Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 17

message: Netoholic has changed :Template:Taxobox so that it does not rely on conditional templates.  However, the results as they stand are somewhat more brittle, and generally change the appearance somewhat.  I would request any participants here to take a look, and give their thoughts. Josh
:What gets on my nerves is that Netoholic is the most rabid about the "dangers" of these templates, yet he is one who makes more changes to them than almost anyone! And as we know, it is changes to the template that is somewhat problematic (although it seems to me that the fact they are recursive is not much more of a problem than the same template being used on lots of pages - which is exactly what we had before the conditional templates came in)! Not sure what we can do as now that Netoholic has discovered this template, he is not the sort to give up easily :-). Pcb21 Pete 09:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if this is the cause of the difference in display of the author names created using the new and old taxoboxes(using taxobox binomial_authority versus use of Template:Taxobox_section_binomial_parens). Hope these can be made identical. Thanks. Shyamal 11:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

text: With Khoikhoi's help I've been making various updates to fix problems with the single  template. It will still list unused segments in non-CSS compliant browsers, but I think most of the other concerns have been addressed. It now handles multi-line subdivision lists, displays image captions again, and has a new 'image_description' parameter for the pop-up text. Unfortunately, all of the old pop-up text from multi-line templates was not copied over into the single template and would need to be re-added. If we can get a list of other problems with the template I think we should be able to sort most of them out. This template is still being used on a ton of pages and it would be a shame to convert them all back to the old format calls... and then need to change them again when/if conditionals are implemented in the MediaWiki software. There's a way to fix the non-CSS browser problem (WeebleCode), but it requires setting a blank ('|weeble =') parameter in every call to the template... for which we'd presumably need a bot. --CBD ☎ ✉ 12:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxobox and AUM 

message: Hi!
Yes you guessed it, it's me (Fir0002) here again!
Image:MG 0163.jpg|I'm pretty sure this isn't proper wheat, but some kind of weed. Found in East Gipps, Vic Either barley or rye, not sure which
Image:MG 0575.jpg|I think bottom clouds are cumulus. It's a nice photo but AFAIK it can't be really used anywhere, maybe it's something I don't know?
Image:MG 0609.jpg|Again I'm just uploading it to see if it can be usefull anywhere
Image:MG 0626.jpg|Some kind of weed. Found in East Gipps, Vic Something in the family [[Caryophyllaceae, probably a garden escape
Image:MG 1372.jpg|Weevil? Found in East Gipps, Vic Agree a weevil, but no idea what species
Image:MG 8597.jpg|Damselfish taken in an aquarium at the CSIRO center in Canberra
Image:MG 8600.jpg|Another angle of same species of damselfish (I think)
Image:MG 8599.jpg|Clown fish; Taken in the CSIRO aquarium Either Amphiprion ocellaris or A. percula depending on whether the thing at the front of the 2nd dorsal is an 11th spine (ocellaris) or not (percula) DM
Image:MG 8757.jpg|Camelia? Yes, a double-flowered Camellia cultivar
Image:MG 8604.jpg|Taken at CSIRO center in Canberra - This, and the next two, are Phasmatodea. I'm afraid this is an order I know next to nothing about so I can't be more specific!RB
Image:MG 8605.jpg|Taken at CSIRO center in Canberra
Image:MG 8607.jpg|Another angle
Image:MG 8849.jpg|Taken at Lake Burley Griffin, Canberra Dusky Moorhen in front, Common Coot behind
Image:MG 8850.jpg|Taken at Lake Burley Griffin, Canberra Common Coots
Image:MG 8851.jpg|Taken at Lake Burley Griffin, Canberra Dusky Moorhen again
Image:MG 8860.jpg|Taken at Lake Burley Griffin, Canberra Domesticated farm Mallard breed
Image:MG 8865.jpg|Taken at Lake Burley Griffin, Canberra - I think this is a male Magpie-lark RB
Image:MG 9193.jpg|A malamute? That, or a Siberian Husky, or another similar breed (see sled dog for other possibles
Image:MG 9587.jpg|Taken in East Gipps, Vic - These are froghoppers of some sort, I'm sure there are plenty in Oz to choose from! RB
Thank you very much for your time! --Fir0002 05:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Notes in italics by MPF 15:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unidentified Pictures 

