepanis 07:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions

There is currently a disagreement going on at Talk:Python_regius#Requested_move about moving an article and formatting that affects all of WP:AAR. Any other input would be very much appreciated. Jhall1468 15:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I have replied to the issue at Python regius there, but I think this is much bigger and much more important reptile style issue that should be addressed here essentially independently of Python regius. User:Jwinius, as explained on that page an at User talk:Jwinius has two style positions that should be discussed here. 1) Articles should be at the scientific name and 2) article leads should be preceded by a list of common names, and the common names should not be bolded in the text of the article lead. I'm splitting this section into two subsections, as I think these two style issues are quite different.Enuja (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Article names

WikiProject Tree of Life suggests that species names should be common names instead of scientific names, but WikiProject Plants has instead decided to have all plants at scientific names. Personally, I think that keeping the common name convention makes sense. People do often talk in common names, biologists and others, and anyone knowledgeable about a species is expected to know both its common name and its scientific name. People not particularly knowledgeable about the species, however, are more likely to be familiar with only the common name, and this encyclopedia is supposed to be useful to all levels of knowledge. I think that the taxo-box is a great invention that puts all of the taxonomic information in one place, so anyone who is interested in the species can learn about its scientific name and even its order, if they so wish (I must say I wish they were phylo-boxes instead of taxo-boxes, but that is neither here nor there). I do not think that common names are confusing, when used as article titles. If it makes sense to put a link to an article under its scientific name, then just do a piped linked. Actually, scientific names should be redirects if they aren't articles, so just link to the scientific name and let the wonder of redirects take care of the rest. User:Jwinius argues that using common names makes categories confusing and points to Category:True vipers versus Category:Sharks to make the point. Personally, I don't find one category more useful than the other. To me, this point isn't terribly important because of the existence of redirects, but it seems handy to have a rule, and it seems handy to stick with common names when they are unique, and specific and scientific names when common names aren't unique and specific. Essentially, I simply don't see any of the disadvantages Jwinius points to, and I think taxo-boxes give us all of the advantages, whatever the system. Jwinius has explained this approach in detail before on this page, above at Sample article for reptiles, but very little discussion ensued. Enuja (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. I really DO like what User:Jwinius is doing with taxonomy of snakes (see Pythonidae and Python for examples. However, using scientific names down to the species doesn't make much sense to me, as Wikipedia is not a scientific journal, it's an encyclopedia. I also agree that focusing more on individual articles, instead of all-encompassing decisions is important. Jhall1468 20:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I can appreciate both sides. Maybe it's because I know more species by their Latin name as opposed to what is used as their common name. My background in herpetology is as an advanced hobbyist and a former breeder/importer from years ago where almost everything was given in Latin as you were talking to people in Africa, Central America, Thailand, etc that used a completely different name than we may have in the US (taking Latin in High School did help out somewhere other than going to Mass!). I've been working with the Cyclura articles recently and all the ones I created were of the Scientific name...following another example. In some cases I've used the common names as redirects back to the scientific names. A handfull of articles were created using the common name and I've left those in those cases. (Rhinoceros Iguana, Blue Iguana, Acklins, Jamaican, etc) My goal by the end of the year is to have all the Cyclura articles completed. I'll go with whichever naming convention is chosen by the majority of the project. My preference, however is to use the Latin. --Mike Searson 21:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I have just noticed that User:Jwinius is moving articles apparently without putting templates on top of them and arguing for the move on the talk page. I have not checked all of the article histories for templates, but here is the user's move log. [8] I think warning other editors, at the very least, is important for any page move, be it with or against policy. Enuja (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC) User has promised to warn before any future page moves, so this issue is solved. Enuja (talk) 02:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Names in article leads

User:Jwinius puts the common names up top, and listed in a section in the text, and does not include or bold them in the article lead. For Vipera berus this system makes a certain amount of sense, as it has a dizzying number of common names. For Python regius this makes less sense, as it seems to have only two common names. Because it has so few common names, it makes sense to use the common name in the lead and in the article to be clear, understandable and accessible. I don't think that one style or the other needs to be used exclusively; use what makes sense for a species with a particular number of common names. If it has one clear common name, just bold the name in the lead and you've communicated a lot. Enuja (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, I agree completely. You can see where the common names on top becomes effectively redundant in cases like Python (genus) and Pythonidae. In both cases the common name is Python, having them at the top seems strange to me. But I agree, Vipera berus is a good example of how the list at the top can be effective AND an example of using the scientific name in a way that makes sense. Jhall1468 20:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
The common names should be in the lead as well as in bold print. Mike Searson 21:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

