Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 18

message: Here are some pix I can't identify. All were taking at the Melbourne Museum in January. By and large I'm pretty disappointed with my results so I'm sorry if the standard is below average.
Image:MG 5144.jpg|Murray Cod (Maccullochella peelii peelii) 
Image:MG 5151.jpg|I think it's like an elephant shark or something 
Image:MG 5172.jpg|Tailor (Pomatomus saltatrix) 
Image:MG 5193.jpg|Tailor (Pomatomus saltatrix) 
Image:MG 5218.jpg|Tailor (Pomatomus saltatrix) 
Image:MG 5274.jpg|pretty sure that's a catfish due to the whiskers 
Image:MG 5293.jpg|Murray Cod (Maccullochella peelii peelii) 
Image:MG 5321.jpg|Malabar Grouper (Epinephelus malabaricus ) 
Image:MG 5323.jpg|Perch? 
Image:MG 5334.jpg|Pennant Coralfish (Heniochus acuminatus) 
Image:MG 5345.jpg|Humphead Wrasse (Cheilinus undulatus) 
Image:MG 5331.jpg
That's it, and I appreciate the work you guys do very much, thanks! --Fir0002 www 00:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dunno if you do this, but one thing I do is to take pictures of all the signs and labels, typically just before photographing the critters. I'm pretty stringent with myself in fact - no label found, I walk on by. Stan 00:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most pointnshoot digital cameras allow to record audio too which I find helps the memory! Pcb21 Pete 01:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The "Finding Nemo" one is a banner fish/bannerfish. Pcb21 Pete 16:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In my opinion it is the Pennant Coralfish (Heniochus acuminatus) (Fishbase: ).  JoJan 13:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just to be clear, Pennant Coralfish (fishbase name) == Featherfin Bullfish (ITIS name) == Longfin Bannerfish ("common common name") == Henicochus acuminatus. Pcb21 Pete 08:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The last one is the Humphead Wrasse (Cheilinus undulatus) (Fishbase : ) JoJan 13:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: These aquariums tend to be one connected space where all the fish swim around together - no such luck having each fish posing next to a label. Stevage 06:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you tried looking through their website ? --Stemonitis 13:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: That's actually why I post them up here - I've no idea what they are so I just upload them as they are, and then once I've got an ID I can delete and reupload --Fir0002 www 11:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo day at the Melb Aquarium 

message: I've noticed on some plant articles that the bloom times of plants are given by month. I'm curious whether there is an established system for noting bloom times by a more "biome-neutral" standard. 
I suppose the easiest system to use might be by GDD (growing degree days), but there is very little information in the literature using this. It also has the weakness of not accounting for plants that are set off by light, rather than heat. 
Has this been discussed before? I think this information would be nice to include for wildflowers and garden plants, but also quite handy as phenological indicators for the emergence of insects, etc.  SB Johnny 16:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally best to give flowering time by season, rather than month, unless the location is specified – the same species may flower in February in southern Europe, April in central Europe, and June in northern Scandinavia; and if planted in New Zealand, in September. But "mid spring" can apply equally to all of these. - MPF 20:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess my hope is that there might be a way of preserving specificity (using GDD, day length, or perhaps a newfangled wiki way of denoting specific season), rather than something so vague as "mid-spring". SB Johnny 20:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bloom times, etc. 

message: User:Dysmorodrepanis has been toying a lot around this cat, basically rebuilding it completely, doing stuff like creating , or recategorizing families and orders. So I'm posting hereto get some extra comments before I start mass-reverting the changes, as to avoid an edit war. Circeus 01:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Make the categories decently large, ideally 50-200 species in each category. This makes checking 'recent changes' for vandalism a lot easier. Thus, typically, use Category:Order or Category:Family rather than Category:Genus, which splits the pages up between far too many very small categories, an absolute pain to checking 50 different pages for 'recent changes' - MPF 21:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{cl|Birds by classification}} 

message: Hello. Does anybody know the name of the flower in the photo to the right? Somebody at the reference desk ventured to guess that it was Celosia Cristata (Yellow Toreador) but it isn't. If it of any help, I found this flower in Malaysia. So it's likely that it's a tropical species (though I've no idea if it's native). Thanks __earth (Talk) 05:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a variety of Celosia cristata. A common name used is Cock's comb. Shyamal 03:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for responding! I guess the person at the ref desk was right after all. However, he suggests the common name as Yellow Toreador. Is Cock's comb actually Yellow Toreador and vice versa?? __earth (Talk) 04:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flower name 

message: Found this near Carnac, in Brittany (North-western France). It was crawling in and out of holes in the ground. I have a film of it if needed. Anyone know what it is? Stevage 06:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is probably in the genus lacerta maybe a European green lizard --Bjwebb (talk) 14:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the pointer, I've left notes on those pages. Stevage 11:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unidentified lizard

message: I have put right whale up for FAC. I'd greatly appreciate your comments either here, my talk page, the article talk page or the FAC page. Thanks, Pcb21 Pete 13:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Whale FAC