message: I created a new version of  which utilizes a method devised by User:MrWeeble to do old style conditionals without meta-templates or CSS. Please take a look and let me know if it solves the subdivision problems. Note, I left the CSS stuff in place for everything except the subdivision section. --CBD ☎ ✉ 20:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxobox template 

message: there are now no bird, bird genus, families etc. articles in :category:birds and all non-species articles have been moved from its children to :category:Birds by classification. It will be necessary to occasionally check through to spot badly or un-categorized articles, but most of the work has been done. Many subgroups still have to be created, but lack at themoment, articles for it to be required.
Maybe at some point I'll work up the energy to get started on :category:plants, but right now, I want to do something new, so that'll have to wait. Circeus 06:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done! I just had a look at :category:plants, there's not too many there, but :category:flowers does badly need emptying of genus and species etc pages, I'll try to tackle them over the next few days - MPF 23:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

text: a very naive question i am sure but is there some kind of system that automatically checks if the category matches or mismatches with the family given in a taxobox ? Shyamal 10:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - it's called "we check it all when we visit a page". *grins* - UtherSRG (talk) 12:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I asked for a bot, but it would not be able to determine when it is appropriate to use the scientific or the usual names, among other things. Circeus 16:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxo-categorization of [[:category:birds]] complete!! 

message: Frog has been nominated to be improved by WP:IDRIVE. Help us improve it and support Frog with your vote on WP:IDRIVE. --Fenice 07:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement Drive

message: Are these photos of a hoverfly? --Fir0002 10:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. SB Johnny 11:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And damn fine pictures they are! Circeus 22:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoverfly 

message: Why do we use Ectoprocta in our tree of life and not Bryozoa? I know that ITIS says that Bryozoa is a junior synonym, but I believe that in zoology there is no rule of strict priority for ranks above superfamily. Bryozoa is much more common, and it wins the scholar.google.com test.
I can see an argument that "Bryozoa" refers to Ectoprocta + Entoprocta + Cycliophora and therefore can't be used as a synonym for Ectoprocta alone — but in fact that's exactly how it's used by tolweb.org, in Valentine's On the origin of phyla.
An anonymous editor at Talk:Ectoprocta comments:
:The use of "Ectoprocta" as a phylum name in place of the more common "Bryozoa" is a non-standard usage which seems to be pushed by biologists from the USA who are not specialists in this group. (For example, in Brusca and Brusca). The accepted usage "Bryozoa" - as in the "International Bryozoology Association". is preferred by all the experts in the field. It has long-established and wide usage. For the sake of stability, there is little reason to change. The argument that a former phylum has now been split into two "new" phyla fails to take into account the enormous difference in significance of the Ectoprocta and Entoprocta. What has happened, in fact, is the separation of a small group from the main group - which happens all the time in taxonomy, and generally does not require renaming the major group
As usual, this comes down the question: which classification system we are using here? Gdr 02:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say "non-standard usage" is far from a correct characterization; it is true that at the time when the groups (ectoprocts and entoprocts) were split, bryozoa fell into dis-use, at least in the US.  If it is now the case that Phylum Bryozoa is generally preferred over Phylum Ectoprocta (and I'm not clear that such is the case), then Wikipedia should reflect that - Marshman 19:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Ectoprocta and not Bryozoa? 

