Ok, I've uploaded this photo of a Spilotes pullatus I took about ten years ago on a trip to the Peruvian Amazon, and I cannot for the life of me get it to work in the taxobox of that page. Anyone know how to fix it? Mokele ( talk) 00:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
It's now on Cmmons. I'll crop the black lower border out too and fix the contrasts. FunkMonk ( talk) 16:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone else think some of this page should be archived now? Forty sections is quite a lot. StevePrutz ( talk) 02:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I am working on a reliable listing of active listservs that cover herp topics (mostly research and jobs). So far, I only have a handful, including ECOLOG-L and Froglist. Can anyone recommend other big mailing lists? StevePrutz ( talk) 18:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I have been working on bird images a bit lately, but can do some for this project as well. What I would really like to do though is get more people uploading from Flickr. It looks like there are over 6000 species here that need photos too, so it's not a job one person can do alone. If anyone wants help with getting/transferring pictures I would be happy to provide a tutorial. Richard001 ( talk) 05:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I read an article on a new species of a primitive North American salamander recently discovered (tentatively named Urspelerpes bruceii), but I cannot find any publications or web info. Does anyone have a good search engine to find papers on this? StevePrutz ( talk) 17:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
The Cobra article was created on 14 May 2003 and has since seen almost 1,000 edits, but is still in very poor shape. Perhaps this is because the subject is relatively vague: many snakes are referred to as cobras, so what it really needs is to become a disambiguation page. That's why I've suggested that this article be deleted and replaced with the Cobra (disambiguation) page, which I think is of much more value. After four days no one seems to have noticed my proposal, but since such action may be regarded as controversial (it's a popular term) I wanted to get this group's opinion first before putting in an official request. Thanks, -- Jwinius ( talk) 18:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
That wasn't so difficult! Cobra is now a set index article and has been thoroughly revised, mostly using the snake information moved there from Cobra (disambiguation). I also found an excellent image for it. If there are no more comments, I will assume that this is satisfactory. I imagine that it will still be a target for vandalism, but hopefully not as much. -- Jwinius ( talk) 20:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I noticed on the Cobra page that the Pseudohaje genus does not have an article yet. Do you need help making one for this cobra type? StevePrutz ( talk)
A bot has been set up, which looks through the new Wikipedia articles and picks up those that are likely related to amphibians and reptiles. The search results are available at User:AlexNewArtBot/HerpetologySearchResult and are normally updated on a daily basis. Colchicum ( talk) 01:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Here's another common name situation similar to Cobra: the Anaconda article. To may people here this may seem like a non-issue, since there are three species of anacondas and they all belong to the genus Eunectes. However, the problem is that, while all of these snakes are consistently referred to in the literature as anacondas, the general public tends only to associate the species Eunectes murinus with this name. As a result, it doesn't to matter that the "Anaconda" article starts out by saying that it is about the genus: after a while it always seems to fill up with specific information for E. murinus anyway.
As in the case of the Cobra article, I've left a proposal on the Anaconda talk page to change it into a disambiguation page for the genus -- exactly the same as the Cobra article is now), while moving much of the information there to the Eunectes page (a name that currently redirects to Anaconda). So far, though, I have received no responses. I would again be grateful for this group's opinion regarding my proposal before taking any action. -- Jwinius ( talk) 23:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, this issue came up on the corn snake page, but was never really answered. A lot of herps are becoming more common in the pet trade, and as a result, their articles are developing lengthy sections on captive care, many of which overlap extensively because, frankly, the care of most herps falls into a few 'types' (aquatic, desert, arboreal, etc). Should we try to make a generalize 'herp care' page? I'm inclined towards it, because it can cover some of the general basics (ectothermy and heat gradients, feeding frequency, shedding skin, etc), and then have subsections for types (desert, arboreal, etc), and notes within those sections about individual species. It would substantially reduce the clutter on many herp pages, and we could just say "this is a commonly kept pet species" with "pet species" linking to the care page. Thoughts? Mokele ( talk) 21:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
<-- THIS SECTION IS HIDDEN BECAUSE... -->
StevePrutz (
talk) 00:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Was just playing around with the page ranks by hits of wikipedia pages on http://stats.grok.se/ and noticed that snake is actually ahead of many other popular taxon articles. The ranks are - Tiger 853, Snake 1230, Fish 1394, Elephant 1793, Bird 2150, Ant 3548, Insect 4208, Frog 4817, Lizard 7754 . Seems like a good article for this project to collaborate on for a start. Shyamal ( talk) 14:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Just an observation: Now that I've had this article on my watchlist again for a while, it's amazing to see how often it gets vandalized -- for the past week it's happened about three times a day. I can't help but wonder how much less this would be if the article was renamed to "Serpentes". -- Jwinius ( talk) 01:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to inform you that I created the article Amphibians of Madagascar traslating it from it:Anfibi del Madagascar. -- Esculapio ( talk) 23:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I moved Mantidactylus grandisonae to Blommersia grandisonae. The same should be done with others species previously classified as Mantidactylus and now moved to the new genus Blommersia (see amphibiaweb) -- Esculapio ( talk) 14:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to work on the American crocodile in the next few days. If anyone sees something missing, please add it to the article or discuss here. StevePrutz ( talk) 22:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Is the picture in Eastern Blue-tongued Lizard quite right? A search for Tiliqua scincoides gives the impression that this reptile looks rather more like the one shown here www.scienceviews.com/photo/browse/SIA0151.jpg . I also note that this article refers to the reptile in question as a lizard rather than a skink, unlike Northern Blue-tongued Skink and Western Blue-tongued Skink. I am a lemon ( talk) 04:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Even though Wikipedians love making lists of all kinds of names, the way in which they deal with common names in articles on biological taxa -- just by mentioning them somewhere in the lead section -- has always struck me as distinctly unsatisfactory. If there are many names, why don't we list them all? If there are none, why don't we say so? And shouldn't they be displayed so they can be more easily found? At first I followed WP:LEAD like everyone else, but soon found myself wondering about how to improve matters. I wanted something that would be systematic, predictable, catch the eye, accommodate any reasonable number of names and treat them all as equally as possible.
