Speaking of snakes, can anyone confirm by looking whether this is a Dendrelaphis punctulata (green tree snake)? I googled a bit and thought it could also be an Eastern tiger snake. Seen in Baw Baw National Park last week. Its neck was all puffed up (apparently characteristic of green tree snakes) but the eyes seem too small. Not sure what else I can add, it literally crossed our path, stared at us for a bit, then eventually slithered off. Stevage 04:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Marginated Tortoise 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.
I moved the article on 'tree frogs' to Hylidae. I notice the category:Tree frogs also needs correcting, it seems the Rhacophoridae family, that were complicating the article on Hylidae, have already been moved to their own category:Rhacophoridae. cygnis insignis 15:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Pogona henrylawsoni needs an experts touch. Also, redirects need creating -- 129.215.49.129 ( talk) 05:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem with this category:Agamas, which states: This category contains articles about taxa in the Agamidae family - the agamas. It gives a 'see also' for category:Agamidae and is catgorized in that family, and in cat:Lizards. There is a genus Agama and a subfamily Agaminae, but neither of these articles give an indication that the taxa of those ranks are known as 'Agamas'. I noticed this after copying and pasting from existing articles, so the link to the sankrit word Agamas was appropriate: "that which has come down" (i.e., that which has been handed down to the people of the present from the past). I will attempt a summary of this miasma of taxonomy with these questions:
I recently I took photos of a turtle on our pond, some kind of slider, that I think would be good to upload for Wikipedia. Here is an image of the turtle. First, do you know what exact species it is (I live in upstate SC, USA)? I first thought it was a red-eared slider (which are very common in my area), but then realized it didn't have red ears. :) Second, what reptilia article could that photo be best used in (I might have a photo that's a little better than that one; I just grabbed something decent and uploaded it to Flickr). Thanks a lot, Jamie S93 14:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Your turtle is Pseudemys nelsoni, the Florida Redbelly Turtle. The only thing strange is you say the photo was taken in South Carolina? If so, this turtle is an escaped pet. P. nelsoni is not native to SC. MFuture ( talk) 21:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I've been using this site quite regularly and found it impressive as a taxonomical reference for amphibian. I therefore considered adding it to Phylogenetic and Paleontological references on the front page of this group, but doing so would clearly not be fair without asking you (especially considering that I'm not even a member of this group...). If some of the more established members feel that it is, I can only recommend that it is added. RN1970 ( talk) 03:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I've added it to Secondary References. Should someone feel this is inappropriate, feel free to remove/edit it. RN1970 ( talk) 01:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I have proposed Stump-tailed skink be moved to Shingleback skink - discussion at the talk page. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, this discussion belongs on the talk page associated with the article. Some folks over there seem not to be aware of what's been said over here (and possibly vice versa). In these cases, it may also be a good idea to make more use of the Move template. -- Jwinius ( talk) 16:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Fancy a challenge (or not)? I saw this gecko on the island of 'Eua, Tonga. It was in my hut, but was much larger than the run of the mill house geckos. I estimated that it was the length of my hand (18 cm, 7 inches). I know the island has some interesting endemic species, so is it one of those or an overgrown introduced house gecko? Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The species list and the species articles would seem to need updating; e.g. Cnemidophorus dixoni has the 2002 taxon as a synonym. Why Reptile DB does not use Aspidoscelis I don't know, perhaps they have a reason, perhaps they simply have not been updated yet. Dysmorodrepanis ( talk) 04:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it should be noted here that I've set up a new category for the Amphisbaenians (a suborder under Squamata), and linked some pages. Also, I've redone the page for the family Amphisbaenidae, if only in a small way (previously, it gave Rhineura floridana as the only species, despite the genus Rhineura usually being listed as the only species in Family Rhineuridae.! JamesFox ( talk) 10:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
There is currently an argument at Talk:Tuatara about the use of the word "reptile" to describe the tuatara. Is "reptile" no longer valid? I'm sorry if this topic has already been discussed. Axl ( talk) 16:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, just wondering if one of you folks could help me out with identifying this lizard/skink?). I'm in Queensland and took a photo of him in the Botanical Gardens on Mt. Coot-tha. I'd like to know which species he is so I can upload a nice closeup of his head for the relevant article. Please let me know on my talk page. Cheers. SMC ( talk) 08:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
See talk there. This critter has been languishing for a while, and I am unable to resolve the issues with the article. Distribution also needs confirmation... hell, basically everything in that article needs the good old fact-check. Unfortunately, there are very few sources on Google Scholar that seem to be really interesting here. They dig up bits and pieces of this beast in India every few years, but that's not very informative really. Dysmorodrepanis ( talk) 15:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi all. First post! I was looking for a specific policy on when to change the scientific name of a species. For example, Amphibian Species of the World lists now the cane toad as Rhinella marina. They provide the reference (Chaparro, Pramuk, and Gluesenkamp, 2007, Herpetologica, 63: 211.). I guess this would be enough, but I want to check with the group first. -- Ljvillanueva ( talk) 15:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
This section contained mostly paleontological references, I left the paleontological references and created a new section on phylogenetic references. This would be related to my question above, maybe here we can list a few online sources of current nomenclature from which to get name changes and the reasons for changes. -- Ljvillanueva ( talk) 01:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
A friend of mine brought in this frog for me to photograph at school and I was hoping someone could identify it. The frog was found in Ensay, Victoria, Australia in September 2007. I'm not entirely sure but I believe he found it near a small creek -- Fir0002 07:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot ( Disable) 22:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Please look at Nelson's Milksnake to see if it is C-Class or at least Start. Thanks. WilliamKF ( talk) 03:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, please look at Cnemidophorus inornatus to see if it is Start or C-Class. WilliamKF ( talk) 03:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Please see this discussion so that we can come to a conclusion about redirects used on "G. species" disambiguation pages.