message: I have a bot that have inserted fishbase and ITIS templates in the reference section on most fish articles according to wikipedia:WikiProject_Fishes#Article_format. 
* Now I realised that ITIS references can be added to all animal articles, to change my bot to work on none fish articles is just removing the fishbase code, so very simple. After looking around I can not find any project except the fishes project that states that ITIS should be referenced, so I would like to have consensus here before I ask for my bot to be allowed to update animal articles.
* The same bot can be updated to add links to other simmilar resources as fishbase for other types of animals, does anyone have any suggestions, if so I will add that at the same time.
* It can also (probably) be updated to link to Template:IUCN, this template is used on only 5 real articles, so I would say that either we should use it everywhere, or maybe only for critical listed animals or the template should be deleted?? Comments?
* I can also (probably) add the conservation status into the taxobox for all animals (with taxoboxes) see Blacktip_Reef_Shark for an example, is that something that would be wanted? I.e. can the tree of life project recomend that? If so I will ask for permission for my bot to do it also ... and try to implement it ..... :-)
See also the discussion about www.arkive.org/ above, no answer was really given to these questions there. 
Stefan 13:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, should we be using ITIS as a reference where it is not the taxonomic authority used writing the article? ITIS certainly isn't used for the bird articles so I would be dubious about citing it as a reference in those cases. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 15:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; we should only be citing those sources actually used. For invertebrates, it has occasionally proved useful, but I often find it to be incomplete. I also don't like its habit of investing "common names". It should definitely not be added to all articles. --Stemonitis 16:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I do not think it is possible to make a 'simple' to use template for ITIS or IUCN, neither can make a link direct using a name(as far as I can tell). You need to do a web lookup using the scientific name to get a uniq id and then use the uniq id in the link. A  bot can do the translation, but doing it by hand is a bit tedious. Stefan 00:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: A quick comment if it's not too late: I noticed an article this morning with "Conservation status: data deficient" in the taxobox. I don't think there's much point in adding this sort of non-information to hundreds of articles. But provided there is data on the conservation status, then it can (should?), of course, be added. --Stemonitis 07:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, will do like that, busy now so will not have time to write/debug bot for a while but will do. Thanks. Stefan 01:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Data Deficient is a category officially used by IUCN, for little-known species where its conservation status is not determined because of lack of data. It isn't just something used only on wikipedia. I'd say we should keep it.  - MPF 22:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK code ready, tested, soeas to be ok,, just wating for OK on the request to run on the bot page, I will add data deficient unless there are more comments here after this. Stefan 13:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to include in reference section 

message: Hi guys, Stevage pointed me in this direction from the picture peer review page. I took this photo at the Vancouver Aquarium and forgot to make a note of the details on the display card. Ginkgo100 has identified it as a type of goby but, as there are 1800 species, I was wondering if anyone could be a little more specific? Thanks very much, --Yummifruitbat 16:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it is one of the species of Algae Blenny, Salarias sp. Likely Salarias fasciatus as it is the most commonly available one for aquaria, but there are at least 8 species in that genus, and I'm not familiar with them all. -Dawson 14:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Dawson. I've done a little bit of research and am inclined to agree with you. I'll add him to appropriate articles :) --Yummifruitbat 23:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another one for identification 

message: The taxobox on the arthropod article has been vandalized; unfortunately I was unable to correct it! The same message appeared on horseshoe crab, but it seems to have disappeared. If someone could check it out that would be great, I am very perplexed. IronChris  |  (talk) 16:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The vandalism was on an embedded template within the taxobox (Template:Subtext), so affected every article that made use of it. It was reverted. :) -Dawson 16:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxobox vandalism 

message: Come discuss a new proposal here. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change to taxobox 

message: Can we have a Candidacy box like the one at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board, which has featured article candidates and peer reviews related to this WikiProject. I don't often venture to FAC or PR because, well... I forget. But, if I was watching a box like that, I think I would be able to contribute more towards the FA process, and the participants of TOL would be able to increase the quality of the nature related FAs if they know when they are up for nomination or review. --liquidGhoul 10:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Candidacy Box

message: These last weeks there has been a proposal for a Nature related barnstar, the Bio-barnstar. I foward all of you the discussion and the two proposed designs. Please, anyone interested consult Wikipedia:Barnstar_and_award_proposals/New_Proposals#Nature-related_Barnstar
Thanks. --Francisco Valverde 18:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bio-barnstar proposal 

message: * Taxonomists and Users: Two species that don't meet 
Shyamal 03:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Interesting article

message: This reeks of bunk to me and the description is rather unlike that of Basilosaurus specially in regards to the tail and the odd locomotory method. So either we regard this one as a nomen dubium or nudum or we'll just have to furnish the cryptozoo' crowd a pertinent taxobox template so this doesn't happen again. Or one could simply delete the article... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dracontes (talk • contribs) .
:Hell no. Cryptids don't get to use the taxobox, as their very nature means they have no documented taxonomy. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to get that cleared :) Dracontes 17:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ''[[Cadborosaurus willsi]]''