After some development, I eventually figured the solution would be to list a few names on a single line above the lead and any others below in a section called "Common names". Here are some examples:
Despite being a little different, some of these articles, such as the last two, have GA status, so the format is already considered acceptable to some degree. Nevertheless, I've never been completely happy with the current format. I think the best thing about it is the concept; the way it looks can likely be improved. What do you think of this idea? Would it be useful in the articles you've worked on? If so, perhaps we can work together to produce something even better. Cheers, -- Jwinius ( talk) 01:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Related discussions are going on now on several other talk pages ( here, here, here). One issue is that in some cases the base article uses a common name, and it is also necessary in many cases to disambiguate common names (eg Category:Plant common names). -- Una Smith ( talk) 20:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
According to our current guidelines, the primary taxonomic source for snakes is ITIS. I would like to suggest an amendment to this: to add the TIGR Reptile Database as a secondary source. The problem is that, although ITIS is the most authoritative taxonomic source currently available on the Internet for snakes, it is not yet complete. The only group affected is the family Colubridae, but it is huge and represents almost two thirds of all snake species. At the moment, TIGR lists 1938 colubrid species, while the ITIS has obvious gaps. Of course, it must be made abundantly clear that ITIS always overrides TIGR whenever there is a conflict, or else we will quickly run into problems. On the other hand, a few problems will be inevitable, such as with Elaphe. Regardless, I don't see that we have too much choice in the matter, as we can't really go on ignoring the colubrid section and ITIS may take as much as another 5-10 years to complete. Comments, objections? -- Jwinius ( talk) 19:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) Don't forget, I actually think it's a waste of time to make a page for every species, much less subspecies: I think we should have page for every family and for many geneses, and for every species that someone cares enough about to make a page for. If you want to use a source more up-to-date than ITIS for some particular group or species, go for it. That's all I'm saying. Wikipedia is not a top-down organized project with a team of workers, so it'll have whatever content people are interested in adding, not whatever content you or I or the Amphibians and Reptiles project page says it should have. I cannot chose either the quality or the quantity of Amphibian and Reptile pages: the totality of the people working on these pages is determines both. Jwinius, I think you try far, far too hard for consistency. It isn't going to happen. - Enuja ( talk) 01:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
(Continued debate with Caissaca)
In my view, no matter what we do, the idea should be to maintain a system in which one or more third parties are used to resolve all taxonomic questions. So, in case of 1.) Mention the new species and its reference in the Taxonomy section of the article for the appropriate higher taxon. In case of 2.) Same as in 1, at the very least using TIGR as a reference. In case of 3.) Make sure the synonym is included in the article and there is a redirect for it. We may want to mention that other sources still recognize the name as valid, again using TIGR as a reference. In other words, in all cases ITIS would reign supreme.
Okay, that would seem like a simple solution, and it's what I had in mind to begin with, but I see now that this isn't going to work. That's because, although these rules would be fine for the other families, if we were to apply them to the Colubridae section absolutely nothing would change (ITIS would still reign supreme). One or more exceptions would therefore have to be made to the rules for the Colubridae, but that would certainly serve to complicate matters, probably to the point of impracticality.
