Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 22

Phoca vs. Pagophilus

Which is the proper Genus for Harp Seal? TNC and IUCN say Pagophilus, as does Phoca, but the article gives it as "Phoca", as does Smithsonian publications... Circeus 20:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

MSW3 agrees with TNC and IUCN. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Another one: TNC says Bos and Bison are congeneric. Any thoughts? Circeus 22:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Aren't these all questions of circumscription? If so, then there is no right answer, and each arrangement may be used by different sources. Fortunately, we are not constrained to a strict hierarchy, and we can explain how, depending on your generic concept, the scientific name can be either Phoca groenlandica or Pagophilus groenlandicus, and each of Phoca and Pagophilus can explain that the species is sometimes included in the other (or in this case, note at Harp Seal that it's sometimes split off into a genus of its own). There is fundamentally no such thing as a "proper genus", but at best a more likely or less likely hypothesis of relationships. --Stemonitis 14:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Question on this Project

Hello I was wondering if I could join this project- and if the project includes nomen dubia or nomen nudum for taxoboxes. If I could get a response of what I could do for this project please contact me. Superraptor 16:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Superraptor, you're welcome to join any project on Wikipedia that you want to join, simply by listing yourself as a participant on the project page. I think that sometimes nomen dubia are used as articles, in which case, if there is a taxobox, that is the name that would be in the taxobox, but I don't really know. It's easier for us if you just let us know what your interests are and someone can steer you towards a subproject or articles that might interest you. I didn't respond initially, because I assumed one of the animal folks would. Oh, wait, I see the big clue glaring at me. Try the folks at WikiProject Dinosaurs, and that is where I was thinking that nomen dubia might crop up. KP Botany 19:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC) PS With my apologies to anyone who catches the dreadful play on words.

Yep, this term comes up all the time at WP:DINO - Drop by, maybe you can join? :) Spawn Man 07:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

List of articles? (A articles, B articles, stubs, etc.)

In many articles, there are now headers in the talk pages detailing their importance (top, high, etc.) and their level of completeness (stub, FA, etc.). However, there is no overarching list compiling these. Such a list would make it easier for editors to focus on those top importance articles that are only stub or start class. How would one go about doing this? Werothegreat 12:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, for each project currently analysed by WP 1.0bot, there is exactly such a list of articles (e.g. Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Taxonomic articles by quality or Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Arthropods articles by quality). It shouldn't be too hard to look through and find all the high-importance stub-class articles, or any other similar combination. --Stemonitis 12:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Invertebrate paleontology

The article Invertebrate paleontology may benefit from additional contributions. Thanks! -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 20:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Author (zoology)

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Author (zoology), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. NOTE: This redirect is linked fromAuthor (disambiguation). Not sure if this is the best way to handle the problem (a dictionary entry pointing to author(zoology) which is redirected to an unrelated article.) Spa toss 20:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Species names in genus taxoboxes

Hi, I'm creating a bunch of taxoboxes for bacteria and archaea, and I had a question about the way that species should be listed in a genus taxobox. For example, please see Methylarcula or Thermococcus. I've been listing the species alphabetically, and including the full genus name. But I've noticed that others abbreviate the genus name when listing the species in the taxobox of a genus, e.g., M. terricola in Methylarcula. I'm also not sure how to handle the species with codes like Methylarcula sp. DT-12; should they even be listed at all? Does the alphanumeric code mean that they might not be a well-defined species? I should say straight away that I've no expertise with the modern taxonomy of microbes. Thanks for your help! :) Willow 13:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

These are unnamed bacterial isolates of the genus Methylarcula. I don't think the isolate number is italicized, but I'm not sure. This is how they are usually reported when it is a species that has been cultured and identified to a genus, but not given a species name, just like you posted, but, again, I believe without the isolate (and certaintly not the "sp.") in italics: Methylarcula sp. DT-12. They can only have an isolate "code" if they are a well-defined species.

Use the source article from which you got the Methylarcula isolates to decide whether or not they should be listed in Wikipedia. I don't have any bacteria articles handy, but I think that isolates to a genus, without the genus name are just called by the isolate, not italicized. For example, if I was discussing Quercus agrifolia and Quercus lobata I would eventually use Q. lobata, but for the Methylarcula sp. DT-12, in a later mention in an article on this genus, I would just refer to it as DT-12--again, not certain, and again, the article from which you obtained the initial information about the isolates will be the source to look at for style issues. In general, in species lists of bacterial isolates, I don't recall seeing the genus name abbreviated to an initial--again, check your source articles for this. Maybe someone else can help? KP Botany 01:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Graphical fossil range indicator

