![]() | This page 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. |
After completing the Mitromorphidae article I noted that there was also a dead link for a Raphitomidae article (which was also elevated to family level by Bouchet, et al. 2011). The article is in a basic start format, but again the genus links and species links all still say Conidae. Would BOT assistance be appropriate here? Shellnut ( talk) 21:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I was Wiki-surfing today and noted that there was an old page for Pleuroploca gigantea which is now known as Triplofusus giganteus, as well as another page with the new name. WoRMS recognizes the species as Triplofusus giganteus which is the newer taxonomy. The original article was fairly well fleshed out so I corrected the taxonomy throughout, but it's name needs changed. The "new" article is merely a stub and therefore should be deleted and have the original article take its place. I do not know how to do this. Could either JoJan or Ganeshk teach me so I do not have to bother you with these kinds of things? After that is done I will go back to the genus article and clean up from there as needed. Thank you. Shellnut ( talk) 23:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you JoJan! I saw that you made the change already. Can you teach me? Shellnut ( talk) 23:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Please check the taxonomy of the genus Rissopsetia. WoRMS is classifying it under Cimidae. — Ganeshk ( talk) 10:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
(Note to JoJan from above) Have you had a chance to check out my draft articles in my sandboxes? The article in the second sandbox is a summary article on the Tucker & Tenorio cone snail taxonomy 2009. The article in the first sandbox could be a stand alone article which could be reached from the first one as a greater explanation of the proposed family Conilithidae; alternatively the information could be placed farther down on the other article as a detailed section. Your thoughts? Shellnut ( talk) 21:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Today while adding a genus article for Fulgiconus I ran across the species article Conus moluccensis Küster, 1838 which had an image added in the last year by another member. The image was taken from Rehber & Wilson, 1975's publication - a clear copyright violation. Also, the image was from item #12 on the page (an Ovulidae species) whereas the correct image would have been #11 (the cone species). I removed the image promptly. I think we need to check images on all article that we are editing for both copyright issues AND to ensure that the correct species is in fact reflected in the image. Any thoughts? Shellnut ( talk) 22:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
The Unaccepted page has been updated. There are 737 items on it. — Ganeshk ( talk) 10:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Can we just redirect the talk pages as well? Will that be acceptable? — Ganeshk ( talk) 15:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Shellnut ( talk) 16:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Merry Christmas. JoJan ( talk) 13:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Happy Holidays to all. — Ganeshk ( talk) 17:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
All the best to everyone from me too! Invertzoo ( talk) 22:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Best wishes from me too. May 2012 be a fruitful year in contributions to this project. JoJan ( talk) 14:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
And from me too! Am I too late? I guess it's still between xmas and new years. Happy Holidays! :) Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 05:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Happy New Year to everyone! Shellnut ( talk) 20:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Can someone explain this picture? It that a snail family? — Ganeshk ( talk) 12:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
To everyone working in the Project, and in the encyclopedia as a whole,
Our vision for Wikipedia is one of beauty, natural symmetry and light.
I wish you a Happy New Year, everything good for your family, your loved ones and yourself, peace and joy for all the people of the world. I also wish a joyful and peaceful expansion for Wikipedia, may it bring helpful, generous, and peaceful information to everyone.
All the very best from
Invertzoo (
talk)
16:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I was happy that I managed to get all the "needed genus articles" created as stubs by the end of 2011. That means that now, finally, all of our pre-existing species articles actually have a corresponding genus article, which means that one can navigate all the way up and down through the tree of life structure. Phew! This is another small but significant milestone in our project's development. Invertzoo ( talk) 21:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I took these at the market. Are they well-known? Pls give me the species name so that I can add it to the image description.
Many thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 02:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Number 4 may be Solecurtus consimilis Kuroda & Habe in Habe, 1961. Shellnut ( talk) 04:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Number 2 may be Periglypta clathrata (Deshayes, 1853) Shellnut ( talk) 04:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Number 5 may be Gafrarium divaricatum (Gmelin, 1791) Shellnut ( talk) 04:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Number 1 may be Lioconcha lorenziana (Dillwyn, 1817) Shellnut ( talk) 05:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Anna, Can I ask: do they sell any sea snails at that market, or only clams? Invertzoo ( talk) 21:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC) I ask because we might be able to do better with the sea snails than with the clams as several of us here are strongest on gastropods rather than bivalves, and plus, gastropods are often a bit easier to identify from these kind of general market photos. I certainly would not delete your images, they are good ones. I would leave them and ID them to family and put a suggested genus and species name on them. Someone will come along at some point who can confirm or correct the IDs. Invertzoo ( talk) 14:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! A stub template or category which you created has been nominated for renaming or deletion at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type most likely doesn't meet Wikipedia requirements for a stub type, through failure to meet standards relating to the name, scope, current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals! This message is a boilerplate, left here as a courtesy, and should not be considered personal in nature. Dawynn ( talk) 16:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Do we have a good reference for the unranked clades that we add to articles like Odostomia? We will need a reference other than WoRMS since we differ from the WoRMS classification. Thoughts? — Ganeshk ( talk) 12:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I just checked a few species on this list that I know and have in my collection, Mitra pele and Mitra vexillum. Both are valid species under WoRMS. They seem to have been flagged only because they have used a WORMS reference which is either an "alternate representation" or the wrong id number. Are they flagged off of a WoRMS search? If so, maybe the BOT that does this needs to NOT flag species that are valid but have other names that are accepted as "alternate representations". This would reduce the list considerably and make fixing it not look like a daunting task. Any ideas? Shellnut ( talk) 16:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Date | Action | By |
---|---|---|
2009-10-02 09:41:28Z | created | Robin, Alain |
2010-09-29 14:58:18Z | changed | Rosenberg, Gary |
2011-12-12 00:42:37Z | changed | Rosenberg, Gary |
Hi JoJan! Hello again Invertzoo! I made a new shell friend in Russia, a cone guy, who is an awesome photographer and has thousands of beautiful cone shells which he has photographed. His name is Alexander Medvedev. He has a website devoted to his cone shells and has uploaded images to Gastropods.com and Schooner Specimen Shells' cone pages. He has logged on as a new user onto Wikicommons with my urging, using the new User name Almed2. I saw that you promptly welcomed him. I have written to Invertzoo about using his images as Alexander gave me permission to do so over Facebook, yet I perceived future issues with copyright since I am not the author of the images (uploading could trigger a BOT deletion). Anyway, the long and short of all this is that Alexander has now uploaded images for six species of cones. He has over 2300 images!!! With some friendly welcoming and encouragement I see that Alexander would likely enjoy collaborating with us here at WikiProject Gastropods and working on improving the cone species articles by uploading and posting his excellent images. Shellnut ( talk) 05:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi JoJan, Invertzoo, Ganeshk! Please see the Conus leonardi talk page. Almed2 just added some very nice images here. The correct name is Conus lienardi, and I tried to move the page but there was already a name place with a redirect to the incorrectly named page so it would not let me do it. I have killed the redirect but can not delete that page to accomplish a move. Help please! Thank you. Shellnut ( talk) 06:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Done I have made stub articles for all red-lined species in the
List of Conus species article so that there are no empty species articles listed there. As the genus articles under T&T (2009) progresses I am finding many more new species identified under WoRMS which will need new species articles. Those "new" species show up as red-lined in the genus articles and still have to be added. An important side note, WoRMS recognizes as valid genus and species names (rather than as "alternate representations") newly described species where the authors have used the T&T (2009) genus names, therefore species will be added to the
List of Conus species article alphabetically by species (ignoring the genus for alphabetizing).
Shellnut (
talk)
01:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm pretty ignorant but we seem to have some very knowledgeable editors in this project so perhaps someone could explain why several clades are mentioned in the taxoboxes of lower taxonomic groups of gastropods. For example, Elysia is a sacoglossan but 4 other unranked clades are included in the taxobox besides Sacoglossa. Why is this? I have written several species accounts for members of this genus. I use the genus taxobox, extending it for the species, and normally include a reference to the appropriate page of WoRMS. However our taxobox is not completely supported by WoRMS taxonomy. Could someone please explain the thinking behind these decisions. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 10:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Almed2 has finished downloading the pictures to the section «A» of Cones
"I finished to download the pictures to the section «A» of Cones To my mind there is two species of Cones missed
These species I dont have in my collection:
For those I put the links to the Gastropods.com site
For these species I need to specify the taxons
Question: this file contains a mistake? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AConus_australis.shell001.jpg It is a Conus aureus Hwass in Bruguière, J.G., 1792 Who has a right to change the name of the file and move it to another category? The author or the editor? Good luck to everybody! Alex" Almed2 ( talk) 16:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I have created the following genera articles. I can have the bot do a Conidae species run if these articles look good. Shellnut, I hope these are helpful starter articles to build upon. Please review.
— Ganeshk ( talk) 17:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Copied here from the talk page of Eulimidae, by Invertzoo ( talk) 20:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
It seems Stiliferidae are considered part of Eulimidae by some sources. For example, WoRMS called Stiliferidae "not accepted", but concedes that some sources classify Stiliferidae as a family in their own right under Eulimoidea. Should Wikipedia follow WoRMS, or continue as it does currently, with a separate article for Stiliferidae? Inductiveload ( talk) 21:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Here's an update on the cone snail work. Almed2 has joined in and has uploaded images for all cone snail species which he has from species starting with the letter "A" through "P" (about 450 species); he has over 2300 images of cone snails which he has generously agreed to waive copyright to, upload to WikiCommons, and put on Wikipedia articles. Ganeshk has run the BOT and has identified another 39 species of cone snails listed on WoRMS but which did not have species articles; they are now stubs thanks to Ganeshk. I have written genus articles based on the Tucker & Tenorio work, completing around 50 genus articles so far, and am in the letter "P" as well. Ganeshk has run a BOT on the "red lined" genus articles and has placed a stub article in place of "red lined" genera; I am tackling these one at a time and fleshing them out.
On the List of Conus species article we have run into an issue which needs a consensus. It was originally written when the ONLY recognized genus for cone snail species was Conus. Now there are more genera which have achieved primary recognition on WoRMS, and I suspect that this will continue to grow by 14-18 per year as new species are named and their authors use other genera in naming them. First, should the List of Conus species article contain the names, WoRMS references, and links to all cone snail species? Second, if the answer is "NO" and the article only contains species currently (or ever) recognized as Conus then where do we place the other species? Third, if the List of Conus species article only contains those species which use the genus Conus, should we have another article listing cone snail species alphabetically by species, with a similar format including references to WoRMS and links to the species articles? Shellnut ( talk) 03:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
User:J.H.McDonnell has started to create article for Paleozoic gastropods Special:Contributions/J.H.McDonnell. While this is a good thing, the user is noted for purposely not following formatting guidelines with respect to headings, taxoboxes, and templates. Often times when this user updates a page he will remove templates from citations and for citation needed tags. New article created will have a forced color parameter and at least regnum if not regnum and phylum levels will be left out of the actual box. I try to keep up with the new pages and edits done by this user, but I am not familiar with how the Paleozoic gastopod taxonomy should be displayed in taxoboxes, eg at Sinutropis or Euomphalidae. -- Kev min § 06:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I was asked by Invertzoo to post clarifications on some of the WP:Paleontology guidelines.
Species articles
Paleontology generally prefers genus articles to species articles. If you have info on a species you may want to create it as a subsection of the relevant genus article. The thought process behind the consolidation of species descriptions into genus articles is that for fossil species generally not much information is known about them, and when looking at the literature the definitions tend to change or be rather fluid.
The general guidelines at WP:Paleontology when deciding whether to create a species level article is to look at how much of the article would be duplication of prose found in a sister species article/parent genus article. If the only major changes in prose are going to be minor points of identification (eg overall size, hinge tooth structure, type locality) then creating a single comprehensive genus article is recommended, with the species being covered as subsections in the genus article. See Lambeosaurus and Palaeovespa for examples. On the occasion where the species sections may be overwhelming the rest of a genus article then they may be split out into a "Species of xxx" article (eg Psittacosaurus and Species of Psittacosaurus). These guidelines cover almost all fossil taxa excepting ones that are from about the last ice age to modern times, many of which are more well known and defined then older taxa. Also, of course it is not meant to be applied to extinct species within a living genera, such as Equisetum thermale, where the other discussed species have stand-alone articles.-- Kev min § 22:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Daggers
In WP:Paleontology, the use of daggers is generally restricted to taxoboxes and taxa lists in articles. When an extinct taxon is mentioned in running prose of a living taxon article it is normally mentioned as extinct, which obviates the need to mark it with a dagger. Similarly in an article on an extinct taxon, the status of the taxon as extinct should usually noted in the first or second line of the introductory prose. Daggers are used in the body of an article generally only in taxon lists. Thus a
List of Acer species will have a notation at the top explaining the presence of the †, while the species themselves are formated thus:
†''[[Acer stonebergae]]'' <small>[[Jack A. Wolfe|Wolfe]] & [[Toshimasa Tanai|Tanai]]</small> ([[Early Eocene]], [[Washington (U.S. state)|Washington State]] & [[British Columbia]])<ref name="Wolfe1987"/>
which gives this
†
Acer stonebergae
Wolfe &
Tanai (
Early Eocene,
Washington State &
British Columbia)
[3] The dagger is placed in front of the taxon name, while the area after the authority information (fo me at least) is used for age and formation/location information). The dagger is used in a taxobox to mark the extinct levels of the taxonomy from the extant ones, with the first instance of a dagger linked to the extinction article (eg {{extinction}} or [[extinct|†]]) If you use the automatic taxoboxes, the taxonomy template has a built-in parameter for marking a taxon extinct. --
Kev
min
§
22:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Automatic taxoboxes
The use of automatic taxoboxes is by no means a universally accepted practice. In fact WP:Paleontology is the only project that has adopted use of them for all new articles created. Currently the explanatory documentation needs to be reworked to make it more intuitive for users. However, I think use at both the WP:Gastropods and WP:Bivalves could be beneficial as the higher taxonomies of both are, for the most part, in flux at this point. Creation of the taxonomy templates is not very difficult, and conversion of a taxobox to an automatic taxobox is also not complex. A lot of the work involved actually comes from the initial creation of the first few taxon template groups, after those are done, other lower level templates link in fairly quickly. I will be the first to admit that I don't know nearly every in-and-out of the automatic taxoboxes or the speciesboxes, but the users who maintain/work on them are willing to help with problems. I think a lot of what is needed to clarify the documentation is more new eyes there working with us to clarify and streamline it. This page Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Automatic taxobox has a good overview of how to create and covert taxoboxes.-- Kev min § 22:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I have created the Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastropods/Automatic taxobox page reusing much of the content from a similar page on the Plants project. I have added project-specific examples of various possible scenarios. Please let me know your comments. Also, please feel free to tweak the page. — Ganeshk ( talk) 22:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking whether it would be okay to use the automatic taxoboxes on the bot-created articles. This would eliminate the need for newcomers to learn the complex syntax and prepare stubs that can be expanded. It will also give the project members a chance to work with the automatic taxoboxes. Please comment here whether you approve/disapprove of this. Thanks. — Ganeshk ( talk) 23:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Is there any reason this article shouldn't be moved from Panopea generosa to the common name of Pacific geoduck, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)? -- Tom Hulse ( talk) 20:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Can I ask if you've taken this idea higher up, to WP:TOL or WP:FAUNA? The reason I ask is that WP:FAUNA has clear and binding conventions for all animals, including bivalves. You may not locally override them at your bivalve project, per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS; you would need to get the wider community's permission to change their guidline for all animals. So just becuase "some" common names of marine fauna may not have garnered wide acceptance doesn't mean we can apply that to other related articles. I don't think Pacific geoduck is in any way ambiguous, do you? -- Tom Hulse ( talk) 20:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
My first attempt at transcluding a talk section onto multiple pages; please tell me if I got any of if wrong. -- Tom Hulse ( talk) 11:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Many years ago it was known that Sea Hares inhabited the coast off Aransas Pass and Padre Island Texas in great numbers, but migrated away in the colder months. What wasn't known is where they migrated to. Does anyone know of further studies on this matter?
