This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Dear members in Project Amphibians and Reptiles, I would like to hear your opinion regarding the status of Eleutherodactylus diplasius. An article was created under Patternless whistling frog (Eleutherodactylus diplasius), and apart from not follwing standards for an article, I think, based on Wikispecies article, that this is not a valid species? Please also see my comments at creators talk page: which may later have an answer from the user:
Dan Koehl ( talk) 15:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: The species has an item at Wikidata at wikidata:Q4668453. Dan Koehl ( talk) 15:59, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Could someone please categorize Typhlops dominicanus, Thamnophis bogerti, & Thamnophis conanti into the correct 'Reptiles described in YEAR' categories? These are the only pages remaining in Category:Snakes described in the 20th century & Category:Snakes described in the 21st century, created & poorly populated by Caftaric. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 16:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Uropeltidae links to the DAB page worm snake. Can any expert here help solve the puzzle? Narky Blert ( talk) 15:11, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
The sentence in Elaphe about fox snakes may need editing or deletion. E. vulpina is a synonym of Pantherophis vulpinus and E. gloydi of Pantherophis gloydi. Narky Blert ( talk) 09:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Thayeri kingsnake should be changed to Thayer's kingsnake, as this is the grammatically correct name (it's even mentioned as such in the references). Malcolmlucascollins ( talk) 00:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi I recently requested at WP:TEAHOUSE to find me some scholarly sources for this genus which is a Microgecko under species of persicus.. Any PDFs would be appreciated to improve that draft to a start or B class article, thanks.. ( Draft:Persian Sand Gecko) 182.58.231.146 ( talk) 09:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Request for comment: new classification scheme for eukaryotes, which asks for comments on how we should deal with a proposed new classification system that has widespread ramifications across the tree of life. Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Input sought At Wikipedia talk:Automated taxobox system/Archive 1#Fixing inconsistent ranks in taxonomy templates I've suggested some alternative ways of fixing inconsistent ranks in taxonomy templates. They could make it easier to deal with the problem of inconsistent classification systems, e.g. the ones used for birds and dinosaurs, or the ones used for mammals and dinosaurs. Be warned that it's a long post, but it very much needs input, particularly from "old hands" at using the automated taxobox system. Peter coxhead ( talk) 15:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Hey, there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 9#Deprecated Taxonomy subtemplates, which needs input from actual editors with experience in this field. Also worth mentioning that both Template:Taxonomy/Lonchognatha and Lonchognatha have been changed recently. -- Gonnym ( talk) 12:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
The article Megophrys explains that these two genera of frogs have a confused taxonomy. However, the way the taxonomy template at Template:Taxonomy/Xenophrys is set up is simply wrong: the link text that will be shown in a taxobox is set to "Megophrys" but the taxon as shown in the name of the template is "Xenophrys". The result is that taxoboxes like the one at Megophrys aceras show the species as "Xenophrys aceras" but the genus as "Megophrys". This needs to be fixed, one way or the other. Peter coxhead ( talk) 17:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Apparently Hylarana are now Chalcorana and there is an interwiki confusion to which I added trying to cleanup some Flickr commons uploads yesterday. A sample would be File:Chalcorana eschatia - Khao Phra - Bang Khram Wildlife Sanctuary (46060407114) by Rushen.jpg (see history there and discrepancy between species and commons category @ Wikidata:Q1998042) and related comment by the photographer @ https://commons.wikimedia.org/?title=User_talk%3ARushenb&type=revision&diff=340641666&oldid=340624956 Can somebody help me make some sense. Agathoclea ( talk) 14:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Frogs and toads is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Frogs and toads until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 03:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Salamanders is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Frogs and toads (it's part of a bundled nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 03:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: I disclose in advance that I have a conflict of interest in this discussion because I personally work on microhylid taxonomy.
Currently, ASW follows a peculiar and non-mainstream taxonomy for the frog family Microhylidae, including lumping several genera that most microhylid researchers do not agree should be lumped (best example is Rhombophryne and Stumpffia, see the relevant piece here). This is because the authors of ASW published a paper on microhylid systematics which proposed numerous taxonomic changes; the authors of the ASW database have a conflict of interest related to this family. AmphibiaWeb does not follow the ASW taxonomy for the family, but instead the more commonly accepted taxonomy, and the one used by researchers working on microhylid frogs in general. The question arises: how do we reconcile this issue? Should we use a single database uncritically, or should be yield to the sway of the literature? I recognise that due to my COI I personally should not have a say in this one way or another. But for a normal wikipedia editor to get to grips with this problem is also probably too much to ask; it requires consultation of a huge amount of primary literature, and formation of an overall conclusion based on that data. Anyone who spends so much time reading the relevant literature winds up working on the frogs themselves, generating a new COI, and thus the cycle continues.
I would be happy to have some suggestions on best practice here. Should we allow deviation from ASW in certain cases? Where should those cases be discussed? How serious do we need to take COIs, if they potentially discourage the most knowledgeable people on a given taxon from democratising their knowledge in the form of wikipedia editing? Food for thought ~-- Mark.scherz 11:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Despite the many Wikipedians who edit content related to organisms/species, there hasn't been a Tree of Life Newsletter...until now! If you would like regular deliveries of said newsletter, please add your name to the subscribers list. Thanks, Enwebb ( talk) 00:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I think this article needs some love from experienced & knowledgeable editors. There are two topics in Talk:Garter snake which need replies. Thank you! Lexein ( talk) 06:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello. The Sourcewatch project has identified the journal Amphibian & Reptile Conservation as one to be concerned about, potentially predatory. As of 24 May, there were at least 13 article using this journal as a source. Do you consider this journal to be reliable and suitable for use in Wikipedia? Thanks for your input. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 02:16, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Turtles deleted see /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Portal:Turtles. Note that Portal:Turtles had 13 page views a day and Portal:Reptiles has a average of 14 per day. Regards, Sun Creator( talk) 10:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
A discussion has been started at WP:Tree of Life regarding recent edit warring behavior of taxonomic etymologies. Comments are requested.-- Kev min § 03:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Are there any editors from this WikiProject willing to maintain Portal:Amphibians and Portal:Reptiles ? The Portals guideline requires that portals be maintained, and as a result numerous portals have been recently been deleted via MfD largely becasue of lack of maintenance. Let me know either way, and thanks, UnitedStatesian ( talk) 05:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
This page has many great links to specific species. I am sure many know Dick Bartlett but has he been reached out to or has anyone looked to see if he has photos of some of these animals that are still photoless? Barclaybp ( talk) 20:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Please join the discussion on the proposed merge from Template:WikiProject Pterosaurs to Template:WikiProject Palaeontology. -- Nessie ( talk) 16:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Chinese giant salamanders ( Andrias davidianus) are now proven to be three separate species: Andrias davidianus, Andrias sligoi, and another undescribed species. [1] We need to edit the current Chinese giant salamander article to reflect these updates. We either need to make the current article an article about the three species of Chinese giant salamanders, or we need to create a separate article for Andrias sligoi (South China giant salamander), considering that its the largest living amphibian now. Rainaroo ( talk) 04:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
References
I have initiated a merge discussion on Talk:Green_sea_turtle#Merge_Discussion to merge the Galápagos green turtle into the Green sea turtle and ask people to please comment on this. Thank you. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 20:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
The redirect snout-vent length is being discussed. It currently targets Anolis cuvieri. There aren't any existing articles that would be a good target for the redirect. It would be good to have a glossary of herpetology where herpetological jargon could be explained. I'm not up for writing it myself, but there are articles in Category:Glossaries of biology that could serve as models. Plantdrew ( talk) 15:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I created a draft for the glossary. Right now it has a few definitions and many undefined terms because they may be covered in other articles or may not be in the scope of what this article is trying to achieve. Once there's a good number of definitions that multiple people have looked over we can move it into the mainspace. starsandwhales ( talk) 21:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma ( talk) 04:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
After all the fun with the Spooky Species Contest last month, there's a new contest for the (Northern hemisphere's) Winter holidays at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Contest. It's not just Christmas, but anything festive from December-ish. Feel free to add some ideas to the Festive taxa list and enter early and often. -- Nessie ( talk) 18:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Template:NRDB species exists for http://reptile-database.reptarium.cz/, but there is no equivalent template for the AmphibiaWeb and the AMNH databases to make amphibian stub creation easier. Would somebody be interested in making one? Herpetogenesis ( talk) 19:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Examples | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Amphibian Species of the World (ASW6)
AmphibiaWeb
|
I'm planning on adding the {{
WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles}}
template to all the {{
WikiProject Turtles}}
talk pages. In most cases making the importance and quality the same. Does anyone have any comments or things to consider. Thanks,
Sun Creator(
talk) 17:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
{{
WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles}}
to turtle articles. So I felt it best to be consistent across them all. Regarding {{
WikiProject Animals}}, yes, that does
get added occasionally also.