message: As a result of a CFD :Category:Sylvia no longer has a parent category and I was wondering if someone here with knowledge of taxonomy could figure out where it should go.  Thanks, Cyde Weys 01:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I swear, I should have been more forceful when User:Dysmorodrepanis started reorganizing . Readded a cat. Circeus 02:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I knew this was the place to come to :-P  Cyde Weys 02:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hang on, see Wikipedia:Deletion review#Category:Sylviidae. Ardric47 20:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sylvia needs a parent cat 

message: how about extending the taxoboxes with the possibility to display a simple habitat map? The maps should be standardized (simple world maps with habitats marked in some specific colour), and I don't want to mess with the taxoboxes without thorough discussion, but even if only a small fraction of species get such maps, they would be extremely useful for quick information. dab (ᛏ) 15:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can already do it, check out the frog article. --liquidGhoul 21:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How can one create such maps? I'd love to but I don't know how. IronChris  |  (talk) 00:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a wonderful idea... though it might be helpful it there were some way to render it from a database (e.g., to be able to get it rendered using inputs such as countries, states, counties, etc.). Might also be nice to see different colors used for native range vs. introduced range (for invasive species), former range vs. current range (for endangered species), and summer vs. winter range (for migratory species). Not that I'd have any idea how to do all that, of course. SB Johnny 12:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, there would need to be additional colours for migratory birds, and possibly for recent spreads. I got the idea in a zoo were all animals were labelled with such maps, and they also had a special way to account for avian migration. If we decide on a particular colour code, this should be mentioned here to facilitate consistency. I cannot put much time into this, but I think I'll add an optional value to the taxobox template, and insert the map above in the Greater Sooty Owl as a beginning, and will then make note of it here. I don't think automatical generation would work, since habitats do not align with national borders. We'd need to do a vectorized model of the world's vegetational zones, which would be more bother than it'll be worth. After all, the example map above weighs a mere 12k, more detailed maps can always go to the article body (as e.g. on wolf). dab (ᛏ) 17:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: doh, that should have read, right, I hadn't seen Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/taxobox_usage#Range_maps. Should we add conventions of which colours to choose when generating maps? dab (ᛏ) 17:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found :commons:Category:Animal habitat maps and :commons:Category:Bird habitat maps now and I'm quite impressed; it just seems that not many articles on en: make use of this repository. dab (ᛏ) 18:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Coming in on this a bit late, but I did a 4-colour range map for Fallow Deer, because the previous one was so badly wrong. As a PS, they're called range maps or distribution maps, not "habitat" maps - that commons cat really ought to be re-named. A habitat map is something completely different; that would be a map showing forests, grasslands, wetlands, etc, etc. - MPF 23:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 
Habitat
 Range maps

message: The article on Eastern tent caterpillar appears to be copied/pasted from the reference given at the bottom. The user who imported the material seems to have made no other contributions than this article (see: []). I assume I should revert it? Is there a tag I should put on the article to get more opinions? 
Kind of a shame, because it's full of information. SB Johnny 11:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just noticed that there is actually another article by the same user (Social Caterpillars) is also copied from the same source. [].  SB Johnny 11:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on policy (how to tag) 

message: I initially posted this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Marine life, but that seems to be mostly inactive. While working on Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/fr, I found out that the name "vendace" refers to at least two different species in the genus Coregonus: C. albula and C. vandesius. I was wondering if anyone here could comment at Talk:vendace and help sort out the disambiguation issues. Thanks, Ardric47 20:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with [[vendace]] 

message: Duplicating the note above (in case anyone missed it), there is a discussion currently in progess at the Village Pump, here. See particularly the idea of categorising redirects to enable people to browse by either scientific names or common names. Carcharoth 20:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Village Pump discussion (scientific names and redirects) 

message: Okay, so we messed up and accidentally deleted a category that should not have been deleted.  I think I have repaired all of the damage, but I am not sure.  Can someone please confirm that :Category:Sylviidae is correct now?  It has a single subcategory, :Category:Sylvia, which contains twelve articles on bids, and its parent category is :Category:Passeri, which contains lots of other avian subcategories.  The old category :Category:Old World Warblers was theoretically supposed to be merged into :Category:Sylviidae, but I don't know at this point if it was always empty or if it did use to contain some bird articles that are now orphaned.  Thanks for the help everyone, Cyde?Weys 17:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All genus cats should have been returned to  now. Circeus 17:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks.  --Cyde?Weys 03:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A little bird category flap 

message: I just created an awful lot of fungus and bacteria stubs... a copy-past job because the only thing I know about them is that they are included in a mix of soil innoculants I've been using lately. using wiki as my notebook, so to speak. 
The good news is that several of the organisms listed in the mix already had pretty good articles :). SB Johnny 20:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry 'bout all the stubs... 

