Talk:Squamata

message: We need to clean it up, because it goes in so many directions I can't tell what is what anymore. OviraptorFan (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxonomy on Squamates is a mess

message: Errr, does this really mean there are no lizards neither snakes in Canada? --195.148.184.89 (talk) 04:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the map which was obviously wrong, as people noticed already 8 years ago. The distribution of garter snakes alone goes way further to the North (see also this map). Also, the map does not show Antarctica, so in its current form it's not even complete. It was time to delete it. Kolorado (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

text: yeah Ghhghggg (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The map 

message: Okay guys, I know what you said about me putting stuff with mis-grammar. So I'll do what Enuja suggested on my talk page. So, here's my revision version of diets:
:::Squamates have various diets. Snakes are strict carnivores, eating small animals including lizards, other snakes, small mammals, birds, eggs, fish, snails or insects. Lizards on the other hand, eat various of diets, eating berries, fruit, vegetables, insects, fish, snail, small mammals, small birds, eggs, other lizards, snakes, and large prey, such as cattle and deer. The worm-lizards mainly eat worms and insects.
So, what do you think guys? Any suggestions? --4444hhhh (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I think this article is too broad to put these kind of details in it and they are better for articles further down the line.  Think about it, Burmese pythons do not eat snails...Iguanas do not eat cattle...garter snakes do not eat berries, etc.  This article should just encompass the families that make up the order and that which is common to all of them biologicaly.  The details on diet, reproduction, etc belongs in articles on the genus, species or subspecies in question.  I do admire your willingness and effort, though.--Mike Searson (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, true. So, what else can do for a big favor for the article then?--4444hhhh (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the recent literature and make one phylogeny, or a variety of hypothesized phylogenies from different studies, depending on what you find the literature.  Make the phylogeny using :Template:Clade.  - Enuja  (talk) 00:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes sir!--4444hhhh (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explicitly reference sources when making the phylogeny, and please work on the phylogeny in a sandbox.  I suggest creating a sub-page of your own user space as a place to work on things before you put them live.  I'm going to remove the current phylogenies from the article.  It's superb that you are making the phylogenies, and I am quote confident that you will make one that is good enough to into the article, but please don't work on creating the phylogenies in the main space.  Also, phylogenies should go in the evolution section, not in the classification section.   - Enuja  (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The resources I undersyand, but the phylogeny was too difficult and hard!--4444hhhh (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision of Diets 

message: I think something got mixed up or moved in the lead section:
... particularly visible in snakes, which are able to open their mouths very wide to accommodate comparatively large prey. They are the most variably-sized order of reptiles, ranging from the 16 mm (0.63 in) Jaragua Sphaero, Sphaerodactylus ariasae to the 8 m (26 ft) green anaconda, Eunectes murinus.
:If someone wants to fix that. cygnis insignis 11:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section 

message: The "Classification" section needs to tell us why the lizards are paraphyletic and what other group(s) are misclassified (from a cladistic POV) within the lizards, as the article linked is a general "Lizard" article. Wayne Hardman (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, albeit badly phrased. Mokele (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paraphyletic relationships 

message: The page intro mentions mosasaurs, but that's the last we hear about them for the whole article. Shouldn't extinct members of squamata also be included in the classification?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.58.46 (talk) 12:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mosasaurs 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 13 February 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Vipera-aspis-aspis-1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Is there a reason the first sentence mentions lizards and snakes and not amphisbaenia?  --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lizards and snakes and not amphisbaenia? 

message: I seriously doubt that there has been enough study of the > 3,000 snake species to conclude that each species uses different tactics! While I haven't been able to access the cited study, I suspect that it does not support this - after all, according to its own title, it deals with 'garter snakes', which account for c. 30 species, so < 1% of all snake species.Glevum (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed HCA (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual Selection 

message: The heading "List of extant families" seems to be wrong, somehow.
:This is under "Classification and phylogeny".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.21.214 (talk) 09:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heading 

message: The lede makes reference to the clade Saurischia as an "Order". However, nowadays most palaeontologists consider Saurischia an unranked clade, and that is how it is generally treated here on Wikipedia (check the Saurichia article and its taxobox). The Ornithoscelida hypothesis also casts doubt on whether birds actually belong to Saurischia. Should the references therefore be removed? Zigongosaurus1138 (talk) 01:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That would make sense, it's not the most important part of that sentence. CMD (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saurischia, an Order?