In case you're interested, it's now possible to graphically illustrate a species' fossil range in taxoboxes, using my latest template {{fossil range}}. See Chitinozoan for an active demonstration. As with much of my work, it's likely to be buggy. Try to be kind when pointing out its flaws; your moans are gratefully appreciated on the template talk page. Thanks, Verisimilus T 19:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I see you've added it to bird, but it isn't clear what it is trying to achieve. All I see is a scale using letters, but I only understand what they mean because I'm a dino-geek. The meaning would be lost on most people. EDIT, oh wait, I see, the green line is supposed to denote range. Although you'll forgive me for not getting it as the line suggests a range of birds from the Precambrian to the begining of the Ordovician! Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned on Taxobox usage, the lines appear too short for me, or misplaced, causing Therizinosaurus to be Paleogene and Archaeopteryx to be early Cretaceous! These graphical things should probably be removed at least until the formatting can be fixed... You admit it's buggy, shouldn't the bugs be worked out before adding it to prominant and featured articles? Where was the use of this app agreed upon? I missed that discussion. (The line on Bird appears from the Early Cretaceous to present for me, by the way. It should really extend into the Jurassic a bit). Dinoguy2 00:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I just added it to Orchidaceae and it looks good to me. JoJan 08:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The template does not display properly in Safari. In Firefox most of the ranges appear to match the dates listed in their format, though Tyrannosaurus is still off even in Firefox for some reason. I would recommend not spreading these around until they can be made to display correctly in all web browsers. Dinoguy2 08:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought I had the template fixed in all browsers, but had assumed that Safari would be standards-compliant in the same manner as Firefox. Frustratingly, this is clearly not the case; this is a major issue which I'll work on today, when I get on a Mac. I've fixed the minimum-width issue on Firefox and am working on IE now.

I'd placed it on prominent articles as this was the quickest way to get some feedback, and raise awareness of the template. (WP:BOLD). I'm not planning on rolling it out exhaustively until I'm confident that it displays correctly on every combination of browser and OS... Verisimilus T 09:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

IUCN 2007

Ah... it's that time of year again. The kids are back at school, vandalism on Wikipedia is high, and the IUCN has published their updated listings. We should get a 'bot to update the taxoboxes.... - UtherSRG (talk) 16:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I've created {{IUCN2007}} and updated Common Chimpanzee and Western Lowland gorilla. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Genus article naming conventions

What's the standard when creating a genus article that exists for a different genus? Case in point is Tetracoccus, which already exists as part of Picrodendraceae, but there's a identically-named genus which is part of Dictyosphaeriaceae. Would it be Tetracoccus (Dictyosphaeriaceae)? Tetracoccus (algae)? Something else? Or is this a case of "make something up as you go"? Neil916 (Talk) 22:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Does anyone know of any other cases of identically named genera? If one was more well known it might be best to give the newer article the qualifier in brackets, otherwise they should probably both be given brackets and a disambiguation made. For what to put in the brackets, a more common name would probably be best as used with other articles, e.g. as in tui (bird). So in this case I would probably go with (plant) and (algae). Richard001 23:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

TOL peer review

It seems to me that there are enough animal/plant FA's going through to warrant a TOL peer review section. Anyone agree? -Ravedave 01:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be helpful to those putting up FAs to get them reviewed by someone else with a background in biology. Even if your interest is paleontological and dinosaurian, you would be better at reading and giving editing tips on a plant article than an editor with no background in the life sciences. I would like to see one. KP Botany 02:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Very good idea. How do we go about doing this? Werothegreat 11:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's get Dave to put up the request for review page for all living things, as he suggested above. KP Botany 23:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Animals Created

Interest in a WikiProject Animals seemed high, so I've created the project (with most of the hard work done by the folks at WikiProject Plants. I still have to put together a todo list, but would appreciate anyone willing to contribute. Thanks, J. Hall • ^(Talk) 07:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Most_wanted_articles#Scientific_classifications

Wikipedia:Most_wanted_articles#Scientific_classifications has been updated using the 2007-09-08 data dump, and a section covering scientific classifications has been created that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --Sapphic 19:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Synonyms and redirects

I have parsed the species taxoboxes in the August 2007 database dump, and created a list of all of the synonyms mentioned. In my opinion, all of these names should redirect to the corresponding article, as some of them are still encountered. For example, I have added a lot of images to articles from 19th century out-of-copyright prints, which were often labeled only with an obsolete synonym. However, 5555 of them are redlinks (as of last August).

This is a small sample of that list:

• Rheosporangium aphanidermatum => Pythium aphanidermatum
• Epeira amictoria => Argiope argentata
• Agaricus undulatus => Gloeophyllum sepiarium
• Puffinus puffinus mauretanicus => Balearic Shearwater
• Linocarpon cariceti => Gaeumannomyces graminis var. graminis
• Tremella fusca => Gymnosporangium sabinae
• Sorubim jandia => Firewood catfish

1. Do you all agree that each synonym should be a redirect?
2. Should I write a bot that creates the ~5500 redirect needed?
3. Would it be useful to run the bot on lists of synonyms from other sources, to automatically create all redirects to existing articles for thoses synonyms as well?

One complication is that some binomials have been used for several different species. I only propose to create redirects if the synonym occurs in just a single taxobox; if there is not yet an article with that name; and if the synonym is not followed by the word "non". There will still be a few remaining cases in which the bot would make an inappropriate redirect, but that would happen as well if someone would create the redirs manually. See for example this correction. Eugène van der Pijll 20:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It sounds good to me. The bot would probably make less mistakes than humans. Richard001 22:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

My bot was approved for this work, and I did a first run of about 25 redirects; see Special:Contributions/Eubot. If there is no objection, I will start to do larger runs in a few days. Eugène van der Pijll 23:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

How will your bot deal with common names which are used for more than one species? I sometimes find myself having to sort out Polbot's odd decisions, eg at Thornback ray/banjo shark. Totnesmartin 00:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

All redirects that I create are scientific names. I don't plan on adding redirs for common names by bot, exactly because of the problem of common names being, you know, so common.