The article here mentions that NeuroScientists are interested in Sea Hares, but don't elaborate that it is because of the simplicity and dimensions of their neural network makes them easy to work with.
In the 80's researchers at UT and other area laboratories had problems getting specimens for study off season. I haven't followed the situation since then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IRobt ( talk • contribs) 16:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
A friend of mine published an incredible image of very large gastropod egg cases. I thought it might interest the WikiProject Gastropods members. Shellnut ( talk) 05:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I just looked, and apparently we do not have any information or images on gastropod egg cases in the main article, or in the reproduction and mating behaviour article. Undoubtedly there are a lot of images of gastropod egg cases on Flickr, etc. Any ideas Invertzoo? Shellnut ( talk) 05:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
After searching WikiCommons I was only able to find one other example of gastropod egg cases for Busycon contrarium (A Most Valued Image award winner), AND it was not even placed on the species article!
I have used the WoRMS database file to create the User:Ganeshbot/Animalia/Gastropoda page. It can be used to traverse through the taxonomy down to the species. I have completed the run for the Heterobranchia. — Ganeshk ( talk) 13:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I would appreciate your comments at this thread. Thanks. — Ganeshk ( talk) 13:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC) (this answer is also copied to User_talk:Stemonitis#Always_display
|always_display=true
to the "Template:Taxonomy/..." pages is almost always a bad idea. Note what the documentation for these pages says "If the taxon is not a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus or species, but should nevertheless be displayed in all descendant taxoboxes (this is not a common occurrence!) ..." Instead, use |display_parents=
in the relevant
display template in the automatic taxobox system with some number chosen to show the required extra nodes up to the next principal rank (i.e. the next up of the 7 Linnaean ranks).
Peter coxhead (
talk)
09:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I am not in any way, shape or form an authority on Gastropods. But having a general scientific interest, and being a somewhat obsessive personality, I've been doing A LOT of work on Category page. Most of that has been in pages for some genus or another. (Mostly, that's been in the plants.)
I just did a big job of that with a family of Gastropods, and now I'm afraid I might have done something wrong.
I recently stumbled on a large category for the sea snail family Category:Fasciolariidae. It had well over 500 articles. It also had one subcategory for one genus in the family, Category:Fusus with 53 articles. But I saw that on the family category page, there were 176 articles for species of the genus Fusinus. So I created a Category:Fusinus page, set it as a subcategory of Fasciolariidae and moved all 176 Fusinus articles to it.
But now I find the far bigger Category:Muricidae with over 1600 articles. Again, this is for a family, with many genera. One might conceivably sort out the larger genera into subcategories. But there's a note on the page. It says, "Preventive warning: Do not split this category! Otherwise discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods." There's also a note that says, "For convenience, all Muricidae are included in this category. This includes all Muricidae that can also be found in the subcategories." (BTW, there are no subcategories, apart from the Stub Category page.)
So now, I'm wondering if there's some reason for the Gastropods to have huge pages for families, and some reason the Gastropod Project members do not want them broken down into smaller categories for genera. In short, I wonder if I SHOULD have done what I did. BTW, I was thinking of pulling two more genera out of the Category page for the family Fasciolariidae. But I'll hold off. In case I wind up feeling obligated to put the Fusinus species back, I'd rather keep it to just those 176. Uporządnicki ( talk) 19:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to
HighBeam Research.
—
Wavelength (
talk)
17:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi all, there appeared few new articles of species in monotypic genera: Ayna mienisi, Truncatophaedusa evae, Pontophaedusella offenses. Few WikiProject members (usually considered as crucial project members) have seen these articles and they did not noticed the article title discrepancy! I can apply Wikipedia:Requested moves but I would like to try explain, why de facto the whole this project prefer(preferred) the name of the species in the title:
Thanks for your attention and happy editing! -- Snek01 ( talk) 01:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for that example. That is very useful example, because at least we can immediately move "Ayna (gastropod)" to "Ayna mienisi". Hmm... there really is written recommendation for such names at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life#Article titles and it is there since 2004: "However, for a genus that contains a single species, the genus name should be used since it is included in the binomial." There is not explained why generic name should be used in the WikiProject Tree of Life. That sentence includes an exception into guidelines and such exception is there included without any (apparent) reason. Not all wikiprojects follows that, for example fishes ( Category:Monotypic fish genera) uses binomen. If we are looking for universal and unified solution(s), then it is like this:
Wikiproject Gastropods have always used such universal solution. It is also as much as stable solution. And it is also as much as unambiguous: every article that contain binomen is about the certain species; every article that uses genus is about at least 2 species. Also consider, that there are hundreds of unresolved articles Category:Gastropod genera with single species that we do not know, if they are monotypic or not. Also consider that titles of common names of species (such as Tumbling Creek cavesnail, Flat pebblesnail, ...) are used for monotypic genera. Common names are not always possible to apply to gastropods, but for example all monotypic genera of birds and many of mammals redirects from generic name to common name of species. So why there should be such great difference in common names of species and scientific names of species? All articles (or I could rather say very great majority) about gastropods are unified in as much as universal way now. What we will do, when we know now, that other Wikiprojects used different titles? Will we blindly follow the crowd and will we perform hundreds of moves as well as modify much more associated articles? Will we continue using our way? Will we be satisfied with unresolved problems and will we be claiming that we do not understand each other? Or will we ask them why they did so? If there will be any reason, then we can DECIDE what to do: either modify our articles or suggest modification of the guideline. -- Snek01 ( talk) 13:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Good news. The bot request has been approved. I will create the next 100 articles and post back here. — Ganeshk ( talk) 16:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello all. Noticed an article in the new Zookeys which might be of interest to you. All Zookeys articles (text and images) are CC-3.0 so you can use all of it on wikipedia. The article is: Annotated type catalogue of the Bothriembryontidae and Odontostomidae (Mollusca, Gastropoda, Orthalicoidea) in the Natural History Museum, London [6] Cheers, Ruigeroeland ( talk) 08:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I just came across a taxonomic revision in the IUCN database for the species Omphalotropis costulata. They say the name proposed in 1999 is invalid, since it was already used in 1870. They have taken to calling this critter O. sp. nov. 2. Thoughts on how we should deal with the issue? -- TeaDrinker ( talk) 07:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
TeaDrinker, thanks for notifying the mistake. I have started that Omphalotropis costulata (Mousson, 1870) article. -- Snek01 ( talk) 23:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Could someone who speaks Spanish and/or has some taxonomic experience take a look at Talk:Radiodiscus iheringi? What I think is going on is Radiodiscus iheringi was named in 1881 by EA Smith. In 1899, Ancey named Stephanoda iheringi, which Fonseca and Thome moved into Radiodiscus in 1994. That would make it a secondary homonym which should be renamed. I'm not really sure this is what's going on, but if someone who can clarify (or read the Fonseca and Thome paper), it would be quite helpful. -- TeaDrinker ( talk) 06:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
(Fonseca and Thome is in Portuguese language.) I have resolved the authority and synonyms within the genus and added information: see the talkpage of the species and see synonyms in the genus article. -- Snek01 ( talk) 00:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Is there some reason all 1776 species have gone into the category for the family, instead of into separate subcategories for the genera? Are the genera in this family particularly uncertain? Uporządnicki ( talk) 02:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello to everyone!
I'd like to introduce myself. My name is Rodrigo B. Salvador and I'm a graduate student at the Museum of Zoology of São Paulo, Brazil. I am specializing myself in land snails, mainly fossils but I've also worked with the recent fauna. A colleague of mine from the museum, Daniel C. Cavallari, encouraged me to start adding some content to Wikipedia. I've started today with the Cerionidae and intend to keep on adding content from now on.
Best regards, Rodrigo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RodrigoSalvador ( talk • contribs) 19:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Sure looks like this guy: [7] [8] Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 11:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Moved to [ [9]]. Thanks folks. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 03:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I would very much like to get input from project members on the question of how to organize marine mollusk faunal lists and whether regional list articles should even be created. Two or three years ago this question came up, and back then this project seemed to have a consensus that it would be better to have lists of marine mollusks by faunal zone, for example the northeast Atlantic, the Mediterranean Sea, the Caribbean faunal zone and so on, rather than having a different article for every single country or every island, articles that would attempt to list all the marine species for that rather small area. I should point out that there are hardly any marine species that are endemic to one small area, which is not at all the case for the non-marine fauna.
To be fair, I should also point out that in the past, people have already started "List of marine mollusks of" articles for New Zealand, Venezuela, South Africa, Chile, Mozambique, Brazil, Australia and Angola. However, all of those lists are currently extremely incomplete, since all of those areas would in reality have a marine fauna of more than a thousand species.
Please think about this issue, and put your comments here. Thanks, Invertzoo ( talk) 00:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
In some ways I agree with you, although I think we should ultimately have articles on each of the different marine faunal zones, even if those articles do not attempt to list the whole marine mollusk fauna of each zone. However, I want to try to find out what all of us think about this, not just trying to suggest what the project members ourselves should do or not do, but for the encyclopedia as a whole. Should we try to discourage other editors from creating country lists? The reason those articles get created is because there are often (partial) published lists out there of the marine mollusk fauna of individual countries or islands, and people end up creating list articles based on those published sources. Of course the editors who create these list articles don't see anything wrong with doing that. One reason I am asking this now, is that a WP editor from Ireland saw the list of non-marine mollusks of Ireland (which I had done a lot of work on several years ago) and asked me if I was going to do a list of the Irish marine mollusks. To be fair, I suppose that quite a few shell collectors and naturalists would enjoy knowing what marine species occur in the area they live in, plus, as this editor pointed out, certain species are protected in certain countries because they are locally endangered, and that info can also be included. Although I personally have no intention of creating a marine mollusk list for Ireland, I want to know what project members think about this whole question. Invertzoo ( talk) 13:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/life/Conus#p00msm0v I ran into this interesting video. — Ganeshk ( talk) 00:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
The bot is active again. The next 100 articles are ready for review. — Ganeshk ( talk) 17:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi gastropod lovers!
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Lambis crocata 2010 G1.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on August 25, 2012. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2012-08-25. — howcheng { chat} 16:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I have submitted a new bot approval request requesting approval to create 500 stubs at a time. — Ganeshk ( talk) 01:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Please confirm the introduction sentence and the taxonomy. — Ganeshk ( talk) 20:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
X | |
---|---|
Scientific classification | |
Kingdom: | |
Phylum: | |
Class: | |
(unranked): | clade
Vetigastropoda
|
Superfamily: | |
Family: | |
Genus: | |
Species: | X. X
|
Binomial name | |
X. X |
X is a genus of sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Turbinidae, the turban snails.
X is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Turbinidae, the turban snails.
Biota > Animalia (Kingdom) > Mollusca (Phylum) > Gastropoda (Class) > Vetigastropoda (Subclass) > Trochoidea (Superfamily) > Turbinidae (Family)
I was thinking that it might be very nice to have a navigational template like this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cephalopod_anatomy
But for gastropods. It could perhaps be divided into shell, external soft parts and internal soft parts? Invertzoo ( talk) 16:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
For a long time we have not had a taxobox in the article Snail, because this common name does not strictly refer to a whole taxon, since Gastropoda includes both snail and slugs. However, I see from Article Feedback that a lot of kids come to the article wanting to know which phylum snails belong to, and similar questions, so I decided to try putting a very simple taxobox into the article. If anyone thinks this is a bad idea, let me know. Invertzoo ( talk) 13:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I have updated the synonym page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastropods/Unaccepted. — Ganeshk ( talk) 11:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I see that Wikipedia and Wiktionary have entries for Isotropy, but neither have an entry for Isotrophy, which is not the same thing. Our articles about Bellerophonts and other similar mollusk groups use the term isotrophic quite often, so maybe we should try to think about creating a stub article for this concept? Invertzoo ( talk) 22:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
How about for animals etc Tell us their sizes
Eg giant abalone How big / heavy is it? And how big are normal ones? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.60.0.106 ( talk) 04:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Should articles on seafood be given titles that restrict them to cuisines, as a user maintains in this thread? There is a referral for comment on this issue where members of this project are invited to give their views. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 23:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I wanted to report a nice experience today with our gastropod articles. Within my own research I am currently drafting a new paper that includes a list of 19 fairly common Caribbean mollusks, mostly gastropods. For the first time ever I tried using our articles as a source for the authority and date of each of the species. I was happy to see that all 19 of the articles had author and date included. I then checked all the info against Gary Rosenberg's Malacolog database and it matched up. This was just a small test, but I feel we are really doing well! Invertzoo ( talk) 20:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
"Schepman" from all gastropod articles (around 200 articles(?)) should link to "Mattheus Marinus Schepman". Maybe good task for a semi-automatic work. But do not overlink. Thanks, -- Snek01 ( talk) 19:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi all. Long time no post. :)
Mattheus Marinus Schepman needs expanding for a possible DYK.
See also: User talk:Anna Frodesiak#Mattheus Marinus Schepman
Thanks, Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 20:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Anyone else care to submit it? That has to be done pretty much right away. Invertzoo ( talk) 18:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
WikiProject Gastropods is honored to be able to say that among its active members is Cwmhiraeth, the winner of the
the 2012 Wikipedia cup!!! Fantastic work!
Invertzoo (
talk)
00:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I just found this gallery of quality shell images, commons:Shells_by_H._Zell. — Ganeshk ( talk) 02:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I am starting to add shell images to species articles again. I just added a number of Ranellidae; images of shells from my personal collection. Shellnut ( talk) 00:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I have added a number of these excellent photographs to articles that did not have them, including some genus articles where the image was present for the appropriate species, but no image was present at all for the genus. I also created a number of stubs in order to be able to place some of the images. However, I found that for some of the land snail species names such as within the genus Cyclophorus, I could not find evidence to support their existence via a quick google search, so I left many of those for the time being. There are so many images that I got only a small distance through the set, down to part the way through the Strombidae. The photographer is constantly uploading new images too, so any help someone can give in placing images into articles would be much appreciated. Invertzoo ( talk) 20:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi! I've seen that Kulindroplax has been listed by someone under the scope of this wikiproject. I'm all for having more eyes looking at the article I've created, but Kulindroplax is by no means a gastropod -it's a basal aplacophoran. It's okay to keep it there or was the listing misguided? Just to avoid confusions for you guys. Thanks! -- Cyclopia talk 12:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I made the following observation at Articles for deletion/Sarasomia; can someone knowledgeable about the subject look in to this?
הסרפד ( Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 05:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Google Scholar shows no results for "Sarasomia" ("Sarsomia" brings up some references to a genus of nematodes) . Google Books brings up two results, the older of which is from Common and Scientific Names of Aquatic Invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Mollusks (1998).
Searching Google overall for "Sarasomia", one finds about 4,000 results—surprisingly few for an animal genus. All taxonomy sites mentioning Sarasomia that I checked cite ITIS as a source. ITIS, in turn, mentions only one species in Sarasomia: S. Plebeia, the Caribbean leatherleaf. The source provided is the 1988 edition of Common and Scientific Names of Aquatic Invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Mollusks. The reference, if I interpreted the ITIS reference correctly, refers specifically to the "Caribbean leatherleaf" as "Sarasomia plebeia (Fischer, 1898)".
Searching for "Caribbean leatherleaf" finds numerous results for "Sarasinula plebeia (Fischer, 1868)". This is confirmed by the ITIS database, which cites the 1998 edition of Common and Scientific Names of Aquatic Invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Mollusks.
Final point: Sarasinula seems to be named for one of several naturalist named Sarasin. Sarasomia has no apparent etymology.
Thus, it seems to me (a complete ignoramus in taxonomy, so my word doesn't count for much) that Sarasomia plebeia (Fischer, 1898) is originally a typographical error for Sarasinula plebeia (Fischer, 1868).
הסרפד ( Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 16:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
You can redirect Sarasomia plebeia to Sarasinula plebeia with an easy conscience. Thus we can be nearly sure that Sarasomia is a misspelling and we can also redirect Sarasomia to Sarasinula plebeia with very high degree of probability. We have a resource (idtools.org) by professional biologists for such decision. הסרפד resolved it correctly without any malacological knowledge but with critical thinking. הסרפד thank you for good work! -- Snek01 ( talk) 22:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you all!