This leaves only one simple solution: to use ITIS as our primary source for all snake families, while using TIGR as our primary source only for the Colubridae -- at least until ITIS completes its own Colubridae section, but I fear that won't be any time soon. Using TIGR as a primary source would mean that we would have to accept some bad things, such as Pantherophis, but I guess it would be a price worth paying for the taxonomic guidance and stability that we would receive in return. --
Jwinius (
talk) 14:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Caissaca, Shyamal: I want to thank you both for your patience with me in this debate. I see now that I can no longer defend my old point of view, which was to follow a single taxonomy. This method may seem easier to work with, but also has serious drawbacks as you've pointed out. The alternative -- which is to always leave our taxonomy open to debate based on the latest and best possible scientific research -- will not always be as easy to work with, but is definitely a step forward and I cannot stand in the way of progress. The best thing is that I've actually learned something. I can think of many changes that will have to be made, including Trimeresurus popeiorum, so there is much work to be done. Also, if there are no objections I believe some changes to the Taxonomy section of our policy page will be in order: to remove ITIS for the suborder Serpentes and probably the AMNH for the order Amphibia as well. Thanks again! Cheers, -- Jwinius ( talk) 00:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Following the recent decision to allow the taxonomy for our collection of Serpentes articles to be open to debate, I can only imagine that this will require a degree of coordination to keep things organized. I think it would be constructive to have a separate place to discuss and organize these matters. Is there anyone else here who would like to see the creation of WikiProject Snakes? -- Jwinius ( talk) 14:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis cost several organizations multiple millions of dollars this year in the AZA Year of the Frog program. I think the public ought to know about it. Is there any way the people in the Amphibians and Reptiles project can contribute to the article to get it featured as a Did You Know article? All that is disqualifying it at the moment is no new information. A few paragraphs should suffice. Thanks, Bob the Wikipedian ( talk • contribs) 21:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Identification is needed for this image ( File:Unidentified lizard.jpg) which I believe is a a juvenile and from the Lophognathus family however I'm unsure. Bidgee ( talk) 12:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Can someone confirm or dismiss the current id on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BoigaWynaad1.jpg and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BoigaWynaad.jpg Shyamal ( talk) 11:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid the photograph of this snake is of a Diamond Python. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skibum261 ( talk • contribs) 02:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
It has been suggested that Wikipedia should change its naming conventions for organism articles to require scientific names, and this suggestion is being discussed fully at Wikipedia naming conventions. Just a head's up, since this would affect you guys. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I am bouncing some ideas on how to handle the messy cold-blooded article. If you have any thoughts, I would welcome them at Talk:Cold-blooded#Proposed_Change. StevePrutz ( talk) 22:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Folks, Just thought I'd call you attention to the activities of User talk:Shpiglet who has been been busy unilaterally moving many of our articles (almost 50 in the past 3 weeks) from their previous scientific-name article titles to (capitalized) common names. This is despite the fact that multiple common names usually exist for the species in question. This user has been addressed on numerous occasions regarding his or her behavior, but does not respond. Does anyone here care? -- Jwinius ( talk) 23:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I just created an article for Pachyostosis, which is was a redlink in Dugong, Dinocephalia, and Anteosaurus. It is rather stubby right now and could use some beefing up and proper cats, but I do not know enough to provide this. Any help expanding and classifying would be appreciated. Thanks! -- Kevmin ( talk) 18:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that there is not an article on basking (or "sunning"... that crocs, snakes, etc do to heat themselves). Anyone else think there should be something on this? StevePrutz ( talk) 19:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I just finished expanding the Haasiophis article from a one line stub. Would anyone be able to look over the article and proofread/teak it where needed? Also I haven't quite figured out how to asses the 5x expansion part of the DYK process, if someone familiar with it could see if it qualifies would they be willing to submit it for a DYK? Thanks again -- Kevmin ( talk) 19:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the taxonomic and phylogenic classification systems shown in Tree of Life, Amphibians and Reptiles, and Palaeontology projects are confusing to folks who are not familiar with classification systems (who are, after all, a primary customer) because the two systems seem a little contradictory. A short, standardized lead-in paragraph describing the criteria of each system anywhere they are introduced would help immeasurably. To keep everyone on the same page, I’ve made this suggestion to all three projects. 74.242.254.68 ( talk) 16:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Mike Sarles
With particularly large reptiles, there's a persistent problem of exaggeration. Weeding out obviously false claims, such as 100 foot boa constrictors, isn't that difficult, but it becomes progressively more difficult as the claims become more plausible. However, if we're sloppy, we can let claims based on nothing but rumor add several feet, or even several meters, to the animal's length. Furthermore, once we allow a suspect report that adds one foot to the maximum, we're no longer in the position to deny other reports that increase it even further, since if we accept one, why not the other? Thus, I propose that we accept ONLY maximal lengths which are backed up by a museum specimen or peer-review journal accounts of reliably measured specimens. This gives us a simple, absolute position which is not vulnerable to the usual exaggerations and wild stories. All in favor? Mokele ( talk) 15:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot ( Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 04:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm trying to start a Wikiproject to cover Organismal Biomechanics, and I was wondering if anyone else would be interested? Articles such as animal locomotion. gait, muscle, and similar would be our targets. See my userpage for a list of what I'm planning to work on, including some truly awful articles in desperate need of attention. See proposal page at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Wikiproject_Organismal_Biomechanics. I'll keep anyone who signs up updated via their userpages until I get a project page made. Help of all kinds is appreciated, from brain dumps to wikifying, grammar and dealing with references. Mokele ( talk) 22:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows ( full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to
report bugs and
request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a
"news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none
parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at
Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
Thanks. — Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 08:47, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)
An unknown frog here, thanks jimfbleak ( talk) 07:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Please see
Gamble, T., Bauer, A. M., Greenbaum, E. & Jackman, T. R. (2008). Out of the blue: a novel, trans-Atlantic clade of geckos (Gekkota, Squamata). — Zoologica Scripta, 37, 355–366.