message: I don't know enough about them to work on them myself, but I wanted to request some changes on the snake articles (or at least on the one I just read, Garter snake). Mostly, I'd just like to see some information about where particular snake species might be found, as opposed to just the list of taxon that's there now. (Really just trying to figure out which species are living on my farm). SB Johnny 15:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid you'll have to look the ranges of each species individually if you want to do that in Wikipedia. Your best would probably be to get a book on snakes in your area. Circeus 17:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for snake article work... 

message: I found these Creative Commons photos on Flickr (    ), and they are identified as Cordylus breyeri, however I just googled that, and there are only 80 or so hits. Most of the results were for the sub-species Cordylus warreni breyeri. Does anybody know about this lizard, and can identify it? Thanks --liquidGhoul 03:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does look like C. w. breyeri to me from what images I can find in my books and on the web, but that species alone has nine subspecies, all of which look quite similar - at least from photographs, and none of the sources I found gave any distinguishing features to look for. -Dawson 14:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lizard identification

message: the future implementation  of the semantic mediawiki (http://wiki.ontoworld.org/index.php/Main_Page and  http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Semantic_MediaWiki) will make the creation of categories obsolete, but it will make the Taxoboxes and other similar boxes more important. also if it hasnt been suggested before (and truthfully id be surprised if it wasnt) i think the Taxoboxes should link to the wikispecies version of the article and viceversa.
:It's been suggested a couple of times; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/taxobox usage#Wikispecies and Template talk:Taxobox#WikiSpecies. Gdr 09:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semantic Mediawiki 

message: Hi. Are there any notability criteria for inclusion/exclusion of articles concerning taxa around here ? lijealso 04:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. All taxa deserve articles. Gdr 20:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: Please have a look-see at Lycopersicon. I put a disambig tag on it, but is there a better tag available? Might be useful to have a "" tag? SB Johnny 14:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No need for a tag, disambig or otherwise: it's just an ordinary article. Gdr 20:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag for defunct genera? 

message: Could someone be so kind as to ID this species of bird for me? Is it Hirundo rustica? The nest has been built on top of my dryer vent, above the balcony of my second-story apartment. I'm in eastern Iowa, USA. Thanks, TacoDeposit 21:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Hirundo rustica (Barn Swallow) - MPF 20:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help ID bird 

message: A thought occurred to me that it may be interesting to categorize species by year of discovery, or at least by year of first scientific publication.  Any thoughts on the matter? — Eoghanacht talk 19:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see it as particularly useful, though categorising by authority could be. --liquidGhoul 01:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: For one thing, it gives a snapshot of what else was being discovered at about the same time, something longitudinal vs the current latitudinal categorization. However, the more narrow "cat by authority", which I presume to be author/publication and year, sounds more compelling to me. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorizing species by year of discovery? 

message: What do people think of ? (See Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Paleobox, e.g. Tyrannosaurus.) Appropriate, inappropriate? Gdr 18:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To repeat what I've said on other talk pages-- I think the most relevant info contained in the paleobox (size, etymology, distribution) should be incorporated into the taxobox template. The other info in the paleobox, like type of animal, diet, environment, movement, period, etc. either needs moe than a one-word discussion (i.e., keep it in the text) or is already contained in the taxobox (namely, fossil range and type of animal, which is what the taxobox is about!). Having it as a seperate entity is clunky and takes up too much space.Dinoguy2 19:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paleobox 

message: Just trying to get some feedback on the feasibily of an idea for seasonality graphs using a template. Is there a way to write templates that can modify the contents of an SVG file's text to allow for instance the specification of 12 percentages and status (breeding/flowering) etc... to produce SVG's on the fly. Shyamal 12:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Too variable with location - see #Bloom times, etc. above - MPF 20:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Using bullets before species seems to fix it and isn't too obtrusive. You could use that, at least temporarily.Dinoguy2 23:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The suggestion to have a dynamic SVG file has been made many times (including by myself). See bugzilla 5899 and the many duplicate bugs. Some day I might have to work out how to build the feature myself. —Pengo  talk · contribs 00:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Seasonality graph

message: That spaces immediately after italics and links disappear, leaving the lines like this: Myrtus nivelleiBatt. & Trab. This one's been around for months, now. Anyone know if it is likely to be dealt with, or should I start adding nbsps inbetween them all? - MPF 20:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See  Gdr 20:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Nice to see it tagged as urgent now :-) MPF 22:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Taxobox bug

message: Can someone look over these two articles and determine if they should be merged?  It looks like we have a duplication of content.  Note that they only differ by a single capitalization change but they redirect to two different articles, both on box jellyfish.
*Sea Wasp
*Sea wasp
Thanks!  --Cyde↔Weys 04:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I see it this is a article of species and families, this is quite common, you basically have two articles, one Chironex fleckeri wich is a species which is often calles Sea wasp or box jelly, and one Box jellyfish which is the article that is about the whole family in which Chironex fleckeri is a species. So IMHO the articles should not be merged. The two redirects that you show should probably be fixed in some way, not sure how, if Sea wasp is the true name of Chironex fleckeri then I think Sea Wasp should be deleted or redirected to Chironex fleckeri. But not an expert on Box jelly fish, when I see them I try to swim the other way ASAP :-).Stefan 04:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Box jellyfish 