(Note that the name "thornback ray" really is used for the banjo shark as well, eg. here, and that our article thornback ray should at least link to banjo shark. I have added that link, and a taxobox with an image.) Eugène van der Pijll 00:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I should have linked to banjo shark - and thanks for the additions, I have no idea where to get pictures for the articles I create. Totnesmartin 13:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Juvenile vs. adult

juvenile eastern newt

adult eastern newt

If a article has a good picture of a juvenile organism, and only a poor shot of an adult, which should be in the taxobox? --Cynops3 00:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It's rather odd that we always use adult organisms as the 'standard' idea of what one should look like, given that it's just one stage in the life cycle, as important as any other. Many species spend most of their lives as larvae, and only a brief period as adults, yet you'd certainly be surpized to see a cicada larva rather than an adult as the lead image. If they spend the majority of their lives as adults, it makes more sense, and there's also the argument that adults are what we are more familiar with. Another one is that organisms are most distinct from each other when adults, e.g. fetus of a dog and human would not show the differences between them very well. I don't see much harm in using a juvenile though, especially if it's a better image. We should also be sure to avoid using males as the 'normal' case, an assumption that runs deep in Western society. Richard001 00:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd use the juvenile in this case as the picture of the adult very poorly illustrates the subject. Richard001 makes some good points and I believe we should determine which to use on a case by case basis instead of making solid rules. Calibas 05:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

category defaultsort

I was about to do a category defaultsort on some animal-related articles, but thought I'd better ask here first. Would it be OK to do this? it would mean entering (for example)

{{DEFAULTSORT:Skua, Arctic}}

Making the Arctic skua under S rather than A, so that all the skuas are easier to find on the category page. this would be useful for categories which include many types of animal (eg geographical and habitat categories). This is of course the way it should be done for biographical articles - but why not for biology articles? Opinions please. Incidentally, this debate started here. Totnesmartin 15:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE:I've done a basic version of it here and it works. Now all the gulls, plovers and gobies are together instead of scattered about the page. Totnesmartin 23:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't like this for two reason: It's not always as clear-cut where the cut should be made, and as long as all articles are not done (not to mention the constant influx of new articles) you will end up with categories where some members are split, and other nones (much like what we had in some plant categories with some english names and other latin... At some point Category:Sapindaceae add all English-titled maples split and under "M", but all the latin ones under "A"! Circeus 05:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That is rather awkward, however redirects can be categorised as well (without affecting the functioning of the redirect), so perhaps a solution lies there. Personally speaking, I think having all the plovers under G and all the Plovers under P makes perfect sense. On the other hand, you are right to say that there's not really a need for taxonomic categories to have it. In the end, the defaultsort tool would cause as many problems as it solved! Hand sorting it is then... Totnesmartin 10:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that conclusion is partially correct, the DEFAULTSORT magic word probably isn't the sole solution, as different categories will regularly merit different sorts. Maintainers of a given category should feel free to sort the category as makes sense for that category. I believe that in Taxonomic categories the latin names should all be present (by categorizing the redirect, if need be). Sub-articles should be treated the same way that there parent is, with the sub-article term (e.g. Tilapia in aquaculture, the sub-article term is "in aquaculture") added to the end.

Another possibility is to create a disambiguation or list article and categorize it. We'd do a list article where the list of species is too long for complete inclusion in the article on the genus (or other higher level grouping with a single common name). We'd use a disambiguation page for unrelated things with identical common name, as in Whiting (fish). GRBerry 11:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lambeosaurus

Lambeosaurus has become a Featured Article candidate. Suggestions for improvement or other comments from WP:TOL members would be welcome. I'd like to avoid groupthink and receive feedback from more of the community on FACs like this one. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Distribution map request

Is there someone here who can create a nice distribution map from data? I'd like to have one on the article for Monosolenium, but can't generate it myself. It's an east Asian plant, and all the necessary distribution data can be found in the start of the section on Ecology. --EncycloPetey 23:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Notice of List articles

Page(s) related to this project have been created and/or added to one of the Wikipedia:Contents subpages (not by me).

• List of basic zoology topics
• List of basic botany topics
• List of basic biology topics

This note is to let you know, so that experts in the field can expand them and check them for accuracy, and so that they can be added to any watchlists/tasklists, and have any appropriate project banners added, etc. Thanks. --Quiddity 19:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Taxoboxes for Livestock species and Categories

Is there some way we can make this less circular: See, e.g. Goat, the article is about the domesticated species (Capra aegagrus hircus), the taxobox puts it in Category:Domesticated animals, however, the article is in Category:Goats which is a subcat of Category:Livestock, which is in Category:Domesticated animals, which is unnecessarily duplicative. Also see, e.g. Chicken which is listed as domesticated and therefore in Category:Domesticated animals but Category:chicken is in Category:poultry is in both Category:domesticated birds and Category:livestock both of which are in Category:domesticated animals. This is a problem with any species that is categorized as livestock or poultry. Is there any way to make the taxoboxes more flexible with respect to categorization?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Syngnathidae

Category:Syngnathidae is orphaned. Maybe someone here will know what parent category (or categories) it belongs in. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 14:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Added to Category:Syngnathiformes. Thanks for the heads-up. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 15:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Identification of a lily

Hi, I believe that the lily in this photo: Image:Bouquet of flowers apr07.jpg is that of the Easter Lily. Could someone please confirm? This shot of the stigma may be of use: Image:Large stigma.jpg Thanks, --Fir0002 02:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Might have more luck at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants. Calibas (talk) 03:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip - I'll give it a shot --Fir0002 21:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Capitalisation of Common Names - Komodo Dragon vs. Komodo dragon

Stuck

 – Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style is the place to resolve this.