I wanted to point out, however, that the note added to Sarasinula plebeia may be correct factually but is problematic Wikipedicly (?); see WP:NOTOR#Conflict between sources for the guidelines on analyzing conflicting or incorrect sources in articles.
הסרפד ( Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 00:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Please confirm the introduction sentence and the taxonomy. — Ganeshk ( talk) 15:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
X | |
---|---|
Scientific classification | |
Kingdom: | |
Phylum: | |
Class: | |
(unranked): | clade
Vetigastropoda
|
Superfamily: | |
Family: | |
Genus: | |
Species: | X. X
|
Binomial name | |
X. X |
X is a genus of sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Trochidae, the top snails.
X is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Trochidae, the top snails.
Biota > Animalia (Kingdom) > Mollusca (Phylum) > Gastropoda (Class) > Vetigastropoda (Subclass) > Trochoidea (Superfamily) > Trochidae (Family)
Please confirm the introduction sentence and the taxonomy.
X | |
---|---|
Scientific classification | |
Kingdom: | |
Phylum: | |
Class: | |
(unranked): | clade
Vetigastropoda
|
Superfamily: | |
Family: | |
Genus: | |
Species: | X. X
|
Binomial name | |
X. X |
X is a genus of sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family X within the superfamily Trochoidea, the top snails, turban snails and their allies.
X is a
species of
sea snail, a
marine
gastropod
mollusk in the
family
X within the superfamily
Trochoidea, the top snails, turban snails and their allies.
Biota > Animalia (Kingdom) > Mollusca (Phylum) > Gastropoda (Class) > Vetigastropoda (Subclass) > Trochoidea (Superfamily)
Should we include the text "within the superfamily Trochoidea, the top snails, turban snails and their allies" in the genera pages alone or both? I have lumped in four smaller families into this bot run. — Ganeshk ( talk) 14:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Done Completed with
128 edits. Please review. —
Ganeshk (
talk)
05:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello folks. For those of us who are working on marine species, especially those of us who are shell collectors, I just wanted to point out that our taxon articles are about species of animals, not species of shells. The taxon name refers to the animal, not just simply to the shell of the animal, which is only its skeleton left over after the animal has died.
1. In our taxoboxes, an image of the living animal (when available) should come first, followed by an image of the shell.
2. In the text of articles be sure to say things like, "the shell is used for jewelry" rather than just the saying "Biggus snailus is used for jewelry".
I believe it is essential to let readers see and understand that shells are not simply beautiful aesthetic objects that just somehow come magically into existence, but are the remains of living individual creatures that have died. Thanks. Invertzoo ( talk) 16:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Someone outside of our project nominated this currently C-class article for GA. If anyone can help try to fix it up even a little bit over the next few weeks please do so, because it needs a fair bit of clean up to get it to GA! Many thanks, Invertzoo ( talk) 01:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
With the addition of a Phylogeny section, Lobatus gigas is now closer than it has ever been from being a candidate to our first FA. Some of us know how overwhelming a FA review can be, specially when things take the wrong turn... Moreover, before we can submit it to FA review, a throughout Manual of Style adjustment must be made. I'm not wiki-proficient enough as an editor to accomplish this alone. Still, most of us working together should be enough. I dream to see our first FA since I joined this project. It may be worth trying. -- Daniel Cavallari ( talk) 03:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Reasons to believe in a FA candidacy:
- The article basically covers all matters relating to the animal. Highlight for sections on taxonomy and nomenclature, description of the shell, ecology, human use and conservation, which are all excellent in my opinion.
- The article is well illustrated, and includes a FP. There is no section without illustrations.
- The writing is good, with a few caveats.
Things to do:
- Check out MOS;
- Check all the prose;
- Check all links;
- Improve the arrangement of images throughout the text.
- Improve anatomy session by providing details (proportions and sizes of structures, for example) based on Simone (2005).
That's it, IMHO. --
Daniel Cavallari (
talk)
03:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello, everybody. I'm not sure if this message belongs here, because it relates to Wikisource, but as it's about an important work on gastropods, I thought you might be interested.
In short, I'm currently working on converting scans of the volumes (found
here) to djvu format, so they can be transcribed using Wikisource's index system.
Unfortunately, those who aren't partners of Hathi Trust can only download PDFs of individual pages, so the scans of each page have to be downloaded individually (there are over a thousand pages!), combined, then converted. Once the DJVU files are uploaded to Commons, editors can start transcribing. (Luckily, Hathi Trust provides OCRed text for each scan).
If anyone wants to help with the downloading of the scans (or with transcribing), please leave a reply. I am working on Volume I, Part 1 2.
The Wikisource page of the book is at Land Mollusca of North America (north of Mexico)
Thank you!-- Frglz ( talk) 19:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Each part had to be split into two PDFs because of file size limits. If you want one PDF per part, you'll have to merge them yourself.-- Frglz ( talk) 06:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Sometimes finding the meaning of a scientific name derived from Latin or Greek is a hard task. This is specially hard to do in Wikipedia articles, since you need a good, verifiable reference to back every claim. To make things a little easier, I'd like to suggest a very good book from 1954, by Mr. R. W. Brown, which you can find here:
Brown, R. W. (1954) Composition of Scientific Words
This should help us all when writing on the etymology of our favorite gastropods.
Best, -- Daniel Cavallari ( talk) 15:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I nominated Laevistrombus canarium for a Featured Article review. Here is the review page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Laevistrombus_canarium/archive1 If you can help in the process, I would greatly appreciate it! Let's hope it succeeds. Best,
-- Daniel Cavallari ( talk) 15:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
A couple of days ago I was doing a Google search to try to find an image of a shell of a species of small pyramidellid sea snail (a micromollusk) that I found in Florida. I was checking to see if I had identified it correctly. The species is Peristichia toreta. I was able to find one photograph on the website of the Bailey-Matthews Shell Museum, but since the shell is white on white it was not easy to see what the sculpture of the shell really was like. An even better image was to be found using the Google search, but only in our Wikipedia article, the image being from the original publication of Dall's. I was surprised and delighted that we have such a nice article and such a nice illustration for such a small and rather obscure shell! Thanks to Ganeshbot and to JoJan! Invertzoo ( talk) 22:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Please confirm the lead sentence and the taxonomy.
X | |
---|---|
Scientific classification | |
Kingdom: | |
Phylum: | |
Class: | |
(unranked): | clade
Vetigastropoda
|
Family: | |
Genus: | |
Species: | X. X
|
Binomial name | |
X. X |
X is a genus of sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Ataphridae within the clade Vetigastropoda, the false top snails.
X is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Ataphridae, the false top snails.
Biota > Animalia (Kingdom) > Mollusca (Phylum) > Gastropoda (Class) > Vetigastropoda (Subclass) > [unassigned] Vetigastropoda (Superfamily) > Ataphridae (family)
Thanks Ganesh! Invertzoo ( talk) 22:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Angarioidea is Done. Please check
User:Ganeshbot/Animalia/History/Vetigastropoda#December_31. —
Ganeshk (
talk)
15:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Gastropod Barnstar | |
This barnstar is dedicated to all contributors who helped Wikiproject Gastropods this year. If I failed to leave a star on your individual talk page it was an oversight because I was rushed for time, so please help yourself to a copy of this one. I hope our project can grown and increase this year as well as it did this past year! All the very best wishes for 2013! Invertzoo ( talk) 20:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC) |
Hello and happy new year to all WikiProject Gastropods members! I just finished adding images of Cancellariidae shells to genus and species articles, and created a few articles in the process. Amazingly these beautiful snails are a not commonly figured or collected. I just happen to have a really good collection of specimens of this family available (many from the Panamic Province) so I took the time to take and post some macro photos to improve our coverage of this lesser known family. (33 species and 18 genera) Shellnut ( talk) 06:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I just added three species of Calliotropidae both macro images and new species articles: Bathybembix bairdii, Lischkeia alwinae, and Ginebis argenteonitens. These are unusual trochid-like shells which until recently were lumped in the Trochidae. Shellnut ( talk) 01:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello gastropod people! We have a new article which suddenly appeared from a new contributor who then disappeared. The article is currently tentatively called Shell growth in estuaries. It is pretty good, but a bit essay-like. Despite the current title, the article is not solely about estuaries. Actually the article is currently mainly just about about marine calcareous shell growth and the factors that influence it. The article has a lot about mollusks in it. Will anyone who can spare the time, look at it and please let us know what they think. Does anyone have ideas about what the article should be called, and how they think it should be expanded or maybe teased apart into separate articles? User:Epipelagic has submitted it as a possible DYK. Thanks. Our pre-existing discussions about it are here and also here. Invertzoo ( talk) 14:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Please confirm the lead sentence and the taxonomy. — Ganeshk ( talk) 15:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
X | |
---|---|
Scientific classification | |
Kingdom: | |
Phylum: | |
Class: | |
(unranked): | clade
Vetigastropoda
|
Superfamily: | |
Family: | |
Genus: | |
Species: | X. X
|
Binomial name | |
X. X |
X is a genus of sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Fissurellidae, the keyhole limpets and slit limpets.
X is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Fissurellidae, the keyhole limpets and slit limpets.
Biota > Animalia (Kingdom) > Mollusca (Phylum) > Gastropoda (Class) > Vetigastropoda (Subclass) > Fissurelloidea (Superfamily) > Fissurellidae (family)
Done Fissurellidae done with
256 new articles. Please check. Happy New Year to all! —
Ganeshk (
talk)
05:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
So... Ladies and Gentlemen, a round of applause please for the sea snail article Laevistrombus canarium, aka the dog conch. Today it was promoted to Featured Article status. I wanted to mention that User:Daniel Cavallari did most of the work to get it to GA status, and then most of the careful painstaking work necessary to get it up to FA status. Go admire (or even click on) the small bronze star in the upper right hand corner of the article: the bronze means FA. It may be a small star, but it is a lot of work to get there! Hopefully we will gradually have more to follow this one. Invertzoo ( talk) 17:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Well Done! Amazing to finally have a FA, congratulations and thanks to all those who put in the hard work to get the article there. Inspiration for the rest of the project indeed! Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 08:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Congrats to Daniel. -- Snek01 ( talk) 12:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Please confirm the lead sentence and the taxonomy. — Ganeshk ( talk) 20:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
X | |
---|---|
Scientific classification | |
Kingdom: | |
Phylum: | |
Class: | |
(unranked): | clade
Vetigastropoda
|
Superfamily: | |
Family: | |
Genus: | |
Species: | X. X
|
Binomial name | |
X. X |
X is a genus of sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Haliotidae, the abalones.
X is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Haliotidae, the abalones.
Biota > Animalia (Kingdom) > Mollusca (Phylum) > Gastropoda (Class) > Vetigastropoda (Subclass) > Haliotoidea (Superfamily) > Haliotidae (Family)
Hello, review DYK hook of my new article if you like. Thanks. Template:Did you know nominations/Kelletia kelletii. -- Snek01 ( talk) 13:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Please confirm the lead sentences and the taxonomy. — Ganeshk ( talk) 17:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
X | |
---|---|
Scientific classification | |
Kingdom: | |
Phylum: | |
Class: | |
(unranked): | clade
Vetigastropoda
|
Superfamily: | |
Family: | |
Genus: | |
Species: | X. X
|
Binomial name | |
X. X |
X is a genus of small, deep water sea snails, hydrothermal vent limpets, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Lepetodrilidae.
X is a species of small, deep water sea snail, hydrothermal vent limpet, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Lepetodrilidae.
X is a genus of deep water sea snails, hydrothermal vent limpets, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Sutilizonidae.
X is a species of deep water sea snail, hydrothermal vent limpet, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Sutilizonidae.
Genus Elimia was synonymized with Pleurocera. Do you prefer those names of articles of species, that were previously in the genus Elimia, move to scientific names or do you prefer to keep vernacular names (that contain the word elimia) in the name of these articles? I prefer scientific ones. It seems a bit misleading to keep those elimia vernacular names. Will vernacular names change after this taxonomic change somehow someday?
Please confirm the lead sentences and the taxonomy. — Ganeshk ( talk) 21:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
X | |
---|---|
Scientific classification | |
Kingdom: | |
Phylum: | |
Class: | |
(unranked): | clade
Vetigastropoda
|
Superfamily: | |
Family: | |
Genus: | |
Species: | X. X
|
Binomial name | |
X. X |
X is a genus of deep water sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Addisoniidae, the true limpets.
X is a species of deep water sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Addisoniidae, the true limpets.
X is a genus of very small, deep water sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Bathyphytophilidae, the false limpets.
X is a species of very small, deep water sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Bathyphytophilidae, the false limpets.
X is a genus of small, deep water sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Cocculinellidae, the limpets.
X is a species of small, deep water sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Cocculinellidae, the limpets.
X is a genus of small, deep water sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Lepetellidae, the limpets.
X is a species of small, deep water sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Lepetellidae, the limpets.
X is a genus of small, deep water sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Osteopeltidae.
X is a species of small, deep water sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Osteopeltidae.
X is a genus of small sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Pseudococculinidae, the false limpets.
X is a species of small sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Pseudococculinidae, the false limpets.
X is a genus of sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Pyropeltidae.
X is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Pyropeltidae.
Please confirm the lead sentences and the taxonomy. — Ganeshk ( talk) 17:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
X | |
---|---|
Scientific classification | |
Kingdom: | |
Phylum: | |
Class: | |
(unranked): | clade
Vetigastropoda
|
Superfamily: | |
Family: | |
Genus: | |
Species: | X. X
|
Binomial name | |
X. X |
X is a genus of small sea snails with calcareous opercula, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Colloniidae.
X is a species of small sea snail with calcareous opercula, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Colloniidae.
I have created the missing pages. — Ganeshk ( talk) 16:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
X is a genus of small sea snails with calcareous opercula, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Phasianellidae, the pheasant snails.
X is a species of small sea snail with calcareous opercula, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Phasianellidae, the pheasant snails.
There is a stale merge proposal placed at Talk:Mitra nubila stating that an external link there suggests that Mitra versicolor is simply a synonym for M. nubila. The external link in M. versicolor implies, but does not outright state, that they are the same. If you know something about this, please comment at Talk:Mitra nubila]]. Thanks, Ego White Tray ( talk) 04:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Please confirm the lead sentences and the taxonomy. — Ganeshk ( talk) 22:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
X | |
---|---|
Scientific classification | |
Kingdom: | |
Phylum: | |
Class: | |
(unranked): | clade
Vetigastropoda
|
Superfamily: | |
Family: | |
Genus: | |
Species: | X. X
|
Binomial name | |
X. X |
X is a genus of large sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Pleurotomariidae, the slit snails.
X is a species of large sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Pleurotomariidae, the slit snails.
Is this
Felimare picta ? Captured at
Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary,
Savannah, Georgia.
The other pictures at
Felimare picta look very different. I just noticed it has so many subspecies. So is it Felimare (Hypselodoris) picta picta?
J
Kadavoor
J
e
e
05:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Please confirm the lead sentences and the taxonomy. — Ganeshk ( talk) 22:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
X | |
---|---|
Scientific classification | |
Kingdom: | |
Phylum: | |
Class: | |
(unranked): | clade
Vetigastropoda
|
Superfamily: | |
Family: | |
Genus: | |
Species: | X. X
|
Binomial name | |
X. X |
X is a genus of minute sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks or micromollusks in the family Anatomidae.
X is a species of minute sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk or micromollusk in the family Anatomidae.
X is a genus of small to minute sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks or micromollusks in the family Depressizonidae.
X is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk or micromollusk in the family Depressizonidae.
X is a genus of small to minute sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks or micromollusks in the family Larocheidae.
X is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk or micromollusk in the family Larocheidae.
X is a genus of minute sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks or micromollusks in the family Scissurellidae, the little slit snails.
X is a species of minute sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk or micromollusk in the family Scissurellidae, the little slit snails.