it affects Gecko, Gekkota, Lizard and Squamata. Dysmorodrepanis ( talk) 18:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
User:Alan Liefting has nominated Cane toad for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dabomb87 ( talk) 16:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Working on the WP:ASE project, I came across an article with the name Storeria occipitomaculata occipitomaculata. I believe it should be retitled and edited as Northern redbelly snake, but will call upon somebody with this project to do so if it is advisable. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 04:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, this article was moved to Northern Redbelly Snake (capitalized). GeorgeLouis ( talk) 19:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
A quick request for attention: the article for Aldabra_Giant_Tortoise cites 3 different genera in the intro, including some which I suspect are not recongized by this project's official taxonomic sources. I can't fix it myself, because I'm leaving for fieldwork in ~ 22 hours. Mokele ( talk) 18:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.
We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.
If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 22:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I have been looking at the article Top 10 Deadliest snakes which is extremely doubtful, quotes NO sources, is badly written and is a personal list. On my user page User:Euc there is real data although a bit old. If anyone can add to it, update it or use it themselves I would be very appreciative. Euc ( talk) 23:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
We have a couple of articles which mention Crocodyliform or Crocodyliforms, which as you can see are currently redlinks. Can somebody please either make the appropriate stub for this or the appropriate redirect? Thanks. -- 201.37.230.43 ( talk) 16:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I have five photographs of the Puerto Rican Garden Snake (Arrhyton exiguum), but the species does not have a page yet. Perhaps the photographs might be placed on some other page, such as the one for snakes or reptiles in general. Anyway, the photos are available for anyone to use on a corresponding page; to see them, just visit my home page. Do with them as you wish. Thanks. Wyvern J. Wynderunner ( talk) 17:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I have just been trying to expend Eleutherodactylus cryptomelas and require some clarifications. It is referred to in fr.wp as Pristimantis cryptomelas and is on the IUCN Red List as the same. The page for Eleutherodactylus indicates that it is marked for a move to Pristimantis but there is no text accompanying the list. So I was wondering, should it be named Eleutherodactylus or Pristimantis? If anyone has any idea I would be greatful. Thanks ReformatMe ( talk) 11:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
I've been editing the snakebite article recently (I'm 98.232.98.144 ( talk · contribs) when too lazy to log in) and I noticed it is rated as top-importance for this Wikiproject group. The article is also a former good article, but was demoted for a variety of reasons. I've tried to address some of the problems on the to-do list, but I don't have enough free time in my day to do everything I'd like to. The article as it is now has the potential to regain good article status with a little more work, but I would like help from this group if anyone's willing. It would be nice to have some fresh eyes look over it and note potential problems and improvements, and add citation tags where they're needed.
In the "Frequency and statistics" section, we could note that the puff adder is responsible for the most bites in Africa and Bothrops asper in South America, and generally add more information outside of the United States, since U.S. centrism was one of the complaints. I'm having to spend a lot of time looking for good, reliable sources (academic journals specifically). Again, help would be appreciated.
The "Symptoms" section also could use some work. Should we include symptoms for the snakes responsible for the most deaths? general symptoms for snake families? I'm not sure how that information should be organized. It seems kind of random at the moment. Thanks! -- Eightofnine ( talk) 06:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated List of Anuran families for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Tezkag72 ( talk) 18:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello, this "striking salamander" discovery received a nomination at WP:ITN/C (under 8 July). It requires an expert on the topic–are there any here? If it is updated, it will (probably) be posted on the Main Page. -- can dle • wicke 14:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know if this is a spiny softshell or smooth softshell? http://www.flickr.com/photos/pr9000/1316789137/sizes/l/ It would help me greatly, I am trying to finish List of Minnesota reptiles- Ravedave ( talk) 05:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated List of snakes of Trinidad and Tobago for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.