Sun Creator(
talk) 16:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
French and Swedish WPs have fairly complete coverage of herp species. Swedish WP used bots, and I think French WP made more use of manual curating. Both lack newly described species and genera because the bots were using older versions of ASW, AmphibiaWeb, and ReptileDB.
Does anyone think that it might be a good idea to take a stab at using bots to complete the rest of the herp stubs, or is manual curation still the way to go? I've noticed that English WP is more hesitant at adopting bots to create stubs for animal species, while some of the other WPs use bots all the time. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ ( talk) 15:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi all, the species Peltophryne fracta, which redirects to
Eastern crested toad is no longer recognised as a valid species on ASW 6.0. Usually, I would just either move the page name, redirect the page, or merge to, the successor species name for the taxon in question - in this case Peltophryne guentheri, which in turn redirects to
Southern crested toad. However, in this case I am not sure of the best name for the combined article page. If they were both at their scientific binomial, it would be relatively straight forward. But with the common names available, we have choices that may end up to be misleading or inaccurate. Common names listed on ASW with Google hits in parentheses are: Gunther's Caribbean Toad (171 k), Eastern Crested Toad (2.54 M), and Southern Hispaniola Crestless Toad (178 k). AmphibiaWeb directs searches for both taxa to Peltophryne guentheri with the common name Southern Hispaniola Crestless Toad. Southern crested toad (584 k), a name used on the IUCN Red List, is not listed as a species name on either ASW or AmphibiaWeb. Possible solutions include using any of these vernacular names or reverting back to the scientific binomial. What is the most accurate page name to use as the target for this merge?
Loopy30 (
talk) 01:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I want to get rid change a number of Anolis articles to the scientific names. Most of these common names for Caribbean lizards were invented by Father Sánchez from Puerto Rico, who states himself that he prefers they not be used in lieu of the scientific name (see his homepage). His pictures are also the source for all the uncited text in these anole articles, with a hefty dose of OR. All respect for Father Sánchez, he made a really nice website with great pictures, but one would think that a native Spanish speaker from Puerto Rico should not get to invent names for territories like Anguilla or Trinidad or where-ever, where English is spoken and there are likely pre-existing vernacular terms for their own lizards (which would likely be something prosaic such as "green lizard", but still). I just moved Anguilla Bank anole. Did I do that correctly? I see other names which appear totally unattested in the references given and appear to be invented by Wikipedia editors, un-cited pet stores or the like. Similarly, say a species once escaped captivity in Florida and therefore some guy invented a name for it to in order to get some panic on, why should such a name have precedence of the English name as used in Belize, Guyana, Jamaica, etc...? I'm assuming not many people would object to this, but here's a head's up in case I screw up or piss someone off. Leo Breman ( talk) 18:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
The subpages of Portal:Frogs/Frog and toad articles for Portal:Frogs would benefit from the addition of more articles. I added five FA/GA class articles today, but only six articles are presently existent for the portal. Article additions would greatly improve the portal. North America 1000 12:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Rattlesnake#Avoiding_bites says " rattlesnake heads can see ... after being severed from the body." This seems wrong.-- Taranet ( talk) 09:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Recent changes have been made to the articles Ranoidea australis, Striped burrowing frog, and Ranoidea (genus), replacing the genus name Ranoidea name with the older Cyclorana and referencing the Australian Faunal Directory to supersede that of ASW 6.0. Edit summaries claim that "The taxonomic changes based on the phylogenetic analyses in Duellman et al. 2016 should be treated with caution and are not widely accepted". While exceptions to the current standard taxonomy in use may turn out to be justified, they should at least achieve consensus here first. Loopy30 ( talk) 12:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello herpetologists of Wikipedia!
Taking after our parent project
WP:BIOL, I'm interested in finding out about who's still active in this project, what we should do to clean this project up, how we can promote ourselves to new editors, and what the future of our project is. With ω = 93,820 and Ω = 5.64, we're not exactly the most productive wikiproject out there. However, the work we do, however minute, is still important.
So, who's in?
Our
existing list of goals has been relatively unchanged since 2007, but I don't think they've really been accomplished. If we have a clear and attainable list of goals, we can really galvanize this project and cross of quite a bit from the existing task list. Here's some of my ideas, and I'd love to hear other thoughts and feedback.
I'm pinging people who are active and have shown some interest in the project and articles that are higher taxonomically speaking. It would be really great if we could get more communication between the many people in this wikiproject. @
Connorlong90,
Caissaca,
SkyGazer 512,
Ranapipiens,
Tylotriton, and
ZooPro
Starsandwhales (
talk) 03:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm glad that the header seems to work! It really makes the page more readable. I'd like to suggest a further improvement in that area--setting up heading 2, 3, and 4 as subheadings under a heading called Writing Articles or something like that. Grouping similar content on the page would ease readability. I'd also suggest replacing the sample articles section with the statistics table. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biology#Statistics for an example, and open the collapsible section for some buttons that could be modified to do basically the same thing that the sample section already does, if the table isn't pretty enough. Prometheus720 ( talk) 06:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Moved the discussion to a new section of the talk page to make it easier to find. I think we should start with replacing manual taxoboxes with automatic ones, since that requires the least consensus and discussion. starsandwhales ( talk) 22:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
There are several distinct tasks involved, which can be addressed in parallel.
|display_parents=
(see
Western diamondback rattlesnake for an example). We could also decide that certain higher taxa are important enough to always be displayed (e.g.
Caenophidia) and make it show in all taxoboxes without having edit all the articles. I've updated the taxobox for rattlesnakes using {{
paraphyletic group}} as suggested.
Jts1882 |
talk 06:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)|taxon_formatted=
to automatic taxobox code, where the custom formatting could be displayed (this would be a better approach than coding to support a variety of individually rare use cases).