message: The current article for the Red-eyed Tree Frog, is the South American frog: Agalychnis callidryas . However, I have recently created the article for the Australian Red-eyed tree frog (under its binomial name at the moment, Litoria chloris). What happens in a situation like this for naming of the aritcle? --liquidGhoul 04:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep the article names as they are and add a disambiguation note at the top of the Red-eyed Tree Frog article linking to your article. This should cover everything. Richard Barlow 07:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: (I have done this now.) Richard Barlow 08:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Red-eyed Tree frog

message: After wading through the pages in the related categories, it seems pretty clear that a project would come in handy. If anyone is experienced in setting up project pages, your help would be most appreciated. Part of a gardening project relates to plants, insects (etc.), fungi, bacteria, and so on. I hope some folks from ToL might be interested in enriching the "practical" side of such articles. I started the project this morning... Wikipedia:WikiProject_Horticulture_and_Gardening. I'll be bringing in some expert help from web forums related to horticulture and gardening. SB Johnny 14:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Project: Horticulture and Gardening 

message: I have just finished writing all the species of the Litoria genus into the article, along with the common names. The problem I found was that I got the common names from here . As there are a lot of frogs which are not commonly named, only one book seems to name the lesser known frogs: Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names  Amph. Rept. World, : 59. The problem is, that the book that names the majority of frogs, uses "Treefrog" instead of "Tree Frog". There are a few things of which I don't like about this:
# It is not a word
# The Wikipedia article of Tree frog has the word seperated, Litoria is a genus in that family (Hylidae).
# Harold Cogger (who worked in Australia Museum for 40 years or something in herpetology) and Michael Tyler (writen 8 books, and over 200 scientific papers on frogs) both use "Tree Frog". I consider these two the experts in the field, it is just that their identification books do not cover all frogs. The book used by the website just gives names of all amphibians (I think).
I have seperated all "treefrog"s into "tree frog", but I was wondering if that was alright. --liquidGhoul 13:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Treefrog or Tree Frog

message: More photos!
Image:MG 1744.jpg|Probably a Verbascum species, most likely V. thapsus (compare :Image:Common Mullein closeup.jpg) - MPF
Image:MG 2308.jpg|Agapanthus?
Image:MG 1765.jpg
Image:MG 1764.jpg|It looks a lot like this. --Khoikhoi
Thanks! --Fir0002 23:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say that the last picture looks a lot like this. They might be the same species but I could be wrong because I'm not an expert. --Khoikhoi 02:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unidentified pictures #2 

message: It seems to me that the current taxobox could be expanded to give some structured information. For example, for animals at least, maximum lifespan and dimension, habitat and diet summary, and a standardized world map showing range might be nice. The taxobox also takes up a lot of real estate for the taxonomic hierarchy. Perhaps it would be desirable to tighten it up? Demi T/C 19:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanded infobox? 

message: Hi!
I was hoping that you could identify a bird which has been visiting my verandah recently. I live in East Gippsland, Australia.
Here are some photos:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fir0002/Unidentified_bird
And a video in case you need the bird call:
http://peter.flagstaffotos.com/unidentified_bird.wmv
Thanks! --Fir0002 23:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the Striated Pardalote (Pardalotus stratus). There are six subspecies, I think that this one is Pardalotus striatus ornatus. --liquidGhoul 11:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unidentified bird 

message: Hey guys,
I don't have an insect reference books, and cannot identify this fly. Can anyone help?
Looks like a Greenbottle (Lucilia), a genus of blowflies, but there's probably 1,001 other similar genera (or, more realistically, 10,001 others!) - MPF 14:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What type of fly?

message: I've noticed where a species and its varieties are listed in a taxobox, the space between the italicised species name and "var." disappears, so the name appears as Genus speciesvar. thingy, instead of Genus species var. thingy. The space is there in the edit box, but disappears in the on-screen version - MPF 01:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bugzilla:4830 Gdr 11:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peculiar formatting / rendering problem

message: I converted about 15,000 multi-template taxoboxes to use . There are a few tricky cases that I didn't convert: there's a list at User:Gdr/Nomialbot/Report 2006-02-01. There are three common cases:
* Article about two genera. We should add parameters genus2 and genus2_authority to support this.
* Article uses cladistic taxonomy and this can't easily be made to fit in the Linnaean straightjacket of the taxobox.
* Article about a virus. We should either make the taxobox support viruses or else make a new taxobox specially for viruses.
There may be some more that I missed.
Gdr 21:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks hugely for doing all this!! Didn't realize I had so many ToL articles on my watchlist... :-) Stan 15:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Converted multi-template taxoboxes 