Thank you, Neelix ( talk) 00:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Ran into a snake this morning by my kitchen door. As a parent my first concern in researching the species was whether or not it represents a threat to my kids. I was amazed at how difficult it is to find that information. I was able to identify, fairly quickly, the type of snake it is, I'm still unclear of it's potential threat. I suggest to the experts among us, that contribute so much great information, that this be added to every article on snakes. I think it will add a great deal of value. Once I figure out whether our new neighbor is poisonous or not, I want to learn all about her and share that with my kids. Thank you for considering this suggestion. Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guthrys ( talk • contribs) 16:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
A few comments. First, yes, unless you own a book or two on the snake species in your area, good info is hard to find. That's why we need to work harder on our articles -- it's the first place many people look! Second, I agree with Chris that it's worth mentioning in every snake article whether a species is venomous or not; to some it may look a little weird in a boa or python article, but not to a lot of people. It's a small price to pay. Third, the chances of someone encountering a wild venomous snake vary depending where you are in the world. Only in Australia do venomous species dominate. In the United States, the few venomous species are not too difficult to recognize. In other parts of the world, such as in Africa, the greater diversity makes easy identification of dangerous species much more difficult. Finally, do not take the North American venomous species lightly: more than a few are potentially deadly and suffering a bite is never a pleasant experience. -- Jwinius ( talk) 01:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
This needs to be handled carefully in the case of many colubrids. Virtually all are technically venomous, but the overwhelming majority are also absolutely harmless to people. A fair few are entirely harmless to the general public, but can inflict unpleasant bites in the sorts of circumstances that might apply when people keep them in captivity, e.g., feeding bites with prolonged chewing. Hognose snakes (Heterodon) are a classic example: totally harmless to the general public, hardly ever bite even when picked up, yet several cases of quite substantial swelling, pain, discoloration and even excessive bleeding and nausea have been reported after prolonged bites by captive specimens. The difficulty is reporting the facts and advising against carelessness by herpetophiles without causing unnecessary fear and loathing among the general public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caissaca ( talk • contribs) 07:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Currently, 7992 articles are assigned to this project, of which 335, or 4.2%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.
If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 16:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
How did dwarf crocodile get moved here? Since when is "crocodile" a proper noun? I'd move it back if it didn't generate a double-redirect, & I'd say it still needs doing. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 13:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I just started up a small article on Oophila amblystomatis. If anyone has some free images of salamander eggs, or any other additions, feel free to go for it! StevePrutz ( talk) 20:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm uploading some images from Naturalist on the River Amazons to Commons but I'm having a bit of trouble with identifications. My most recent upload is Image:Naturalist on the River Amazons figure 19.png, a lizard. It is described as "The Jacuarú (Teius teguexim)", but I can't find any such species listed at Teius. I think any more accurate identification of the amphisbaenid is pretty hopeless, but surely the current binomial name for the lizard species can be found (assuming it has changed, rather than that we just don't have a red link for this species). Richard001 ( talk) 23:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I've proposed a new WikiProject named WikiProject Biota of the UK and Ireland which would encompass all species and conservation efforts within Britain, an extremely interesting area. The project would include vegetation classification, Category:Lists of British animals, Category:Conservation in the United Kingdom, Category:Ecology of the British Isles, Category:Forests and woodlands of the United Kingdom, Category:Fauna of the British Isles and anything else to do with the flora and fauna of Britain. If anyone is interested just leave your name on the proposal page. Cheers, Jack ( talk) 17:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Is no one here watching this article? I just reverted some old vandalism to the page as well as the talk page (from May 2008 and June 2008 respectively -- months!). One of you AAR folks should take it on, if you don't mind. Thanks. howcheng { chat} 18:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I've seen a "common names hatnote" at the top of a handful of herp articles. Example -- ":Common names: eastern coral snake, [1] common coral snake, American cobra, [2] more."