message: I've been going through some bird articles to check they tally with current taxonomic orthodoxy. Velvet Scoter and White-winged Scoter are (rightly) given separate articles as distinct species but the articles are illustrated with the same photo! I think its White-winged but I'd like someone to verify this for sure before I remove it from one of the articles. Thanks Richard Barlow 14:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure they are separate species? The first paragraph of the Velvet Scoter article states: "The East Siberian and North American White-winged Scoter is sometimes considered conspecific with the Velvet Scoter, and its two constituent subspecies are then known as M. f. stejnegeri and M. f. deglandi." It seems that M. deglandi could well be considered a subspecies of M. fusca. If this is the case, and the picture really is of M. deglandi, then it could be correctly used in both articles. --NoahElhardt 15:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You are probably right - I didn't do any research, but merely was noting that passage. Since the plumage differences are really quite slight, I doubt we will be able to make a definite diagnosis... although the uploader clearly thought the bird was a White-winged Scoter. --NoahElhardt 16:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The original source of the image seems to be . Here it is identified as "White-winged Scoter - Melanitta fusca", which is confusing. Apparently, the F.W.S. considers M. fusca and White-winged scoter to be the same. As it is a U.S. FWS image, the picture is likely to have been taken in America, which would mean it is (what wikipedia calls) a M. deglandi, as M. fusca does not occur in America. (In fact, the original image has a tag "Kodiak island" so it has been taken in Alaska.) Eugène van der Pijll 21:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have uploadedded a PD-old drawing of a velvet scoter to commons.wikipedia.org, and added it to Velvet Scoter. Eugène van der Pijll 21:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scoter pic 

message: The actual plant articles are a bit lost in the morass of subcats... at least one of which (:Category:Tobacco) is mostly about politics and products, rather than plants. The only solution I can think of is to make sure the plants in those subcats have the Solanaceae tag as well as the subcat tag. Generally against policy, but in this case the subcats are just really off-topic as far as the TOL part is concerned. Sound OK? SB Johnny 17:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An article and its acompanying cat are not necessarily categorized the same way. If the scope of :Category:Tobacco makes it improper in :Category:Solanaceae remove it, but keep the plant's article in there. Circeus 17:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean remove the category tag from cat:tobacco? SB Johnny 21:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The trouble with [[:Category:Solanaceae]] 

message: Can someone help me find why this image does not show in the taxo box  in Abisara fylla. Shyamal 04:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if the taxoboxes allow .png files for the representative picture. Try converting to .jpg? --NoahElhardt 05:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I tried re-saving the file as a .png and re-uploading, but it doesn't seem to have worked - MPF 10:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It got stranger after I made it a 256 palette grey-scale png. Shyamal 11:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image problem

message: The category :Category:Fauna of Madagascar is the sole remaining survivor of a recent Cfd ("Wildlife of Madagascar" was nuked) ... can someone look at it and make sure that all of the parent and sub cats are correct?  I'm not sure about the organizational scheme for this stuff.  Thanks!  --Cyde↔Weys 13:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fauna of Madagascar 

message: There's something funny going on between IP editors adding and reverting inter-wiki (language) links to TOL-related pages. Unfortunately I don't know the languages, but I think we should all be careful editing after interwiki link reversions. SB Johnny 17:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Example? Gdr 18:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, meant to put that in before, but was interrupted by "real-life stuff". Check the history on Spinach for one... problem is that I've been seeing this on various articles I watch for several days now, and it didn't strike me as a pattern until today. SB Johnny 18:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, took a follow-up peek at user:84.174.199.206 contribs, and it seems to follow one of the patterns: namely removing IW links for one language, then adding a link for another language. Note that on the history for Jovibarba the pl (Polish?) is the same word as in German (which is entirely possible, but who knows?). It's impossible for me to tell which is the vandal... but the link to the French page which was removed does lead to a page whish is more or less about the same plant. SB Johnny 18:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked the Spinach case, and in that case the removal of the interwiki links is arguably correct. The Polish, Bulagrian, Lithuanian and Malay articles are about the genus Spinacia (if I'm reading the taxoboxes correctly), while the English page is about S. oleracea specifically. Eugène van der Pijll 18:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible vandal warning 

