Talk:Myuchelys

Discussion on this paragraph

The unfortunate history of the genus now came to play. The genus name Wollumbinia was erected by Wells, 2007, however, some recent publications have claimed that this paper is in breach of the ICZN code defining a valid publication, ICZN Articles 8 and 9 and Recommendation 8D. If this is correct, then the name should not be used. Since the PDF version of the Wollumbinia paper clearly states that it is secondary to a paper version which is available upon request (not printed on request, but available on request), Wells' name Wollumbinia would appear to have been published in full compliance with ICZN Article 8 and ICZN Article 9. There is no proof in any published source that no original printed run of the article was made available in 2007, and the PDF clearly states that it was. Therefore, it must be given the benefit of any doubt, by the Principle of charity. The reader can decide for themselves whether the issue here is "science" or just "politics", and whether there is any solid factual basis for rejecting Wells' name for this taxon. The genus encompassing these species was named Myuchelys by Thomson and Georges, 2009.

• Ok basically the above is wrong in a number of ways. I am going to outline why below. Faendalimas ^talk 04:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The difficulty is that the above is not an accurate assessment. The Wells papers were assessed by several peer reviewed first class papers, these have now been followed by the majority of the scientific literature on turtles. The major checklists on turtles, including the one we follow here have all determined that the name Wollombinia is invalid. We here are not a primary source, we are not a journal, we are not up for scientific scruteny prior to publication nor can we present our opinions of the literature on species. It is not up to us here to determine what if anything the ICZN rules tell us to do.

Comments such as "The reader can decide for themselves whether the issue here is "science" or just "politics", and whether there is any solid factual basis for rejecting Wells' name for this taxon" are opinion, not based on the literature. In the face of no objections in the literature we have to accept the nomenclature as outlined in the scientific literature. We should not be making opinions.

The reasons for rejecting the validity of the Wells paper is not the one outlined above. The papers were rejected because it has a fake ISSN number and was never registered with any libraries. The Wells' paper claimed it was a valid publication because it was registered and had been placed in libraries, this was not done. In the 3 years since this has come to light there has not been one publication supporting the use of the name Wollombinia there are now around a dozen supporting the use of Myuchelys. The Wells paper was rejected using the principals of the ICZN, and the Principle of charity is not applicable. The Wells paper was not rejected here, but the wealth of literature rejecting it is being cited here. The ICZN has no principal of charity.

We are an encyclopaedia, we report the published literature. As such the conjecture should go, as such I recommend the rewriting of the above to only report the literature, and to leave out any opinions not supported by the literature. As I am aware this is a delicate issue for some I have put this here rather than just change it, I would like to see concensus from the members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Turtles and the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Amphibians_and_Reptiles and will place requests on both these pages.

So as to make it brutally clear. So that no one can claim WP:NPoV on me, I am one of the authors of the genus Myuchelys, I am a taxonomist specialising in turtles and a member of the ICZN and the IUCN. Therefore I need concensus to go forwards. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 05:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

[I was asked to contribute here by Faendalimas.] I have no knowledge of the background to the two genus names in question. There are, however, some obvious problems with the article's current text. Several statements are unsourced or improperly sourced, and editorial opinions and recommendations are given. I don't think there can be any justification for including editorialising like "The unfortunate history of the genus now came to play" or leading statements like "The reader can decide for themselves whether the issue here is 'science' or just 'politics', and whether there is any solid factual basis for rejecting Wells' name for this taxon". We can only repeat or report what the sources say. In this case, we can state for instance that Georges and Thomson (2010) concluded that Wells' publication did not fulfil the criteria for publication under the ICZN, and that they disputed whether "W. dorsei" warranted recognition as a separate species. I have seen similar cases elsewhere, with statements like "this constitutes a valid publication under the ICZN^[1]", where the citation is to the ICZN itself (which naturally doesn't mention the case in question) – this is to my mind obviously unacceptable. On less contentious issues, how many species are there in the genus? We learn that the "genus currently contains five [...] species", but only four are listed. I would also recommend removing the Wikispecies link until it provides complementary information, rather than a blank contradiction. External links are meant to be a service to the reader, which that link isn't at the moment (no. 2 in WP:ELNO). --Stemonitis (talk) 09:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The assertions here promoted by Thomson and Georges are incorrect. The generic name Wollumbinia was published in a Journal which does have a valid ISSN. It was first published in ink on paper and distributed to the requisite number of deposit and other libraries, the Zoological Record, as well as to many prominent herpetologists and institutions. To eliminate all doubt, the document also contained a statement that it was produced for "permanent scientific record". Subsequently, numerous PDF copies of the original document have also been distributed globally. Therefore, to argue that the article is invalid under articles 8 and 9 and unable to be obtained/sourced is a furphy promulgated by individuals with a vested interest in having their later name Myuchelys take precedence. The argument that the IUCN currently uses Myuchelys in its various lists justifies or in some way validates the use of the name here fails to take account of the fact that Turtle Reference Group, (Rhodin et al 2010) has blindly followed the assertion of Thomson and Georges 2009 that the Wollumbinia name is invalid on their say so and in the same article that they erect a replacement name Myuchelys.