message: As a new Wikipedian I have become increasingly bemused by the usage of common names for plants, the choice of one (sometimes obscure) "common" name as the accepted one, and the redirects of all other common names, as well as the scientific name, to this "accepted" common name.  For example, I was checking out MPF's articles and edits in Parthenocissus and the various Parthenocissus species articles. Redirecting to a particular common name (which may or may not be "common", depending on who you talk to) makes little sense and represents a POV. I have already weighed in on Albizia julibrissin, known almost universally in the U.S.A. as "mimosa" but is known by various other names in other English-speaking countries (I am always amused when people insist that "silk tree" is the proper "common name", even as we all agree that Albizia julibrissin is the correct name). I'm probably opening an old can of worms but I would strongly suggest that the scientific name be the title of the main article, with all common names redirecting to the scientific name.  One example is Parthenocissus tricuspidata or "Boston ivy", both of which now redirect to "Japanese creeper" even though this species is almost universally known as "Boston Ivy" in the U.S.A. In fact I have never once heard of the name "Japanese creeper" (and why "Japanese" when this species is also native to China and Korea???). My point is not that one "common name" is more accurate than another, it is that many species have multiple common names, any or all of which have varying degrees of "accuracy", and which vary greatly from one English-speaking country to the next. By their very nature, standardization of common names is a lost cause. MrDarwin 18:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree that all plants would be better at scientific names (see my comments higher up this page under 'Concrete capitalisation rule'), but this is widely disliked in some quarters (being cited as 'against wikipedia rules'); pages I've moved to sci names in the past regularly get moved back to common names by other users. Of the particular case cited, I'd be happy to move the page(s) to scientific names, but we should be consistent in this across all members of its category (i.e., everything indexed at :Category:Vitales), otherwise trying to find anything in the index becomes nonsensical. The only reason I kept these pages at common names was because that was already the established use in at least that genus. Of Parthenocissus tricuspidata common names, Japanese Creeper (its standard common name here) is better and much less POV in (a) indicating a major part of its native origin, and (b) sharing a group name with related species (i.e. Virginia Creeper), whereas "Boston Ivy" is very confusing, indicating neither its native area nor its relationship, but rather suggesting it to be a North American species of Hedera. - MPF 19:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the very least, I would suggest that species that have multiple common names, particularly misleading common names (like the various "ivies") or common names that differ significantly from one region or country to the next, have their articles under the scientific name with the various common names being redirected to it. MrDarwin 19:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with MrDarwin, and also cite the cases of common names being used like genus in articles, example: nettle is a genus! No, Urtica is a genus! This is an error.Berton 22:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the case that most plants (other than rather rare ones) do have multiple common names for the reason that "common name" is what somewthing is called locally and plants are distributed widely (especially if involved in horticulture).  Usually, the common name used at Wikipedia is a British or US East Coast common name and for tropical plants, anything goes (even Spanish). Unless common names are reduced to not being common to their location (what ornithologists did), there can not be agreement on what is the "real" common name - Marshman 23:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I've moved the Parthenocissus species to sci names now (will edit the pages for style tomorrow) - MPF 23:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that makes sense to me and I hope it makes sense to others as well! MrDarwin 14:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: As one of the "common name advocates" I suppose :-) , I'll give away a hint as to how to more easily justify the use of a scientific name - identify multiple species/genera that a common name is used for, and document them at the common name, making it into a sort of disambiguator. That way less-technical readers get to decide what they're looking for, before having to decipher an article written in science-ese. FishBase is a great example, in that it has a whole table of common names (in various languages) vs species, no doubt a great help to the ichthyologist trying to talk to Brazilian fishermen about what they're catching. I don't suppose botany has anything similar? Stan 17:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course that is a good approach. In general, when an article name is changed to a scientific name, the old name becomes a redirect.  But I like your idea of expanding that to include many common names to either the same species or same common to many species (the disambig. page part). Could include other languages to the extent that an organism is known by its "foreign" language name in English-speaking countries. - Marshman 18:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Common names