I notice bibliomaniac has reversed my change of the capitalisation of common names on the page on Komodo Dragons to "Komodo dragon" in spite of correspondence between us. As I said to him previously, either is acceptable, but I believe there are a number of reasons for choosing to capitalise the inital letter of each major part of the common name.

There is no hard and fast rule for most animals - there is no standard convention for common names, as there is for scientific names. But it has been the common convention with bird names for many years to capitalise the first letter of each major part of the common name - hence Bald Eagle, Common Crow, Black Swan. See, for example, the notes at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Animals and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BIRD#Bird_names_and_article_titles.

This general rule - for some reason - has not always been applied to other orders of animals - I am not sure why.

However, the capitalising of common English names is becoming much more widely used, and so you will frequently see names written like: "Sign-bearing Froglet" (rather than "Sign-bearing froglet") and "Ornate Soil-crevice Skink" (rather than "Ornate Soil-crevice skink"), Alpine Cool-skink (rather than Alpine cool-skink) or Curl Snake (rather than Curl snake). None of these forms is "incorrect", but it is certainly becoming more standard to capitalise all major parts of the name.

There are good reasons for this. First, proper names are almost always capitalised in English. Secondly, it clearly shows that the last part of the name is separate from the first and to some degree classificatory - thus, Froglet, Snake, Monitor, Crow, Eagle, etc. In the case of the Komodo Dragon I think it usefully emphasises that we are not talking about some other sort of "dragon" (perhaps raising thoughts of dragons in mythology), and that it is a shortened form of the name of a real animal. For similar reasons, I think Tasmanian Devil is far preferable to Tasmanian devil, as the latter does not make it clear that it is a proper name and someone could easily think one was referring to some devil in Tasmania.

Finally, I think it is best to stick with one style to improve consistency and prevent confusion and I don't see why the convention should be limited to birds in the Wikipedia.

I think we need a rule or style, if not a convention, on the best way to list common names for animals and plants in the Wikipedia. At the moment, many articles contain a confusing jumble of both. For example, in this case, we find the following forms: Komodo dragon, Komodo Dragon, dragon and Dragon all referring to the same species, all in a single article

I would appreciate other readers' comments on my suggestion. John Hill 01:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is an official Wikipedia position, clearly articulated in the Manual of Style and in the Naming conventions, and it disagrees with your preference for initial caps. That consensus was hashed out in a huge discussion at MoS, which can be found in the MoS talk archives. If you read those discussions, you'll discover why the situation at WP:BIRD can not be extended more generally. Basically, it boils down to the fact that there are "official" common names of bird species and that those official names are capitalised by definition. That argument was not and could not be made for other groups of animals. To be frank and with all due respect, this continual resurrection of the capitalisation debate is a bit tiresome. Can we not simply adhere to the MoS and NC (fauna) that say we don't capitalise routinely? — Dave (Talk | contribs) 02:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dave:

Thanks for taking the time to reply and for pointing out that there IS a Wikipedia convention (which somehow, I had missed). Sorry if all of this has been thrashed to death previously - it is new to me. I still feel, however, that the names would be better capitalised for the reasons I have given above (clarity, consistency, less possibility of confusion, plus the fact that proper names are usually capitalised in English - and this capitalisation indicates that it is a proper name and not something else). "Tasmanian Devil," mangrove Jack," and "Water Dragon" (for example) are clearly names, while "Tasmanian devil," "mangrove jack," and "water dragon" are not.

For a good discussion of the problems and possible solutions, see: "Capitalizing the Approved Common Names of Species" (2003) by Ernest H Williams, Jr and Department of Marine Sciences, University of Puerto Rico, at: [1]

Whatever the case, we now have a really confusing mishmash in hundreds, if not thousands, of articles. For example I just looked up the article on the Snapping turtle which in the very first line gives the name as Snapping Turtle - and this sort of inconsistency is extremely widespread throughout the encyclopedia. I think we need to insist on one system only (and I won't keep on ranting if my preferred method is not the one chosen). Sincerely, John Hill 05:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand your points. As you'll see from the archived discussion, those points all were made there. You'll also see what points were made by the prevailing side. In any event, I agree that we need consistency. I suggest only that that consistency should be informed by the existing guidelines. Hence, I maintain that among our tasks as editors is that we should change those articles, such as the Snapping turtle article to which you refer, to conform to exising guidelines. By the way, I notice that the reference you've provided is entitled Capitalizing the Approved Common Names of Species (emphasis mine). That goes directly to what I was talking about with the case at WP:BIRD, where the Ornithological Union has sanctioned approved official names and where the approved names are all capitalised names. We don't have a comparable situation in the reptiles, for example, or for most other groups of organisms. Cheers! — Dave (Talk | contribs) 14:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

There was, I suppose, a prevailing side in the MoS discussion, but the issue has not settled because there are heavy ToL editors that still prefer upper case and still employ it. (That would include myself.) The best rule of thumb I can think of for now: if you can show that at least a minority of sources employ it for a particular species, then it becomes a matter of editorial discretion. On this basis I've left caps in place on Giant Otter. Others should respect the original or primary author. Marskell 14:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

But doesn't this, in the end, amount to some combination of "preference trumps consistency" and "heavy editors needn't follow consensus"? I fear the consequences of such a position: endlessly explaining to new editors why our articles are a jumble of styles and thereafter engaging in the attendant rehashing of the various sides of the discussion.