The Tetrodotoxin page mentions a death in Oregon from the toxin exuded by a rough-skinned_newt when agitated, but I can't find any reference to back up that claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrishavel ( talk • contribs) 15:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
http://www.caudata.org/cc/articles/toxin2.shtml
The Laticauda (sea kraits) article has its family listed as Hydrophiidae (sea snakes), however that article has its family listed as Elapidae. Obviously there's something wrong, but as I'm not a taxonomist I don't feel qualified to fix this. Could someone more knowledgeable that me fix this? CS Miller ( talk) 14:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea what it is. I saw it in Istanbul if it is relevant. Spiderone ( talk) 15:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Can someone address the remaining issues at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of snakes of Trinidad and Tobago/archive1? It's so close to being a keep that it would be a pity to see its star lost. Cheers, Dabomb87 ( talk) 23:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Just uploaded some images of this lizard on Commons link, but there's no article to put them in. Tim Vickers ( talk) 00:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Is the year of the original description of this lizzard really true? en.Wikipedia writes the year 1886. I'm uncertain abaout it, because IUCN and The Reptile Database write the year 1882. -- Danny ( talk) 12:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I've uploaded this photo of a Spilotes pullatus I took about ten years ago on a trip to the Peruvian Amazon, and I cannot for the life of me get it to work in the taxobox of that page. Anyone know how to fix it? Mokele ( talk) 00:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
It's now on Cmmons. I'll crop the black lower border out too and fix the contrasts. FunkMonk ( talk) 16:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone else think some of this page should be archived now? Forty sections is quite a lot. StevePrutz ( talk) 02:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I am working on a reliable listing of active listservs that cover herp topics (mostly research and jobs). So far, I only have a handful, including ECOLOG-L and Froglist. Can anyone recommend other big mailing lists? StevePrutz ( talk) 18:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I have been working on bird images a bit lately, but can do some for this project as well. What I would really like to do though is get more people uploading from Flickr. It looks like there are over 6000 species here that need photos too, so it's not a job one person can do alone. If anyone wants help with getting/transferring pictures I would be happy to provide a tutorial. Richard001 ( talk) 05:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I read an article on a new species of a primitive North American salamander recently discovered (tentatively named Urspelerpes bruceii), but I cannot find any publications or web info. Does anyone have a good search engine to find papers on this? StevePrutz ( talk) 17:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
The Cobra article was created on 14 May 2003 and has since seen almost 1,000 edits, but is still in very poor shape. Perhaps this is because the subject is relatively vague: many snakes are referred to as cobras, so what it really needs is to become a disambiguation page. That's why I've suggested that this article be deleted and replaced with the Cobra (disambiguation) page, which I think is of much more value. After four days no one seems to have noticed my proposal, but since such action may be regarded as controversial (it's a popular term) I wanted to get this group's opinion first before putting in an official request. Thanks, -- Jwinius ( talk) 18:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
That wasn't so difficult! Cobra is now a set index article and has been thoroughly revised, mostly using the snake information moved there from Cobra (disambiguation). I also found an excellent image for it. If there are no more comments, I will assume that this is satisfactory. I imagine that it will still be a target for vandalism, but hopefully not as much. -- Jwinius ( talk) 20:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I noticed on the Cobra page that the Pseudohaje genus does not have an article yet. Do you need help making one for this cobra type? StevePrutz ( talk)
A bot has been set up, which looks through the new Wikipedia articles and picks up those that are likely related to amphibians and reptiles. The search results are available at User:AlexNewArtBot/HerpetologySearchResult and are normally updated on a daily basis. Colchicum ( talk) 01:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Here's another common name situation similar to Cobra: the Anaconda article. To may people here this may seem like a non-issue, since there are three species of anacondas and they all belong to the genus Eunectes. However, the problem is that, while all of these snakes are consistently referred to in the literature as anacondas, the general public tends only to associate the species Eunectes murinus with this name. As a result, it doesn't to matter that the "Anaconda" article starts out by saying that it is about the genus: after a while it always seems to fill up with specific information for E. murinus anyway.
As in the case of the Cobra article, I've left a proposal on the Anaconda talk page to change it into a disambiguation page for the genus -- exactly the same as the Cobra article is now), while moving much of the information there to the Eunectes page (a name that currently redirects to Anaconda). So far, though, I have received no responses. I would again be grateful for this group's opinion regarding my proposal before taking any action. -- Jwinius ( talk) 23:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, this issue came up on the corn snake page, but was never really answered. A lot of herps are becoming more common in the pet trade, and as a result, their articles are developing lengthy sections on captive care, many of which overlap extensively because, frankly, the care of most herps falls into a few 'types' (aquatic, desert, arboreal, etc). Should we try to make a generalize 'herp care' page? I'm inclined towards it, because it can cover some of the general basics (ectothermy and heat gradients, feeding frequency, shedding skin, etc), and then have subsections for types (desert, arboreal, etc), and notes within those sections about individual species. It would substantially reduce the clutter on many herp pages, and we could just say "this is a commonly kept pet species" with "pet species" linking to the care page. Thoughts? Mokele ( talk) 21:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
<-- THIS SECTION IS HIDDEN BECAUSE... -->
StevePrutz (
talk) 00:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Was just playing around with the page ranks by hits of wikipedia pages on http://stats.grok.se/ and noticed that snake is actually ahead of many other popular taxon articles. The ranks are - Tiger 853, Snake 1230, Fish 1394, Elephant 1793, Bird 2150, Ant 3548, Insect 4208, Frog 4817, Lizard 7754 . Seems like a good article for this project to collaborate on for a start. Shyamal ( talk) 14:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Just an observation: Now that I've had this article on my watchlist again for a while, it's amazing to see how often it gets vandalized -- for the past week it's happened about three times a day. I can't help but wonder how much less this would be if the article was renamed to "Serpentes". -- Jwinius ( talk) 01:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to inform you that I created the article Amphibians of Madagascar traslating it from it:Anfibi del Madagascar. -- Esculapio ( talk) 23:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I moved Mantidactylus grandisonae to Blommersia grandisonae. The same should be done with others species previously classified as Mantidactylus and now moved to the new genus Blommersia (see amphibiaweb) -- Esculapio ( talk) 14:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to work on the American crocodile in the next few days. If anyone sees something missing, please add it to the article or discuss here. StevePrutz ( talk) 22:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Is the picture in Eastern Blue-tongued Lizard quite right? A search for Tiliqua scincoides gives the impression that this reptile looks rather more like the one shown here www.scienceviews.com/photo/browse/SIA0151.jpg . I also note that this article refers to the reptile in question as a lizard rather than a skink, unlike Northern Blue-tongued Skink and Western Blue-tongued Skink. I am a lemon ( talk) 04:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Even though Wikipedians love making lists of all kinds of names, the way in which they deal with common names in articles on biological taxa -- just by mentioning them somewhere in the lead section -- has always struck me as distinctly unsatisfactory. If there are many names, why don't we list them all? If there are none, why don't we say so? And shouldn't they be displayed so they can be more easily found? At first I followed WP:LEAD like everyone else, but soon found myself wondering about how to improve matters. I wanted something that would be systematic, predictable, catch the eye, accommodate any reasonable number of names and treat them all as equally as possible.