...Does anyone else think this is a good idea to add to every article? StevePrutz ( talk) 19:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
An example would be Agkistrodon piscivorus. This is a solution I originally came up with in 2006 to solve a number of problems with the snake articles that I work on. First, snake species often have so many common names that listing them all in the usual manner can make an introduction look rather awkward. Second, I remembered a complaint that when a scientific name is used for an article title, it was not possible to find a common name as quickly in the introduction (conversely, if one common name is selected for the title, it can be assumed that readers will have similar trouble finding any of the others). So, inspired by a book that I own, I experimented with a list of a few common names at the very top of some articles, terminated it with a link ("more") to a separate "Common names" section in cases where there were more than could fit on a single line. It seemed to work and soon two such articles even had GA status, the format not being seen as a great departure from MoS guidelines. The current form was even somebody else's idea, so I can no longer even take total credit for the solution, but the result is still that one or more common names can be found more quickly than before, while allowing the introduction to be reserved for a more relevant and descriptive summary of the article. Currently, some 500 snake articles share this format. -- Jwinius ( talk) 22:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Just butting in to say that I think this is a bad idea. I deplore the trend towards the creation of infoboxes, templates, conventions, etc, whose sole purpose is to allow people to replace quality prose with simplistic dot points. It is possible to write a thorough treatment of common names, you know; e.g. Banksia sessilis#Common names. I'd rather see common names left in the prose where there is some prospect of them receiving an in-depth treatment eventually, rather than segregating out into a hatnote, forever condemning them to be a shallow, mediocre list. Hesperian 06:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
A collection of Wikipedia articles is being collected together as Wikipedia 0.7. This collection will be released on DVD later this year, and will be available for free download. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles; a team of copyeditors has agreed to help improve the writing upon request.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 03:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I thought I had found a nice place to become a part of the herp community. But after several unsuccessful attempts at edits, I get the distinct feeling that other editors have staked out claims. I don't really need to waste my time here if someone is going to follow me around to "undo" everything I post. The general rule with wiki articles is, if you disagree with an editor, engage him/her in the discussion page. Don't just go around and click undo on everything. That standard seems to have been missed by one editor in particular. So, you folks enjoy your editing. I won't be back. Gladtohelp ( talk) 19:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)gladtohelp
There is a debate going on about the lead sentence going on here. Some outside opinion would be useful here. bibliomaniac 1 5 22:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
How about, instead of thinking about this problem too deeply, we ask around and see what the professionals consider to be the most conservative and authoritative higher level reptile taxonomy around? We don't want anything bleeding-edge; just something that most of those guys tend to agree with. If we find out that most of them agree with Benton (2004), then so be it, but at least we won't be making the decision based on the arguments in that publication, or on what most of us think should be the case. After all, as Wikipedians, we're not supposed to be the experts in these matters and we're expected to remain neutral as well, right? -- Jwinius ( talk) 11:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I'm generally in favor of conservative taxonomy and the recognition of paraphyletic taxa when such taxa have enough commonalities (whether plesomorphic or apomorphic) to make such a grouping informative. More to the point, "reptile" is currently widely used in the scientific literature as well as offering superior readability. Given this, I see no reason for a change. Mokele ( talk) 00:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Consensus to use Sauropsida was established at Talk:Reptile#Plea_For_Standardization and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/Archive16#Standardize_Taxonomy. It might be courteous to at least let Dinoguy2 know that this discussion is taking place. Papa Lima Whiskey ( talk) 08:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be confusion exactly what is being debated here. I take it that since the discussion was moved here, and it was explained to Pschemp as being about the use of reptile taxa, [4] we are now discussing the merits of "reptile", "sauropsid", "saurian", etc. I'll just point out that matters at tuatara have moved on to a version where we are introducing tuatara in terms of their nearest surviving relatives. [5] This solution is preferable for several reasons:
Hence, I believe we are avoiding a lot of potential pitfalls in the tuatara article. Tuatara should not be the battleground for a content debate that belongs on reptile and possible related articles. Papa Lima Whiskey ( talk) 15:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I do agree that we need a general solution, but not just about which phylogeny and taxonomy are used - we also need to agree about 'common names' for various groups. For instance, "reptile" and "lizard" are both non-monophyletic (in the case of "lizard", polyphyletic due to the exclusion of both snakes and amphisbaenians), but very useful terms. Mokele ( talk) 17:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Papa Lima Whiskey, it's nice that you went out of your way to make sure we were all up to speed on the latest thinking in evolutionary history. It's been less than five years since I first heard that "birds were actually reptiles" and since then they've never been the same to me. Wonderful! However, I think it's clear that it will still be some time before most evolutionary biologists will agree on how we got from Amniotes to Aves and which labels to use for the stuff in between. Until then, we need something simple that is "(1) broadly acceptable and (2) reasonably stable" even though it may be further from the truth than some of the latest and greatest theories out there. What we don't need, at this point, is to base our article collections on a "possible family tree of dinosaurs, birds and mammals." -- Jwinius ( talk) 13:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
It's becoming rapidly apparent that this is going nowhere. Everything that can be said has been said, and now we're just spinning our wheels. I say we take a vote and settle this, because it's plainly obvious that no unanimous consensus will ever be reached. Mokele ( talk) 19:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Jwinus, cut the crap. Papa Lima Whiskey did the job you should have done when he posted about this other places. The only reason I can think of that you haven't is that you and Mokele want to keep this quiet and off everyone else's radar. The fact remains that you are proposing a change to what has been a STABLE system for years here, and that requires extraordinary reasons. Of those you have provided none. pschemp | talk 09:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
It seems that we have no section on our WikiProject page regarding choices for specific taxonomies. Nothing was ever added following this discussion back in 2006 either, so perhaps we can fix that now. I don't know that any other such discussions have taken place since. Here's a first draft for a new section that I suggest we place under the section "Structure":
Comments? The debate referred to above may have taken place over two years ago, but as far as I know everyone involved has kept themselves to it ever since. -- Jwinius ( talk) 00:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The system in use now has been stable and working for years. A change like this (especially without getting the opinions of the TOL project and such) needs extraordinary reasons and so far none have been given. Reptilia as the class name is misleading and confusing and doesn't even come close to representing current evolutionary relationships. The whole bird thing confuses the heck out of people who come along and read Reptile as it is (see plenty of evidence on its talk page). ITIS is more than conservative, it is downright backwards. Proposing to use one classification scheme for extinct things and another for living things is even sillier.