message: In the last 3 days, I have cleaned up :Category:Frogs. All of the families, genera and species of frog have been moved into :Category:Frogs by classification. In frogs by classification, the large families have thier own category (e.g. :Category:Tree frogs), and if there are enough species within a genus, the genus has its own category(e.g. :Category:Litoria). I had to use my judgment as to whether to create categories for some families, which had very few articles, but the potenital to have lots because there was a large list of species (e.g. :Category:Poison dart frogs). I hope this is alright. The families with no genus or species artices have stayed in Frogs by classification.
I have also started a category :Category:Frogs by country, which only includes :Category:Frogs of Australia, as that is the only I have created thus far. --liquidGhoul 03:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now have :Category:Frogs of India. --liquidGhoul 05:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleaned up Category:Frogs

message: While looking over the article on daylily, I noticed that the term scape was wiki-linked, but led to a page about something else entirely. There also seems to be no page for crown (mentioned on that page, but it's a red link and refers to trees specifically, not plants generally). I think it's good to have the term "scape" leading somewhere, because it's not obvious, but should it be a WP article, or a Wiktionary definition (there just doesn't seem to be all that much to say about scapes). If the latter is better, how does one link a wiktionary definition from an article? I've gotten used to the wikibook shortcuts, but can't seem to track them down here. (Sorry to be so full of questions lately.) SB Johnny 20:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most technical terms will support an article; not only do you have to define the term, but you want to describe variability, show some pictures, relate to similar terms, discuss function, etc. See petal, inflorescence, and raceme for some good examples of articles that go beyond the dicdef. Stan 00:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although it is clearly difficult to generalize here, I would disagree. Most technical terms in Botany/Biology are just definitions and Wikipedia is not a collection of definitions (belongs in Wiktionary where "variability, show some pictures, relate to similar terms" are perfectly appropriate accompaniments).  Most technical terms belong to a family of closely related terms (functionally or morphologically) that together would merit an article such as you describe. I spend a lot of time making redirects of pages for terms that people made a definition page for, but have little chance of becoming a real article by themselves and which are treated already in articles. In the example given  (scape) the term is one ripe for a disambig page and the proper redirect for the botanical definition under flower or some such; or direct to a definition at Wikitionary - Marshman 03:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think for now I'll move the current page to "Scape (software)", and start a stub article. There are several other plant articles already linked to that page (That page also has bad url links, BTW). Problem with the wiktionary definition is that there are 4 meanings: (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/scape), so that's not an ideal solution either. I'm still wondering about what the general rule should be.  SB Johnny 10:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: An excellent example of the point I am trying to make is the article bract which at one time was headed for Wiktionary, but had potential for expansion and subsequently was.  Note that many technical terms are defined within it, providing a place to link those terms to, as well as solid context for all the related definitions given. An encyclopedic approach. - Marshman 18:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's easy enough to create links in articles without checking exactly what they link to--I've done it myself, and that is clearly what happened here.  But rather than linking to a simple definition of "scape" why not have "scape" (in the botanical sense) link to an article on inflorescences that discusses the terminology surrounding scapes, peduncles, bracts, racemes, and various other terms? Such an article would be informative rather than simply definitional. MrDarwin 13:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Is Wiktionary accepting multiple pages of descriptive content now? They didn't formerly. Stan 13:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you mean? - Marshman 18:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You said '(belongs in Wiktionary where "variability, show some pictures, relate to similar terms" are perfectly appropriate accompaniments)', which suggested to me that you thought more extended content was appropriate there. In general, dictionaries confine themselves to one-sentence definitions - even my 20-volume OED can rarely be induced to use a second sentence, even for a complicated concept, and explanatory paragraphs are only used to discuss tricky etymologies and the like. To take "scape" as an example, if there's anything to say about evolutionary advantage, remarkable growth rates, composition compared to regular stems, etc, I would expect to see that in an article here, not in Wiktionary. If there is no such additional info, then yeah, redir or transwiki (in the case of "scape" redir to either inflorescence or plant stem seems most sensible). Stan 20:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Botanical terms 