After some development, I eventually figured the solution would be to list a few names on a single line above the lead and any others below in a section called "Common names". Here are some examples:
Despite being a little different, some of these articles, such as the last two, have GA status, so the format is already considered acceptable to some degree. Nevertheless, I've never been completely happy with the current format. I think the best thing about it is the concept; the way it looks can likely be improved. What do you think of this idea? Would it be useful in the articles you've worked on? If so, perhaps we can work together to produce something even better. Cheers, -- Jwinius ( talk) 01:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Related discussions are going on now on several other talk pages ( here, here, here). One issue is that in some cases the base article uses a common name, and it is also necessary in many cases to disambiguate common names (eg Category:Plant common names). -- Una Smith ( talk) 20:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
According to our current guidelines, the primary taxonomic source for snakes is ITIS. I would like to suggest an amendment to this: to add the TIGR Reptile Database as a secondary source. The problem is that, although ITIS is the most authoritative taxonomic source currently available on the Internet for snakes, it is not yet complete. The only group affected is the family Colubridae, but it is huge and represents almost two thirds of all snake species. At the moment, TIGR lists 1938 colubrid species, while the ITIS has obvious gaps. Of course, it must be made abundantly clear that ITIS always overrides TIGR whenever there is a conflict, or else we will quickly run into problems. On the other hand, a few problems will be inevitable, such as with Elaphe. Regardless, I don't see that we have too much choice in the matter, as we can't really go on ignoring the colubrid section and ITIS may take as much as another 5-10 years to complete. Comments, objections? -- Jwinius ( talk) 19:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) Don't forget, I actually think it's a waste of time to make a page for every species, much less subspecies: I think we should have page for every family and for many geneses, and for every species that someone cares enough about to make a page for. If you want to use a source more up-to-date than ITIS for some particular group or species, go for it. That's all I'm saying. Wikipedia is not a top-down organized project with a team of workers, so it'll have whatever content people are interested in adding, not whatever content you or I or the Amphibians and Reptiles project page says it should have. I cannot chose either the quality or the quantity of Amphibian and Reptile pages: the totality of the people working on these pages is determines both. Jwinius, I think you try far, far too hard for consistency. It isn't going to happen. - Enuja ( talk) 01:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
(Continued debate with Caissaca)
In my view, no matter what we do, the idea should be to maintain a system in which one or more third parties are used to resolve all taxonomic questions. So, in case of 1.) Mention the new species and its reference in the Taxonomy section of the article for the appropriate higher taxon. In case of 2.) Same as in 1, at the very least using TIGR as a reference. In case of 3.) Make sure the synonym is included in the article and there is a redirect for it. We may want to mention that other sources still recognize the name as valid, again using TIGR as a reference. In other words, in all cases ITIS would reign supreme.
Okay, that would seem like a simple solution, and it's what I had in mind to begin with, but I see now that this isn't going to work. That's because, although these rules would be fine for the other families, if we were to apply them to the Colubridae section absolutely nothing would change (ITIS would still reign supreme). One or more exceptions would therefore have to be made to the rules for the Colubridae, but that would certainly serve to complicate matters, probably to the point of impracticality.