1. Recall that our readers do not read the sources, they read the article. Let me assure you that there is no publication in the world that leaves stylistic decisions to "a minority of sources". For example, in writing a chapter for a textbook, the overall textbook style prevails and I am not free to simply follow the style of a minority of sources.
2. It leads to questions of who is and who is not a "heavy editor" and how do we identify "the original or primary author" of an article. Is it not a much cleaner solution for us to simply ask that all editors, heavy or light, follow the guidelines in the absence of some compelling reason to the contrary?
3. How do we encourage all editors to take part in the consensus-building process if a an editor, especially a heavy editor, can at the end of it continue to do as he prefers and claim, perhaps, that preference is a compelling reason not to follow a guideline? It seems to me that a guideline that is applicable to a light editor, who makes 1 or 2 or 5% of the edits to our pages, also should be applicable to a heavy editor who makes 50 or 70 or 90% of the edits. After all, it is that heavy editor who, by sheer volume of his edits, wins the day. Consensus-building is the most important aspect of Wikipedia's existence. What does it say to a new editor who we are trying to bring into "the process of Wikipedia" if, after a process has run its course, a heavy editor's preference still deserves deference?

In the end, I suppose, it boils down to a question of for whom do we exist? If we exist for the convenience of readers, consistency matters. If we exist for the convenience of heavy editors, then consistency can afford to be relegated to a subsidiary level of concern. Let me assure you that I'm not attempting to say that you are doing any of these things but that they appear, to me, to be the logical consequence of the positions you espouse. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 16:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I would not have typed "heavy editors" had I expected this misinterpretation. I was not suggesting a special entitlement, but only observing why the issue has remained unresolved.

Guidelines should be followed but also admit to exceptions, which is why they're guidelines. On this particular issue, I don't see that we're seriously compromising our presentation to readers. There are tens of thousands of ToL subjects, edited by thousands of people. Unless we turn a bot loose I can't ever imagine consistency on this; and a bot will only work until somebody else comes along and muddies things up again. The fact is a large minority of people are going to turn up and capitalize species names because they believe they are proper nouns or simply because it's what they're used to. I came to Bobcat and found it upper case; that's what I prefer, so I left it as it was. Ditto on Giant Otter. Marskell 16:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I apologise if you feel I've misinterpreted your contribution. If I did so, it was entirely unintentional.

I agree that there exist exceptions where we should not follow a guideline. This is touched on, for example, in Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English where they suggest that the guideline should be followed "unless there is a compelling reason not to". My position is quite simple. I maintain that there are decidedly clear advantages to following the guideline in this case, among them that it helps the encyclopedia strive for consistency and that it encourages participation in the consensus-building process. Frankly, I can't see a single advantage in encouraging or suggesting to editors, especially those who make most of the edits, that they need not follow the guideline. In my opinion, simply saying that there will always be editors who don't follow the guidelines is not an acceptable reason for me to not follow the guidelines. Let's face it, 90% of edits are made by 10% of editors (I made that up but you know what I mean :-)). If we can recruit those 10%, or a significant fraction of them, to follow the guidelines, we will have a hope of approaching consistency. As long as a significant fraction of that 10% are permitted to think that the guideline doesn't apply to this case or that other because of preference or some other non-compelling reason, your pessimisn is well-founded. In a similar vein, I don't feel that I can justify not following a guideline because I prefer it, or I happened upon it, elsewise. In my opinion, doing so denigrates the consensus-building process. When editing an article, I will choose not to leave it in a style I prefer if the guidelines support another unless I can find a compelling reason to do so. But that's me, and I appreciate that others may not feel the same way. I guess, for me, it boils down to the fact that I can't see a single compelling reason not to follow the guidelines in this case while I see clear and significant advantages in following them. Of course, I am always amenable to instruction otherwise. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 17:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I do see an advantage in not following the guideline on this one: it eases readability and understanding, and is appropriate because species names should be considered proper nouns. (IMO—others have disagreed.) When I typed "The otters form the Lutrinae subfamily within the mustelids, and the Giant Otter is their largest member," I found the upper case much preferable, for instance. At present, I actually don't change anything: if it's upper case I leave it because that's what I like; if it's lower case I leave it because of the guideline. Marskell 18:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. As you know, all of those arguments in favour of caps were discussed at length on the MoS talk page. In summary, then, you feel that the advantages you cite are compelling advantages that encourage you to ignore the guideline when editing articles that are already in violation. I understand your position and I thank you for sharing it with me and for making it clear. Needless to say, I disagree. I feel that the advantages of consistency and of encouraging respect for the consensus-building process are more important. To each his own, I suppose. Now, if you'll excuse me, I must run along. The Dog and Cat are making me miserable by whining for food and I really must go milk the Cows, slop the Pigs and water the Horses. Cheers! — Dave (Talk | contribs) 20:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Dave's usage of upper case in his last sentence is not what I advocate. That's common noun usage and should be lower case; in a mild sin, I've cross-posted to his talk so the point is understood. Marskell 20:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I understood that. It was simply my feeble attempt at humour and I see, now, that it was feeble indeed. I also meant it as a light-hearted way to demonstrate my own point, though. The articles for dog, cat, cow, pig and horse are all written in lowercase and do not appear to suffer from any readability concerns. In any case, I apologise for having been obtuse. It appears my wife is right -- I shouldn't quit my day job in an attempt at a career in comedy (neither of which are uppercased in their articles, either)! — Dave (Talk | contribs) 20:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Bringing up (D)dog and (C)cat is understandable, funny bones aside. Just over a year ago, I was using that exact example with User:UtherSRG (by volume of edits, he's our most prolific fauna editor, and he approves upper case) when I was on the opposite side of the ledger. Do you really want to audit for every proper noun usage of dog and upper case it?, I was thinking.