We have a situation where right now the Taxoboxes are stable and useful and backed up by literature. Changing them after YEARS on the whim of a few people to a more out of date system is a step in the wrong direction. The argument that "more people use Reptilia than Suaropsida" proves nothing more than Sauropsida is newer, and therefore hasn't had the time to be used as much. Wikipedia is here to give the most correct current information, not the most used through the ages. Thus things should be judged on how well they reflect current scientific views, not how well they reflect past and inertial thinking. pschemp | talk 09:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I have created a Reptile videos category at Commons. There aren't really enough for an amphibians category right now, but I don't really like paraphyletic groupings so I have avoiding combining them with reptiles (let's not speak of fishes or birds). Richard001 ( talk) 03:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I know this is a tad random, but are there any herp articles that I/we could help bump up to GA or Featured? StevePrutz ( talk) 02:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not good discussion in Englis, Sorry.
I deleted Wrong photograph in Japanese Rat sanke". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Rat_Snake
Deleted file is "Image:アオダイショウS-P8305010.jpg" which is Japanese four-lined ratsnake.
The grounds that I judged this photograph to be wrong are as follows.
> Belly scales have not keel. > Eyes color is very vivid red. (JRS is not vivid.)
> I observed Japanese 4-lined snake of this type. Reference: This site's 8th photo. [12]
I think that my judgment is not the mistake, but please identify everyone.
-- Baikada ( talk) 08:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I was working on the article for " toad", which is basically a pretty-looking disambiguation page that links to Bufonidae and other families. Should it just be axed and forwarded to the disambiguation page? Two years ago there was some related discussion on its talk page. StevePrutz ( talk) 17:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Can anybody tell me what this section of our WikiProject page is supposed to be for? I would like to think that it was intended to be informational: a way to let people know which users regularly work on the articles associated with this project. Unfortunately, it's out of date at best, while at worst it seems to be regarded as a place where passers-by can declare their interest in the subject. For instance, of the 55 users who have so far added their names, many have made few contributions to speak of (e.g. Yunis79, LizBros., Jacky62, Shervo, Herpchris), and/or have not made any contributions in more than a year (e.g. Pstevendactylus, Froggydarb, Pedroalexandrade, X1ph4ct1nu5), have been blocked indefinitely ( Green Owl), or have sadly announced their departure (e.g. Samsara). I suggest that we define a few criteria for a periodic cleanup of the list. Also, perhaps we can add some subsections or tags so that it will be easier to see who's working on (or at least interested in) what. -- Jwinius ( talk) 17:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't add them, myself. However, I do see them in alot of articles. I may add a captivity section when discussing Ex situ programs, but take a dim view of "The care and feeding of..." type articles. At the same time...I keep reptiles (and birds, and amphibians, and fish, and a dog) and have for many years and probably will till I'm dead. Do we want a guideline on this? I remember one joker wanting to include one in the squamate article. I routinely pull it out of the snake article and have to trim it down in Green Iguana on a monthly basis. Should we leave them if sourced or delete them? Maybe this is where some people come for information when their kid brings home a leopard gecko and we should leave something in that's at least accurate. Anyone else's thoughts?-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Keeping Pet Turtles at Wikibooks
StevePrutz (
talk)
03:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
While we're on the subject, it's been a long-running problem that our lizard articles do not conform on the suborder level. On varying articles, we have Lacertilia, Autarchoglossa, and Scleroglossa. It remains unclear to me which one should be used. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps someone from this project could merge what appear to be duplicate categories serving the same function: Category:Amphibian and reptile articles needing photos and Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of amphibians and reptiles. Richard001 ( talk) 09:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I just created a disambiguation page for legless lizard. Previously, it was redirecting to Pygopodidae (a family which I didn't even know existed), which had no ties to the glass lizard (my learned definition of a "legless lizard") article. Please take a look if you know more about this subject, and can make the page(s) better. StevePrutz ( talk) 14:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of snakes, can anyone confirm by looking whether this is a Dendrelaphis punctulata (green tree snake)? I googled a bit and thought it could also be an Eastern tiger snake. Seen in Baw Baw National Park last week. Its neck was all puffed up (apparently characteristic of green tree snakes) but the eyes seem too small. Not sure what else I can add, it literally crossed our path, stared at us for a bit, then eventually slithered off. Stevage 04:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Marginated Tortoise 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.