message: Hi!
Back with more pix...
Image:MG 2000.jpg|Feeding on grape leaves, East Gipps, Vic, Aust
Image:MG 2001.jpg|same as previous
Image:MG 3083.jpg
Uh... That third one looks like a rose. The leaves are hard to see, but they also look like a rose. --liquidGhoul 04:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The leaves look roseate to me; seems like a doubled gardener's variety. --Mgreenbe 14:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it is obviously a cultivated variety, you do not get flower form like that from a wild rose.--liquidGhoul 21:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Got it! Its a Vine Hawk Moth (Hippotion celerio) - see . No article for it yet, but I will write one when I get a chance and include your pics. Richard Barlow 12:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Further to the above I have just noticed Hippotion celerio also occurs here in Europe where its common name is Silver-striped Hawk Moth - When I do the article it will probably be under the sci name. Richard Barlow 17:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos for identification 

message: Please help to keep the Biology portal's Open tasks list up to date.  This is one of our main communication methods to help get newcomers more involved in editing articles.  It contains a list of articles that need improving, articles that need creating, articles that need cleanup, etc.  And of course, if you have the time, please help and work on some of the tasks on that list!  --Cyde Weys 05:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Open tasks list

message: I can't identify this species of banksia. Unfortunately, I did not photograph the leaves, sorry. Anyway, according to the Banksia article, the flowers come in yellow, red, orange and pink. This is obviously not any of those colours, and I don't think it is green because the flower is young, as all the banksia flowers I saw on this trip were green. The tree was in Gloucester Tops, close to Barrington Tops National Park, and is at a high altitude, so the temperature is pretty much always < 30C, and can get below 0 (as it snows). It was about 4 meters tall, so was not a shrub. --liquidGhoul 04:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Banksia identification

message: OK, here I am again. I went frog watching with the local herpetological society, came across no frogs (heard lots), but hundreds of theses little guys. It is near Nelson Bay, NSW, Australia. The people there called them soldier crabs, but the current article for that is the European soldier crab (extremely different). I have no crab identification book (although I do want one now, they are fascinating), so could someone please identify it. I don't think it should be too hard if someone has the resources, as there are < 20 species in this area. Thanks. --liquidGhoul 13:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I have found it myself. It is the Soldier crab (Mictyris longicarpus). Again, the common name has failed us. Oh well... I will create an article(s) for it tomorrow. --liquidGhoul 14:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to be confused with the Soldier crab (Dotilla myctiroides), the Soldier crab (Coenobita clypeatus), the Soldier crab (Mictyris platycheles) or the Soldier crab (Mictyris brevidactylus). BTW, M. longicarpus seems to be the Light-blue Soldier Crab, as opposed to M. platycheles, the Dark-blue Soldier Crab. :-) -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 14:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This illustrates perfectly the problem with using common names in a global context. I have made a soldier crab a disambiguation page and would strongly recommend avoiding all names like "light-blue soldier crab" in titles in favour of scientific names. --Stemonitis 09:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to add to the confusion, Coenobita clypeatus, which is called a Soldier crab on a Smithsonian Institution website[http://www.sms.si.edu/IRLFieldGuide/Coenob_clypea.htm, is listed in Wikipedia as the Caribbean hermit crab. It's a good thing we can link and redirect in Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 11:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, I see you had already caught that. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 11:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another Identification

message: how about making it a standard to include skeleton images with the articles that it would concern? say, all vertibrate organisms? the amount of times i have checked out an article in the tree of life, only to be disapointed with the results. only just now have i checked out the fish article, hoping to see a skeleton, so that i can compare with cetaceas, trying to figure the differences in swimmin methods (one has a horisontal tail, the other is verticly orientated). nothing on spine structure though. i realise you much get a lot of requests, and i would be greatful fro a moment of your time. thankyou kindy :) mastodon 18:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You could make it your own project to include the skeleton of animals in the articles. We have one in frog. The problem is, that it is hard to get one which has good copyright on it. But, yes it is a very good idea. --liquidGhoul 23:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skeletons 

message: Can someone who knows about snakes take a look at Gray's Ratsnake? Is it the same as Coluber ventromaculatus? -- Eugene van der Pijll 17:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are indeed.  - UtherSRG (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks; I have merged the articles. Eugene van der Pijll 17:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gray's Ratsnake 