That the biased account provided here of the taxonomic history of Myuchelys on this page has been written by Thomson is not surprising. It fails to recognize the fact that H.G. Cogger, Australia's leading taxonomic herpetologist for the past 40 years to the present, has dismissed Thomson and Georges (2009) assertion regarding the validity of Wollumbinia and relegated Myuchelys to a junior synonym (Cogger, 2014). Cogger (2014) recently released the 7th Edition of his benchmark publication Reptiles and Amphibians of Australia in which Wollumbinia is accepted as the valid generic name for the group. Similarly, the Australian Governments Fauna Directory (AFD) and Biological Resources Study (ABRS) recognize Wollumbinia as the valid name for the group and list Myuchelys as a junior synonym. The assertion above that no one has used Wollumbinia since its publication is a clearly false statement given its acceptance by the Australian Government as the valid name on the official list of Australia's recognized biodiversity. That Thomson, as a member of the IUCN and Turtle Reference Group has lobbied these groups to be at odds with the Australian Government and Australia's recognized authority (citation re-citing citation, ad nauseum, and in an attempt to change history), is concerning. That he is also an editor/producer of this page with its myopic and distorted account of reality and desired attempt to distort history is even more concerning. Individuals with a vested interest should be recused from comment on such pages and having influence on such groups especially when they clearly are unable to provide objective accounts of reality. Attempts to correct these biased accounts on the page have been repetitively changed back to a distorted and unsupported account. This page needs to be placed in the hands of someone who CAN provide an objective account of reality and the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.170.213.64 (talk) 11:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Ross, and yes I am sure you are writing this which means you have a vested interest here too. That aside you are incorrect in a number of assertions, ones you are guessing at and could not possibly know. First the Turtle Taxonomy Working Group (what you incorrectly refer to as the Turtle Reference Group) did exclude me from their discussions on this genus. I had no say in what they decided on this. The AFD and ABRS from what I am told will be changing their views on this, but I have no say in that either, since I do not live in Australia any more. However the comment that the name Wollumbinia has not been used is not referring to them but peer reviewed scientific publications, internal lists maintained by a government dept are not publications. Books also do not constitute a peer reviewed publication but in any case Cogger's book came out after that statement was made, also Hal felt the issue was still in contention, he did not take one side or another on the issue and went with Priority for the sake of argument. At the time of the publication of the name Myuchelys the ISSN number for Aust. Bio. Rec. on database search with the National Library of Australia came up as unknown, as did the name of the Journal. If that has since been fixed then the publication date is from when this was fixed. Which will be after 2009. Lastly it was not me that declared the name Wollumbinia as unavailable, I just agreed with the arguments that others had put forward, so resubmitted my manuscript upon request. I understand your sudden interest here, after so many years, the recent comment on Spracklandus has no doubt infuriated you. Hence it is in your interest to discredit me as the coordinating writer of that comment. In the last month or so you have been writing to everyone and you have only taken an interest in this since the Comment came out and the case against Hoser became a hot topic. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 11:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Also you should consider autoconfirming your account if you wish to contribute to Wikimedia, this will give you an identity rather than a series of IP addresses to identify you with. Second any time you make a comment you should sign it with ~~~~ ie four tilde's as this will sign and date your comment. I am happy to help you with the wiki markup. Am happy to discuss these iussues. However you should keep it polite there is no need for attack. The most recent revert was not done by me, I requested additional protection on the page from the admins, who are neutral. They will watch this page for the next 6 months. Remember also that an article page on a genus is not a soapbox for one person, it is reached by concensus. If you look at the edit history of the genus page I may have created it but I did not solely write it, and in 2012 I handed it over for review by independent editors and followed their advice on the final page, as did others involved. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 12:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