message: Apart from the normal Pachypodium article, there are a whole host of other articles relating to the genus.  While there is an admirable level of scholarship in them, they bother me for two reasons.  For one, they don't seem suitable for Wikipedia (as much as it saddens me to say so).  This material has been around for a long time (about a year), and the author,  hasn't edited since September.  On his User page there's a "Table of Contents": 
*The Pachypodium Project: Proposed Structure
**Table of Contents for the Pachypodium Genus
***The Apocynaceae(Asclepiadaceae) Family First link to the wiki back to its family Apocynaceae.  The "Dogbane family" Apocynaceae has been in 2000 modified to include the "milkweed" family Asclepiadaceae.  
***On The Pachypodium Genus
***  A Concise History of the Pachypodium
***Of the Valid Species of Pachypodium
***The Pachypodium Species:  Literature, Morphology, Habitats, and Cultivation
****Pachypodium ambongense
****Pachypodium baronii
****Pachypodium bicolor
****Pachypodium bispinosum
****Pachypodium breviccaule
****Pachypodium cactipes
****Pachypodium decaryi
****Pachypodium densiflorum
****Pachypodium eburneum
****Pachypodium geayi
****Pachypodium gracilius
****Pachypodium horombense
****Pachypodium inopinatum
****Pachypodium lamerei
****Pachypodium lealii
****Pachypodium makayense
****Pachypodium meridionale
****Pachypodium menabeum
****Pachypodium namaquanam
****Pachypodium rosulatum
****Pachypodium rutenbergainum
****Pachypodium saundersii
****Pachypodium sofiense
****Pachypodium succulentum
****Pachypodium windsorii
***On the Invalid Species and Varieties of Pachypodium
*** On the Unrecognized Species of Pachypodium
*** The Morphology for the Genus Pachypodium
***Key to the Pachypodium Species
***Habitats of Pachypodium of Southern Continental Africa and Madagascar
****Study, Materials, and Methodology
**** A Larger Context to the Habitats of Pachypodium
**** The General Habitats of Pachypodium
**** The Adaptive Mechanisms of Pachypodium
*** A Botanical Glossary
The whole "Pachypodium project" requires cleanup in some form or other, but I really don't know how to proceed.  Any suggestions?  Guettarda 06:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you have some expertise in this, I'd say just leave it be. Sooner or later (perhaps years from now) someone interested in the genus will wander by and do some more work. Other than at least 1 spp. article needing a stub tag, it all looks pretty good, though I do wonder about the lack of source citations. SB Johnny 16:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Pachypodium]] 

message: You might want to know that a RFC has been opened regarding User:Brya's POVediting, MoS violation and general attitude at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Brya. Circeus 15:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Brya]] RFC 

message: I'd like to create a "hortibox" template (similar to the taxobox) with information about growing conditions for cultivated plants (see comments here for details). I went to the template for the taxobox and found a warning saying it was quite complicated, so decided I'd better ask for help from more compitent hands. SB Johnny 16:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to take a look at the Template:Infobox Cultivar. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a bit easier. Thanks!
OK, cobbled it together a bit... see example here. What's the next step? SB Johnny 12:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please help with a template! 

message: When writing articles on biological organisms, I've noticed that although there's an excellent way to list older synonyms for an organism's scientific name (using the taxobox), there is no standard way to list its common names -- of which there are sometimes many. It may be Wikipedia's policy to select the most common common name for the title of an article, but that does not mean that other common names for the same organism are any less valid. I therefore propose that a standard be agreed upon for listing all of an organism's common names. For clarity, I would think it best to place this list at the beginning, or close to the beginning of the article. Such a list would certainly make cross-referencing easier.--Jwinius 21:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out Cane Toad, I think it does it the best. The most common common names are listed in the introduction, and the more obscure ones in the taxonomy section. --liquidGhoul 02:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If one is going to list all the common names of an organism that has many, then I don't think the beginning of the article is the best place for it. A reader will want to know what a cane toad (for instance) is, and why it's important, before being confronted with a plethora of unenlightening common names. If it's really important to have, then you could have a section labelled ===Common names===, which would then show up in the table of contents (i.e. pretty near the top). One example of this approach would be woodlouse, which has vast numbers of common names around the world; these are listed in a section towards the end of the article, with a notice about it right at the beginning. --Stemonitis 13:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I can top Woodlouse. Since first seeing this discussion earlier, I've had occasion to create a new article for the Buttonwood (Conocarpus erectus) and found that the USDA Forest Service had thoughtfully assembled a total of 70 common names for the tree from around the world. I opted for the separate section listing "other common names". -- Donald Albury(Talk) 23:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha. And did you make redirects from them all? --Stemonitis 09:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Even nine or ten names are a lot to include in the first sentence. And Buttonwood seems to be used for some other trees besides American Sycamore. I'm still thinking on how to handle the disambiguation and redirects for all of that. I've run into a similar situation with Coccothrinax, where some species have multiple common names, and some common names are used for multiple species, and species in other genera. I think the issue you raise is part of a larger issue of how do we treat multiple common names and shared common names in a consistent manner across WP. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 12:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: For my views on naming articles, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive17#Which takes precedence: official common name or actual common name? -- Donald Albury(Talk) 14:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Listing common names