How has the progress on this been going? Have we updated most of those articles to automated speciesboxes? The link doesn't work anymore so I can't check.
starsandwhales (
talk) 01:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I am new to Wikipedia, and while not quite sure if I am doing this right, I shall do my best to explain myself. Ever since I did a presentation on the Gruñidor del Volcán (not quite sure about the name in English, since Spanish is my first language) I gained quite a bit of interest on the species (even adding a fakémon based on it in my Chile-esque region, but that's not the point), but since the Spanish article was quite barren if I say so myself, I decided to look it up in the English wiki, and was quite disappointed when I found nothing. Of course, there are other sources that I used, most of them in Spanish, but even about a year after my little investigation, I'm still determined to write (or at least help by finding sources) an article on the Pristidactylus Volcanensis. Is anyone up to help me out with this? And in that case, is there a Discord or anything like that so we can talk about this more in-depth? I am quite unfamiliar with the structure of these talk pages, and I can't get the hang of what's going on easily. Thanks for your attention, I tried to keep this brief and I hope that my request was written right. -- XileoRegion ( talk) 16:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Greetings, For this WP, I added wikilinks "Quality operations" and "Popular pages". JoeNMLC ( talk) 20:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Can anyone help with a query at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Lizard species identification please? Alansplodge ( talk) 13:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
This article, Hyloxalus pulcherrimus, was recently created as a draft by me and has been accepted. I need some help expanding it. Can any of you help me? Regards, Vihaking277 ( talk) 07:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Indotyphlops braminus has very recently been moved to Virgotyphlops braminus, resulting in a broken taxobox. I could fix this by creating the taxonomy template, but looking at the source used (which is here), there's no evidence that Wallach's new genus name has any other support, so I'm doubtful that the move should have been made. So I'll leave it to others to sort this out. Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
So Pincotti4 ( talk · contribs) was a returned sock of banned user VeronicaPR. Below are snake articles to check for material against sources and copyvios. If no-one gets to it I will get to it over the next week or so. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 14:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
There's a move review going on regarding a recent move from Crotalus concolor to Yellow rattlesnake. Some input there would be greatly appreciated! bibliomaniac 1 5 02:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I undid some changes to Coelurosauravus jaekeli because they broke the taxobox. An editor has now just changed the text of the article to change the binomial, but not moved it nor changed the taxobox. Could someone look at it please? Peter coxhead ( talk) 10:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I was scanning the list of pages requiring images on the main project topic page and found one I could potentially help with, only to discover it's already got an image (and one that's rather better than mine!). What is the criterion for inclusion among "pages needing images"? Thanks— GRM ( talk) 15:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I noted this already on the talk page, but as it seems to be unnoticed to date, I hope I'm writing here in the right place to get some attention. I've noticed that there is an overlapping and contradicting taxonomy used on the pages Morelia and Simalia with the Amethistine and the Oenpelli Python being placed in both genera, which can't be correct. As I'm lacking knowledge about their taxonomy and I'm awful at working with tables on Wikipedia, I'm staying away from these articles. I hope that someone can fix the issues. In addition I know there were relatively recent revisions on the Amethistine Python (a few years ago). I also have no idea what is now a locality and what got its own species rank since. If someone has the knowledge and reliable sources it would be a good idea to double check that and update the taxonomy there as well. Thanks in advance to whoever looks into it! -- Pawel W. ( talk) 17:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Gila monster#New version with current data and references, which is about an article that is within the scope of this WikiProject. Seagull123 Φ 17:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
I discovered a Commons photo of an unidentified snake that bears some resemblance with Bothriechis nubestris (imho). I hope someone could take a look and check this. See the B. nubestris talk page for details. Thanks. Arjuno ( talk 00:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
This is a small question, but where would I talk about parasites? I'm working on Laudakia nupta and it doesn't really fit into any of the existing headers. Description maybe? starsandwhales ( talk) 19:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC) Oh, and another question, how do I write about the synonyms for subspecies in the speciesbox? starsandwhales ( talk) 19:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello All,
I have noticed that if you search "leopard gecko" on Wikipedia you are taken to the genus page for Eublepharis, even though not all members of the genus are called leopard geckos, and "leopard gecko" as a common name generally refers to E. macularius. Users searching "leopard gecko" are almost certainly searching for information on E. macularius (currently located under "common leopard gecko" a name I have not seen used anywhere but Wikipedia) as this is the species popular as an exotic pet. The page for E. macularius is also substantially more developed than the genus page, presumably because there is more interest and more primary literature available (E. macularius is a commonly used lab species in addition to being a pet).
I propose we rename "leopard gecko" to refer to the common leopard gecko E. macularius, and have the genus page just named Eublepharis. This would direct traffic where it is intended to go, and also is in keeping with the stated wikipedia policy of renaming pages if a new name is in majority use (ie, leopard gecko referring to E. macularius specifically) /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Moving_a_page#Reasons_for_moving_a_page . I suspect users looking for information on the genus are probably higher knowledge users who will not be searching using a common name anyway.
Is this reasonable to my fellow editors? I'm not 100% sure how to do that or if we need to go to a different more technical less content driven group to request moves. Any thoughts?
Best,
Connorlong90 ( talk) 06:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Sandbox Organiser A place to help you organise your work |
Hi all
I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful, especially if you create new articles. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.
Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.
Hope its helpful
John Cummings ( talk) 11:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
See Talk:Bungarus_niger and Talk:Bungarus lividus Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 09:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
I just wanted to bring the attention of the group to an odd phenomenon I have witnessed on a few of the pages for eyelid gecko species (particularly those kept as pets including the leopard gecko and the African fat tailed gecko).
TLDR - editors (mostly IP editors) have been repeatedly changing the pages of certain nocturnal gecko species (I have noted it on the E. macularius page and the H. caudicinctus page, as well as the Eublepharis genus page) to say these species are not nocturnal, without providing references to support that assertion, when the references listed on the pages clearly state the species is nocturnal. This is a problem because it has been spawning third party articles stating these species are not nocturnal, as low quality third party sites will often plagiarize the Wikipedia article on a given topic. This problem is discussed on the E. macularius talk page, with a summary of the literature and examples of third party sites pulling from Wikipedia.
More detail: These are species that have been documented as nocturnal in the literature (I have done an extensive literature review for Eublepharis macularius, and cursory for the other species). Recently, editors (mostly IP editors without a Wikipedia account) have been changing the behavior sections to assert these species are cathemeral or crepuscular and not nocturnal, without providing citations to support these assertions. In the case of Eublepharis macularius and Hemitheconyx caudicinctus, the original citations supporting the assertion that the species is nocturnal have been left in place, but the wording has been changed to say these species are not nocturnal without adding any citations. On the Eublepharis macularius page specifically, this has turned into an edit war where IP editors repeatedly change the assertion the species is nocturnal to state it is cathemeral or crepuscular, while refusing to provide any sources to support that assertion, leaving the sources that seem to contradict that assertion in place so it appears their edits are cited when they are not, and refusing to discuss on the talk page. It has become so bad that I looped in an administrator ( /info/en/?search=User:Johnuniq) who has been managing the disruptive edits.