A new editor tried to revert Snek's recent changes to the Elimia article. As a result we now still have a Elimia article, as well as having those species listed under Pleurocera. The new editor disagrees with the reassignment of Elimia species to Pleurocera by Dillon (2011) and mentions a new article that was still "in press" when he left the note. The new editor made the mistake of leaving his note on his own talk page, instead of on the talk page of the appropriate article. I copied and placed it there so people can see it. In any case... we can't use as a reference a science paper that is not yet published even though it is in press. I wonder if perhaps the new editor, User:Polarfire1, is one of the authors of the new paper? Invertzoo ( talk) 16:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Please confirm the lead sentences and the taxonomy. — Ganeshk ( talk) 22:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
X | |
---|---|
Scientific classification | |
Kingdom: | |
Phylum: | |
Class: | |
(unranked): | clade
Vetigastropoda
|
Superfamily: | |
Family: | |
Genus: | |
Species: | X. X
|
Binomial name | |
X. X |
X is a genus of sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks, unassigned in the superfamily Seguenzioidea.
X is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk, unassigned in the superfamily Seguenzioidea.
X is a genus of sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Calliotropidae.
X is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Calliotropidae.
X is a genus of sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Cataegidae.
X is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Cataegidae.
X is a genus of mostly small deep water sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Chilodontidae.
X is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Chilodontidae.
X is a genus of extremely small deep water sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Seguenziidae.
X is a species of extremely small deep water sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Seguenziidae.
I had created my first family article, Cataegidae. Can someone please take a look and let me know if it is good? — Ganeshk ( talk) 02:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Please confirm the lead sentences and the taxonomy. — Ganeshk ( talk) 21:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject Gastropods/Archive 5 | |
---|---|
Scientific classification | |
Kingdom: | |
Phylum: | |
Class: | |
(unranked): | clade
Caenogastropoda
|
Superfamily: |
X is a genus of deep water sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks, unassigned in the superfamily Abyssochrysoidea.
X is a species of deep water sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk, unassigned in the superfamily Abyssochrysoidea.
X is a genus of deep water sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Abyssochrysidae.
X is a species of deep water sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Abyssochrysidae.
X is a genus of deep water sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Provannidae.
X is a species of deep water sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Provannidae.
Please confirm the lead sentences and the taxonomy. — Ganeshk ( talk) 15:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject Gastropods/Archive 5 | |
---|---|
Scientific classification | |
Kingdom: | |
Phylum: | |
Class: | |
(unranked): | clade
Caenogastropoda
|
Superfamily: |
X is a genus of freshwater snails, aquatic gastropod mollusks in the family Ampullariidae, the apple snails.
X is a species of freshwater snail, aquatic gastropod mollusk in the family Ampullariidae, the apple snails.
Please confirm the lead sentences and the taxonomy. — Ganeshk ( talk) 15:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject Gastropods/Archive 5 | |
---|---|
Scientific classification | |
Kingdom: | |
Phylum: | |
Class: | |
(unranked): | clade
Caenogastropoda
|
Superfamily: |
X is a genus of deep water sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Ampullinidae.
X is a species of deep water sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Ampullinidae.
X is a genus of sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Campanilidae.
X is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Campanilidae.
X is a genus of sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Plesiotrochidae.
X is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Plesiotrochidae.
This is a notification that what appears to be two student groups have started editing articles on marine life: EcoWikiGroup13 ( talk · contribs) at Oncorhynchus, and Group9ecology ( talk · contribs) at Coccolithophore. Their instructor doesn't seem to have notified anyone at Wikipedia that this would be happening, and so far the first group, EcoWikiGroup13, have been non responsive at attempts to communicate with them. The edits so far seem fairly competent and Copyscape doesn't detect plagiarism. However, the names they have chosen suggest there may be 13 or more groups involved, so this may be the start of considerable activity. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 04:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Since we use this template a lot in our bot-generated stubs, I figure that Ganesh and JoJan and maybe more of us, may want to comment on its proposed deletion. Use this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_1
Invertzoo ( talk) 19:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Appreciating your comment here. J Kadavoor J e e 14:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello folks. This is an image by H. Zell of a queen conch shell, one of the five-view images that he does so well. Unfortunately the lip of the shell was heavily cut or filed before it was sold, in order to make it look "tidy". This modification is often done for the shell trade or tourist trade, but it makes the shell look very weird compared with an unmodified one. The other two thumbnails show how the lip really looks in an intact shell.
Please would a number of project members post their comments as to whether this image should be delisted here?
Delisting is not the same as deleting; it simply means the image would not be a Featured Picture any more. I think this is necessary because the encyclopedic value of the image is severely compromised by the shell having been unnaturally altered to such an extent. Thanks, Invertzoo ( talk) 20:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
It would be really great if a project member (anyone?) was prepared to keep an eye on all the Wikipedia Featured article nominations to make sure that nominated gastropod shell images (and bivalve shell images, for our sister project) show shells that are in good shape and hopefully are also correctly identified! If the project member does not really know how to judge some of the shells, the project member could at least leave a message about a nomination here. It was extremely nice of User:JKadavoor Jee (a new project member) to leave us a message about the current nomination of the Veined rapa whelk shell image, however, we should try to make an effort so that we don't necessarily have to rely on his kindness. Invertzoo ( talk) 20:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I have nominated another image for delisting as a Featured Picture. This one is cute and pretty in an "antique" late 19th century style, but no way is this a scientific illustration! It is an image that Snek tried to get delisted a while ago. The current nomination for delisting is here: [ [14]]. Please, if anyone in the project agrees that this is not really FP material because it has poor encyclopedic value (because it is simply not good at all scientifically), then would you endorse the delisting? Thanks. Invertzoo ( talk) 16:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello folks, I just wanted to say that if you notice an image in one of our articles that could really use some adjusting, like for example the picture would be greatly improved with some cropping, or the color balance is off and needs fixing, or the background should be removed or made more uniform, you can simply leave a request at WIkipedia:Graphics Lab, in the Photography Workshop section, and the nice folks there will do it for you while you go ahead and work on other things. Or if you prefer you can tell me about it and I will put in the request. Invertzoo ( talk) 12:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Wish article on this creature had said why it is called "tongue" snail. 69.230.188.45 ( talk) 13:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
The image looks fine; even though the shell seems to have some cracks. Please check thoroughly and do comment. J Kadavoor J e e 13:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
New bot task - Abyssochrysoidea
Please confirm the lead sentences and the taxonomy. — Ganeshk (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Scientific classification Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Mollusca Class: Gastropoda (unranked): clade Caenogastropoda Superfamily: Abyssochrysoidea Abyssochrysoidea (unassigned) Genus X is a genus of deep-water sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks, unassigned in the superfamily Abyssochrysoidea.
Species X is a species of deep-water sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk, unassigned in the superfamily Abyssochrysoidea.
Abyssochrysidae Genus X is a genus of deep-water sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Abyssochrysidae.
Species X is a species of deep-water sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Abyssochrysidae.
Provannidae Genus X is a genus of deep-water sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Provannidae.
Species X is a species of deep-water sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Provannidae.
New bot task - Ampullarioidea
Please confirm the lead sentences and the taxonomy. — Ganeshk (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Mollusca
Class: Gastropoda
(unranked): clade Caenogastropoda (unassigned)
Superfamily: Ampullarioidea
Ampullariidae
Genus
X is a genus of freshwater snails, aquatic gastropod mollusks in the family Ampullariidae, the apple snails.
Species X is a species of freshwater snail, aquatic gastropod mollusk in the family Ampullariidae, the apple snails.
New bot task - Campaniloidea
Please confirm the lead sentences and the taxonomy. — Ganeshk (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Scientific classification Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Mollusca Class: Gastropoda (unranked): clade Caenogastropoda (unassigned) Superfamily: Campaniloidea Ampullinidae Genus X is a genus of deep-water sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Ampullinidae.
Species X is a species of deep-water sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Ampullinidae.
Campanilidae Genus X is a genus of sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Campanilidae.
Species X is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Campanilidae.
Plesiotrochidae Genus X is a genus of sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Plesiotrochidae.
Species X is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Plesiotrochidae.
Appreciating your comments here. J Kadavoor J e e 17:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I've played around a bit with the category structure. Previously we had malacological societies and malacology itself under Category:Malacologists, and shell museums and conchology itself under Category:Conchologists, which wasn't exactly ideal. Another problem was that the articles on malacology journals were not grouped with our other malacology-related articles. To remedy this I've created the new top-level Category:Malacology as well as the directly subordinate Category:Conchology, Category:Teuthology, Category:Malacological literature, and Category:Malacological societies. The last two are in turn parents to Category:Malacology journals and Category:Conchological societies, respectively. I've already populated the categories a bit but please add any articles I may have missed. And let me know what you think of the new arrangement! mgiganteus1 ( talk) 01:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Today I was in communication with Francisco Welter-Schultes and he said that we might be interested in his new book, "European non-marine mollusks a guide for species identification". You can see a webpage about it here. Apparently it has similar content to AnimalBase. Invertzoo ( talk) 22:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I´ll be there. Anyone else?-- Edmund Sackbauer ( talk) 14:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Can someone tell me if we have an approved source for land snail taxonomy -- I mean a database with reliable listings at the genus and species level? I ask that because I recently got this message from one of our members:
"Hello there, Invertzoo! Long time no see! I was keen to revamp the Vertigo species articles today, but found all of the red links were not currently accepted, at least according to AnimalBase. This extends to some current Vertigo species articles already in place as well. I could go ahead and do a thorough literature search, but don't have time at present. If you agree, let me know and I'll add it to my to-do list. Kind regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)"
Thanks, Invertzoo ( talk) 20:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Our nudibranch people especially will like this, but it also shows other gastropods, octopus, cuttlefish, and many other fantastic marine creatures shot underwater in the Lempeh Straits, Indonesia: [15] 14:08, 26 October 2013 Invertzoo (talk | contribs)
![]() |
Happy solstice-related (aka winter-in-the-Northern Hemisphere) holiday(s)! | |
To my Wikipedia snail and slug friends, I wish a joyful "winter in the northern hemisphere holiday" or "northern solstice day(s) in the southern hemisphere holiday", whichever of the holiday or holidays you celebrate (all or any)! Invertzoo ( talk) 19:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC) |
Dear members of the Gastropods project,
Our vision for Wikipedia is one of beauty, natural symmetry and light.
I wish you all a Happy New Year, everything good for your families, your loved ones and yourselves, peace and joy for all the people of the world. I also wish a joyful and peaceful expansion for Wikipedia; may our encyclopedia make information and education available, without charge, to everyone in the world.
All the very best from
Invertzoo (
talk)
18:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Out now: Molluscs of the Czech and Slovak republics. I´m already very curious! But, as I know the first two authors personally, it must be good! -- Edmund Sackbauer ( talk) 14:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I am a new editor here. I have edited the Chlamydephoridae page and I would like someone to check it and see if my edits make the page good enough that we can remove the cleanup label at the top of the page. Reefswaggie ( talk) 05:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
@ JoJan: Please confirm the lead sentence and the taxonomy. — Ganeshk ( talk) 21:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject Gastropods/Archive 5 | |
---|---|
Scientific classification
![]() | |
Domain: | Eukaryota |
Kingdom: | Animalia |
Phylum: | Mollusca |
Class: | Gastropoda |
Subclass: | Vetigastropoda |
Order: | Trochida |
Superfamily: | Trochoidea |
Family: |
Liotiidae Gray, 1850 |
X is a genus of small sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Liotiidae.
X is a species of small sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk, in the family Liotiidae.
Update: DYK accepted and will appear on the main page within a few days. Anyone who wants to add to or clean up the article some more please feel free. Invertzoo ( talk) 15:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).
Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.
If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot ( talk) (for Mr. Z-man) 05:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
The usage of Peculator ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is up for discussion, see talk:Peculator -- 70.50.151.11 ( talk) 09:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello folks. I wanted to ask people writing taxon articles to try always to use whole sentences, not note form. This is an encyclopedia, not a specialist malacological publication, where extreme brevity is a necessity. Here, whole sentences make a text far easier to understand. I would ask that this guideline be applied even to the details of species descriptions, unless of course the text is being quoted verbatim from the original description. Thanks, Invertzoo ( talk) 14:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Review appreciated. J e e 02:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I see that a new ultra-stub has been created for a subgenus of Mitra. Currently it has very little content. Should we try to expand it into a proper article? WoRMS does not seem to completely recognize this subgenus, seeing it as an "alternate representation", so maybe we should turn the page into a redirect? Please let me know what you think. Invertzoo ( talk) 19:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I am one of the newest members here. I need to clarify something: Are the taxonomic changes described in Criscione & Ponder's 2013 A phylogenetic analysis of rissooidean and cingulopsoidean families (Gastropoda: Caenogastropoda) accepted by Project Gastropods? WoRMS accepts them ( Truncatelloidea and Rissooidea entries both cite Criscione & Ponder as status source) and in a previous talk page thread, Invertzoo had mentioned that "at Project Gastropods we go by the taxonomy that is used at WoRMS". About 3 weeks ago I edited a couple of articles on Hydrobiidae families, and species included therein, updating their taxonomy as per Criscione & Ponder. But my edits on the New Zealand mud snail, Mercuria and Hydrobia were reverted, because this taxonomic change is not included in the Changes in the taxonomy of gastropods since 2005 article, which the Project cites as one of its taxonomic references.
If the above is indeed an accepted change, should perhaps the Changes in the taxonomy... article be updated accordingly? Or, if it is impossible to keep the said article always up-to-date, should perhaps the Project template be modified so as to include WoRMS as a taxonomic reference? XenoVon ( talk) 19:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
It appears that Eobania is monotypic. The article only mentions one species, and AnimalBase confirms this. If so, Eobania vermiculata should be merged into there, per WP:FAUNA. (I suppose you could have separate articles on a monotypic genus and its species, but it doesn't make much sense.) Before I go and merge, does anyone smarter than me know a reason I shouldn't? -- BDD ( talk) 21:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I am back on Wikipedia after a long break. I have bad news; my computer crashed and I lost all the programming code for the Gastropod BOT with it. I will have to write a new program to extract CSV data the WoRMS database and recreate the original BOT. I will have to go through another BOT approval process just to be on the safe side. This will take some time. Sorry about that. It was good reminder for me to backup all the code I write. — Ganeshk ( talk) 12:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
The article "sea slug" is certainly not one of our best efforts, although quite often consulting by readers. Of course the article is about the common name, which is applied to so many different shell-less or reduced-shell marine gastropod taxa, as well as (sometimes) to sea cucumbers and so on. On the talk page of the article someone suggested it be reduced to a disambiguation page, which might perhaps not really be very helpful... Does anyone have any suggestions? Or would anyone like to work on it? Thanks, Invertzoo ( talk) 21:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I decided to BE BOLD and so I reduced it to a disambiguation page. I think that is probably the best solution. Invertzoo ( talk) 15:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Update: Ah... all my changes were reverted by someone who felt it was better as an article than as a dab page. Once again, any input from other editors would be very welcome. Invertzoo ( talk) 13:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Since it seems we are going to keep this article after all, today I tried to fix it up into better shape and add a number of images. I would very much appreciate it if anyone would like to look it over and help out with it in some way. Invertzoo ( talk) 21:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
This list article was created a week or two ago; basically it was a bare list taken straight from Category Edible molluscs, with no additional refinements. This morning I put in three hours of work trying to improve it. It looks a lot better now but it still has only one small reference (!) and no doubt could use numerous other refinements. Would someone please be kind enough to take a look at it and see if they can improve it further? Thanks, Invertzoo ( talk) 14:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
What do you think of Draft:Slug mating behaviour? FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 13:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Accept. It meets criteria notability, verifiability, suitability. It focus on notable subject of gastropods. Rename it as Mating of gastropods, that fits the most to naming system of gastropod related articles. Then the article can be for example re-organized into sections according to the taxonomy. -- Snek01 ( talk) 21:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I've put a notice on the VIllage Pump Technical [16] that the tool "Watchlist of changes to all Gastropod-related articles" [17] doesn't function anymore. This is a vital tool to our project. Without it, we cannot know what is going on or if any vandalism has occurred. JoJan ( talk) 13:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I notice that the page is sometimes a proper listing, but sometimes just an error report. Invertzoo ( talk) 21:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Wolfe1987
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | This page 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. |
After completing the Mitromorphidae article I noted that there was also a dead link for a Raphitomidae article (which was also elevated to family level by Bouchet, et al. 2011). The article is in a basic start format, but again the genus links and species links all still say Conidae. Would BOT assistance be appropriate here? Shellnut ( talk) 21:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I was Wiki-surfing today and noted that there was an old page for Pleuroploca gigantea which is now known as Triplofusus giganteus, as well as another page with the new name. WoRMS recognizes the species as Triplofusus giganteus which is the newer taxonomy. The original article was fairly well fleshed out so I corrected the taxonomy throughout, but it's name needs changed. The "new" article is merely a stub and therefore should be deleted and have the original article take its place. I do not know how to do this. Could either JoJan or Ganeshk teach me so I do not have to bother you with these kinds of things? After that is done I will go back to the genus article and clean up from there as needed. Thank you. Shellnut ( talk) 23:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you JoJan! I saw that you made the change already. Can you teach me? Shellnut ( talk) 23:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Please check the taxonomy of the genus Rissopsetia. WoRMS is classifying it under Cimidae. — Ganeshk ( talk) 10:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
(Note to JoJan from above) Have you had a chance to check out my draft articles in my sandboxes? The article in the second sandbox is a summary article on the Tucker & Tenorio cone snail taxonomy 2009. The article in the first sandbox could be a stand alone article which could be reached from the first one as a greater explanation of the proposed family Conilithidae; alternatively the information could be placed farther down on the other article as a detailed section. Your thoughts? Shellnut ( talk) 21:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Today while adding a genus article for Fulgiconus I ran across the species article Conus moluccensis Küster, 1838 which had an image added in the last year by another member. The image was taken from Rehber & Wilson, 1975's publication - a clear copyright violation. Also, the image was from item #12 on the page (an Ovulidae species) whereas the correct image would have been #11 (the cone species). I removed the image promptly. I think we need to check images on all article that we are editing for both copyright issues AND to ensure that the correct species is in fact reflected in the image. Any thoughts? Shellnut ( talk) 22:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
The Unaccepted page has been updated. There are 737 items on it. — Ganeshk ( talk) 10:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Can we just redirect the talk pages as well? Will that be acceptable? — Ganeshk ( talk) 15:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Shellnut ( talk) 16:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Merry Christmas. JoJan ( talk) 13:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Happy Holidays to all. — Ganeshk ( talk) 17:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
All the best to everyone from me too! Invertzoo ( talk) 22:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Best wishes from me too. May 2012 be a fruitful year in contributions to this project. JoJan ( talk) 14:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
And from me too! Am I too late? I guess it's still between xmas and new years. Happy Holidays! :) Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 05:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Happy New Year to everyone! Shellnut ( talk) 20:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Can someone explain this picture? It that a snail family? — Ganeshk ( talk) 12:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
To everyone working in the Project, and in the encyclopedia as a whole,
Our vision for Wikipedia is one of beauty, natural symmetry and light.