message: At http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcodede/sets/72057594099874712/, a Brazilian photographer is making available a great number of stunning animal closeup photographs under a Wikipedia-compatible Creative Commons Attribution licence. I'd add them to Wikimedia Commons, but he's not identified the animals. Maybe our resident taxonomists would be interested? These images would be great additions to our articles on animals. 
I've added this notice to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life and to Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). Anyone is invited to cross-post it anywhere else where it might be noticed by knowledgeable Wikipedians. Sandstein 15:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open content animal closeups needing to be classified 

message: I don't remember seeing guidance on this, and I don't feel like searching for it right now, so, if we have a list of binomial names, all in the same genus, (see Coccothrinax, for example), should the genus name be abbreviated for all the species in the list? Which of the lists below is preferable?
* Coccothrinax
** Coccothrinax acuminata (Griseb. & H.L.Wendl.) K.Schum.
** Coccothrinax acunana León
** Coccothrinax alexandri León	
:* Coccothrinax
:** C. acuminata (Griseb. & H.L.Wendl.) K.Schum.
:** C. acunana León
:** C. alexandri León
-- Donald Albury(Talk) 00:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that from the point of view of legibility, abbreviated is better. However, for linking purposes, it is simpler to use a full name. compare markup: C. acuminata vs. Coccothrinax acuminata. Circeus 00:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's no particular guidance or custom on this, I won't worry about it. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 00:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Standard notation is to use the abbreviated form. If we don't have an article about the species, only the genus, then the searcher may be out of luck, particularly for very large genera where it is difficult to list all of the species. That all said, the cephalopod articles that I've made use the full form. Will a wiki search find "Coccothrinax acuminata" in C. acuminata? - UtherSRG (talk) 11:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gdr, UtherSRG, thanks for those points. I just leave the genus name spelled out. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 20:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Binomial names in a list all in the same genus 

message: The whole group of cats were CFD'd (although the undividual cats have not been tagged as yet).  I thought that the people here would be in a good position to speak about the usefulness of this set of cats.  Guettarda 19:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops.  Here.  Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_3#Category:Animals_by_country.2C_Category:Flora_by_country_and_all_the_subcategories.  Guettarda 21:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CFD animals by country, plants by country, etc 

message: thumb|250px|Unidentified lizard
I took this picture of a lizard in a French forest (near Lyon). There aren't many different species of lizards in France, but I really can't identify this one! Could it be a juvenile green lizard (Lacerta viridis)? IronChris  |  (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lizard

message: I found this cute caterpillar with false eye stalk hairs on my shirt in the vicinty of Cambridge, England this weekend. I put him on a beech leaf for the purposes of this portrait, but can anyone tell me the species. As best I can tell, he looks like being on of the Tussock moths. -- Solipsist 22:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, it's Lymantriidae. It's Orgyia antiqua, usually called The Vapourer in the UK. There is a very brief stub under the name Rusty tussock moth which needs serious expansion as this is a rather interesting species (the female is wingless and doesn't really look like Lepidoptera at all). Another one to add to the to do list! Richard Barlow 11:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh thanks. The darker colouring in the photo of the German variety already on that page was throwing me. But armed with the Vapourer name, I can find a number of examples with similar colouring on the web, as well as a description of the tussock hair defence by Alfred Wallace. -- Solipsist 18:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unidentified Tussock Moth caterpillar