The whole ordeal is discussed in some detail on the E. macularius talk page. I provide details and a summary of citations I have reviewed here: /info/en/?search=Talk:Common_leopard_gecko#Discussion:_Nocturnal_vs._Crepuscular_vs._Cathemeral
My impression is that these edits are made by individuals getting their information from social media (Facebook groups and/or pet keeping forums) where uncited myths have - in my experience - come into being and taken root in the collective consciousness. I discuss this in some detail on the Eublepharis macularius page as well - that article has over the years been edited repeatedly to be a how-to husbandry guide (with often fairly low quality references), which I believe supports my belief that these edits are coming from low information pet keepers who do not actually have primary sources to support their beliefs. As I discussed on the E. macularius page, this might seem trivial, but the big concern is that third party websites are actively plagiarizing these species level articles, so then incorrect information has the potential to linger online long after the wiki article has been corrected. Additionally, the few third party websites I have seen suggesting these species are cathemeral or crepuscular tend to be hobbyist websites trying to sell UVB lights, so it is possible that there is a financial incentive to convince hobbyists these animals are active when the sun is up (as E. macularius in particular is one of the most commonly kept pet lizards, and has been traditionally housed without UVB). That last point is speculation for sure, I'm just racking my brain trying to think of why individuals are so insistent on changing this wording while also refusing to provide citations.
I am not sure of the best action to take in this situation, but I wanted to bring it to the attention of the group so that consensus could be reached about what action to take (if any), and to let herpetologically inclined editors know to be on the lookout for uncited information on Eublepharid gecko pages.
Thank you,
Connorlong90 ( talk) 05:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
As you may have noticed, this article is about a Chicago blues pianist with an odd stage name (birth name Brian Berkowitz), rather than any real amphibian or reptile ! - Derek R Bullamore ( talk) 12:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
I've recently started a casque (anatomy) article. While my reason for doing so was related to birds, I'm finding a fair few reptile and amphibian references as I search for sources, so thought someone in this project might want to add information about reptile/amphibian casques. If so, I'd suggest we break out sections for each group of animals, i.e. birds, modern reptiles (basilisks, chameleons, etc.), non-avian dinosaurs, etc. MeegsC ( talk) 09:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Reptile Database citation templates ( NRDB species, genus, family) use conventions that are becoming less and less standard. At present, one would expect that parameter "access-date" works, but it is just silently ignored. Instead, "accessdate" or "date"&"year" is expected. Could somebody update the script to accept "access-date"? Cheers, Micromesistius ( talk) 09:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
|access-date=
.{{
BioRef|reptileDB}}
. It takes parameters |taxon=
, |family=
, |genus=
and/or |species=
. With appropriate parameters it replicates the functions of {{
NRDB family}}, {{
NRDB genus}} and {{
NRDB species}}, as well as adding the option for other taxa. A custom title can be specified with |title=
. The template wraps {{
cite web}} and can take any additional parameters used by that template (e.g. |mode=cs1/cs2
). It also handles a variety of other taxonomy databases (e.g. ASW6, Amphibiaweb) in a standard format so you don't have to remember the peculiarities of each citation template. —
Jts1882 |
talk 06:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)I've just seen this new paper by Dubois, Ohler and Pyron (2021). [1].
At 738 pages its not for the faint hearted. It's an attempt to produce a suprageneric taxonomy based on phylogenetic results following objective criteria and rules of nomenclature (a "cladonomy"). It could be considered a Linnean riposte to the Phylocode as it applies names and ranks to any division supported by the data (following certain criteria). To do so it includes 23 ranks between genus and class, including hypoorders, epifamilies and apofamilies, six phalanx levels (between order and family) and five clanus ranks (betwen genus and tribe). Unfortunately the way the rules are set up it means they replace most of the familiar suprafamiliar taxon names and most of the surviving superfamilies get redefined. Furthermore, because the taxonomy follows the phylogenetic results, it is not stable (although they have choice words for people who think this a problem). While I doubt it will catch on, the paper includes a wealth of information on nomenclature and taxonomy. A valuable reference, if not the taxonomy of tomorrow. — Jts1882 | talk 15:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
References
Coral_snake#Antivenom_shortage could really use an update.
So, any new developments?
Please add any more-recent info to Coral_snake.
Thanks - 2804:14D:5C59:8833:2191:4BF2:B573:4F95 ( talk) 01:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I've started a discussion named "Is this article about the clade Reptilia, or about the paraphyletic group "Reptiles"?". Project members and other editors are invited to participate. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 09:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Just an FYI, the new Reptile Database update is out with plenty of changes. I'll be updating as time allows, but feel free to join in the fun! Pvmoutside ( talk) 20:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I have been editing the Wikipage Saltuarius salebrosus could some experienced Wikiusers please have a look at my progress, and if possible grade the stub. Playground123 ( talk) 04:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I was looking ahead a bit to the anoles, and noticed someone created red-links to some genera that have not been adopted by the reptile database or IUCN. One has been created - Norops, but the references are old or outdated. Any preference on keeping the article or making it a redirect to Anolis?.... Pvmoutside ( talk) 15:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Asp (reptile)#Requested move 30 July 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 18:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Dear colleagues, look, please, at c:File:Natrix_megalocephala_01.JPG and its talk page. Sneeuwschaap ( talk) 01:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Cyclura nubila 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 "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 ( talk) 15:44, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Agkistrodon piscivorus leucostoma#Requested move 17 July 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 04:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
According to the current Varanoidea page, this superfamily only includes the Varanidae, the Lanthanotidae and a handful of extinct genera. Apparently, however, Wikipedia used to include the Mosasaurs and a number of extinct families. Unfortunately, there are a good number of taxon pages that still say in the first sentence or two that the taxa in question are "Varanoid lizards". For instance, Judeasaurus says "Judeasaurus is an extinct genus of small, aquatic varanoid lizard related to the mosasauroids, " and gives Varanoidea as the parent in the taxobox. Even in pages where the taxobox has been changed, such sentences are fairly common. I gather it was some kind of default sentence used in article-creation boilerplate.
This leads to strangeness like at Aigialosauridae, which opens with "Aigialosauridae (from Greek, aigialos = "seashore" and sauros= lizard) is a family of Late Cretaceous semiaquatic varanoid lizards closely related to the mosasaurs", but is shown as a member of the Mosasauroidea in the taxobox, with no reference to the Varanoidea anywhere else in the text. That article also has the "Varanoidea" template in the footer, even though that template doesn't include the Aigalosauridae or the Mosasaurs. If they click on the link to Varanoidea in the opening sentence, they will find no mention of the Aigialosauridae anywhere.
I would suggest that someone who knows what they're doing should go through Special:Whatlinkshere/Varanoidea and fix all of the contradictory and confusing bad references to the Varanoidea. Thanks! Chuck Entz ( talk) 21:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
An editor has requested for Trimeresurus albolabris to be moved to White-lipped pit viper. Since you had some involvement with Trimeresurus albolabris, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). Havelock Jones ( talk) 17:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi I have been given permission to share this with you all. In the upcoming (in press) 2021 Checklist of the turtles of the world the following statement will be published regarding the nomenclature of Raymond Hoser.