"you have a vested interest here too" [I have no vested interest only a vehement opposition to theft in any form; I am not an author of Spracklandus or Wollumbinia and so how do I have a vested interest?} and fail under NPoV, why else would you hide behind an IP user [I'm not hiding behind anything, I'm just not a member of Wikipedia and can't be bothered either setting up a soap box page for a false genus or registering in some way as an official contributor - I'm not that interested]

"ones you are guessing at and could not possibly know" [eg ?]

"but I have no say in that either" [perhaps not but I'll lay odds your buddy and coauthor of Myuchelys, Georges in Canberra is lobbying hard on the basis of your getting IUCN to list it!]

"but peer reviewed scientific publications" [so-called peer reviewed journals with editors with a vested interest in seeing certain names usurped], internal lists maintained by a government dept are not publications [nor are IUCN lists which are repetitively cited as some sort of effort to muster validation for Myuchelys!]

"internal lists maintained by a government dept are not publications" [nor are IUCN lists which are repetitively cited as some sort of effort to muster validation for Myuchelys!]

"Cogger's book came out after that statement" [what statement?]

"went with Priority for the sake of argument" [he still doesn't agree with the arguments being promoted]

"from when this was fixed" [actually not - there is no formal requirement for an ISSN within the code to validate what constitutes a publication by definition]

"Lastly it was not me that declared the name Wollumbinia as unavailable" [that seems at odds with your own article in which you attempted to replace Wollumbinia in 2009!]

"I understand your sudden interest here" [no sudden interest at all?]

"the recent comment on Spracklandus has no doubt infuriated you" [not really I just hate attempts at intellectual theft, changing history and where an elitist crowd think they can control everything and provide some sanitized self serving view of things; where some 'key players' who like to remain quietly in the wings eg editors of certain journals so they can anonymously sanction biased articles and in the process make 'peer-review' a joke!]

"Hence it is in your interest" [how?] "to discredit me as the coordinating writer" [I didn't know you were the coordinating writer] "of that comment" [btw my comments here have nothing to do with Spracklandus other than it being an identical name theft stunt]

"you have been writing to everyone" ['everyone' is a lot of people, name two?]

"Hoser became a hot topic" [not at all, I have made many comments on inconsistent and incorrect use of names all over the place?]

[btw I do understand your strenuous efforts at saving your only genus name - but even if you did succeed it would be a somewhat hollow victory - history will ultimately demonstrate the underhand and mischievous way it was achieved - cheers] 101.170.213.64 (talk)

Ok first up please do not edit other peoples posts to put in your own comments, its very difficult to see who wrote what and you cannot sign it. This is not on in Wikimedia. I have copied and pasted your comments out, trying to keep their reference points. I believe I got them all, my apologies if I have not. I also added your IP signature to them.

Ok fair enough on ip user status, I would recommend to you to reconsider that if you want your comments considered, but its up to you. On what others do regarding establishing the nomenclature is up to them. I have not promoted Myuchelys to the IUCN, CITES or anywhere else. I use it of course, and yes I agree with the position the IUCN took, but it does not mean I promoted it. On peer review, its an accepted scientific standard, across all fields of science, if you dont like it, get the scientific world to change their requirements. I agree it has its pitfalls, but it is better than what Hoser is doing, sole author and editor and publisher means no check points that is not acceptable in science.

For your info the IUCN TFTSG Checklist is a peer reviewed article, it appears in an international journal, it is externally peer reviewed and is published accordingly. Cogger's book came out in 2014, the statement you refer to that no-one has used the name was made in 2012. Hal does not think either side of the argument has made a good case, he thinks there is no evidence it is published and that the evidence is not is not conclusive enough, so he went with priority. In 2009 at the request of the editors I ignored Wollumbinia, I considered it unpublished and made no comment on it. In 2010 I made a more definitive statement but in the Myuchelys description I said very little, I was told not to cite it.