I moved the article on 'tree frogs' to Hylidae. I notice the category:Tree frogs also needs correcting, it seems the Rhacophoridae family, that were complicating the article on Hylidae, have already been moved to their own category:Rhacophoridae. cygnis insignis 15:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Pogona henrylawsoni needs an experts touch. Also, redirects need creating -- 129.215.49.129 ( talk) 05:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem with this category:Agamas, which states: This category contains articles about taxa in the Agamidae family - the agamas. It gives a 'see also' for category:Agamidae and is catgorized in that family, and in cat:Lizards. There is a genus Agama and a subfamily Agaminae, but neither of these articles give an indication that the taxa of those ranks are known as 'Agamas'. I noticed this after copying and pasting from existing articles, so the link to the sankrit word Agamas was appropriate: "that which has come down" (i.e., that which has been handed down to the people of the present from the past). I will attempt a summary of this miasma of taxonomy with these questions:
I recently I took photos of a turtle on our pond, some kind of slider, that I think would be good to upload for Wikipedia. Here is an image of the turtle. First, do you know what exact species it is (I live in upstate SC, USA)? I first thought it was a red-eared slider (which are very common in my area), but then realized it didn't have red ears. :) Second, what reptilia article could that photo be best used in (I might have a photo that's a little better than that one; I just grabbed something decent and uploaded it to Flickr). Thanks a lot, Jamie S93 14:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Your turtle is Pseudemys nelsoni, the Florida Redbelly Turtle. The only thing strange is you say the photo was taken in South Carolina? If so, this turtle is an escaped pet. P. nelsoni is not native to SC. MFuture ( talk) 21:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I've been using this site quite regularly and found it impressive as a taxonomical reference for amphibian. I therefore considered adding it to Phylogenetic and Paleontological references on the front page of this group, but doing so would clearly not be fair without asking you (especially considering that I'm not even a member of this group...). If some of the more established members feel that it is, I can only recommend that it is added. RN1970 ( talk) 03:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I've added it to Secondary References. Should someone feel this is inappropriate, feel free to remove/edit it. RN1970 ( talk) 01:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I have proposed Stump-tailed skink be moved to Shingleback skink - discussion at the talk page. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, this discussion belongs on the talk page associated with the article. Some folks over there seem not to be aware of what's been said over here (and possibly vice versa). In these cases, it may also be a good idea to make more use of the Move template. -- Jwinius ( talk) 16:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Fancy a challenge (or not)? I saw this gecko on the island of 'Eua, Tonga. It was in my hut, but was much larger than the run of the mill house geckos. I estimated that it was the length of my hand (18 cm, 7 inches). I know the island has some interesting endemic species, so is it one of those or an overgrown introduced house gecko? Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The species list and the species articles would seem to need updating; e.g. Cnemidophorus dixoni has the 2002 taxon as a synonym. Why Reptile DB does not use Aspidoscelis I don't know, perhaps they have a reason, perhaps they simply have not been updated yet. Dysmorodrepanis ( talk) 04:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it should be noted here that I've set up a new category for the Amphisbaenians (a suborder under Squamata), and linked some pages. Also, I've redone the page for the family Amphisbaenidae, if only in a small way (previously, it gave Rhineura floridana as the only species, despite the genus Rhineura usually being listed as the only species in Family Rhineuridae.! JamesFox ( talk) 10:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
There is currently an argument at Talk:Tuatara about the use of the word "reptile" to describe the tuatara. Is "reptile" no longer valid? I'm sorry if this topic has already been discussed. Axl ( talk) 16:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, just wondering if one of you folks could help me out with identifying this lizard/skink?). I'm in Queensland and took a photo of him in the Botanical Gardens on Mt. Coot-tha. I'd like to know which species he is so I can upload a nice closeup of his head for the relevant article. Please let me know on my talk page. Cheers. SMC ( talk) 08:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
See talk there. This critter has been languishing for a while, and I am unable to resolve the issues with the article. Distribution also needs confirmation... hell, basically everything in that article needs the good old fact-check. Unfortunately, there are very few sources on Google Scholar that seem to be really interesting here. They dig up bits and pieces of this beast in India every few years, but that's not very informative really. Dysmorodrepanis ( talk) 15:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi all. First post! I was looking for a specific policy on when to change the scientific name of a species. For example, Amphibian Species of the World lists now the cane toad as Rhinella marina. They provide the reference (Chaparro, Pramuk, and Gluesenkamp, 2007, Herpetologica, 63: 211.). I guess this would be enough, but I want to check with the group first. -- Ljvillanueva ( talk) 15:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
This section contained mostly paleontological references, I left the paleontological references and created a new section on phylogenetic references. This would be related to my question above, maybe here we can list a few online sources of current nomenclature from which to get name changes and the reasons for changes. -- Ljvillanueva ( talk) 01:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
A friend of mine brought in this frog for me to photograph at school and I was hoping someone could identify it. The frog was found in Ensay, Victoria, Australia in September 2007. I'm not entirely sure but I believe he found it near a small creek -- Fir0002 07:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot ( Disable) 22:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Please look at Nelson's Milksnake to see if it is C-Class or at least Start. Thanks. WilliamKF ( talk) 03:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, please look at Cnemidophorus inornatus to see if it is Start or C-Class. WilliamKF ( talk) 03:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Please see this discussion so that we can come to a conclusion about redirects used on "G. species" disambiguation pages.