message: :I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject Monotremes and Marsupials. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monotremes and Marsupials 

message: Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Cheers, Shanel 20:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

message: I created one:  - not very pretty I'm afraid. This will be helpful because i sometimes see articles without one. Toxodon is the first example. muriel@pt 13:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I generally slap  onto such articles. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe even better: a category for articles needing taxoboxes? SB Johnny 16:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template for missing taxoboxes

message: I have created this table to be placed in Anura (family list). I was wondering, before I implement it, whether this would be accepted. As in, is it better to have a simple list, or something more complicated but with more information. 
This is obviously not the final draft. I will be adding more info, and different columns. The description column doesn't work for such broad classification, and it will not be in the final draft. I was just using it as a place filler. Thanks --liquidGhoul 13:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I have decided that I am going to add it to the article, but I need some more columns. Does anyone have any ideas? --liquidGhoul 13:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Table for families

message: Is there a reason that dog/cat/horse breeds are being included in this project? In terms of taxonomic convention, they have no place in the Linnaean heirarchy of classification, or any newer form of taxonomic classification for that matter. Frankly, their inclusion seems a little amateurish and unscientific. KieranSamuk 03:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's mainly for lack of anywhere else to put them. Much the same can be said of plant cultivars. I don't think it is a major faux-pas to have them forked out from here, as they are at least derived from real taxa. - MPF 23:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breeds? 

message: Hi!
Wondering if anyone can identify these:
Image:MG 4109.jpg
Image:MG 4112.jpg
Image:MG 4121.jpg
Image:MG 4123.jpg
Image:MG 4135.jpg
Image:MG 4137.jpg
Image:MG 4139.jpg
Image:MG 4146.jpg
Image:MG 4150.jpg
Image:MG 4161.jpg
Image:Dipodium punctatum fir00002.jpg
I think it's a species of Gomphidae --Fir0002 www 10:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also would appreciate identification of the orchid --Fir0002 www 01:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't forget to include the geographic info.  It's next to impossible to ID most organisms without at least that.  I would agree that it's probably a gomphid, but won't be able to help much beyond that.  --Aranae 04:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All taken during summer in East Gippsland, Victoria, Australia --Fir0002 www 21:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Definitely a gomphid - the widely spaced eyes are diagnostic. Yellow-striped Hunter Austrogomphus guerini looks a good fit - see  but don't treat this as gospel. Richard Barlow 13:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unkown Dragonfly + Orchid 

message: Hi,
Decided to start a seperate message on these instead of continuing from the above message.
Image:MG 1782.jpg
Image:MG 1783.jpg
As you can see they seem to be swarming of something. It was taken fairly early in the morning, after a night in which there was rain (possible reason for swarming?) in East Gippsland, Victoria Australia.
Thanks for your help! --Fir0002 www 01:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They appear to be parasitic Hymenoptera of some kind, probably Ichneumonidae (I'd imagine there are hundreds of species in Oz). I'm guessing they are newly hatched from their pupae - the rain you mentioned may have triggered a mass hatching. Richard Barlow 13:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unknown Bugs 

message: I was planning on writing an article on earthstars (those puffball-like fungi), but came along more than a few problems. To make the long story short: The Geastraceae article says they're earthstars, so I figured I'd search for the missing genera. I found this article: http://botit.botany.wisc.edu/toms_fungi/dec2003alt.html which is a couple years old and it talks about a species in the genus Astraeus. The thing is, that same website says... well, read the last two paragraphs. It says it may be in it's own family! So I guess my questions are these: Anybody have an update on this? If I make an Astraeus hygrometricus article, how should I classify it? and what about the Geastraceae taxobox? thanks!--TheAlphaWolf 18:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not obliged to keep up to the minute with taxonomic revisions, at least as far as taxoboxes are concerned. The ideal is to choose a well-respected and fairly recent authority for a group and follow that in the taxoboxes, explaining in the article text when different researchers have come to different conclusions, or when the taxonomy is uncertain. For example, in Scorpaeniformes multiple taxonomies are presented in a single list with notes; in mammal multiple taxonomies are presented in separate sections with more extensive discussion. Gdr 17:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Earthstars