This leaves only one simple solution: to use ITIS as our primary source for all snake families, while using TIGR as our primary source only for the Colubridae -- at least until ITIS completes its own Colubridae section, but I fear that won't be any time soon. Using TIGR as a primary source would mean that we would have to accept some bad things, such as Pantherophis, but I guess it would be a price worth paying for the taxonomic guidance and stability that we would receive in return. --
Jwinius (
talk) 14:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Caissaca, Shyamal: I want to thank you both for your patience with me in this debate. I see now that I can no longer defend my old point of view, which was to follow a single taxonomy. This method may seem easier to work with, but also has serious drawbacks as you've pointed out. The alternative -- which is to always leave our taxonomy open to debate based on the latest and best possible scientific research -- will not always be as easy to work with, but is definitely a step forward and I cannot stand in the way of progress. The best thing is that I've actually learned something. I can think of many changes that will have to be made, including Trimeresurus popeiorum, so there is much work to be done. Also, if there are no objections I believe some changes to the Taxonomy section of our policy page will be in order: to remove ITIS for the suborder Serpentes and probably the AMNH for the order Amphibia as well. Thanks again! Cheers, -- Jwinius ( talk) 00:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Following the recent decision to allow the taxonomy for our collection of Serpentes articles to be open to debate, I can only imagine that this will require a degree of coordination to keep things organized. I think it would be constructive to have a separate place to discuss and organize these matters. Is there anyone else here who would like to see the creation of WikiProject Snakes? -- Jwinius ( talk) 14:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis cost several organizations multiple millions of dollars this year in the AZA Year of the Frog program. I think the public ought to know about it. Is there any way the people in the Amphibians and Reptiles project can contribute to the article to get it featured as a Did You Know article? All that is disqualifying it at the moment is no new information. A few paragraphs should suffice. Thanks, Bob the Wikipedian ( talk • contribs) 21:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Identification is needed for this image ( File:Unidentified lizard.jpg) which I believe is a a juvenile and from the Lophognathus family however I'm unsure. Bidgee ( talk) 12:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Can someone confirm or dismiss the current id on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BoigaWynaad1.jpg and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BoigaWynaad.jpg Shyamal ( talk) 11:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid the photograph of this snake is of a Diamond Python. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skibum261 ( talk • contribs) 02:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
It has been suggested that Wikipedia should change its naming conventions for organism articles to require scientific names, and this suggestion is being discussed fully at Wikipedia naming conventions. Just a head's up, since this would affect you guys. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I am bouncing some ideas on how to handle the messy cold-blooded article. If you have any thoughts, I would welcome them at Talk:Cold-blooded#Proposed_Change. StevePrutz ( talk) 22:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Folks, Just thought I'd call you attention to the activities of User talk:Shpiglet who has been been busy unilaterally moving many of our articles (almost 50 in the past 3 weeks) from their previous scientific-name article titles to (capitalized) common names. This is despite the fact that multiple common names usually exist for the species in question. This user has been addressed on numerous occasions regarding his or her behavior, but does not respond. Does anyone here care? -- Jwinius ( talk) 23:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I just created an article for Pachyostosis, which is was a redlink in Dugong, Dinocephalia, and Anteosaurus. It is rather stubby right now and could use some beefing up and proper cats, but I do not know enough to provide this. Any help expanding and classifying would be appreciated. Thanks! -- Kevmin ( talk) 18:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that there is not an article on basking (or "sunning"... that crocs, snakes, etc do to heat themselves). Anyone else think there should be something on this? StevePrutz ( talk) 19:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I just finished expanding the Haasiophis article from a one line stub. Would anyone be able to look over the article and proofread/teak it where needed? Also I haven't quite figured out how to asses the 5x expansion part of the DYK process, if someone familiar with it could see if it qualifies would they be willing to submit it for a DYK? Thanks again -- Kevmin ( talk) 19:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the taxonomic and phylogenic classification systems shown in Tree of Life, Amphibians and Reptiles, and Palaeontology projects are confusing to folks who are not familiar with classification systems (who are, after all, a primary customer) because the two systems seem a little contradictory. A short, standardized lead-in paragraph describing the criteria of each system anywhere they are introduced would help immeasurably. To keep everyone on the same page, I’ve made this suggestion to all three projects. 74.242.254.68 ( talk) 16:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Mike Sarles
With particularly large reptiles, there's a persistent problem of exaggeration. Weeding out obviously false claims, such as 100 foot boa constrictors, isn't that difficult, but it becomes progressively more difficult as the claims become more plausible. However, if we're sloppy, we can let claims based on nothing but rumor add several feet, or even several meters, to the animal's length. Furthermore, once we allow a suspect report that adds one foot to the maximum, we're no longer in the position to deny other reports that increase it even further, since if we accept one, why not the other? Thus, I propose that we accept ONLY maximal lengths which are backed up by a museum specimen or peer-review journal accounts of reliably measured specimens. This gives us a simple, absolute position which is not vulnerable to the usual exaggerations and wild stories. All in favor? Mokele ( talk) 15:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot ( Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 04:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm trying to start a Wikiproject to cover Organismal Biomechanics, and I was wondering if anyone else would be interested? Articles such as animal locomotion. gait, muscle, and similar would be our targets. See my userpage for a list of what I'm planning to work on, including some truly awful articles in desperate need of attention. See proposal page at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Wikiproject_Organismal_Biomechanics. I'll keep anyone who signs up updated via their userpages until I get a project page made. Help of all kinds is appreciated, from brain dumps to wikifying, grammar and dealing with references. Mokele ( talk) 22:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows ( full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to
report bugs and
request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a
"news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none
parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at
Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
Thanks. — Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 08:47, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)
An unknown frog here, thanks jimfbleak ( talk) 07:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Please see
Gamble, T., Bauer, A. M., Greenbaum, E. & Jackman, T. R. (2008). Out of the blue: a novel, trans-Atlantic clade of geckos (Gekkota, Squamata). — Zoologica Scripta, 37, 355–366.