Thank you, Neelix ( talk) 00:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Ran into a snake this morning by my kitchen door. As a parent my first concern in researching the species was whether or not it represents a threat to my kids. I was amazed at how difficult it is to find that information. I was able to identify, fairly quickly, the type of snake it is, I'm still unclear of it's potential threat. I suggest to the experts among us, that contribute so much great information, that this be added to every article on snakes. I think it will add a great deal of value. Once I figure out whether our new neighbor is poisonous or not, I want to learn all about her and share that with my kids. Thank you for considering this suggestion. Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guthrys ( talk • contribs) 16:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
A few comments. First, yes, unless you own a book or two on the snake species in your area, good info is hard to find. That's why we need to work harder on our articles -- it's the first place many people look! Second, I agree with Chris that it's worth mentioning in every snake article whether a species is venomous or not; to some it may look a little weird in a boa or python article, but not to a lot of people. It's a small price to pay. Third, the chances of someone encountering a wild venomous snake vary depending where you are in the world. Only in Australia do venomous species dominate. In the United States, the few venomous species are not too difficult to recognize. In other parts of the world, such as in Africa, the greater diversity makes easy identification of dangerous species much more difficult. Finally, do not take the North American venomous species lightly: more than a few are potentially deadly and suffering a bite is never a pleasant experience. -- Jwinius ( talk) 01:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
This needs to be handled carefully in the case of many colubrids. Virtually all are technically venomous, but the overwhelming majority are also absolutely harmless to people. A fair few are entirely harmless to the general public, but can inflict unpleasant bites in the sorts of circumstances that might apply when people keep them in captivity, e.g., feeding bites with prolonged chewing. Hognose snakes (Heterodon) are a classic example: totally harmless to the general public, hardly ever bite even when picked up, yet several cases of quite substantial swelling, pain, discoloration and even excessive bleeding and nausea have been reported after prolonged bites by captive specimens. The difficulty is reporting the facts and advising against carelessness by herpetophiles without causing unnecessary fear and loathing among the general public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caissaca ( talk • contribs) 07:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Currently, 7992 articles are assigned to this project, of which 335, or 4.2%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.
If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 16:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
How did dwarf crocodile get moved here? Since when is "crocodile" a proper noun? I'd move it back if it didn't generate a double-redirect, & I'd say it still needs doing. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 13:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I just started up a small article on Oophila amblystomatis. If anyone has some free images of salamander eggs, or any other additions, feel free to go for it! StevePrutz ( talk) 20:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm uploading some images from Naturalist on the River Amazons to Commons but I'm having a bit of trouble with identifications. My most recent upload is Image:Naturalist on the River Amazons figure 19.png, a lizard. It is described as "The Jacuarú (Teius teguexim)", but I can't find any such species listed at Teius. I think any more accurate identification of the amphisbaenid is pretty hopeless, but surely the current binomial name for the lizard species can be found (assuming it has changed, rather than that we just don't have a red link for this species). Richard001 ( talk) 23:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I've proposed a new WikiProject named WikiProject Biota of the UK and Ireland which would encompass all species and conservation efforts within Britain, an extremely interesting area. The project would include vegetation classification, Category:Lists of British animals, Category:Conservation in the United Kingdom, Category:Ecology of the British Isles, Category:Forests and woodlands of the United Kingdom, Category:Fauna of the British Isles and anything else to do with the flora and fauna of Britain. If anyone is interested just leave your name on the proposal page. Cheers, Jack ( talk) 17:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Is no one here watching this article? I just reverted some old vandalism to the page as well as the talk page (from May 2008 and June 2008 respectively -- months!). One of you AAR folks should take it on, if you don't mind. Thanks. howcheng { chat} 18:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I've seen a "common names hatnote" at the top of a handful of herp articles. Example -- ":Common names: eastern coral snake, [1] common coral snake, American cobra, [2] more."