That would be impossible, but I've changed my mind more generally: typing black bear to refer to a species ceased to make sense; it's the Black Bear, like this is Wikipedia—a proper noun. Editing birds makes it all the more clear and I think ornothologists are spot-on with capitalization, even if they appear a weird minority. If you audited across subject matter types, I think you'd find English remains significantly inconsistent on this. Marskell 21:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Deary me! I didn't realise I was going to stir up such a discussion - but it is good to know that people do care so much - I am just sorry that I have taken so much of your time. I guess until the Powers That Be (who I guess are taxonomists and active biologists) make up their minds I will follow Marskell's maxim: I won't "change anything: if it's upper case I leave it because that's what I like; if it's lower case I leave it because of the guideline." I really do think upper case is really preferable and clearer and an increasing number of books and articles seem to be using it as a standard. Anyway, enough already! Season's greetings to you all and best wishes for the New Year (and thanks again for your thoughtful comments on my query). Cheers, John Hill 22:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is probably pointless here and should instead take place at WT:MOS, since the style guideslines are not going to change one way or the other because of discussions at topical wikiprojects. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but it's actually so simple:

• All Leading-letters Capitalized is always permitted
• Leading element-only capitalization is OK except for birds (I think no other group has common-name standardization) though one would perhaps avoid it in mammals too (for many mammals, informal "standard vernaculars" exist as per IUCN etc)
• In-Word Capitalization is best avoided; it never was very widespread and it can be misleading.
• no capitalization for anything above species except when at the start of a sentence.

Did I miss something? Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Taxobox-related CfD

A closed CfD had (apparently) the unintended consequence of renaming nearly all the "needing a taxobox" categories within the Tree of Life. There is currently a DR going on at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_December_12#Category:Articles_needing_an_infobox, for those that are interested. Justin ^chat 02:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Last common ancestor/Most recent common ancestor

Hi there, a discussion is underway on the talk page of Last Common Ancestor on the correct definition and application of these terms. Could somebody with some knowledge of phylogenetics comment there please? Fred Hsu (talk) 05:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggested change to taxobox categories

There is a current CfD discussing a potential change to Category:Plant articles without taxoboxes. There are two proposed changes: Category:Plant articles needing a taxobox and Category:Plant articles without infoboxes. The proposed changes include other taxobox categories, including animal-related taxobox categories. At present time there is no consensus, so input from the WP:TOL editors would be appreciated. . Justin ^chat 19:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Template for disambiguating common names

Hello all. On a couple articles I have worked on, the situation arises where the common name does not have a one-to-one correspondence with a taxonomic unit. Either the word includes animals from several relatively unrelated groups (e.g. Guillemot can refer to either some Uria or any Cepphus) or there are several names for similarly related organsim (e.g. sea lions and fur seals are common names for relatively arbitrarily named organisms in the Otariidae family). Biologically, it is more meaningful to fully describe the appropriate taxonomic unit rather than the animals grouped under a common name. Anyways, on top of the sea lion page and the fur seal page I put the following leads:

Sea lion is a common name that does not refer to a single taxonomic unit. For a more comprehensive discussion of all eared seals, including the fur seals, see Otariid.

and

Fur seal is a common name that does not refer to a single taxonomic unit. For a more comprehensive discussion of all eared seals, including the sea lions, see Otariid.

I was wondering if there existed a template for this situation already, as it must be common (I shudder to think of Fish!). If there isn't, perhaps one should be created? Best, Eliezg (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I've just created Template:Common name for. Hope it helps! Verisimilus T 11:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The template is wonderful, thanks a bunch! Nicely pro-active. Eliezg (talk) 11:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I've just read the first line of the article for Fur seal, which reads "Fur seals refers to nine species of pinnipeds in the eared seal (Otariidae) family which also includes the sea lions." Is repeating the same information directly above it actually necessary?? Verisimilus T 11:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess the reasoning behind it makes more sense if you consider the sea lion article. A lot of people go there expecting to learn what a sea lion is, but it was a stubby little article for a long time since all the real substantive information on the family is in Otariid and in the separate species articles. Recently, someone tagged it with a {{Expand|date=December 2007}}, and understandably so. But strictly speaking, it could just be a disambiguation page (which is what it is in the German version). A template like this one would, perhaps, immediately direct a person to the appropriate biological category.