I agree with you that ISSN is not required under the code, yet Richard and now you have used it as proof the journal is published, then when someone (and I am not the first) says that no the ISSN on there is fake, we hear but ISSN is not required. Good then do not use it to prop up the journal. You cannot have it both ways.

Now on Spracklandus, I also have no vested interest I am neither an author on that or Afronaja. It is not my area. Nor do I have any vested interest in any of the turtles he has named, I do not work with Chelodina expansa, and certainly not Chelydrids or Trionichids. My interest is the nomenclatural issues in general. ~cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 15:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Scott Thomson = Faendalimas - You were the one suggesting that the ISSN was bogus and hence creating a façade that it made Wollumbinia invalid, not I. I wasn't using an ISSN no. to validate the publication either. I was merely pointing out that your assertion about the ISSN was a lie, that the Journal does exist as a hard copy print medium Journal and does contain statements of purpose - all of which make it clear that your publication of the later name Myuchelys is not the valid name and merely a junior synonym. Hal Cogger does believe the Journal exists and has used Wollumbinia, I spoke to him personally. I sent your comment re the ISSN to Richard to see what his response was - provided the following.

"Myuchelys vs Wollumbinia

Ross Wellington has just asked my opinion on claims made by by Scott Thomson on a Wikipedia page that he controls. Ross had been trying to set the record straight on the Page and Thomson et al keep changing it back to their rant. Normally I wouldn't bother with such a Wikipedia issue, but I thought I'd post his query below with my answer...I intend publishing a revision on Australia's freshwater turtles soon and this will include a number of changes to the classification promoted by Georges and Thomson and their lap-dogs both here and abroad, so for now....

Given the reprehensible manner in which Arthur Georges and Scott Thomson erected the genus Myuchelys over my earlier published and legitimately described genus Wollumbinia, I am getting more than a little fed-up with both of these clowns. As you well know, I don't bother thinking about their work unless I feel like vomiting. But Scott Thomson has gone way too far with his insulting and demonstrably incorrect statement that the ABR has a fake ISSN on it and that the works do not constitute Available publications under the Code of Zoological Nomenclature. The National Library of Australia did actually issue me with an ISSN for the Australian Biodiversity Record prior to me first publishing it, and every issue since has had that ISSN number on the publication as the NAL instructed. And I have a letter in my files from the National Library of Australia that proves it, so Thomson can suck that one up and choke on it for all I care. From what I have observed, the only fakery is that in the Wikipedia piece and elsewhere through the constant claims by Georges and Thomson that the genus Wollumbinia is invalid. The ABR has always met the requirements for Availability as a publication under the Code - and I believe that Georges and Thomson know full-well that it has as well. To say otherwise just makes them a couple of bumbling liars in my eyes. But what concerns me even more is the basis for this claim of a faked ISSN. Did either of them actually get this opinion either from, or after communicating with, person/s within the National Library of Australia? How the hell have they reached this conclusion, because they sure as hell never bothered to ask me about it. This is quite a potential problem for Scott Thomson given his rave on Wikipedia - and whoever else supports this opinion actually - because as an ISSN was validly and lawfully acquired by me from the National Library of Australia prior to publishing any issues of the Australian Biodiversity Record, it means that someone is either lying in regards this ISSN matter or the NLA has itself acted incompetently in providing Thomson or his informant with incorrect information regarding it. Another matter, no less concerning, is the additional fact that all issues of the Australian Biodiversity Record have been sent to the National Library of Australia when, or soon after, they were published, YET the library's TROVE database only includes an incomplete record of receipt of my Journal. Although they include the majority of what has been published (contra the claims of Scott Thomson) I also find it more than curious, that some issues were inexplicably NOT added to the library's collection record and they appear to be those where my intellectual property has been either later stolen through the re-descriptive actions of others, or are those that contain new taxa within groups that others have a vested interest in side-stepping - a sort of suppression by omission one might say. Another fact not generally known - but certainly known by herpetologists at the Australian Museum and the Queensland Museum - is that some issues of the Australian Biodiversity Record were clearly dated by Australia Post date stamps as part of the mailing process. And often bulk copies are sent to places like museums and universities and in so doing it is obvious to key workers that they conform to traditional ink-on-paper publications. Yes, I have also made PDFs freely available (over 80,000 have been downloaded that I know of) but they have always been offered as PDFs only after the works were printed on paper. Given the fact that they have been published and distributed to researchers and libraries and countless other recipients as you know, Thomson's claim is just idiotic - Doesn't he bother talking to other researchers in Australia any more? But you know Ross, I think I can be excused for suspecting that there is something not quite right going on here with his erroneous ISSN claim as well (wherever that originated) and I include here the apparent failure of the NAL to include critical components of my work in its database. That said, Thomson may gain some comfort from his claim that it is not in the Australian National Library, but it was sent, so it should have been added to their collection, unless it is laying on a back-log shelf for processing. Who knows? But whether by deliberate intent of an officer within, or through just plain sloppy work at the ANL, this matter suggests to me that the part being played by the Australian National Library is at the very least now becoming enmeshed within the attempted entrenchment of a scientific fraud. Yes, I am of course referring to the pseudo-intellectual wipe that was published in that rag Zootaxa by Arthur Georges and Scott Thomson when they first erected the genus Myuchelys over my earlier generic name of Wollumbinia. Of course, as you know, the unethical omission of any mention of my earlier work or its conclusions not only had the effect of creating a false impression of authority on their part but also an illegitimate priority of their conclusions. Through deliberately ignoring my earlier published work in the face of their own prior awareness of it, as well as neglecting even the citation of it, and then in effect over-writing of its conclusions with their own, this must constitute an example of scientific fraud by any reasonable and informed opinion...And there can be no doubt of that at all, and no amount of fake claims about an ISSN or the Availability of the Australian Biodiversity Record to lawfully publish new names in zoology can hide it either..." RW Wells 14 May 2015 20:47:36 +1000