...Does anyone else think this is a good idea to add to every article? StevePrutz ( talk) 19:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
An example would be Agkistrodon piscivorus. This is a solution I originally came up with in 2006 to solve a number of problems with the snake articles that I work on. First, snake species often have so many common names that listing them all in the usual manner can make an introduction look rather awkward. Second, I remembered a complaint that when a scientific name is used for an article title, it was not possible to find a common name as quickly in the introduction (conversely, if one common name is selected for the title, it can be assumed that readers will have similar trouble finding any of the others). So, inspired by a book that I own, I experimented with a list of a few common names at the very top of some articles, terminated it with a link ("more") to a separate "Common names" section in cases where there were more than could fit on a single line. It seemed to work and soon two such articles even had GA status, the format not being seen as a great departure from MoS guidelines. The current form was even somebody else's idea, so I can no longer even take total credit for the solution, but the result is still that one or more common names can be found more quickly than before, while allowing the introduction to be reserved for a more relevant and descriptive summary of the article. Currently, some 500 snake articles share this format. -- Jwinius ( talk) 22:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Just butting in to say that I think this is a bad idea. I deplore the trend towards the creation of infoboxes, templates, conventions, etc, whose sole purpose is to allow people to replace quality prose with simplistic dot points. It is possible to write a thorough treatment of common names, you know; e.g. Banksia sessilis#Common names. I'd rather see common names left in the prose where there is some prospect of them receiving an in-depth treatment eventually, rather than segregating out into a hatnote, forever condemning them to be a shallow, mediocre list. Hesperian 06:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
A collection of Wikipedia articles is being collected together as Wikipedia 0.7. This collection will be released on DVD later this year, and will be available for free download. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles; a team of copyeditors has agreed to help improve the writing upon request.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 03:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I thought I had found a nice place to become a part of the herp community. But after several unsuccessful attempts at edits, I get the distinct feeling that other editors have staked out claims. I don't really need to waste my time here if someone is going to follow me around to "undo" everything I post. The general rule with wiki articles is, if you disagree with an editor, engage him/her in the discussion page. Don't just go around and click undo on everything. That standard seems to have been missed by one editor in particular. So, you folks enjoy your editing. I won't be back. Gladtohelp ( talk) 19:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)gladtohelp
There is a debate going on about the lead sentence going on here. Some outside opinion would be useful here. bibliomaniac 1 5 22:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
How about, instead of thinking about this problem too deeply, we ask around and see what the professionals consider to be the most conservative and authoritative higher level reptile taxonomy around? We don't want anything bleeding-edge; just something that most of those guys tend to agree with. If we find out that most of them agree with Benton (2004), then so be it, but at least we won't be making the decision based on the arguments in that publication, or on what most of us think should be the case. After all, as Wikipedians, we're not supposed to be the experts in these matters and we're expected to remain neutral as well, right? -- Jwinius ( talk) 11:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I'm generally in favor of conservative taxonomy and the recognition of paraphyletic taxa when such taxa have enough commonalities (whether plesomorphic or apomorphic) to make such a grouping informative. More to the point, "reptile" is currently widely used in the scientific literature as well as offering superior readability. Given this, I see no reason for a change. Mokele ( talk) 00:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Consensus to use Sauropsida was established at Talk:Reptile#Plea_For_Standardization and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/Archive16#Standardize_Taxonomy. It might be courteous to at least let Dinoguy2 know that this discussion is taking place. Papa Lima Whiskey ( talk) 08:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be confusion exactly what is being debated here. I take it that since the discussion was moved here, and it was explained to Pschemp as being about the use of reptile taxa, [4] we are now discussing the merits of "reptile", "sauropsid", "saurian", etc. I'll just point out that matters at tuatara have moved on to a version where we are introducing tuatara in terms of their nearest surviving relatives. [5] This solution is preferable for several reasons:
Hence, I believe we are avoiding a lot of potential pitfalls in the tuatara article. Tuatara should not be the battleground for a content debate that belongs on reptile and possible related articles. Papa Lima Whiskey ( talk) 15:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I do agree that we need a general solution, but not just about which phylogeny and taxonomy are used - we also need to agree about 'common names' for various groups. For instance, "reptile" and "lizard" are both non-monophyletic (in the case of "lizard", polyphyletic due to the exclusion of both snakes and amphisbaenians), but very useful terms. Mokele ( talk) 17:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Papa Lima Whiskey, it's nice that you went out of your way to make sure we were all up to speed on the latest thinking in evolutionary history. It's been less than five years since I first heard that "birds were actually reptiles" and since then they've never been the same to me. Wonderful! However, I think it's clear that it will still be some time before most evolutionary biologists will agree on how we got from Amniotes to Aves and which labels to use for the stuff in between. Until then, we need something simple that is "(1) broadly acceptable and (2) reasonably stable" even though it may be further from the truth than some of the latest and greatest theories out there. What we don't need, at this point, is to base our article collections on a "possible family tree of dinosaurs, birds and mammals." -- Jwinius ( talk) 13:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
It's becoming rapidly apparent that this is going nowhere. Everything that can be said has been said, and now we're just spinning our wheels. I say we take a vote and settle this, because it's plainly obvious that no unanimous consensus will ever be reached. Mokele ( talk) 19:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Jwinus, cut the crap. Papa Lima Whiskey did the job you should have done when he posted about this other places. The only reason I can think of that you haven't is that you and Mokele want to keep this quiet and off everyone else's radar. The fact remains that you are proposing a change to what has been a STABLE system for years here, and that requires extraordinary reasons. Of those you have provided none. pschemp | talk 09:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
It seems that we have no section on our WikiProject page regarding choices for specific taxonomies. Nothing was ever added following this discussion back in 2006 either, so perhaps we can fix that now. I don't know that any other such discussions have taken place since. Here's a first draft for a new section that I suggest we place under the section "Structure":
Comments? The debate referred to above may have taken place over two years ago, but as far as I know everyone involved has kept themselves to it ever since. -- Jwinius ( talk) 00:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The system in use now has been stable and working for years. A change like this (especially without getting the opinions of the TOL project and such) needs extraordinary reasons and so far none have been given. Reptilia as the class name is misleading and confusing and doesn't even come close to representing current evolutionary relationships. The whole bird thing confuses the heck out of people who come along and read Reptile as it is (see plenty of evidence on its talk page). ITIS is more than conservative, it is downright backwards. Proposing to use one classification scheme for extinct things and another for living things is even sillier.