I guess the short answer to your question is: No, not really, but why not?

Incidentally, where do templates live in Wiki-space? Is there some place I could go see how it works? Thanks again, Eliezg (talk) 11:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

They do have a slightly convoluted syntax, but once you understand that, they're really quite easy to get to grips with. Help:Templates would be a good place to start, and that template itself is at Template:Common name for - click "edit this page" to view the code behind the template. Verisimilus T 13:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Categorizing scientific discoveries by year?

For some time, Wikipedia has featured categorization of things by year. The ones I have tended to use on articles I have worked with are categories like Category:1914 architecture and Category:1966 establishments. Does it make sense to anyone besides me to have a category analogous to these, such as "2006 scientific discoveries" that could include species discovered/cataloged in that year? It would be generic enough to also include when scientific theories were first published, or when celestial bodies were discovered, et cetera. Right now there is a series of categories under Category:Years in science, but something about how it is titled does not seem to fit anything except list articles about years or months in science. Any thoughts? — Eoghanacht ^talk 16:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It's probably my lack of imagination but I can't think when such categories would be useful. Could you maybe give a couple of examples? Verisimilus T 12:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It provides a cross-reference by timeline of otherwise seemingly unconnected events. How useful it is on an absolute scale, I cannot answer, but at least it can be interesting. The tool would be there for others to use however they see fit. My main reason for thinking about it, is that animal species are routinely cited by authority and year [such as Simia hamadryas (Linnaeus, 1758) or Heosemys depressa (Anderson, 1875)]. It seemed natural to me to categorize by the year. Maybe in some cases (such as Linnaeus) to categorize by authority as well? — Eoghanacht ^talk 18:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by cross-referencing; indeed the events are usually rather unconnected. The reason the year is included is so that the original description can be easily sought out if needed, not that there is any fundemental significance in when it happened to be described. If you think it would be an interesting project, though, then by all means feel free to go ahead with it - but it seems a lot of work to set up and maintain! Verisimilus T 23:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I quite like the idea of Category:Taxa published in 1875, if we could untangle the question of whether the year applies to the current name or the basionym. Hesperian 05:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

See, that's the issue: taxa aren't published, names are. The category would need to be explicit, either Category:Scientific names published in 1875 or Category:Basionyms published in 1975.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that most articles aren't at the basionym, this doesn't work either. For some reason my mind keeps telling to put it at the singular... Personally, I'm not sure this is really necessary anyway (Most names are at best a pain to track anyway for plants, as far as I'm concerned). Circeus (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

What matters from a taxonomic purpose is when the species was first described. The oldest specific epithet has precedence, the first-described species in a family gives the family its name, etc. So the date of the first valid publication of a description of the species (ie, the basionym) is what matters most. Of course, this is probably amenable to lists as well. Guettarda (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

A quick look at Cronquist's big book shows that many, if not most, flowering plant families have conserved names, so that the date of publication of the conserved basionym won't necessarily have anything to do with when the family was recognized.

The good news about plant basionyms is that you can look them up in ipni.org. The bad "newses" are that (1) IPNI only treats nomenclatural synonyms (what zoologists call "objective synonyms"), and (2) it is sometimes wrong.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Bird identification

Hi,
I was hoping someone could help me identify the bird in this photo. It was taken in June 2007 in Swifts Creek, Victoria, Australia. --Fir0002 00:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

File:MG 4456.jpg

Unknown bird

File:MG 4460.jpg

In flight

It looks like a Restless Flycatcher Myiagra inquieta. Certainly a Myiagra, I'll go find a book after work to confirm. Nice photo by the way. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I've uploaded another image which may assist you --Fir0002 01:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If it is a restless flycatcher, those photos (especially the flight one) should go in the article. They're very good. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

ITIS

I noticed that there are about 500+ links in Wikipedia that use ITIS' old domain name www.itis.usda.gov instead of its current one www.itis.gov . I corrected the link on this project's page and on one article, but those of you in this project may wish to go through and check the citations and update the links. Simply deleting the usda part of the domain may restore the page that is referenced. The links can be found via by using the Special:Linksearch page. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It would probably be best to convert most or all links to the {{ITIS}} template. Any further changes in the ITIS website structure would then be easy to implement. Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 11:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Wildlife of/biota of/biodiversity of

I think we need to do something about the inconsistent naming of articles on the biota of a given area. Some articles use biota, some biodiversity, some wildlife... At minimum there should be redirects from all the alternative names that could have been used. Richard001 (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

URN

i just noticed that norman platnick introduced universal resource names for spider families, genera and species in his World Spider Catalog. as this should be a neat way to identify species across databases, i would really like to include this information as soon as possible, and wanted to ask if somebody has experience with this, if there is something like that in other realms, so that including it in the taxobox would make sense etc. cheers --Sarefo (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