I am supplying this for information for those determining correct nomenclature in reptiles. This position is supported by over 450 professional herpetologists as outlined in Wuster et al, 2021, and follows the principals of community suppression of Taxonomic Vandalism as outlined by Krell, 2021. Similar positions are under discussion for Reptile Database and other major international checklists many of which we use here as primary references. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 06:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Dear members in Project Amphibians and Reptiles, I would like to hear your opinion regarding the status of Eleutherodactylus diplasius. An article was created under Patternless whistling frog (Eleutherodactylus diplasius), and apart from not follwing standards for an article, I think, based on Wikispecies article, that this is not a valid species? Please also see my comments at creators talk page: which may later have an answer from the user:
Dan Koehl ( talk) 15:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: The species has an item at Wikidata at wikidata:Q4668453. Dan Koehl ( talk) 15:59, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Could someone please categorize Typhlops dominicanus, Thamnophis bogerti, & Thamnophis conanti into the correct 'Reptiles described in YEAR' categories? These are the only pages remaining in Category:Snakes described in the 20th century & Category:Snakes described in the 21st century, created & poorly populated by Caftaric. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 16:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Uropeltidae links to the DAB page worm snake. Can any expert here help solve the puzzle? Narky Blert ( talk) 15:11, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
The sentence in Elaphe about fox snakes may need editing or deletion. E. vulpina is a synonym of Pantherophis vulpinus and E. gloydi of Pantherophis gloydi. Narky Blert ( talk) 09:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Thayeri kingsnake should be changed to Thayer's kingsnake, as this is the grammatically correct name (it's even mentioned as such in the references). Malcolmlucascollins ( talk) 00:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi I recently requested at WP:TEAHOUSE to find me some scholarly sources for this genus which is a Microgecko under species of persicus.. Any PDFs would be appreciated to improve that draft to a start or B class article, thanks.. ( Draft:Persian Sand Gecko) 182.58.231.146 ( talk) 09:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Request for comment: new classification scheme for eukaryotes, which asks for comments on how we should deal with a proposed new classification system that has widespread ramifications across the tree of life. Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Input sought At Wikipedia talk:Automated taxobox system/Archive 1#Fixing inconsistent ranks in taxonomy templates I've suggested some alternative ways of fixing inconsistent ranks in taxonomy templates. They could make it easier to deal with the problem of inconsistent classification systems, e.g. the ones used for birds and dinosaurs, or the ones used for mammals and dinosaurs. Be warned that it's a long post, but it very much needs input, particularly from "old hands" at using the automated taxobox system. Peter coxhead ( talk) 15:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Hey, there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 9#Deprecated Taxonomy subtemplates, which needs input from actual editors with experience in this field. Also worth mentioning that both Template:Taxonomy/Lonchognatha and Lonchognatha have been changed recently. -- Gonnym ( talk) 12:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
The article Megophrys explains that these two genera of frogs have a confused taxonomy. However, the way the taxonomy template at Template:Taxonomy/Xenophrys is set up is simply wrong: the link text that will be shown in a taxobox is set to "Megophrys" but the taxon as shown in the name of the template is "Xenophrys". The result is that taxoboxes like the one at Megophrys aceras show the species as "Xenophrys aceras" but the genus as "Megophrys". This needs to be fixed, one way or the other. Peter coxhead ( talk) 17:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Apparently Hylarana are now Chalcorana and there is an interwiki confusion to which I added trying to cleanup some Flickr commons uploads yesterday. A sample would be File:Chalcorana eschatia - Khao Phra - Bang Khram Wildlife Sanctuary (46060407114) by Rushen.jpg (see history there and discrepancy between species and commons category @ Wikidata:Q1998042) and related comment by the photographer @ https://commons.wikimedia.org/?title=User_talk%3ARushenb&type=revision&diff=340641666&oldid=340624956 Can somebody help me make some sense. Agathoclea ( talk) 14:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Frogs and toads is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Frogs and toads until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 03:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Salamanders is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Frogs and toads (it's part of a bundled nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 03:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: I disclose in advance that I have a conflict of interest in this discussion because I personally work on microhylid taxonomy.
Currently, ASW follows a peculiar and non-mainstream taxonomy for the frog family Microhylidae, including lumping several genera that most microhylid researchers do not agree should be lumped (best example is Rhombophryne and Stumpffia, see the relevant piece here). This is because the authors of ASW published a paper on microhylid systematics which proposed numerous taxonomic changes; the authors of the ASW database have a conflict of interest related to this family. AmphibiaWeb does not follow the ASW taxonomy for the family, but instead the more commonly accepted taxonomy, and the one used by researchers working on microhylid frogs in general. The question arises: how do we reconcile this issue? Should we use a single database uncritically, or should be yield to the sway of the literature? I recognise that due to my COI I personally should not have a say in this one way or another. But for a normal wikipedia editor to get to grips with this problem is also probably too much to ask; it requires consultation of a huge amount of primary literature, and formation of an overall conclusion based on that data. Anyone who spends so much time reading the relevant literature winds up working on the frogs themselves, generating a new COI, and thus the cycle continues.
I would be happy to have some suggestions on best practice here. Should we allow deviation from ASW in certain cases? Where should those cases be discussed? How serious do we need to take COIs, if they potentially discourage the most knowledgeable people on a given taxon from democratising their knowledge in the form of wikipedia editing? Food for thought ~-- Mark.scherz 11:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Despite the many Wikipedians who edit content related to organisms/species, there hasn't been a Tree of Life Newsletter...until now! If you would like regular deliveries of said newsletter, please add your name to the subscribers list. Thanks, Enwebb ( talk) 00:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I think this article needs some love from experienced & knowledgeable editors. There are two topics in Talk:Garter snake which need replies. Thank you! Lexein ( talk) 06:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello. The Sourcewatch project has identified the journal Amphibian & Reptile Conservation as one to be concerned about, potentially predatory. As of 24 May, there were at least 13 article using this journal as a source. Do you consider this journal to be reliable and suitable for use in Wikipedia? Thanks for your input. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 02:16, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Turtles deleted see /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Portal:Turtles. Note that Portal:Turtles had 13 page views a day and Portal:Reptiles has a average of 14 per day. Regards, Sun Creator( talk) 10:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
A discussion has been started at WP:Tree of Life regarding recent edit warring behavior of taxonomic etymologies. Comments are requested.-- Kev min § 03:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Are there any editors from this WikiProject willing to maintain Portal:Amphibians and Portal:Reptiles ? The Portals guideline requires that portals be maintained, and as a result numerous portals have been recently been deleted via MfD largely becasue of lack of maintenance. Let me know either way, and thanks, UnitedStatesian ( talk) 05:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
This page has many great links to specific species. I am sure many know Dick Bartlett but has he been reached out to or has anyone looked to see if he has photos of some of these animals that are still photoless? Barclaybp ( talk) 20:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Please join the discussion on the proposed merge from Template:WikiProject Pterosaurs to Template:WikiProject Palaeontology. -- Nessie ( talk) 16:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Chinese giant salamanders ( Andrias davidianus) are now proven to be three separate species: Andrias davidianus, Andrias sligoi, and another undescribed species. [1] We need to edit the current Chinese giant salamander article to reflect these updates. We either need to make the current article an article about the three species of Chinese giant salamanders, or we need to create a separate article for Andrias sligoi (South China giant salamander), considering that its the largest living amphibian now. Rainaroo ( talk) 04:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
References
I have initiated a merge discussion on Talk:Green_sea_turtle#Merge_Discussion to merge the Galápagos green turtle into the Green sea turtle and ask people to please comment on this. Thank you. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 20:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
The redirect snout-vent length is being discussed. It currently targets Anolis cuvieri. There aren't any existing articles that would be a good target for the redirect. It would be good to have a glossary of herpetology where herpetological jargon could be explained. I'm not up for writing it myself, but there are articles in Category:Glossaries of biology that could serve as models. Plantdrew ( talk) 15:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I created a draft for the glossary. Right now it has a few definitions and many undefined terms because they may be covered in other articles or may not be in the scope of what this article is trying to achieve. Once there's a good number of definitions that multiple people have looked over we can move it into the mainspace. starsandwhales ( talk) 21:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma ( talk) 04:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
After all the fun with the Spooky Species Contest last month, there's a new contest for the (Northern hemisphere's) Winter holidays at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Contest. It's not just Christmas, but anything festive from December-ish. Feel free to add some ideas to the Festive taxa list and enter early and often. -- Nessie ( talk) 18:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Template:NRDB species exists for http://reptile-database.reptarium.cz/, but there is no equivalent template for the AmphibiaWeb and the AMNH databases to make amphibian stub creation easier. Would somebody be interested in making one? Herpetogenesis ( talk) 19:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Examples | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Amphibian Species of the World (ASW6)
AmphibiaWeb
|
I'm planning on adding the {{
WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles}}
template to all the {{
WikiProject Turtles}}
talk pages. In most cases making the importance and quality the same. Does anyone have any comments or things to consider. Thanks,
Sun Creator(
talk) 17:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
{{
WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles}}
to turtle articles. So I felt it best to be consistent across them all. Regarding {{
WikiProject Animals}}, yes, that does
get added occasionally also.