message: Perhaps this has already come up, but Adl et al. 2005, The New Higher Level Classification of Eukaryotes with Emphasis on the Taxonomy of Protists, is an interesting paper; the entire paper (as pdf) seems to be available for free. MrDarwin 02:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Eukaryote classification

message: Someone suggested that the discussion about this species has been made here in the past. Does anybody know where I can find it? KimvdLinde 03:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ringnecked or Rose-ringed Parakeet 

message: Can someone confirm this identification? I don't know much about Asian frogs. --liquidGhoul 13:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry, I am pretty sure that it is. --liquidGhoul 14:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Confirm?

message: I always interpreted unique in In cases where there is a formal common name (e.g. birds), or when common names are well-known and reasonably unique, they should be used for article titles. Scientific names should be used otherwise. as that a common name was uniquely pointing at a single species. That implies that in the case of two comon names, one is the name for the page, the second and the scientific redirects. However, some interpret unique in that two comon names is not unique, and that the scientific name should be used in those cases. Which is correct? KimvdLinde 10:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I use your interpretation but I don't think it's been "policy-ized". Pcb21 Pete 10:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is the consensus among editors, I propose to clarify the section to In cases where there is a formal common name (e.g. birds), or when common names are well-known and reasonably unique, they should be used for article titles. In cases with two or more common names for a single species, the most often used common name should be used. Scientific names should be used otherwise. KimvdLinde 10:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just assumed the interpretation you use. The problem with your solution for multiple common names for the same species is that it is often difficult to decide which name is the most common, and diferent editors may well prefer different common names as the primary one for a given species. Actually, I would prefer the articles to be at the scientific name and redirect/dab all 'common names', but that's a different story. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 11:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Donald - vertebrates tend to have "formal" common names, but plants and inverts don't.  So the scientific name is best.  I never thought about redirecting/dab'ing all common names, but it's actually a really good idea.  Guettarda 12:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think the established situation is to use the comn name when available, although I would prefer the scientific name first policy as that has less issues and is more precise. And yes, sometimes two names are used equally, and in that case, the first sentence can make the difference. KimvdLinde 13:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scientific names, at least for birds, are currently in a state of flux, and different authorities have given species such as Great Egret at least three different scientific names. People will search for the English name for birds and mammals, and this seems the logical article name. jimfbleak 14:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Redirects are cheap. Our first consideration should be that readers can find the article whether they are searching by scientifc name or any one of possibly several common names. Common names often need to be disambiguated, as well, while scientific names rarely need disambiguation. The example that struck me the most is Puma concolor (previously Felis concolor). The 'common name' chosen for the article was Puma, whereas I would think mountain lion or cougar would be much more common usage in English. In other words, the choice of which 'common name' to use seems to be rather arbitrary. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 14:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We had recently that discussion on the Ring-necked Parakeet versus Rose-ringed Parakeet. The later is the official common name, and the most used name, so not an issue. The original question was if a scientific name should be used when there are two unambigious common names, or that the most common should be used (or one arbitrarily when they are equally comon). KimvdLinde 15:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Competing comon names ->Scientific name? 

message: right|thumb Can anyone please identify this ornamental tree photographed in Costa Rica? jimfbleak 14:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An Erythrina species - MPF 20:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: many thanks, jimfbleak 05:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While my first impression was that it was an Erythrina, the flowers don't look right to me.  The pods, on the other hand, fit.  Guettarda 22:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mystery tree

message: Should the article name of a population be the species name with the population name in parenthese, for example Horse (American population), or should they get their own unique name, for example American horse? KimvdLinde 08:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's informal enough that it's a case by case thing.  Whichever seems to work best.  In this case, if you are referring to feral horses, I would say American feral horse (or mustang) to distinguish it from domestic horses in America.  --Aranae 09:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I just used it as a made-up example to get clarity. KimvdLinde 09:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming of populations