I wish you a Happy New Year, everything good for your family, your loved ones and yourself, peace and joy for all the people of the world. I also wish a joyful and peaceful expansion for Wikipedia, may it bring helpful, generous, and peaceful information to everyone.
All the very best from
Invertzoo (
talk)
16:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I was happy that I managed to get all the "needed genus articles" created as stubs by the end of 2011. That means that now, finally, all of our pre-existing species articles actually have a corresponding genus article, which means that one can navigate all the way up and down through the tree of life structure. Phew! This is another small but significant milestone in our project's development. Invertzoo ( talk) 21:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I took these at the market. Are they well-known? Pls give me the species name so that I can add it to the image description.
Many thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 02:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Number 4 may be Solecurtus consimilis Kuroda & Habe in Habe, 1961. Shellnut ( talk) 04:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Number 2 may be Periglypta clathrata (Deshayes, 1853) Shellnut ( talk) 04:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Number 5 may be Gafrarium divaricatum (Gmelin, 1791) Shellnut ( talk) 04:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Number 1 may be Lioconcha lorenziana (Dillwyn, 1817) Shellnut ( talk) 05:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Anna, Can I ask: do they sell any sea snails at that market, or only clams? Invertzoo ( talk) 21:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC) I ask because we might be able to do better with the sea snails than with the clams as several of us here are strongest on gastropods rather than bivalves, and plus, gastropods are often a bit easier to identify from these kind of general market photos. I certainly would not delete your images, they are good ones. I would leave them and ID them to family and put a suggested genus and species name on them. Someone will come along at some point who can confirm or correct the IDs. Invertzoo ( talk) 14:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! A stub template or category which you created has been nominated for renaming or deletion at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type most likely doesn't meet Wikipedia requirements for a stub type, through failure to meet standards relating to the name, scope, current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals! This message is a boilerplate, left here as a courtesy, and should not be considered personal in nature. Dawynn ( talk) 16:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Do we have a good reference for the unranked clades that we add to articles like Odostomia? We will need a reference other than WoRMS since we differ from the WoRMS classification. Thoughts? — Ganeshk ( talk) 12:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I just checked a few species on this list that I know and have in my collection, Mitra pele and Mitra vexillum. Both are valid species under WoRMS. They seem to have been flagged only because they have used a WORMS reference which is either an "alternate representation" or the wrong id number. Are they flagged off of a WoRMS search? If so, maybe the BOT that does this needs to NOT flag species that are valid but have other names that are accepted as "alternate representations". This would reduce the list considerably and make fixing it not look like a daunting task. Any ideas? Shellnut ( talk) 16:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Date | Action | By |
---|---|---|
2009-10-02 09:41:28Z | created | Robin, Alain |
2010-09-29 14:58:18Z | changed | Rosenberg, Gary |
2011-12-12 00:42:37Z | changed | Rosenberg, Gary |
Hi JoJan! Hello again Invertzoo! I made a new shell friend in Russia, a cone guy, who is an awesome photographer and has thousands of beautiful cone shells which he has photographed. His name is Alexander Medvedev. He has a website devoted to his cone shells and has uploaded images to Gastropods.com and Schooner Specimen Shells' cone pages. He has logged on as a new user onto Wikicommons with my urging, using the new User name Almed2. I saw that you promptly welcomed him. I have written to Invertzoo about using his images as Alexander gave me permission to do so over Facebook, yet I perceived future issues with copyright since I am not the author of the images (uploading could trigger a BOT deletion). Anyway, the long and short of all this is that Alexander has now uploaded images for six species of cones. He has over 2300 images!!! With some friendly welcoming and encouragement I see that Alexander would likely enjoy collaborating with us here at WikiProject Gastropods and working on improving the cone species articles by uploading and posting his excellent images. Shellnut ( talk) 05:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi JoJan, Invertzoo, Ganeshk! Please see the Conus leonardi talk page. Almed2 just added some very nice images here. The correct name is Conus lienardi, and I tried to move the page but there was already a name place with a redirect to the incorrectly named page so it would not let me do it. I have killed the redirect but can not delete that page to accomplish a move. Help please! Thank you. Shellnut ( talk) 06:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Done I have made stub articles for all red-lined species in the
List of Conus species article so that there are no empty species articles listed there. As the genus articles under T&T (2009) progresses I am finding many more new species identified under WoRMS which will need new species articles. Those "new" species show up as red-lined in the genus articles and still have to be added. An important side note, WoRMS recognizes as valid genus and species names (rather than as "alternate representations") newly described species where the authors have used the T&T (2009) genus names, therefore species will be added to the
List of Conus species article alphabetically by species (ignoring the genus for alphabetizing).
Shellnut (
talk)
01:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm pretty ignorant but we seem to have some very knowledgeable editors in this project so perhaps someone could explain why several clades are mentioned in the taxoboxes of lower taxonomic groups of gastropods. For example, Elysia is a sacoglossan but 4 other unranked clades are included in the taxobox besides Sacoglossa. Why is this? I have written several species accounts for members of this genus. I use the genus taxobox, extending it for the species, and normally include a reference to the appropriate page of WoRMS. However our taxobox is not completely supported by WoRMS taxonomy. Could someone please explain the thinking behind these decisions. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 10:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Almed2 has finished downloading the pictures to the section «A» of Cones
"I finished to download the pictures to the section «A» of Cones To my mind there is two species of Cones missed
These species I dont have in my collection:
For those I put the links to the Gastropods.com site
For these species I need to specify the taxons
Question: this file contains a mistake? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AConus_australis.shell001.jpg It is a Conus aureus Hwass in Bruguière, J.G., 1792 Who has a right to change the name of the file and move it to another category? The author or the editor? Good luck to everybody! Alex" Almed2 ( talk) 16:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I have created the following genera articles. I can have the bot do a Conidae species run if these articles look good. Shellnut, I hope these are helpful starter articles to build upon. Please review.
— Ganeshk ( talk) 17:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Copied here from the talk page of Eulimidae, by Invertzoo ( talk) 20:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
It seems Stiliferidae are considered part of Eulimidae by some sources. For example, WoRMS called Stiliferidae "not accepted", but concedes that some sources classify Stiliferidae as a family in their own right under Eulimoidea. Should Wikipedia follow WoRMS, or continue as it does currently, with a separate article for Stiliferidae? Inductiveload ( talk) 21:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Here's an update on the cone snail work. Almed2 has joined in and has uploaded images for all cone snail species which he has from species starting with the letter "A" through "P" (about 450 species); he has over 2300 images of cone snails which he has generously agreed to waive copyright to, upload to WikiCommons, and put on Wikipedia articles. Ganeshk has run the BOT and has identified another 39 species of cone snails listed on WoRMS but which did not have species articles; they are now stubs thanks to Ganeshk. I have written genus articles based on the Tucker & Tenorio work, completing around 50 genus articles so far, and am in the letter "P" as well. Ganeshk has run a BOT on the "red lined" genus articles and has placed a stub article in place of "red lined" genera; I am tackling these one at a time and fleshing them out.
On the List of Conus species article we have run into an issue which needs a consensus. It was originally written when the ONLY recognized genus for cone snail species was Conus. Now there are more genera which have achieved primary recognition on WoRMS, and I suspect that this will continue to grow by 14-18 per year as new species are named and their authors use other genera in naming them. First, should the List of Conus species article contain the names, WoRMS references, and links to all cone snail species? Second, if the answer is "NO" and the article only contains species currently (or ever) recognized as Conus then where do we place the other species? Third, if the List of Conus species article only contains those species which use the genus Conus, should we have another article listing cone snail species alphabetically by species, with a similar format including references to WoRMS and links to the species articles? Shellnut ( talk) 03:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
User:J.H.McDonnell has started to create article for Paleozoic gastropods Special:Contributions/J.H.McDonnell. While this is a good thing, the user is noted for purposely not following formatting guidelines with respect to headings, taxoboxes, and templates. Often times when this user updates a page he will remove templates from citations and for citation needed tags. New article created will have a forced color parameter and at least regnum if not regnum and phylum levels will be left out of the actual box. I try to keep up with the new pages and edits done by this user, but I am not familiar with how the Paleozoic gastopod taxonomy should be displayed in taxoboxes, eg at Sinutropis or Euomphalidae. -- Kev min § 06:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I was asked by Invertzoo to post clarifications on some of the WP:Paleontology guidelines.
Species articles
Paleontology generally prefers genus articles to species articles. If you have info on a species you may want to create it as a subsection of the relevant genus article. The thought process behind the consolidation of species descriptions into genus articles is that for fossil species generally not much information is known about them, and when looking at the literature the definitions tend to change or be rather fluid.
The general guidelines at WP:Paleontology when deciding whether to create a species level article is to look at how much of the article would be duplication of prose found in a sister species article/parent genus article. If the only major changes in prose are going to be minor points of identification (eg overall size, hinge tooth structure, type locality) then creating a single comprehensive genus article is recommended, with the species being covered as subsections in the genus article. See Lambeosaurus and Palaeovespa for examples. On the occasion where the species sections may be overwhelming the rest of a genus article then they may be split out into a "Species of xxx" article (eg Psittacosaurus and Species of Psittacosaurus). These guidelines cover almost all fossil taxa excepting ones that are from about the last ice age to modern times, many of which are more well known and defined then older taxa. Also, of course it is not meant to be applied to extinct species within a living genera, such as Equisetum thermale, where the other discussed species have stand-alone articles.-- Kev min § 22:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Daggers
In WP:Paleontology, the use of daggers is generally restricted to taxoboxes and taxa lists in articles. When an extinct taxon is mentioned in running prose of a living taxon article it is normally mentioned as extinct, which obviates the need to mark it with a dagger. Similarly in an article on an extinct taxon, the status of the taxon as extinct should usually noted in the first or second line of the introductory prose. Daggers are used in the body of an article generally only in taxon lists. Thus a
List of Acer species will have a notation at the top explaining the presence of the †, while the species themselves are formated thus:
†''[[Acer stonebergae]]'' <small>[[Jack A. Wolfe|Wolfe]] & [[Toshimasa Tanai|Tanai]]</small> ([[Early Eocene]], [[Washington (U.S. state)|Washington State]] & [[British Columbia]])<ref name="Wolfe1987"/>
which gives this
†
Acer stonebergae
Wolfe &
Tanai (
Early Eocene,
Washington State &
British Columbia)
[3] The dagger is placed in front of the taxon name, while the area after the authority information (fo me at least) is used for age and formation/location information). The dagger is used in a taxobox to mark the extinct levels of the taxonomy from the extant ones, with the first instance of a dagger linked to the extinction article (eg {{extinction}} or [[extinct|†]]) If you use the automatic taxoboxes, the taxonomy template has a built-in parameter for marking a taxon extinct. --
Kev
min
§
22:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Automatic taxoboxes
The use of automatic taxoboxes is by no means a universally accepted practice. In fact WP:Paleontology is the only project that has adopted use of them for all new articles created. Currently the explanatory documentation needs to be reworked to make it more intuitive for users. However, I think use at both the WP:Gastropods and WP:Bivalves could be beneficial as the higher taxonomies of both are, for the most part, in flux at this point. Creation of the taxonomy templates is not very difficult, and conversion of a taxobox to an automatic taxobox is also not complex. A lot of the work involved actually comes from the initial creation of the first few taxon template groups, after those are done, other lower level templates link in fairly quickly. I will be the first to admit that I don't know nearly every in-and-out of the automatic taxoboxes or the speciesboxes, but the users who maintain/work on them are willing to help with problems. I think a lot of what is needed to clarify the documentation is more new eyes there working with us to clarify and streamline it. This page Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Automatic taxobox has a good overview of how to create and covert taxoboxes.-- Kev min § 22:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I have created the Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastropods/Automatic taxobox page reusing much of the content from a similar page on the Plants project. I have added project-specific examples of various possible scenarios. Please let me know your comments. Also, please feel free to tweak the page. — Ganeshk ( talk) 22:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking whether it would be okay to use the automatic taxoboxes on the bot-created articles. This would eliminate the need for newcomers to learn the complex syntax and prepare stubs that can be expanded. It will also give the project members a chance to work with the automatic taxoboxes. Please comment here whether you approve/disapprove of this. Thanks. — Ganeshk ( talk) 23:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Is there any reason this article shouldn't be moved from Panopea generosa to the common name of Pacific geoduck, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)? -- Tom Hulse ( talk) 20:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Can I ask if you've taken this idea higher up, to WP:TOL or WP:FAUNA? The reason I ask is that WP:FAUNA has clear and binding conventions for all animals, including bivalves. You may not locally override them at your bivalve project, per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS; you would need to get the wider community's permission to change their guidline for all animals. So just becuase "some" common names of marine fauna may not have garnered wide acceptance doesn't mean we can apply that to other related articles. I don't think Pacific geoduck is in any way ambiguous, do you? -- Tom Hulse ( talk) 20:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
My first attempt at transcluding a talk section onto multiple pages; please tell me if I got any of if wrong. -- Tom Hulse ( talk) 11:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Many years ago it was known that Sea Hares inhabited the coast off Aransas Pass and Padre Island Texas in great numbers, but migrated away in the colder months. What wasn't known is where they migrated to. Does anyone know of further studies on this matter?