I've created a guideline page for assessing articles Wikipedia:WikiProject_Amphibians_and_Reptiles/Assessment and would like some input from everyone. This is a near exact copy of WP:PLANTS assessment page, but I think it works relatively well for AAR as well. Jhall1468 00:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC) We might want to make a assessment team like they have for wikiproject birds. --Cynops3 15:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thalattosuchia / Thalattosauria

Early_Jurassic#Marine_Reptiles says "the thalattosaurs or marine "crocodiles" appear" -- "thalattosaurs" links to Thalattosauria, which is currently a redlink. Crocodylomorpha and Thalattosuchia mention "Thalattosuchia", but not "thalattosaur(s)" or "Thalattosauria". There are some Google hits for the terms "thalattosaur(s)" and "Thalattosauria". Can a knowledgeable person straighten this out? Thanks. -- 201.19.77.39 12:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems they're two different groups. Thalattosuchia are neosuchian crocodyliformes fairly close to modern crocodilians.[9] Thalattosaurians appear to be diapsids of uncertain placement, though the few references I can find make it look like they my be close to plesiosaurs.[10] Dinoguy2 13:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

smallest???

The pages for the Monte Iberia Eleuth, Brazilian Gold Frog, and the Yellow-Striped Pygmy Eleuth all contradict the size of each species and their ranking in size as well.

The Monte Iberia Eleuth page claims that the Brazilian Gold Frog is smaller.

The Brazilian Gold Frog page claims that the Monte Iberia Eleuth is 0.2 mm smaller, and that the Yellow-Striped Pygmy Eleuth is 8.5 mm long, smaller than the given length for the Brazilian Gold Frog.

The Yellow-Striped Pygmy Eleuth page claims that it is perhaps the fourth smallest frog in the world.

Which is smallest? 71.112.2.145 00:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Green iguana

I reworked, rewrote, referenced, and expanded Green iguana over the weekend. Can someone here take a look and give me some feedback? I'd like to do the same to the articles I started and improved on the Cycluras as well. Thanks in advance.--Mike Searson 13:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ummm ok, the article was reviewed yesterday and found to meet "Good Article" Criteria. I'll continue working to improve it and attempt to get it featured. If anyone from the project wants to help, jump on in! I'll also be improving the Cyclura articles as well!--Mike Searson 17:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Organisms Wiki - a wikia on Organisms

Organisms Wiki was recently started as a wikia to educate on all types of organisms and their biological counterparts. This wiki will aim to provide free, excellence-quality and concise articles dealing with organisms and habitats. Organisms Wiki is a wikia, and is also very small and new, which is why I would like to leave a note here that we appreciate any helpful contributions.

I have had people criticizing the sense of making a wiki on this topic when indeed Wikipedia covers just about anything related to organisms. Sure, this may be true - but a major advantage of having Organisms Wiki hosted at wikia is to cover the topics in broader depth. Thank you. Organisms Wiki

Paul Davey 08:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

two pages - one species

I just noticed there are two pages for Paleosuchus trigonatus. One listed under Smooth-fronted Caiman and another under Schneider's Smooth-fronted Caiman. The two contain almost the same info, but the latter was evidently started by a bot. I'm new to the wiki system, but if someone who knows it better could merge these two or alternatively make the Schneider's Smooth-fronted Caiman redirect to Smooth-fronted Caiman (this is the name typically used, the scientic name already redirects to this page and it also includes a bit more info than the brief bot-generated Schneider's Smooth-fronted Caiman article). Thanks. 212.10.81.198 21:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Also, if someone could delete the page Paleosuchus trigomatus entirely. It originally forwarded to Schneider's Smooth-fronted Caiman and I changed it to Smooth-fronted Caiman (per above mentioned issues), only to realize that it should be deleted altogether. The correct scientific name is Paleosuchus trigonatus (which already redirects where it should) not Paleosuchus trigomatus (trigomatus/trigonatus). Evidently, this mistake occurred due to a typo on IUCN's page. 212.10.81.198 21:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting these issues out! I'd leave the misspelled redirect, if it's based on an IUCN typo, to help people find the correct page if they use the incorrect spelling in searches. Dinoguy2 01:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Bearded Dragon