This comment by Richard I think should satisfy your false assertion claims and that of interested readers.

It is quite concerning that even the National Library of Australia is apparently being manipulated by your influential cohorts in Canberra and as you alluded the Commonwealth Government ABRS and AFD are in the sights as well.

You might be interested to know that the IUCN are currently considering aligning their lists with that of the Australian Government.

As for "peer-review" I have no problem with it except when it is portrayed as some form of puritanical standard; a standard presented to the community as beyond reproach and that anything without that perceived status is in some way invalidated! I fully understand that academia use that 'standard' in a way that justifies their position of authority, their employed position in Universities and their grant funded 'gravy train'. Unfortunately, when that process is abused by editors with a vested interest in a particular position and who then condone personal attack, false assertion and scientific misappropriation it demeans not only the vehicle of publication but also the whole peer-review argument thus rendering it redundant. I don't need to get the whole scientific community to change their need for peer-review not at all its just that people outside that publish or perish sphere see it as a joke of a standard, and that it is anything but! Take for example Zootaxa in which you published your replacement name for Wollumbinia in 2009. How can you claim that the article was peer-reviewed to any objective standard? The name Wollumbinia was known generally and was made aware to yourselves prior to publishing Myuchelys. Surely an editor that was not biased or influenced not see the seriousness of usurping someone else's intellectual property. Why was there zero effort to establish the availability by the editor of that Journal regarding Australian Biodiversity Record and allowing you and Georges to present a bibliographic citation that was clearly false and to create a perception of the articles only being available from the author? As for the 'nomenclatural curiosities' of Wells and Wellington 1984/5 you obviously haven't read the various editions of Cogger including the latest (Cogger, 2014) where most of these 'curiosities' are recognized as biological facts/entities ... much to your consternation I'm sure! Quite clearly, you are very angry at having lost your generic names as too is Arthur Georges, but in his case not just because he has lost his desired and all consuming hunt for 'glory' but also his hatred of those naming things he wanted to name. He might also be a little embarrassed by the fact that it was pointed out to the Australian Government that he was practicing poor science (see Wells and Wellington 1992) http://www.calodema.com/freefiles/wells/Wells-JellyBlubbers.pdf R Wellington 11:57 18 May 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.170.213.64 (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Playground style arguments of he said, he said, no evidence. I have not now or ever had any influence over the National Library. Not worried about what Richard said, he is defending his position which is perfectly understandable. Of course the editors approached Richard, I still have his response to it, well 3 of them anyway. So not zero effort. Wells and Wellington 1985 I have no issue with, I use several of the names, in doing so I clearly accept it as published. Zootaxa publishes around 60% of taxonomic works, you saying they are not an adequate place of publication? This journal has a very high reputation and quality control, your claiming that on the basis of one or two papers you disagree with that the journal is flawed? Or maybe you should just try to consider that the journal may have been right. I cannot help it if you do not agree with something, but just because you do not agree does not make you right above everyone else. Its like the climate deniers you trying to convince us that we should all believe the 3% rather than the 97% (numbers are the climate stats). Anyway, nothing new has been said here, its all been discussed and rejected in the past. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 18:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Scott, not so it hasn't all been discussed in the past and the mere fact that you have admitted putting in place an 'auto-reject' control 'bot' on this web page to prevent anyone (me specifically) putting a valid and more balanced argument regarding the nomenclatural history of this genus name makes Wikipedia a joke! The fact is, just like Wells and Wellington 1984 and 1985, the article describing Wollumbinia Wells 2007 is a valid publication and does exist and your 2 year later article with Arthur Georges is a blatant attempt at scientific theft. Your control of this page attempting to prevent the truth being more widely known speaks for itself. The fact is Myuchelys as a genus name is a 'dud' and as much as you hate losing your only generic name, the correct name is Wollumbinia and ultimately it will be accepted as such. Meanwhile, control this page and any objective treatment of it and you do nothing more than make a mockery of Wikipedia as a balanced, objective and reliable source of information to the wider community. Sooner or later those running the show will realize you have a biased 'control freak' position and it will be you that gets your version of history flicked off here and a block placed on your contributions. Meanwhile have fun with your transient opportunity in this tiny sphere of control ... GAL