Sun Creator(
talk) 16:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
French and Swedish WPs have fairly complete coverage of herp species. Swedish WP used bots, and I think French WP made more use of manual curating. Both lack newly described species and genera because the bots were using older versions of ASW, AmphibiaWeb, and ReptileDB.
Does anyone think that it might be a good idea to take a stab at using bots to complete the rest of the herp stubs, or is manual curation still the way to go? I've noticed that English WP is more hesitant at adopting bots to create stubs for animal species, while some of the other WPs use bots all the time. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ ( talk) 15:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi all, the species Peltophryne fracta, which redirects to
Eastern crested toad is no longer recognised as a valid species on ASW 6.0. Usually, I would just either move the page name, redirect the page, or merge to, the successor species name for the taxon in question - in this case Peltophryne guentheri, which in turn redirects to
Southern crested toad. However, in this case I am not sure of the best name for the combined article page. If they were both at their scientific binomial, it would be relatively straight forward. But with the common names available, we have choices that may end up to be misleading or inaccurate. Common names listed on ASW with Google hits in parentheses are: Gunther's Caribbean Toad (171 k), Eastern Crested Toad (2.54 M), and Southern Hispaniola Crestless Toad (178 k). AmphibiaWeb directs searches for both taxa to Peltophryne guentheri with the common name Southern Hispaniola Crestless Toad. Southern crested toad (584 k), a name used on the IUCN Red List, is not listed as a species name on either ASW or AmphibiaWeb. Possible solutions include using any of these vernacular names or reverting back to the scientific binomial. What is the most accurate page name to use as the target for this merge?
Loopy30 (
talk) 01:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I want to get rid change a number of Anolis articles to the scientific names. Most of these common names for Caribbean lizards were invented by Father Sánchez from Puerto Rico, who states himself that he prefers they not be used in lieu of the scientific name (see his homepage). His pictures are also the source for all the uncited text in these anole articles, with a hefty dose of OR. All respect for Father Sánchez, he made a really nice website with great pictures, but one would think that a native Spanish speaker from Puerto Rico should not get to invent names for territories like Anguilla or Trinidad or where-ever, where English is spoken and there are likely pre-existing vernacular terms for their own lizards (which would likely be something prosaic such as "green lizard", but still). I just moved Anguilla Bank anole. Did I do that correctly? I see other names which appear totally unattested in the references given and appear to be invented by Wikipedia editors, un-cited pet stores or the like. Similarly, say a species once escaped captivity in Florida and therefore some guy invented a name for it to in order to get some panic on, why should such a name have precedence of the English name as used in Belize, Guyana, Jamaica, etc...? I'm assuming not many people would object to this, but here's a head's up in case I screw up or piss someone off. Leo Breman ( talk) 18:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
The subpages of Portal:Frogs/Frog and toad articles for Portal:Frogs would benefit from the addition of more articles. I added five FA/GA class articles today, but only six articles are presently existent for the portal. Article additions would greatly improve the portal. North America 1000 12:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Rattlesnake#Avoiding_bites says " rattlesnake heads can see ... after being severed from the body." This seems wrong.-- Taranet ( talk) 09:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Recent changes have been made to the articles Ranoidea australis, Striped burrowing frog, and Ranoidea (genus), replacing the genus name Ranoidea name with the older Cyclorana and referencing the Australian Faunal Directory to supersede that of ASW 6.0. Edit summaries claim that "The taxonomic changes based on the phylogenetic analyses in Duellman et al. 2016 should be treated with caution and are not widely accepted". While exceptions to the current standard taxonomy in use may turn out to be justified, they should at least achieve consensus here first. Loopy30 ( talk) 12:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello herpetologists of Wikipedia!
Taking after our parent project
WP:BIOL, I'm interested in finding out about who's still active in this project, what we should do to clean this project up, how we can promote ourselves to new editors, and what the future of our project is. With ω = 93,820 and Ω = 5.64, we're not exactly the most productive wikiproject out there. However, the work we do, however minute, is still important.
So, who's in?
Our
existing list of goals has been relatively unchanged since 2007, but I don't think they've really been accomplished. If we have a clear and attainable list of goals, we can really galvanize this project and cross of quite a bit from the existing task list. Here's some of my ideas, and I'd love to hear other thoughts and feedback.
I'm pinging people who are active and have shown some interest in the project and articles that are higher taxonomically speaking. It would be really great if we could get more communication between the many people in this wikiproject. @
Connorlong90,
Caissaca,
SkyGazer 512,
Ranapipiens,
Tylotriton, and
ZooPro
Starsandwhales (
talk) 03:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm glad that the header seems to work! It really makes the page more readable. I'd like to suggest a further improvement in that area--setting up heading 2, 3, and 4 as subheadings under a heading called Writing Articles or something like that. Grouping similar content on the page would ease readability. I'd also suggest replacing the sample articles section with the statistics table. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biology#Statistics for an example, and open the collapsible section for some buttons that could be modified to do basically the same thing that the sample section already does, if the table isn't pretty enough. Prometheus720 ( talk) 06:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Moved the discussion to a new section of the talk page to make it easier to find. I think we should start with replacing manual taxoboxes with automatic ones, since that requires the least consensus and discussion. starsandwhales ( talk) 22:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
There are several distinct tasks involved, which can be addressed in parallel.
|display_parents=
(see
Western diamondback rattlesnake for an example). We could also decide that certain higher taxa are important enough to always be displayed (e.g.
Caenophidia) and make it show in all taxoboxes without having edit all the articles. I've updated the taxobox for rattlesnakes using {{
paraphyletic group}} as suggested.
Jts1882 |
talk 06:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)|taxon_formatted=
to automatic taxobox code, where the custom formatting could be displayed (this would be a better approach than coding to support a variety of individually rare use cases).