We have a situation where right now the Taxoboxes are stable and useful and backed up by literature. Changing them after YEARS on the whim of a few people to a more out of date system is a step in the wrong direction. The argument that "more people use Reptilia than Suaropsida" proves nothing more than Sauropsida is newer, and therefore hasn't had the time to be used as much. Wikipedia is here to give the most correct current information, not the most used through the ages. Thus things should be judged on how well they reflect current scientific views, not how well they reflect past and inertial thinking. pschemp | talk 09:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I have created a Reptile videos category at Commons. There aren't really enough for an amphibians category right now, but I don't really like paraphyletic groupings so I have avoiding combining them with reptiles (let's not speak of fishes or birds). Richard001 ( talk) 03:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I know this is a tad random, but are there any herp articles that I/we could help bump up to GA or Featured? StevePrutz ( talk) 02:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not good discussion in Englis, Sorry.
I deleted Wrong photograph in Japanese Rat sanke". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Rat_Snake
Deleted file is "Image:アオダイショウS-P8305010.jpg" which is Japanese four-lined ratsnake.
The grounds that I judged this photograph to be wrong are as follows.
> Belly scales have not keel. > Eyes color is very vivid red. (JRS is not vivid.)
> I observed Japanese 4-lined snake of this type. Reference: This site's 8th photo. [12]
I think that my judgment is not the mistake, but please identify everyone.
-- Baikada ( talk) 08:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I was working on the article for " toad", which is basically a pretty-looking disambiguation page that links to Bufonidae and other families. Should it just be axed and forwarded to the disambiguation page? Two years ago there was some related discussion on its talk page. StevePrutz ( talk) 17:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Can anybody tell me what this section of our WikiProject page is supposed to be for? I would like to think that it was intended to be informational: a way to let people know which users regularly work on the articles associated with this project. Unfortunately, it's out of date at best, while at worst it seems to be regarded as a place where passers-by can declare their interest in the subject. For instance, of the 55 users who have so far added their names, many have made few contributions to speak of (e.g. Yunis79, LizBros., Jacky62, Shervo, Herpchris), and/or have not made any contributions in more than a year (e.g. Pstevendactylus, Froggydarb, Pedroalexandrade, X1ph4ct1nu5), have been blocked indefinitely ( Green Owl), or have sadly announced their departure (e.g. Samsara). I suggest that we define a few criteria for a periodic cleanup of the list. Also, perhaps we can add some subsections or tags so that it will be easier to see who's working on (or at least interested in) what. -- Jwinius ( talk) 17:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't add them, myself. However, I do see them in alot of articles. I may add a captivity section when discussing Ex situ programs, but take a dim view of "The care and feeding of..." type articles. At the same time...I keep reptiles (and birds, and amphibians, and fish, and a dog) and have for many years and probably will till I'm dead. Do we want a guideline on this? I remember one joker wanting to include one in the squamate article. I routinely pull it out of the snake article and have to trim it down in Green Iguana on a monthly basis. Should we leave them if sourced or delete them? Maybe this is where some people come for information when their kid brings home a leopard gecko and we should leave something in that's at least accurate. Anyone else's thoughts?-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Keeping Pet Turtles at Wikibooks
StevePrutz (
talk)
03:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
While we're on the subject, it's been a long-running problem that our lizard articles do not conform on the suborder level. On varying articles, we have Lacertilia, Autarchoglossa, and Scleroglossa. It remains unclear to me which one should be used. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps someone from this project could merge what appear to be duplicate categories serving the same function: Category:Amphibian and reptile articles needing photos and Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of amphibians and reptiles. Richard001 ( talk) 09:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I just created a disambiguation page for legless lizard. Previously, it was redirecting to Pygopodidae (a family which I didn't even know existed), which had no ties to the glass lizard (my learned definition of a "legless lizard") article. Please take a look if you know more about this subject, and can make the page(s) better. StevePrutz ( talk) 14:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)