I have not put a bot on the page, I said I asked admins to monitor the page, I cannot edit it either right now, without edits being approved. We are in the same position. You were using the page as a soapbox, which is not permitted, and as an ip user it comes up as vandalism, considering the current version was the concensus view from review. I also say again, sign your posts (with ~~~~) You are not demonstrating any understanding of how Wikipedia works since you will not even do this. Faendalimas ^talk 14:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

thank you for taking the time to comment. The 5 species mentioned vs 4 listed is a recent problem, and my error. A species was moved out I did not change the 5 to 4 for the number of species. Will fix that too after others comment. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 09:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I Made several changes. The species and synonym information now match with http://www.iucn-tftsg.org/wp-content/uploads/file/Accounts/crm_5_000_checklist_v4_2011.pdf (page 000.213). The final paragrapah in the article is still overly wordy and still requires a reworking. Where exactly(page) is the supporting reference for "There is no proof in any published source that no original printed run of the article was made available in 2007"? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Does Myuchelys latisternum have a alveolar ridge or not? Either the sentence "They have no alveolar ridge separating them from the snapping turtles" or " to include species defined by the presence of an alveolar ridge" seemes incorrect. Time relative statements are best avoided oon Wikipedia, I've removed some, but "where they remained until recently" is now incorrect/redundant? Also "During the time" - during what time? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Also rather then Myuchelys belli it's Myuchelys bellii(two i's) according to latest IUCN. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

M. latisternum and its close relatives M. purvisi, M. georgesi and M. bellii do not possess alveolar ridges, whereas all members of the Elseya do, this ridge is not visible on the rhamphotheca (horny mouth plate) of Elseya novaeguineae hence the confusion with this species, but it is visible on the underlying bone. The Myuchelys are also identified uniquely by the presence of the head shield continuing down the parietal arch to the tymanum, neither Elseya nor Emydura possess this feature. You can cite Thomson and Georges (2009) for all the above.

The statement "There is no proof in any published source that no original printed run of the article was made available in 2007" is opinion of a user, it is not from the literature.

Thanks for fixing the species list, I moved novaeguineae back to Elseya yesterday but left a couple of points causing confusion. After I realised it from Stemonitis's comments above I thought best leave it right now and get these comments in then fix it all. This group was one of the subjects of my thesis, which is fully published, so I can provide lots of information for these species, but I just want to be careful to remain neutral and have consensus. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 18:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I have made changes to the main artical as per recommendations above. Removed the incorrect and redundant statements, opinions and added more references. Also added a section on some of the earlier taxonomic history. As per recommendation above I removed the link to Wikispcies. I guess if that site can update its pages to give accurate accounting of this group that fits with the published scientific literature then it can be added back later. Thanks for the assistance from other editors here. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 03:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

References