The article here mentions that NeuroScientists are interested in Sea Hares, but don't elaborate that it is because of the simplicity and dimensions of their neural network makes them easy to work with.
In the 80's researchers at UT and other area laboratories had problems getting specimens for study off season. I haven't followed the situation since then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IRobt ( talk • contribs) 16:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
A friend of mine published an incredible image of very large gastropod egg cases. I thought it might interest the WikiProject Gastropods members. Shellnut ( talk) 05:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I just looked, and apparently we do not have any information or images on gastropod egg cases in the main article, or in the reproduction and mating behaviour article. Undoubtedly there are a lot of images of gastropod egg cases on Flickr, etc. Any ideas Invertzoo? Shellnut ( talk) 05:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
After searching WikiCommons I was only able to find one other example of gastropod egg cases for Busycon contrarium (A Most Valued Image award winner), AND it was not even placed on the species article!
I have used the WoRMS database file to create the User:Ganeshbot/Animalia/Gastropoda page. It can be used to traverse through the taxonomy down to the species. I have completed the run for the Heterobranchia. — Ganeshk ( talk) 13:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I would appreciate your comments at this thread. Thanks. — Ganeshk ( talk) 13:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC) (this answer is also copied to User_talk:Stemonitis#Always_display
|always_display=true
to the "Template:Taxonomy/..." pages is almost always a bad idea. Note what the documentation for these pages says "If the taxon is not a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus or species, but should nevertheless be displayed in all descendant taxoboxes (this is not a common occurrence!) ..." Instead, use |display_parents=
in the relevant
display template in the automatic taxobox system with some number chosen to show the required extra nodes up to the next principal rank (i.e. the next up of the 7 Linnaean ranks).
Peter coxhead (
talk)
09:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I am not in any way, shape or form an authority on Gastropods. But having a general scientific interest, and being a somewhat obsessive personality, I've been doing A LOT of work on Category page. Most of that has been in pages for some genus or another. (Mostly, that's been in the plants.)
I just did a big job of that with a family of Gastropods, and now I'm afraid I might have done something wrong.
I recently stumbled on a large category for the sea snail family Category:Fasciolariidae. It had well over 500 articles. It also had one subcategory for one genus in the family, Category:Fusus with 53 articles. But I saw that on the family category page, there were 176 articles for species of the genus Fusinus. So I created a Category:Fusinus page, set it as a subcategory of Fasciolariidae and moved all 176 Fusinus articles to it.
But now I find the far bigger Category:Muricidae with over 1600 articles. Again, this is for a family, with many genera. One might conceivably sort out the larger genera into subcategories. But there's a note on the page. It says, "Preventive warning: Do not split this category! Otherwise discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods." There's also a note that says, "For convenience, all Muricidae are included in this category. This includes all Muricidae that can also be found in the subcategories." (BTW, there are no subcategories, apart from the Stub Category page.)
So now, I'm wondering if there's some reason for the Gastropods to have huge pages for families, and some reason the Gastropod Project members do not want them broken down into smaller categories for genera. In short, I wonder if I SHOULD have done what I did. BTW, I was thinking of pulling two more genera out of the Category page for the family Fasciolariidae. But I'll hold off. In case I wind up feeling obligated to put the Fusinus species back, I'd rather keep it to just those 176. Uporządnicki ( talk) 19:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to
HighBeam Research.
—
Wavelength (
talk)
17:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi all, there appeared few new articles of species in monotypic genera: Ayna mienisi, Truncatophaedusa evae, Pontophaedusella offenses. Few WikiProject members (usually considered as crucial project members) have seen these articles and they did not noticed the article title discrepancy! I can apply Wikipedia:Requested moves but I would like to try explain, why de facto the whole this project prefer(preferred) the name of the species in the title:
Thanks for your attention and happy editing! -- Snek01 ( talk) 01:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for that example. That is very useful example, because at least we can immediately move "Ayna (gastropod)" to "Ayna mienisi". Hmm... there really is written recommendation for such names at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life#Article titles and it is there since 2004: "However, for a genus that contains a single species, the genus name should be used since it is included in the binomial." There is not explained why generic name should be used in the WikiProject Tree of Life. That sentence includes an exception into guidelines and such exception is there included without any (apparent) reason. Not all wikiprojects follows that, for example fishes ( Category:Monotypic fish genera) uses binomen. If we are looking for universal and unified solution(s), then it is like this:
Wikiproject Gastropods have always used such universal solution. It is also as much as stable solution. And it is also as much as unambiguous: every article that contain binomen is about the certain species; every article that uses genus is about at least 2 species. Also consider, that there are hundreds of unresolved articles Category:Gastropod genera with single species that we do not know, if they are monotypic or not. Also consider that titles of common names of species (such as Tumbling Creek cavesnail, Flat pebblesnail, ...) are used for monotypic genera. Common names are not always possible to apply to gastropods, but for example all monotypic genera of birds and many of mammals redirects from generic name to common name of species. So why there should be such great difference in common names of species and scientific names of species? All articles (or I could rather say very great majority) about gastropods are unified in as much as universal way now. What we will do, when we know now, that other Wikiprojects used different titles? Will we blindly follow the crowd and will we perform hundreds of moves as well as modify much more associated articles? Will we continue using our way? Will we be satisfied with unresolved problems and will we be claiming that we do not understand each other? Or will we ask them why they did so? If there will be any reason, then we can DECIDE what to do: either modify our articles or suggest modification of the guideline. -- Snek01 ( talk) 13:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Good news. The bot request has been approved. I will create the next 100 articles and post back here. — Ganeshk ( talk) 16:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello all. Noticed an article in the new Zookeys which might be of interest to you. All Zookeys articles (text and images) are CC-3.0 so you can use all of it on wikipedia. The article is: Annotated type catalogue of the Bothriembryontidae and Odontostomidae (Mollusca, Gastropoda, Orthalicoidea) in the Natural History Museum, London [6] Cheers, Ruigeroeland ( talk) 08:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I just came across a taxonomic revision in the IUCN database for the species Omphalotropis costulata. They say the name proposed in 1999 is invalid, since it was already used in 1870. They have taken to calling this critter O. sp. nov. 2. Thoughts on how we should deal with the issue? -- TeaDrinker ( talk) 07:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
TeaDrinker, thanks for notifying the mistake. I have started that Omphalotropis costulata (Mousson, 1870) article. -- Snek01 ( talk) 23:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Could someone who speaks Spanish and/or has some taxonomic experience take a look at Talk:Radiodiscus iheringi? What I think is going on is Radiodiscus iheringi was named in 1881 by EA Smith. In 1899, Ancey named Stephanoda iheringi, which Fonseca and Thome moved into Radiodiscus in 1994. That would make it a secondary homonym which should be renamed. I'm not really sure this is what's going on, but if someone who can clarify (or read the Fonseca and Thome paper), it would be quite helpful. -- TeaDrinker ( talk) 06:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
(Fonseca and Thome is in Portuguese language.) I have resolved the authority and synonyms within the genus and added information: see the talkpage of the species and see synonyms in the genus article. -- Snek01 ( talk) 00:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Is there some reason all 1776 species have gone into the category for the family, instead of into separate subcategories for the genera? Are the genera in this family particularly uncertain? Uporządnicki ( talk) 02:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello to everyone!
I'd like to introduce myself. My name is Rodrigo B. Salvador and I'm a graduate student at the Museum of Zoology of São Paulo, Brazil. I am specializing myself in land snails, mainly fossils but I've also worked with the recent fauna. A colleague of mine from the museum, Daniel C. Cavallari, encouraged me to start adding some content to Wikipedia. I've started today with the Cerionidae and intend to keep on adding content from now on.
Best regards, Rodrigo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RodrigoSalvador ( talk • contribs) 19:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Sure looks like this guy: [7] [8] Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 11:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Moved to [ [9]]. Thanks folks. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 03:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I would very much like to get input from project members on the question of how to organize marine mollusk faunal lists and whether regional list articles should even be created. Two or three years ago this question came up, and back then this project seemed to have a consensus that it would be better to have lists of marine mollusks by faunal zone, for example the northeast Atlantic, the Mediterranean Sea, the Caribbean faunal zone and so on, rather than having a different article for every single country or every island, articles that would attempt to list all the marine species for that rather small area. I should point out that there are hardly any marine species that are endemic to one small area, which is not at all the case for the non-marine fauna.
To be fair, I should also point out that in the past, people have already started "List of marine mollusks of" articles for New Zealand, Venezuela, South Africa, Chile, Mozambique, Brazil, Australia and Angola. However, all of those lists are currently extremely incomplete, since all of those areas would in reality have a marine fauna of more than a thousand species.
Please think about this issue, and put your comments here. Thanks, Invertzoo ( talk) 00:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
In some ways I agree with you, although I think we should ultimately have articles on each of the different marine faunal zones, even if those articles do not attempt to list the whole marine mollusk fauna of each zone. However, I want to try to find out what all of us think about this, not just trying to suggest what the project members ourselves should do or not do, but for the encyclopedia as a whole. Should we try to discourage other editors from creating country lists? The reason those articles get created is because there are often (partial) published lists out there of the marine mollusk fauna of individual countries or islands, and people end up creating list articles based on those published sources. Of course the editors who create these list articles don't see anything wrong with doing that. One reason I am asking this now, is that a WP editor from Ireland saw the list of non-marine mollusks of Ireland (which I had done a lot of work on several years ago) and asked me if I was going to do a list of the Irish marine mollusks. To be fair, I suppose that quite a few shell collectors and naturalists would enjoy knowing what marine species occur in the area they live in, plus, as this editor pointed out, certain species are protected in certain countries because they are locally endangered, and that info can also be included. Although I personally have no intention of creating a marine mollusk list for Ireland, I want to know what project members think about this whole question. Invertzoo ( talk) 13:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/life/Conus#p00msm0v I ran into this interesting video. — Ganeshk ( talk) 00:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
The bot is active again. The next 100 articles are ready for review. — Ganeshk ( talk) 17:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi gastropod lovers!
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Lambis crocata 2010 G1.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on August 25, 2012. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2012-08-25. — howcheng { chat} 16:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I have submitted a new bot approval request requesting approval to create 500 stubs at a time. — Ganeshk ( talk) 01:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Please confirm the introduction sentence and the taxonomy. — Ganeshk ( talk) 20:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
X | |
---|---|
Scientific classification | |
Kingdom: | |
Phylum: | |
Class: | |
(unranked): | clade
Vetigastropoda
|
Superfamily: | |
Family: | |
Genus: | |
Species: | X. X
|
Binomial name | |
X. X |
X is a genus of sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Turbinidae, the turban snails.
X is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Turbinidae, the turban snails.
Biota > Animalia (Kingdom) > Mollusca (Phylum) > Gastropoda (Class) > Vetigastropoda (Subclass) > Trochoidea (Superfamily) > Turbinidae (Family)
I was thinking that it might be very nice to have a navigational template like this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cephalopod_anatomy
But for gastropods. It could perhaps be divided into shell, external soft parts and internal soft parts? Invertzoo ( talk) 16:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
For a long time we have not had a taxobox in the article Snail, because this common name does not strictly refer to a whole taxon, since Gastropoda includes both snail and slugs. However, I see from Article Feedback that a lot of kids come to the article wanting to know which phylum snails belong to, and similar questions, so I decided to try putting a very simple taxobox into the article. If anyone thinks this is a bad idea, let me know. Invertzoo ( talk) 13:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I have updated the synonym page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastropods/Unaccepted. — Ganeshk ( talk) 11:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I see that Wikipedia and Wiktionary have entries for Isotropy, but neither have an entry for Isotrophy, which is not the same thing. Our articles about Bellerophonts and other similar mollusk groups use the term isotrophic quite often, so maybe we should try to think about creating a stub article for this concept? Invertzoo ( talk) 22:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
How about for animals etc Tell us their sizes
Eg giant abalone How big / heavy is it? And how big are normal ones? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.60.0.106 ( talk) 04:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Should articles on seafood be given titles that restrict them to cuisines, as a user maintains in this thread? There is a referral for comment on this issue where members of this project are invited to give their views. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 23:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I wanted to report a nice experience today with our gastropod articles. Within my own research I am currently drafting a new paper that includes a list of 19 fairly common Caribbean mollusks, mostly gastropods. For the first time ever I tried using our articles as a source for the authority and date of each of the species. I was happy to see that all 19 of the articles had author and date included. I then checked all the info against Gary Rosenberg's Malacolog database and it matched up. This was just a small test, but I feel we are really doing well! Invertzoo ( talk) 20:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
"Schepman" from all gastropod articles (around 200 articles(?)) should link to "Mattheus Marinus Schepman". Maybe good task for a semi-automatic work. But do not overlink. Thanks, -- Snek01 ( talk) 19:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi all. Long time no post. :)
Mattheus Marinus Schepman needs expanding for a possible DYK.
See also: User talk:Anna Frodesiak#Mattheus Marinus Schepman
Thanks, Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 20:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Anyone else care to submit it? That has to be done pretty much right away. Invertzoo ( talk) 18:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
WikiProject Gastropods is honored to be able to say that among its active members is Cwmhiraeth, the winner of the
the 2012 Wikipedia cup!!! Fantastic work!
Invertzoo (
talk)
00:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I just found this gallery of quality shell images, commons:Shells_by_H._Zell. — Ganeshk ( talk) 02:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I am starting to add shell images to species articles again. I just added a number of Ranellidae; images of shells from my personal collection. Shellnut ( talk) 00:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I have added a number of these excellent photographs to articles that did not have them, including some genus articles where the image was present for the appropriate species, but no image was present at all for the genus. I also created a number of stubs in order to be able to place some of the images. However, I found that for some of the land snail species names such as within the genus Cyclophorus, I could not find evidence to support their existence via a quick google search, so I left many of those for the time being. There are so many images that I got only a small distance through the set, down to part the way through the Strombidae. The photographer is constantly uploading new images too, so any help someone can give in placing images into articles would be much appreciated. Invertzoo ( talk) 20:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi! I've seen that Kulindroplax has been listed by someone under the scope of this wikiproject. I'm all for having more eyes looking at the article I've created, but Kulindroplax is by no means a gastropod -it's a basal aplacophoran. It's okay to keep it there or was the listing misguided? Just to avoid confusions for you guys. Thanks! -- Cyclopia talk 12:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I made the following observation at Articles for deletion/Sarasomia; can someone knowledgeable about the subject look in to this?
הסרפד ( Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 05:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Google Scholar shows no results for "Sarasomia" ("Sarsomia" brings up some references to a genus of nematodes) . Google Books brings up two results, the older of which is from Common and Scientific Names of Aquatic Invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Mollusks (1998).
Searching Google overall for "Sarasomia", one finds about 4,000 results—surprisingly few for an animal genus. All taxonomy sites mentioning Sarasomia that I checked cite ITIS as a source. ITIS, in turn, mentions only one species in Sarasomia: S. Plebeia, the Caribbean leatherleaf. The source provided is the 1988 edition of Common and Scientific Names of Aquatic Invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Mollusks. The reference, if I interpreted the ITIS reference correctly, refers specifically to the "Caribbean leatherleaf" as "Sarasomia plebeia (Fischer, 1898)".
Searching for "Caribbean leatherleaf" finds numerous results for "Sarasinula plebeia (Fischer, 1868)". This is confirmed by the ITIS database, which cites the 1998 edition of Common and Scientific Names of Aquatic Invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Mollusks.
Final point: Sarasinula seems to be named for one of several naturalist named Sarasin. Sarasomia has no apparent etymology.
Thus, it seems to me (a complete ignoramus in taxonomy, so my word doesn't count for much) that Sarasomia plebeia (Fischer, 1898) is originally a typographical error for Sarasinula plebeia (Fischer, 1868).
הסרפד ( Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 16:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
You can redirect Sarasomia plebeia to Sarasinula plebeia with an easy conscience. Thus we can be nearly sure that Sarasomia is a misspelling and we can also redirect Sarasomia to Sarasinula plebeia with very high degree of probability. We have a resource (idtools.org) by professional biologists for such decision. הסרפד resolved it correctly without any malacological knowledge but with critical thinking. הסרפד thank you for good work! -- Snek01 ( talk) 22:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you all!