How has the progress on this been going? Have we updated most of those articles to automated speciesboxes? The link doesn't work anymore so I can't check.
starsandwhales (
talk) 01:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I am new to Wikipedia, and while not quite sure if I am doing this right, I shall do my best to explain myself. Ever since I did a presentation on the Gruñidor del Volcán (not quite sure about the name in English, since Spanish is my first language) I gained quite a bit of interest on the species (even adding a fakémon based on it in my Chile-esque region, but that's not the point), but since the Spanish article was quite barren if I say so myself, I decided to look it up in the English wiki, and was quite disappointed when I found nothing. Of course, there are other sources that I used, most of them in Spanish, but even about a year after my little investigation, I'm still determined to write (or at least help by finding sources) an article on the Pristidactylus Volcanensis. Is anyone up to help me out with this? And in that case, is there a Discord or anything like that so we can talk about this more in-depth? I am quite unfamiliar with the structure of these talk pages, and I can't get the hang of what's going on easily. Thanks for your attention, I tried to keep this brief and I hope that my request was written right. -- XileoRegion ( talk) 16:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Greetings, For this WP, I added wikilinks "Quality operations" and "Popular pages". JoeNMLC ( talk) 20:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Can anyone help with a query at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Lizard species identification please? Alansplodge ( talk) 13:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
This article, Hyloxalus pulcherrimus, was recently created as a draft by me and has been accepted. I need some help expanding it. Can any of you help me? Regards, Vihaking277 ( talk) 07:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Indotyphlops braminus has very recently been moved to Virgotyphlops braminus, resulting in a broken taxobox. I could fix this by creating the taxonomy template, but looking at the source used (which is here), there's no evidence that Wallach's new genus name has any other support, so I'm doubtful that the move should have been made. So I'll leave it to others to sort this out. Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
So Pincotti4 ( talk · contribs) was a returned sock of banned user VeronicaPR. Below are snake articles to check for material against sources and copyvios. If no-one gets to it I will get to it over the next week or so. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 14:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
There's a move review going on regarding a recent move from Crotalus concolor to Yellow rattlesnake. Some input there would be greatly appreciated! bibliomaniac 1 5 02:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I undid some changes to Coelurosauravus jaekeli because they broke the taxobox. An editor has now just changed the text of the article to change the binomial, but not moved it nor changed the taxobox. Could someone look at it please? Peter coxhead ( talk) 10:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I was scanning the list of pages requiring images on the main project topic page and found one I could potentially help with, only to discover it's already got an image (and one that's rather better than mine!). What is the criterion for inclusion among "pages needing images"? Thanks— GRM ( talk) 15:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I noted this already on the talk page, but as it seems to be unnoticed to date, I hope I'm writing here in the right place to get some attention. I've noticed that there is an overlapping and contradicting taxonomy used on the pages Morelia and Simalia with the Amethistine and the Oenpelli Python being placed in both genera, which can't be correct. As I'm lacking knowledge about their taxonomy and I'm awful at working with tables on Wikipedia, I'm staying away from these articles. I hope that someone can fix the issues. In addition I know there were relatively recent revisions on the Amethistine Python (a few years ago). I also have no idea what is now a locality and what got its own species rank since. If someone has the knowledge and reliable sources it would be a good idea to double check that and update the taxonomy there as well. Thanks in advance to whoever looks into it! -- Pawel W. ( talk) 17:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Gila monster#New version with current data and references, which is about an article that is within the scope of this WikiProject. Seagull123 Φ 17:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
I discovered a Commons photo of an unidentified snake that bears some resemblance with Bothriechis nubestris (imho). I hope someone could take a look and check this. See the B. nubestris talk page for details. Thanks. Arjuno ( talk 00:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
This is a small question, but where would I talk about parasites? I'm working on Laudakia nupta and it doesn't really fit into any of the existing headers. Description maybe? starsandwhales ( talk) 19:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC) Oh, and another question, how do I write about the synonyms for subspecies in the speciesbox? starsandwhales ( talk) 19:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello All,
I have noticed that if you search "leopard gecko" on Wikipedia you are taken to the genus page for Eublepharis, even though not all members of the genus are called leopard geckos, and "leopard gecko" as a common name generally refers to E. macularius. Users searching "leopard gecko" are almost certainly searching for information on E. macularius (currently located under "common leopard gecko" a name I have not seen used anywhere but Wikipedia) as this is the species popular as an exotic pet. The page for E. macularius is also substantially more developed than the genus page, presumably because there is more interest and more primary literature available (E. macularius is a commonly used lab species in addition to being a pet).
I propose we rename "leopard gecko" to refer to the common leopard gecko E. macularius, and have the genus page just named Eublepharis. This would direct traffic where it is intended to go, and also is in keeping with the stated wikipedia policy of renaming pages if a new name is in majority use (ie, leopard gecko referring to E. macularius specifically) /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Moving_a_page#Reasons_for_moving_a_page . I suspect users looking for information on the genus are probably higher knowledge users who will not be searching using a common name anyway.
Is this reasonable to my fellow editors? I'm not 100% sure how to do that or if we need to go to a different more technical less content driven group to request moves. Any thoughts?
Best,
Connorlong90 ( talk) 06:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Sandbox Organiser A place to help you organise your work |
Hi all
I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful, especially if you create new articles. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.
Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.
Hope its helpful
John Cummings ( talk) 11:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
See Talk:Bungarus_niger and Talk:Bungarus lividus Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 09:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
I just wanted to bring the attention of the group to an odd phenomenon I have witnessed on a few of the pages for eyelid gecko species (particularly those kept as pets including the leopard gecko and the African fat tailed gecko).
TLDR - editors (mostly IP editors) have been repeatedly changing the pages of certain nocturnal gecko species (I have noted it on the E. macularius page and the H. caudicinctus page, as well as the Eublepharis genus page) to say these species are not nocturnal, without providing references to support that assertion, when the references listed on the pages clearly state the species is nocturnal. This is a problem because it has been spawning third party articles stating these species are not nocturnal, as low quality third party sites will often plagiarize the Wikipedia article on a given topic. This problem is discussed on the E. macularius talk page, with a summary of the literature and examples of third party sites pulling from Wikipedia.
More detail: These are species that have been documented as nocturnal in the literature (I have done an extensive literature review for Eublepharis macularius, and cursory for the other species). Recently, editors (mostly IP editors without a Wikipedia account) have been changing the behavior sections to assert these species are cathemeral or crepuscular and not nocturnal, without providing citations to support these assertions. In the case of Eublepharis macularius and Hemitheconyx caudicinctus, the original citations supporting the assertion that the species is nocturnal have been left in place, but the wording has been changed to say these species are not nocturnal without adding any citations. On the Eublepharis macularius page specifically, this has turned into an edit war where IP editors repeatedly change the assertion the species is nocturnal to state it is cathemeral or crepuscular, while refusing to provide any sources to support that assertion, leaving the sources that seem to contradict that assertion in place so it appears their edits are cited when they are not, and refusing to discuss on the talk page. It has become so bad that I looped in an administrator ( /info/en/?search=User:Johnuniq) who has been managing the disruptive edits.