I've tried cleaning this one up. Pretty sad that the only source in the entire article is a junk science article about "Dr" Fry claiming every reptile is venomous. Is the project going to allow junk science to ruin articles? Why is it that nobody seems to remember that venom is a pre-digestant as is saliva and all pre-digestant's cause tissue damage? I guess if anything, it proves who paid attention in science class.--Mike Searson (talk) 04:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

He didn't claim every reptile is venomous. He just said that it was possible that varanids and iguania were venomous. bibliomaniac15 04:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I was being facetious. Jeez. I think I'm venomous because I have salivary glands, myself!--Mike Searson (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Herpetoculture

Would this article be within the scope of our project:Herpetoculture? I think it should be. The article, itself needs some work, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Searson (talk • contribs) 01:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


Yellow-Spotted Keelback Xenochrophis flavipunctatus is a stub

Yellow-Spotted Keelback Xenochrophis flavipunctatus (Colubridae) is currently an ultra-stub. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 04:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)

There is a current proposal to change an animal-related naming convention, which directly effects the the Manual of Style guideline, and the naming conventions policy. If you are interested, your input would be appreciated. Justin chat 06:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change in taxobox categories

There is a current CfD discussing a potential change to Category:Animal articles without taxoboxes. There are two proposed changes: Category:Animal articles needing a taxobox and Category:Animal articles without infoboxes. At present time there is no consensus, so input from the WP:ANIMAL editors would be appreciated. Justin chat 20:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Taxonomy problems with lizards

I am finding it very hard to sort out the taxobox information when dealing with the lizards. There is a lot of inconsistancy on name usage (both Sauria and Lacertilia are used interchangable) and it goes down hill from there. For example look at the entry for Komodo Dragon. It is listed as family: Varanidae, suborder: Autarchoglossa but if you look at Varanidae (monitor lizards) it lists Suborder: Scleroglossa Infraorder: Anguimorpha. At the same time, checking the listing at Lizard, Varanidae is listed as infraorder Platynota of suborder Lacertilia (Sauria)

Page Suborder Infraorder Family
Lizard Lacertilia (Sauria) Playnota Varanidae
Varanidae Scleroglossa Auguimorpha Varanidae
Komodo Dragon Autarchoglossa none listed Varanidae

Three seperate pages have the same family in three seperate suborders and 2 different infraorders. Much of this seems to stem from the order page (Squamata) not being entirely certain which suborders it is actually using as well as it and the page for the clade Toxicofera conflicting. There are also many other cases throughout the section of infraorders being used as suborders and a few that are actually listed as orders. Creol (talk) 18:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I used the ITIS Report Page to cite the infobox on Komodo Dragon. It seems that Lacertilia and Sauria are actually synonyms of Squamata. Whatever the case, this is a very serious problem. bibliomaniac15 19:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Snake Species

I have a complaint that all the the snake articles have scientififc name. Why can we just put the common? It doesn't make sense because a lot of animal articles have the common names and not only that but could be confusing. If you're not a snake expert, may think that these two snakes are the same. If you're a rookie on snake common names but not on scientific names, you may get confuse which is which, like the photos below by putting "sci-names" not common names.

Give me a message on user or leave a message here.--4444hhhh (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


Wikipedia is an international resource. What we call a copperhead in the US: Agkistrodon contortrix is different from what they caal a copperhead in Australia:Austrelaps and completely different in Asia: Deinagkistrodon. The Latin names are universally understood and have been for centuries. I usually create a redirect for the common names, like the various cyclura articles, but when recently working on two ctenosaura articles: I found 2 different species Ctenosaura pectinata and Ctenosaura similis with overlapping common names (Black iguana, Mexican Spinytail, etc). FYI, the Emerald Tree Boa is not listed by its scientific name.--Mike Searson (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. When there are a whole bunch of regional names that can cause confusion, it's best to use the scientific name. If there's one predominant common name, then it can certainly be used. bibliomaniac15 02:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)