I wanted to point out, however, that the note added to Sarasinula plebeia may be correct factually but is problematic Wikipedicly (?); see WP:NOTOR#Conflict between sources for the guidelines on analyzing conflicting or incorrect sources in articles.
הסרפד ( Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 00:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Please confirm the introduction sentence and the taxonomy. — Ganeshk ( talk) 15:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
X | |
---|---|
Scientific classification | |
Kingdom: | |
Phylum: | |
Class: | |
(unranked): | clade
Vetigastropoda
|
Superfamily: | |
Family: | |
Genus: | |
Species: | X. X
|
Binomial name | |
X. X |
X is a genus of sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Trochidae, the top snails.
X is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Trochidae, the top snails.
Biota > Animalia (Kingdom) > Mollusca (Phylum) > Gastropoda (Class) > Vetigastropoda (Subclass) > Trochoidea (Superfamily) > Trochidae (Family)
Please confirm the introduction sentence and the taxonomy.
X | |
---|---|
Scientific classification | |
Kingdom: | |
Phylum: | |
Class: | |
(unranked): | clade
Vetigastropoda
|
Superfamily: | |
Family: | |
Genus: | |
Species: | X. X
|
Binomial name | |
X. X |
X is a genus of sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family X within the superfamily Trochoidea, the top snails, turban snails and their allies.
X is a
species of
sea snail, a
marine
gastropod
mollusk in the
family
X within the superfamily
Trochoidea, the top snails, turban snails and their allies.
Biota > Animalia (Kingdom) > Mollusca (Phylum) > Gastropoda (Class) > Vetigastropoda (Subclass) > Trochoidea (Superfamily)
Should we include the text "within the superfamily Trochoidea, the top snails, turban snails and their allies" in the genera pages alone or both? I have lumped in four smaller families into this bot run. — Ganeshk ( talk) 14:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Done Completed with
128 edits. Please review. —
Ganeshk (
talk)
05:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello folks. For those of us who are working on marine species, especially those of us who are shell collectors, I just wanted to point out that our taxon articles are about species of animals, not species of shells. The taxon name refers to the animal, not just simply to the shell of the animal, which is only its skeleton left over after the animal has died.
1. In our taxoboxes, an image of the living animal (when available) should come first, followed by an image of the shell.
2. In the text of articles be sure to say things like, "the shell is used for jewelry" rather than just the saying "Biggus snailus is used for jewelry".
I believe it is essential to let readers see and understand that shells are not simply beautiful aesthetic objects that just somehow come magically into existence, but are the remains of living individual creatures that have died. Thanks. Invertzoo ( talk) 16:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Someone outside of our project nominated this currently C-class article for GA. If anyone can help try to fix it up even a little bit over the next few weeks please do so, because it needs a fair bit of clean up to get it to GA! Many thanks, Invertzoo ( talk) 01:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
With the addition of a Phylogeny section, Lobatus gigas is now closer than it has ever been from being a candidate to our first FA. Some of us know how overwhelming a FA review can be, specially when things take the wrong turn... Moreover, before we can submit it to FA review, a throughout Manual of Style adjustment must be made. I'm not wiki-proficient enough as an editor to accomplish this alone. Still, most of us working together should be enough. I dream to see our first FA since I joined this project. It may be worth trying. -- Daniel Cavallari ( talk) 03:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Reasons to believe in a FA candidacy:
- The article basically covers all matters relating to the animal. Highlight for sections on taxonomy and nomenclature, description of the shell, ecology, human use and conservation, which are all excellent in my opinion.
- The article is well illustrated, and includes a FP. There is no section without illustrations.
- The writing is good, with a few caveats.
Things to do:
- Check out MOS;
- Check all the prose;
- Check all links;
- Improve the arrangement of images throughout the text.
- Improve anatomy session by providing details (proportions and sizes of structures, for example) based on Simone (2005).
That's it, IMHO. --
Daniel Cavallari (
talk)
03:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello, everybody. I'm not sure if this message belongs here, because it relates to Wikisource, but as it's about an important work on gastropods, I thought you might be interested.
In short, I'm currently working on converting scans of the volumes (found
here) to djvu format, so they can be transcribed using Wikisource's index system.
Unfortunately, those who aren't partners of Hathi Trust can only download PDFs of individual pages, so the scans of each page have to be downloaded individually (there are over a thousand pages!), combined, then converted. Once the DJVU files are uploaded to Commons, editors can start transcribing. (Luckily, Hathi Trust provides OCRed text for each scan).
If anyone wants to help with the downloading of the scans (or with transcribing), please leave a reply. I am working on Volume I, Part 1 2.
The Wikisource page of the book is at Land Mollusca of North America (north of Mexico)
Thank you!-- Frglz ( talk) 19:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Each part had to be split into two PDFs because of file size limits. If you want one PDF per part, you'll have to merge them yourself.-- Frglz ( talk) 06:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Sometimes finding the meaning of a scientific name derived from Latin or Greek is a hard task. This is specially hard to do in Wikipedia articles, since you need a good, verifiable reference to back every claim. To make things a little easier, I'd like to suggest a very good book from 1954, by Mr. R. W. Brown, which you can find here:
Brown, R. W. (1954) Composition of Scientific Words
This should help us all when writing on the etymology of our favorite gastropods.
Best, -- Daniel Cavallari ( talk) 15:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I nominated Laevistrombus canarium for a Featured Article review. Here is the review page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Laevistrombus_canarium/archive1 If you can help in the process, I would greatly appreciate it! Let's hope it succeeds. Best,
-- Daniel Cavallari ( talk) 15:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
A couple of days ago I was doing a Google search to try to find an image of a shell of a species of small pyramidellid sea snail (a micromollusk) that I found in Florida. I was checking to see if I had identified it correctly. The species is Peristichia toreta. I was able to find one photograph on the website of the Bailey-Matthews Shell Museum, but since the shell is white on white it was not easy to see what the sculpture of the shell really was like. An even better image was to be found using the Google search, but only in our Wikipedia article, the image being from the original publication of Dall's. I was surprised and delighted that we have such a nice article and such a nice illustration for such a small and rather obscure shell! Thanks to Ganeshbot and to JoJan! Invertzoo ( talk) 22:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Please confirm the lead sentence and the taxonomy.
X | |
---|---|
Scientific classification | |
Kingdom: | |
Phylum: | |
Class: | |
(unranked): | clade
Vetigastropoda
|
Family: | |
Genus: | |
Species: | X. X
|
Binomial name | |
X. X |
X is a genus of sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Ataphridae within the clade Vetigastropoda, the false top snails.
X is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Ataphridae, the false top snails.
Biota > Animalia (Kingdom) > Mollusca (Phylum) > Gastropoda (Class) > Vetigastropoda (Subclass) > [unassigned] Vetigastropoda (Superfamily) > Ataphridae (family)
Thanks Ganesh! Invertzoo ( talk) 22:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Angarioidea is Done. Please check
User:Ganeshbot/Animalia/History/Vetigastropoda#December_31. —
Ganeshk (
talk)
15:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Gastropod Barnstar | |
This barnstar is dedicated to all contributors who helped Wikiproject Gastropods this year. If I failed to leave a star on your individual talk page it was an oversight because I was rushed for time, so please help yourself to a copy of this one. I hope our project can grown and increase this year as well as it did this past year! All the very best wishes for 2013! Invertzoo ( talk) 20:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC) |
Hello and happy new year to all WikiProject Gastropods members! I just finished adding images of Cancellariidae shells to genus and species articles, and created a few articles in the process. Amazingly these beautiful snails are a not commonly figured or collected. I just happen to have a really good collection of specimens of this family available (many from the Panamic Province) so I took the time to take and post some macro photos to improve our coverage of this lesser known family. (33 species and 18 genera) Shellnut ( talk) 06:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I just added three species of Calliotropidae both macro images and new species articles: Bathybembix bairdii, Lischkeia alwinae, and Ginebis argenteonitens. These are unusual trochid-like shells which until recently were lumped in the Trochidae. Shellnut ( talk) 01:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello gastropod people! We have a new article which suddenly appeared from a new contributor who then disappeared. The article is currently tentatively called Shell growth in estuaries. It is pretty good, but a bit essay-like. Despite the current title, the article is not solely about estuaries. Actually the article is currently mainly just about about marine calcareous shell growth and the factors that influence it. The article has a lot about mollusks in it. Will anyone who can spare the time, look at it and please let us know what they think. Does anyone have ideas about what the article should be called, and how they think it should be expanded or maybe teased apart into separate articles? User:Epipelagic has submitted it as a possible DYK. Thanks. Our pre-existing discussions about it are here and also here. Invertzoo ( talk) 14:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Please confirm the lead sentence and the taxonomy. — Ganeshk ( talk) 15:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
X | |
---|---|
Scientific classification | |
Kingdom: | |
Phylum: | |
Class: | |
(unranked): | clade
Vetigastropoda
|
Superfamily: | |
Family: | |
Genus: | |
Species: | X. X
|
Binomial name | |
X. X |
X is a genus of sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Fissurellidae, the keyhole limpets and slit limpets.
X is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Fissurellidae, the keyhole limpets and slit limpets.
Biota > Animalia (Kingdom) > Mollusca (Phylum) > Gastropoda (Class) > Vetigastropoda (Subclass) > Fissurelloidea (Superfamily) > Fissurellidae (family)
Done Fissurellidae done with
256 new articles. Please check. Happy New Year to all! —
Ganeshk (
talk)
05:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
So... Ladies and Gentlemen, a round of applause please for the sea snail article Laevistrombus canarium, aka the dog conch. Today it was promoted to Featured Article status. I wanted to mention that User:Daniel Cavallari did most of the work to get it to GA status, and then most of the careful painstaking work necessary to get it up to FA status. Go admire (or even click on) the small bronze star in the upper right hand corner of the article: the bronze means FA. It may be a small star, but it is a lot of work to get there! Hopefully we will gradually have more to follow this one. Invertzoo ( talk) 17:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Well Done! Amazing to finally have a FA, congratulations and thanks to all those who put in the hard work to get the article there. Inspiration for the rest of the project indeed! Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 08:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Congrats to Daniel. -- Snek01 ( talk) 12:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Please confirm the lead sentence and the taxonomy. — Ganeshk ( talk) 20:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
X | |
---|---|
Scientific classification | |
Kingdom: | |
Phylum: | |
Class: | |
(unranked): | clade
Vetigastropoda
|
Superfamily: | |
Family: | |
Genus: | |
Species: | X. X
|
Binomial name | |
X. X |
X is a genus of sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Haliotidae, the abalones.
X is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Haliotidae, the abalones.
Biota > Animalia (Kingdom) > Mollusca (Phylum) > Gastropoda (Class) > Vetigastropoda (Subclass) > Haliotoidea (Superfamily) > Haliotidae (Family)
Hello, review DYK hook of my new article if you like. Thanks. Template:Did you know nominations/Kelletia kelletii. -- Snek01 ( talk) 13:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Please confirm the lead sentences and the taxonomy. — Ganeshk ( talk) 17:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
X | |
---|---|
Scientific classification | |
Kingdom: | |
Phylum: | |
Class: | |
(unranked): | clade
Vetigastropoda
|
Superfamily: | |
Family: | |
Genus: | |
Species: | X. X
|
Binomial name | |
X. X |
X is a genus of small, deep water sea snails, hydrothermal vent limpets, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Lepetodrilidae.
X is a species of small, deep water sea snail, hydrothermal vent limpet, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Lepetodrilidae.
X is a genus of deep water sea snails, hydrothermal vent limpets, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Sutilizonidae.
X is a species of deep water sea snail, hydrothermal vent limpet, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Sutilizonidae.
Genus Elimia was synonymized with Pleurocera. Do you prefer those names of articles of species, that were previously in the genus Elimia, move to scientific names or do you prefer to keep vernacular names (that contain the word elimia) in the name of these articles? I prefer scientific ones. It seems a bit misleading to keep those elimia vernacular names. Will vernacular names change after this taxonomic change somehow someday?
Please confirm the lead sentences and the taxonomy. — Ganeshk ( talk) 21:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
X | |
---|---|
Scientific classification | |
Kingdom: | |
Phylum: | |
Class: | |
(unranked): | clade
Vetigastropoda
|
Superfamily: | |
Family: | |
Genus: | |
Species: | X. X
|
Binomial name | |
X. X |
X is a genus of deep water sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Addisoniidae, the true limpets.
X is a species of deep water sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Addisoniidae, the true limpets.
X is a genus of very small, deep water sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Bathyphytophilidae, the false limpets.
X is a species of very small, deep water sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Bathyphytophilidae, the false limpets.
X is a genus of small, deep water sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Cocculinellidae, the limpets.
X is a species of small, deep water sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Cocculinellidae, the limpets.
X is a genus of small, deep water sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Lepetellidae, the limpets.
X is a species of small, deep water sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Lepetellidae, the limpets.
X is a genus of small, deep water sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Osteopeltidae.
X is a species of small, deep water sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Osteopeltidae.
X is a genus of small sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Pseudococculinidae, the false limpets.
X is a species of small sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Pseudococculinidae, the false limpets.
X is a genus of sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Pyropeltidae.
X is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Pyropeltidae.
Please confirm the lead sentences and the taxonomy. — Ganeshk ( talk) 17:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
X | |
---|---|
Scientific classification | |
Kingdom: | |
Phylum: | |
Class: | |
(unranked): | clade
Vetigastropoda
|
Superfamily: | |
Family: | |
Genus: | |
Species: | X. X
|
Binomial name | |
X. X |
X is a genus of small sea snails with calcareous opercula, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Colloniidae.
X is a species of small sea snail with calcareous opercula, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Colloniidae.
I have created the missing pages. — Ganeshk ( talk) 16:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
X is a genus of small sea snails with calcareous opercula, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Phasianellidae, the pheasant snails.
X is a species of small sea snail with calcareous opercula, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Phasianellidae, the pheasant snails.
There is a stale merge proposal placed at Talk:Mitra nubila stating that an external link there suggests that Mitra versicolor is simply a synonym for M. nubila. The external link in M. versicolor implies, but does not outright state, that they are the same. If you know something about this, please comment at Talk:Mitra nubila]]. Thanks, Ego White Tray ( talk) 04:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Please confirm the lead sentences and the taxonomy. — Ganeshk ( talk) 22:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
X | |
---|---|
Scientific classification | |
Kingdom: | |
Phylum: | |
Class: | |
(unranked): | clade
Vetigastropoda
|
Superfamily: | |
Family: | |
Genus: | |
Species: | X. X
|
Binomial name | |
X. X |
X is a genus of large sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Pleurotomariidae, the slit snails.
X is a species of large sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Pleurotomariidae, the slit snails.
Is this
Felimare picta ? Captured at
Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary,
Savannah, Georgia.
The other pictures at
Felimare picta look very different. I just noticed it has so many subspecies. So is it Felimare (Hypselodoris) picta picta?
J
Kadavoor
J
e
e
05:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Please confirm the lead sentences and the taxonomy. — Ganeshk ( talk) 22:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
X | |
---|---|
Scientific classification | |
Kingdom: | |
Phylum: | |
Class: | |
(unranked): | clade
Vetigastropoda
|
Superfamily: | |
Family: | |
Genus: | |
Species: | X. X
|
Binomial name | |
X. X |
X is a genus of minute sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks or micromollusks in the family Anatomidae.
X is a species of minute sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk or micromollusk in the family Anatomidae.
X is a genus of small to minute sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks or micromollusks in the family Depressizonidae.
X is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk or micromollusk in the family Depressizonidae.
X is a genus of small to minute sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks or micromollusks in the family Larocheidae.
X is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk or micromollusk in the family Larocheidae.
X is a genus of minute sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks or micromollusks in the family Scissurellidae, the little slit snails.
X is a species of minute sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk or micromollusk in the family Scissurellidae, the little slit snails.