The whole ordeal is discussed in some detail on the E. macularius talk page. I provide details and a summary of citations I have reviewed here: /info/en/?search=Talk:Common_leopard_gecko#Discussion:_Nocturnal_vs._Crepuscular_vs._Cathemeral
My impression is that these edits are made by individuals getting their information from social media (Facebook groups and/or pet keeping forums) where uncited myths have - in my experience - come into being and taken root in the collective consciousness. I discuss this in some detail on the Eublepharis macularius page as well - that article has over the years been edited repeatedly to be a how-to husbandry guide (with often fairly low quality references), which I believe supports my belief that these edits are coming from low information pet keepers who do not actually have primary sources to support their beliefs. As I discussed on the E. macularius page, this might seem trivial, but the big concern is that third party websites are actively plagiarizing these species level articles, so then incorrect information has the potential to linger online long after the wiki article has been corrected. Additionally, the few third party websites I have seen suggesting these species are cathemeral or crepuscular tend to be hobbyist websites trying to sell UVB lights, so it is possible that there is a financial incentive to convince hobbyists these animals are active when the sun is up (as E. macularius in particular is one of the most commonly kept pet lizards, and has been traditionally housed without UVB). That last point is speculation for sure, I'm just racking my brain trying to think of why individuals are so insistent on changing this wording while also refusing to provide citations.
I am not sure of the best action to take in this situation, but I wanted to bring it to the attention of the group so that consensus could be reached about what action to take (if any), and to let herpetologically inclined editors know to be on the lookout for uncited information on Eublepharid gecko pages.
Thank you,
Connorlong90 ( talk) 05:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
As you may have noticed, this article is about a Chicago blues pianist with an odd stage name (birth name Brian Berkowitz), rather than any real amphibian or reptile ! - Derek R Bullamore ( talk) 12:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
I've recently started a casque (anatomy) article. While my reason for doing so was related to birds, I'm finding a fair few reptile and amphibian references as I search for sources, so thought someone in this project might want to add information about reptile/amphibian casques. If so, I'd suggest we break out sections for each group of animals, i.e. birds, modern reptiles (basilisks, chameleons, etc.), non-avian dinosaurs, etc. MeegsC ( talk) 09:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Reptile Database citation templates ( NRDB species, genus, family) use conventions that are becoming less and less standard. At present, one would expect that parameter "access-date" works, but it is just silently ignored. Instead, "accessdate" or "date"&"year" is expected. Could somebody update the script to accept "access-date"? Cheers, Micromesistius ( talk) 09:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
|access-date=
.{{
BioRef|reptileDB}}
. It takes parameters |taxon=
, |family=
, |genus=
and/or |species=
. With appropriate parameters it replicates the functions of {{
NRDB family}}, {{
NRDB genus}} and {{
NRDB species}}, as well as adding the option for other taxa. A custom title can be specified with |title=
. The template wraps {{
cite web}} and can take any additional parameters used by that template (e.g. |mode=cs1/cs2
). It also handles a variety of other taxonomy databases (e.g. ASW6, Amphibiaweb) in a standard format so you don't have to remember the peculiarities of each citation template. —
Jts1882 |
talk 06:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)I've just seen this new paper by Dubois, Ohler and Pyron (2021). [1].
At 738 pages its not for the faint hearted. It's an attempt to produce a suprageneric taxonomy based on phylogenetic results following objective criteria and rules of nomenclature (a "cladonomy"). It could be considered a Linnean riposte to the Phylocode as it applies names and ranks to any division supported by the data (following certain criteria). To do so it includes 23 ranks between genus and class, including hypoorders, epifamilies and apofamilies, six phalanx levels (between order and family) and five clanus ranks (betwen genus and tribe). Unfortunately the way the rules are set up it means they replace most of the familiar suprafamiliar taxon names and most of the surviving superfamilies get redefined. Furthermore, because the taxonomy follows the phylogenetic results, it is not stable (although they have choice words for people who think this a problem). While I doubt it will catch on, the paper includes a wealth of information on nomenclature and taxonomy. A valuable reference, if not the taxonomy of tomorrow. — Jts1882 | talk 15:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
References
Coral_snake#Antivenom_shortage could really use an update.
So, any new developments?
Please add any more-recent info to Coral_snake.
Thanks - 2804:14D:5C59:8833:2191:4BF2:B573:4F95 ( talk) 01:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I've started a discussion named "Is this article about the clade Reptilia, or about the paraphyletic group "Reptiles"?". Project members and other editors are invited to participate. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 09:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Just an FYI, the new Reptile Database update is out with plenty of changes. I'll be updating as time allows, but feel free to join in the fun! Pvmoutside ( talk) 20:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I have been editing the Wikipage Saltuarius salebrosus could some experienced Wikiusers please have a look at my progress, and if possible grade the stub. Playground123 ( talk) 04:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I was looking ahead a bit to the anoles, and noticed someone created red-links to some genera that have not been adopted by the reptile database or IUCN. One has been created - Norops, but the references are old or outdated. Any preference on keeping the article or making it a redirect to Anolis?.... Pvmoutside ( talk) 15:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Asp (reptile)#Requested move 30 July 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 18:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Dear colleagues, look, please, at c:File:Natrix_megalocephala_01.JPG and its talk page. Sneeuwschaap ( talk) 01:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Cyclura nubila 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 "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 ( talk) 15:44, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Agkistrodon piscivorus leucostoma#Requested move 17 July 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 04:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
According to the current Varanoidea page, this superfamily only includes the Varanidae, the Lanthanotidae and a handful of extinct genera. Apparently, however, Wikipedia used to include the Mosasaurs and a number of extinct families. Unfortunately, there are a good number of taxon pages that still say in the first sentence or two that the taxa in question are "Varanoid lizards". For instance, Judeasaurus says "Judeasaurus is an extinct genus of small, aquatic varanoid lizard related to the mosasauroids, " and gives Varanoidea as the parent in the taxobox. Even in pages where the taxobox has been changed, such sentences are fairly common. I gather it was some kind of default sentence used in article-creation boilerplate.
This leads to strangeness like at Aigialosauridae, which opens with "Aigialosauridae (from Greek, aigialos = "seashore" and sauros= lizard) is a family of Late Cretaceous semiaquatic varanoid lizards closely related to the mosasaurs", but is shown as a member of the Mosasauroidea in the taxobox, with no reference to the Varanoidea anywhere else in the text. That article also has the "Varanoidea" template in the footer, even though that template doesn't include the Aigalosauridae or the Mosasaurs. If they click on the link to Varanoidea in the opening sentence, they will find no mention of the Aigialosauridae anywhere.
I would suggest that someone who knows what they're doing should go through Special:Whatlinkshere/Varanoidea and fix all of the contradictory and confusing bad references to the Varanoidea. Thanks! Chuck Entz ( talk) 21:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
An editor has requested for Trimeresurus albolabris to be moved to White-lipped pit viper. Since you had some involvement with Trimeresurus albolabris, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). Havelock Jones ( talk) 17:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi I have been given permission to share this with you all. In the upcoming (in press) 2021 Checklist of the turtles of the world the following statement will be published regarding the nomenclature of Raymond Hoser.
I am supplying this for information for those determining correct nomenclature in reptiles. This position is supported by over 450 professional herpetologists as outlined in Wuster et al, 2021, and follows the principals of community suppression of Taxonomic Vandalism as outlined by Krell, 2021. Similar positions are under discussion for Reptile Database and other major international checklists many of which we use here as primary references. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 06:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)