My understanding from the discussions on the Taxacom mailing list is that these are LSIDs; there has been some criticism in that AMNH does not yet have a resolver for them. I have no familiarity with them beyond what I've looked up on Wikipedia; I mention this because it might be of use to those considering including the LSIDs in Wikipedia.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Merging a branch of the tree of life

http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_releases/the_tree_of_life_loses_a_branch I'm guessing we should wait for some more papaers/literature to come out before acting on this. But a heads up anyways. -Ravedave (talk) 03:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The underlying article is available on-line here. -- Donald Albury 14:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, not really losing a branch, just that one of the branches is being attached to another. Still, we should wait until this becomes more accepted before we make the move, but we can mention it on the appropriate articles. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed: the paper doesn't make the current classification invalid, it just identifies monophyly where it wasn't necessarily expected. Worth mentioning in relevant articles (as a point of view for now until it is accepted or debated in the literature), but not worth initiating major changes on its strength alone. Verisimilus T 15:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been making a number of changes in response to this paper (and others like Laura Wegener Parfrey, Erika Barbero, Elyse Lasser, Micah Dunthorn, Debashish Bhattacharya, David J Patterson, and Laura A Katz (2006 December). "Evaluating Support for the Current Classification of Eukaryotic Diversity". PLOS Genet. 2 (12): e220. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.0020220. PMC 1713255. PMID 17194223. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)). Not so much to write the articles to reflect this new result (I agree that would be premature), but to take out material which doesn't seem well-established. Sorry I don't have a full list of affected articles, but things like eukaryote, Evolutionary history of life, cabozoa, etc, were some of the more heavily affected. Kingdon (talk) 06:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried to start some discussion on this article ages ago when we were actually doing major overhaul on the eukaryote classification. However, I won't initiate major change for this until they come up with a better name than SAR. It makes me think of SARS. Werothegreat (talk) 12:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, the name is one thing (has Cavalier-Smith gotten as far as he has due to a knack for catchy names? Probably best to leave that one as a rhetorical question). But in general it is dodgy to be rewriting textbooks and encyclopedias based on cutting edge research which hasn't (yet) stood the test of time. I'd recommend again the Parfrey et al paper that I cite two comments up, the gist of which is that the 6 supergroups are far from well-established. I'm as guilty as the next person of getting enthused by new papers, but we should temper that impulse to some extent. Kingdon (talk) 06:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I would generally not rewrite anything at the base of the eukaryotic tree and the base of the metazoans if it is not supported by damn good multiple-line evidence and a consistent evolutionary scenario. One horizontal gene transfer event at the wrong time, and you can infer gene-trees all you want - if you choose the "bad" sequence (and you can't tell which ones are bad), you'll never get "good" phylogenies.

The new findings need to be discussed in detail and their consequences for taxonomy duly noted. That way, however the further research turns out, we will have to change but little in the article text and readers will have access to the cutting-edge information.

It is interesting to note that the change - if it turns out to be good - might even be easier accomodated in Linnean taxonomy than in phylogenetic taxonomy. Depending how the Chromalveolata and Rhizaria are defined in phylo-taxon, they could now collide (if one or both use apomorphy-based definition).

Rank-wise, the Rhizaria would become a phylum and included with the Stramenopiles in a chromalveolate superphylum, with the rhizarian ranks shifting down as required. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Reminder of the Philip Greenspun Illustration project

Hi. You may be familiar with the Philip Greenspun Illustration Project. $20,000 has been donated to pay for the creation of high quality diagrams for Wikipedia and its sister projects.

Requests are currently being taken at m:Philip Greenspun illustration project/Requests and input from members of this project would be very welcome. If you can think of any diagrams (not photos or maps) that would be useful then I encourage you to suggest them at this page. If there is any free content material that would assist in drawing the diagram then it would be great if you could list that, too.

If there are any related (or unrelated) WikiProjects you think might have some suggestions then please pass this request over. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 16:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Taxobox colour for animals

Anyone interested in taxobox aesthetics may be interested in this discussion to change the colour of animal taxoboxes. Verisimilus T 17:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Velvet worm translated

Hi all,

Just finished translating the velvet worm article from the rather more comprehensive German one, which is an Exzellentes Artikel (FA). It's taken me about 10 months of extremely sporadic editing and could definitely use some outsiders' eyeballs to correct any inaccuracies (I'm not a biologist) or general cockups. Images and/or illustrations would be particularly welcome to break up the interminable and pretty technical text! If any of you've got 10 minutes spare, please give it a read through and if you have any feedback, I'd love to see it on my talk page.

Much obliged, --YFB ¿ 19:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The text is kind of interminable in places. I tried to concisify the hydraulic skeleton prose (I wasn't really sure whether/how to make the comparison to the water vascular system, but ended up putting it in with the weasel words "somewhat similar"). Images would indeed help to break up the monotony, but so would showing a bit wider perspective. One current example is the paragraph "Unlike the arthropods, . . . high air humidity". Bringing in comparative anatomy and ecology livens up the anatomy lesson by giving it a point. On the plus side, I found very few errors of spelling, grammar, etc, and your translation is certainly more comprehensive than what we had before. So thanks for doing this. Kingdon (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Kingdon. Your attempt at the hydraulic skeleton section is a great improvement - sadly I lack the expertise to be much help in bringing in comparisons etc., but hopefully now that I've provided the "raw" text of the German article some other contributors can make things a bit more palatable to the general public. Cheers for the feedback, --YFB ¿ 17:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added another image I found on FlickR. JoJan (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Great work on the translation. Were there any references in the German article which could be copied across? I'm struggling to verify some of the claims made in the Geological History section. Thanks, Verisimilus T 14:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)