it affects Gecko, Gekkota, Lizard and Squamata. Dysmorodrepanis ( talk) 18:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
User:Alan Liefting has nominated Cane toad for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dabomb87 ( talk) 16:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Working on the WP:ASE project, I came across an article with the name Storeria occipitomaculata occipitomaculata. I believe it should be retitled and edited as Northern redbelly snake, but will call upon somebody with this project to do so if it is advisable. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 04:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, this article was moved to Northern Redbelly Snake (capitalized). GeorgeLouis ( talk) 19:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
A quick request for attention: the article for Aldabra_Giant_Tortoise cites 3 different genera in the intro, including some which I suspect are not recongized by this project's official taxonomic sources. I can't fix it myself, because I'm leaving for fieldwork in ~ 22 hours. Mokele ( talk) 18:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.
We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.
If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 22:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I have been looking at the article Top 10 Deadliest snakes which is extremely doubtful, quotes NO sources, is badly written and is a personal list. On my user page User:Euc there is real data although a bit old. If anyone can add to it, update it or use it themselves I would be very appreciative. Euc ( talk) 23:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
We have a couple of articles which mention Crocodyliform or Crocodyliforms, which as you can see are currently redlinks. Can somebody please either make the appropriate stub for this or the appropriate redirect? Thanks. -- 201.37.230.43 ( talk) 16:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I have five photographs of the Puerto Rican Garden Snake (Arrhyton exiguum), but the species does not have a page yet. Perhaps the photographs might be placed on some other page, such as the one for snakes or reptiles in general. Anyway, the photos are available for anyone to use on a corresponding page; to see them, just visit my home page. Do with them as you wish. Thanks. Wyvern J. Wynderunner ( talk) 17:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I have just been trying to expend Eleutherodactylus cryptomelas and require some clarifications. It is referred to in fr.wp as Pristimantis cryptomelas and is on the IUCN Red List as the same. The page for Eleutherodactylus indicates that it is marked for a move to Pristimantis but there is no text accompanying the list. So I was wondering, should it be named Eleutherodactylus or Pristimantis? If anyone has any idea I would be greatful. Thanks ReformatMe ( talk) 11:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
I've been editing the snakebite article recently (I'm 98.232.98.144 ( talk · contribs) when too lazy to log in) and I noticed it is rated as top-importance for this Wikiproject group. The article is also a former good article, but was demoted for a variety of reasons. I've tried to address some of the problems on the to-do list, but I don't have enough free time in my day to do everything I'd like to. The article as it is now has the potential to regain good article status with a little more work, but I would like help from this group if anyone's willing. It would be nice to have some fresh eyes look over it and note potential problems and improvements, and add citation tags where they're needed.
In the "Frequency and statistics" section, we could note that the puff adder is responsible for the most bites in Africa and Bothrops asper in South America, and generally add more information outside of the United States, since U.S. centrism was one of the complaints. I'm having to spend a lot of time looking for good, reliable sources (academic journals specifically). Again, help would be appreciated.
The "Symptoms" section also could use some work. Should we include symptoms for the snakes responsible for the most deaths? general symptoms for snake families? I'm not sure how that information should be organized. It seems kind of random at the moment. Thanks! -- Eightofnine ( talk) 06:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated List of Anuran families for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Tezkag72 ( talk) 18:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello, this "striking salamander" discovery received a nomination at WP:ITN/C (under 8 July). It requires an expert on the topic–are there any here? If it is updated, it will (probably) be posted on the Main Page. -- can dle • wicke 14:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know if this is a spiny softshell or smooth softshell? http://www.flickr.com/photos/pr9000/1316789137/sizes/l/ It would help me greatly, I am trying to finish List of Minnesota reptiles- Ravedave ( talk) 05:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated List of snakes of Trinidad and Tobago for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.
The Tetrodotoxin page mentions a death in Oregon from the toxin exuded by a rough-skinned_newt when agitated, but I can't find any reference to back up that claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrishavel ( talk • contribs) 15:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
http://www.caudata.org/cc/articles/toxin2.shtml
The Laticauda (sea kraits) article has its family listed as Hydrophiidae (sea snakes), however that article has its family listed as Elapidae. Obviously there's something wrong, but as I'm not a taxonomist I don't feel qualified to fix this. Could someone more knowledgeable that me fix this? CS Miller ( talk) 14:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea what it is. I saw it in Istanbul if it is relevant. Spiderone ( talk) 15:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Can someone address the remaining issues at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of snakes of Trinidad and Tobago/archive1? It's so close to being a keep that it would be a pity to see its star lost. Cheers, Dabomb87 ( talk) 23:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Just uploaded some images of this lizard on Commons link, but there's no article to put them in. Tim Vickers ( talk) 00:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Is the year of the original description of this lizzard really true? en.Wikipedia writes the year 1886. I'm uncertain abaout it, because IUCN and The Reptile Database write the year 1882. -- Danny ( talk) 12:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)