A new editor tried to revert Snek's recent changes to the Elimia article. As a result we now still have a Elimia article, as well as having those species listed under Pleurocera. The new editor disagrees with the reassignment of Elimia species to Pleurocera by Dillon (2011) and mentions a new article that was still "in press" when he left the note. The new editor made the mistake of leaving his note on his own talk page, instead of on the talk page of the appropriate article. I copied and placed it there so people can see it. In any case... we can't use as a reference a science paper that is not yet published even though it is in press. I wonder if perhaps the new editor, User:Polarfire1, is one of the authors of the new paper? Invertzoo ( talk) 16:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Please confirm the lead sentences and the taxonomy. — Ganeshk ( talk) 22:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
X | |
---|---|
Scientific classification | |
Kingdom: | |
Phylum: | |
Class: | |
(unranked): | clade
Vetigastropoda
|
Superfamily: | |
Family: | |
Genus: | |
Species: | X. X
|
Binomial name | |
X. X |
X is a genus of sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks, unassigned in the superfamily Seguenzioidea.
X is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk, unassigned in the superfamily Seguenzioidea.
X is a genus of sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Calliotropidae.
X is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Calliotropidae.
X is a genus of sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Cataegidae.
X is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Cataegidae.
X is a genus of mostly small deep water sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Chilodontidae.
X is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Chilodontidae.
X is a genus of extremely small deep water sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Seguenziidae.
X is a species of extremely small deep water sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Seguenziidae.
I had created my first family article, Cataegidae. Can someone please take a look and let me know if it is good? — Ganeshk ( talk) 02:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Please confirm the lead sentences and the taxonomy. — Ganeshk ( talk) 21:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject Gastropods/Archive 5 | |
---|---|
Scientific classification | |
Kingdom: | |
Phylum: | |
Class: | |
(unranked): | clade
Caenogastropoda
|
Superfamily: |
X is a genus of deep water sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks, unassigned in the superfamily Abyssochrysoidea.
X is a species of deep water sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk, unassigned in the superfamily Abyssochrysoidea.
X is a genus of deep water sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Abyssochrysidae.
X is a species of deep water sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Abyssochrysidae.
X is a genus of deep water sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Provannidae.
X is a species of deep water sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Provannidae.
Please confirm the lead sentences and the taxonomy. — Ganeshk ( talk) 15:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject Gastropods/Archive 5 | |
---|---|
Scientific classification | |
Kingdom: | |
Phylum: | |
Class: | |
(unranked): | clade
Caenogastropoda
|
Superfamily: |
X is a genus of freshwater snails, aquatic gastropod mollusks in the family Ampullariidae, the apple snails.
X is a species of freshwater snail, aquatic gastropod mollusk in the family Ampullariidae, the apple snails.
Please confirm the lead sentences and the taxonomy. — Ganeshk ( talk) 15:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject Gastropods/Archive 5 | |
---|---|
Scientific classification | |
Kingdom: | |
Phylum: | |
Class: | |
(unranked): | clade
Caenogastropoda
|
Superfamily: |
X is a genus of deep water sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Ampullinidae.
X is a species of deep water sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Ampullinidae.
X is a genus of sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Campanilidae.
X is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Campanilidae.
X is a genus of sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Plesiotrochidae.
X is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Plesiotrochidae.
This is a notification that what appears to be two student groups have started editing articles on marine life: EcoWikiGroup13 ( talk · contribs) at Oncorhynchus, and Group9ecology ( talk · contribs) at Coccolithophore. Their instructor doesn't seem to have notified anyone at Wikipedia that this would be happening, and so far the first group, EcoWikiGroup13, have been non responsive at attempts to communicate with them. The edits so far seem fairly competent and Copyscape doesn't detect plagiarism. However, the names they have chosen suggest there may be 13 or more groups involved, so this may be the start of considerable activity. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 04:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Since we use this template a lot in our bot-generated stubs, I figure that Ganesh and JoJan and maybe more of us, may want to comment on its proposed deletion. Use this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_1
Invertzoo ( talk) 19:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Appreciating your comment here. J Kadavoor J e e 14:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello folks. This is an image by H. Zell of a queen conch shell, one of the five-view images that he does so well. Unfortunately the lip of the shell was heavily cut or filed before it was sold, in order to make it look "tidy". This modification is often done for the shell trade or tourist trade, but it makes the shell look very weird compared with an unmodified one. The other two thumbnails show how the lip really looks in an intact shell.
Please would a number of project members post their comments as to whether this image should be delisted here?
Delisting is not the same as deleting; it simply means the image would not be a Featured Picture any more. I think this is necessary because the encyclopedic value of the image is severely compromised by the shell having been unnaturally altered to such an extent. Thanks, Invertzoo ( talk) 20:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
It would be really great if a project member (anyone?) was prepared to keep an eye on all the Wikipedia Featured article nominations to make sure that nominated gastropod shell images (and bivalve shell images, for our sister project) show shells that are in good shape and hopefully are also correctly identified! If the project member does not really know how to judge some of the shells, the project member could at least leave a message about a nomination here. It was extremely nice of User:JKadavoor Jee (a new project member) to leave us a message about the current nomination of the Veined rapa whelk shell image, however, we should try to make an effort so that we don't necessarily have to rely on his kindness. Invertzoo ( talk) 20:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I have nominated another image for delisting as a Featured Picture. This one is cute and pretty in an "antique" late 19th century style, but no way is this a scientific illustration! It is an image that Snek tried to get delisted a while ago. The current nomination for delisting is here: [ [14]]. Please, if anyone in the project agrees that this is not really FP material because it has poor encyclopedic value (because it is simply not good at all scientifically), then would you endorse the delisting? Thanks. Invertzoo ( talk) 16:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello folks, I just wanted to say that if you notice an image in one of our articles that could really use some adjusting, like for example the picture would be greatly improved with some cropping, or the color balance is off and needs fixing, or the background should be removed or made more uniform, you can simply leave a request at WIkipedia:Graphics Lab, in the Photography Workshop section, and the nice folks there will do it for you while you go ahead and work on other things. Or if you prefer you can tell me about it and I will put in the request. Invertzoo ( talk) 12:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Wish article on this creature had said why it is called "tongue" snail. 69.230.188.45 ( talk) 13:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
The image looks fine; even though the shell seems to have some cracks. Please check thoroughly and do comment. J Kadavoor J e e 13:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
New bot task - Abyssochrysoidea
Please confirm the lead sentences and the taxonomy. — Ganeshk (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Scientific classification Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Mollusca Class: Gastropoda (unranked): clade Caenogastropoda Superfamily: Abyssochrysoidea Abyssochrysoidea (unassigned) Genus X is a genus of deep-water sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks, unassigned in the superfamily Abyssochrysoidea.
Species X is a species of deep-water sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk, unassigned in the superfamily Abyssochrysoidea.
Abyssochrysidae Genus X is a genus of deep-water sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Abyssochrysidae.
Species X is a species of deep-water sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Abyssochrysidae.
Provannidae Genus X is a genus of deep-water sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Provannidae.
Species X is a species of deep-water sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Provannidae.
New bot task - Ampullarioidea
Please confirm the lead sentences and the taxonomy. — Ganeshk (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Mollusca
Class: Gastropoda
(unranked): clade Caenogastropoda (unassigned)
Superfamily: Ampullarioidea
Ampullariidae
Genus
X is a genus of freshwater snails, aquatic gastropod mollusks in the family Ampullariidae, the apple snails.
Species X is a species of freshwater snail, aquatic gastropod mollusk in the family Ampullariidae, the apple snails.
New bot task - Campaniloidea
Please confirm the lead sentences and the taxonomy. — Ganeshk (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Scientific classification Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Mollusca Class: Gastropoda (unranked): clade Caenogastropoda (unassigned) Superfamily: Campaniloidea Ampullinidae Genus X is a genus of deep-water sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Ampullinidae.
Species X is a species of deep-water sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Ampullinidae.
Campanilidae Genus X is a genus of sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Campanilidae.
Species X is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Campanilidae.
Plesiotrochidae Genus X is a genus of sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Plesiotrochidae.
Species X is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Plesiotrochidae.
Appreciating your comments here. J Kadavoor J e e 17:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I've played around a bit with the category structure. Previously we had malacological societies and malacology itself under Category:Malacologists, and shell museums and conchology itself under Category:Conchologists, which wasn't exactly ideal. Another problem was that the articles on malacology journals were not grouped with our other malacology-related articles. To remedy this I've created the new top-level Category:Malacology as well as the directly subordinate Category:Conchology, Category:Teuthology, Category:Malacological literature, and Category:Malacological societies. The last two are in turn parents to Category:Malacology journals and Category:Conchological societies, respectively. I've already populated the categories a bit but please add any articles I may have missed. And let me know what you think of the new arrangement! mgiganteus1 ( talk) 01:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Today I was in communication with Francisco Welter-Schultes and he said that we might be interested in his new book, "European non-marine mollusks a guide for species identification". You can see a webpage about it here. Apparently it has similar content to AnimalBase. Invertzoo ( talk) 22:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I´ll be there. Anyone else?-- Edmund Sackbauer ( talk) 14:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Can someone tell me if we have an approved source for land snail taxonomy -- I mean a database with reliable listings at the genus and species level? I ask that because I recently got this message from one of our members:
"Hello there, Invertzoo! Long time no see! I was keen to revamp the Vertigo species articles today, but found all of the red links were not currently accepted, at least according to AnimalBase. This extends to some current Vertigo species articles already in place as well. I could go ahead and do a thorough literature search, but don't have time at present. If you agree, let me know and I'll add it to my to-do list. Kind regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)"
Thanks, Invertzoo ( talk) 20:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Our nudibranch people especially will like this, but it also shows other gastropods, octopus, cuttlefish, and many other fantastic marine creatures shot underwater in the Lempeh Straits, Indonesia: [15] 14:08, 26 October 2013 Invertzoo (talk | contribs)
![]() |
Happy solstice-related (aka winter-in-the-Northern Hemisphere) holiday(s)! | |
To my Wikipedia snail and slug friends, I wish a joyful "winter in the northern hemisphere holiday" or "northern solstice day(s) in the southern hemisphere holiday", whichever of the holiday or holidays you celebrate (all or any)! Invertzoo ( talk) 19:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC) |
Dear members of the Gastropods project,
Our vision for Wikipedia is one of beauty, natural symmetry and light.
I wish you all a Happy New Year, everything good for your families, your loved ones and yourselves, peace and joy for all the people of the world. I also wish a joyful and peaceful expansion for Wikipedia; may our encyclopedia make information and education available, without charge, to everyone in the world.
All the very best from
Invertzoo (
talk)
18:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Out now: Molluscs of the Czech and Slovak republics. I´m already very curious! But, as I know the first two authors personally, it must be good! -- Edmund Sackbauer ( talk) 14:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I am a new editor here. I have edited the Chlamydephoridae page and I would like someone to check it and see if my edits make the page good enough that we can remove the cleanup label at the top of the page. Reefswaggie ( talk) 05:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
@ JoJan: Please confirm the lead sentence and the taxonomy. — Ganeshk ( talk) 21:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject Gastropods/Archive 5 | |
---|---|
Scientific classification
![]() | |
Domain: | Eukaryota |
Kingdom: | Animalia |
Phylum: | Mollusca |
Class: | Gastropoda |
Subclass: | Vetigastropoda |
Order: | Trochida |
Superfamily: | Trochoidea |
Family: |
Liotiidae Gray, 1850 |
X is a genus of small sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Liotiidae.
X is a species of small sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk, in the family Liotiidae.
Update: DYK accepted and will appear on the main page within a few days. Anyone who wants to add to or clean up the article some more please feel free. Invertzoo ( talk) 15:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).
Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.
If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot ( talk) (for Mr. Z-man) 05:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
The usage of Peculator ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is up for discussion, see talk:Peculator -- 70.50.151.11 ( talk) 09:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello folks. I wanted to ask people writing taxon articles to try always to use whole sentences, not note form. This is an encyclopedia, not a specialist malacological publication, where extreme brevity is a necessity. Here, whole sentences make a text far easier to understand. I would ask that this guideline be applied even to the details of species descriptions, unless of course the text is being quoted verbatim from the original description. Thanks, Invertzoo ( talk) 14:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Review appreciated. J e e 02:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I see that a new ultra-stub has been created for a subgenus of Mitra. Currently it has very little content. Should we try to expand it into a proper article? WoRMS does not seem to completely recognize this subgenus, seeing it as an "alternate representation", so maybe we should turn the page into a redirect? Please let me know what you think. Invertzoo ( talk) 19:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I am one of the newest members here. I need to clarify something: Are the taxonomic changes described in Criscione & Ponder's 2013 A phylogenetic analysis of rissooidean and cingulopsoidean families (Gastropoda: Caenogastropoda) accepted by Project Gastropods? WoRMS accepts them ( Truncatelloidea and Rissooidea entries both cite Criscione & Ponder as status source) and in a previous talk page thread, Invertzoo had mentioned that "at Project Gastropods we go by the taxonomy that is used at WoRMS". About 3 weeks ago I edited a couple of articles on Hydrobiidae families, and species included therein, updating their taxonomy as per Criscione & Ponder. But my edits on the New Zealand mud snail, Mercuria and Hydrobia were reverted, because this taxonomic change is not included in the Changes in the taxonomy of gastropods since 2005 article, which the Project cites as one of its taxonomic references.
If the above is indeed an accepted change, should perhaps the Changes in the taxonomy... article be updated accordingly? Or, if it is impossible to keep the said article always up-to-date, should perhaps the Project template be modified so as to include WoRMS as a taxonomic reference? XenoVon ( talk) 19:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
It appears that Eobania is monotypic. The article only mentions one species, and AnimalBase confirms this. If so, Eobania vermiculata should be merged into there, per WP:FAUNA. (I suppose you could have separate articles on a monotypic genus and its species, but it doesn't make much sense.) Before I go and merge, does anyone smarter than me know a reason I shouldn't? -- BDD ( talk) 21:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I am back on Wikipedia after a long break. I have bad news; my computer crashed and I lost all the programming code for the Gastropod BOT with it. I will have to write a new program to extract CSV data the WoRMS database and recreate the original BOT. I will have to go through another BOT approval process just to be on the safe side. This will take some time. Sorry about that. It was good reminder for me to backup all the code I write. — Ganeshk ( talk) 12:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
The article "sea slug" is certainly not one of our best efforts, although quite often consulting by readers. Of course the article is about the common name, which is applied to so many different shell-less or reduced-shell marine gastropod taxa, as well as (sometimes) to sea cucumbers and so on. On the talk page of the article someone suggested it be reduced to a disambiguation page, which might perhaps not really be very helpful... Does anyone have any suggestions? Or would anyone like to work on it? Thanks, Invertzoo ( talk) 21:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I decided to BE BOLD and so I reduced it to a disambiguation page. I think that is probably the best solution. Invertzoo ( talk) 15:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Update: Ah... all my changes were reverted by someone who felt it was better as an article than as a dab page. Once again, any input from other editors would be very welcome. Invertzoo ( talk) 13:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Since it seems we are going to keep this article after all, today I tried to fix it up into better shape and add a number of images. I would very much appreciate it if anyone would like to look it over and help out with it in some way. Invertzoo ( talk) 21:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
This list article was created a week or two ago; basically it was a bare list taken straight from Category Edible molluscs, with no additional refinements. This morning I put in three hours of work trying to improve it. It looks a lot better now but it still has only one small reference (!) and no doubt could use numerous other refinements. Would someone please be kind enough to take a look at it and see if they can improve it further? Thanks, Invertzoo ( talk) 14:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
What do you think of Draft:Slug mating behaviour? FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 13:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Accept. It meets criteria notability, verifiability, suitability. It focus on notable subject of gastropods. Rename it as Mating of gastropods, that fits the most to naming system of gastropod related articles. Then the article can be for example re-organized into sections according to the taxonomy. -- Snek01 ( talk) 21:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I've put a notice on the VIllage Pump Technical [16] that the tool "Watchlist of changes to all Gastropod-related articles" [17] doesn't function anymore. This is a vital tool to our project. Without it, we cannot know what is going on or if any vandalism has occurred. JoJan ( talk) 13:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I notice that the page is sometimes a proper listing, but sometimes just an error report. Invertzoo ( talk) 21:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Wolfe1987
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).