message: Does anyone think it is necessary to cite common names in the headers on infoboxes where there is no confusion about a common name? See Western Quoll etc.--04:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm using that location to indicate the default source of all the info in the taxobox. Where else would it be appropriate to indicate the taxobox's data source? Should I put a reference on each piece of data in the taxobox? (See Wikipedia:How_to_read_a_taxobox.) - UtherSRG (talk) 04:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is no contention a reference is unnecessary in my opinion. All scientific papers require is the binomial and the author. I should also add I think sticking Collin Groves Book on every mammal page is a tad misleading given that the information on Taxonomy is available in Wikispecies and several other free online sources.--Peta 04:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not Groves' book, and you'll kindly note that I have several appropriate templates for the various authors that wrote for the book. Wikispecies is not a source; much of its information comes from books like MSW3, too. Just as we can't use other Wikipedia articles as a source citation, we can't use Wikispecies as a source citation. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it's a good idea to cite a source on the taxobox.  There may not always be controversy, but there will be older sources and it gets really frustrating when editors drag our taxonomy back several decades because they're using an older source.  I agree that the placement of the citation on Western Quoll looks like it's the source for the common name.  I don't hold that against Uther, I think that's currently about the only remotely logical place to add it to a taxobox.  Is there any way we could put the citation after the words "Scientific Classification"?  --Aranae 05:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose we can, if we change the template to allow it, the way the status_ref was added. Be that as it may, MSW3 *is* a official source for the common name as well as the taxonomy. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Surely if there is some question about the taxonomy then the best place to discuss it is in the text (from where you can cite it)? Sabine's Sunbird  talk 05:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is question, yes, or even if there is a simple change. But should not all of our facts have some verifiable source, regardless of whether that fact is in question or has changed over time? - UtherSRG (talk) 10:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and no. If we're stating that the Western Quoll is a separate species from the Northern Quoll, contra many earlier papers, yes, we need to cite that. Best place to talk about that is the text. If we're stating that it is in the phylum Chordata in the clade mamalia and the family Dasyuridae then no, anymore than we would cite a reference for the fact that New Britain is an island off New Guinea or that Switzerland is a landlocked country in central Europe. In most cases it is sufficient to follow the scientific convention of linking to the original authour and date, if anything else needs proving then it will also need discussing in the text anyway. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 17:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So saying "Callithrix (Mico) mauesi Mittermeier, et al, 1992" is enough, even though the common reader will have a hard time finding where Mittermeier published the information? The authority portion of a scientific name is fantastic for those in the biology field, but it does little for the common reader. It's also then incumbent upon the editor to cite the actual publication of the data. Given the enormous list of citations in MSW3 alone makes this a task unsuitable for a general encyclopedia, even an electronic one. Citing the more common source that the common reader can get their hands on to find the publication's listing goes a big step further, and removes the necessity of citing the thousands of sources the larger source books reference. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is 2006, it is extremely easy to find information on the taxonomy of mammals on the internet - there's NCBI, wikispecies and a host of other sources - none of which cite any authority (plants is another matter entirely). Expecting easy access to Colin Groves book is also a fallacy, I'm at a major uni and we don't have it in our library. If there are actually issues with the taxonomy and it is relevant to the article the author of the article is better to describe them in text and cite the literature.--Peta 23:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not Groves' book, he is an author in the book, so perhaps you can't find it in your uni's library because you are searching incorrectly. Nonetheless, using the ISBN you can order it from Amazon.com or any number of other sources. I'm also assuming that the common reader is not at an educational organization. Without using your uni's library, can you find what publication "Mittermeier, et al, 1992" refers to? I don't believe I can, without going to MSW3 or some other such source. And we shouldn't have to make the reader hunt to find "Mittermeier, et al, 1992" on the internet, we should be explicit about how the reader can find that reference. Citing the source that lists that authority is the way we do that. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know how to search a library catalogue, so don't be a dick. The average person has easier access to taxonomic resources on the internet than they do any print source, thus the reason to add the Groves or any other reference to the taxobox is still entirely unclear to me.--Peta 14:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, no name calling is needed. Pray tell, put your money where your mouth is. In reference to Cheirogaleus medius, what publication does "É. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1812" refer to? In your response, indicate all the steps you had to go through to find the publication. You aren't allowed to use MSW3 as the first place you go to, since in your version of the article, the taxobox doesn't indicate MSW3 as the source of taxonomic information. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really think it would be great to include "É. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1812" in the reference section.  There are too few places that actually give the full citation for that information.  (Incidentally, the best web source to answer your question is: at ION, but it even fails with older references such as this one.)  Cheirogaleus is a great example of why citing the source for taxonomy is needed.  Geoffrey described the genus in 1812, Gray first elevated it to family status in 1873, but many authors following Gray treated it as a member of the Lemuridae.  We're treating it as a separate family, not based on the opinion of Gray, but on the opinion of Groves.  Thus Groves should be cited as the source of our taxonomy.  I agree that the history of the taxonomy should be given treatment in the article, but most TOL articles are stubby and many editors won't have access to the detailed overview of the history of the revisions of a particular taxon.  They will know where they found the information.  --Aranae 19:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Seconded. Incidenatlly many (or most, I haven't checked) species or taxa level article begin Xxxx (Xxxx xxxyx) is a [inesrt higher level taxa] in the family [Xxxxidae]. That is a great place to whack a refernce in the event that the taxonomy is controversial and deviates from the normal sources. As for references or links  for the original description, they don't even cite them in journals when refering to a species. They are content to go Canis lupus (L.) and leave it at that. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 07:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Common name cite in Infoboxes

message: There was a discussion on Template talk:Taxobox about changing the taxobox so that the "conservation status" is put into its own section, below the picture but above the classification. I was previously opposed to this change, but have come 180 and now fully support it. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi UtherSGR. I've been meaning to get back onto this for a while. Now that the bugs in the taxobox have been worked out (like the ? alignment and line thing) it might be a good time to have another go at it. I'll see what I can do. —Pengo  talk · contribs 23:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving "conservation status" down lower

message: List of Brazilian birds has the species list in the format
*Scientific name, Portuguese name, 
rather than the usual
*English name, scientific name.
I'm particularly concerned about the listing only in a foreign language, which means that searches and "what links here" will miss this article. Do we have a policy on this? jimfbleak 06:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a strong case for translation into English. Perhaps retain the Portuguese names, but perhaps not. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 07:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It needs a major translation into English. There is no point in having the Portugese names. It was probably created directly from the Portugese wikipedia. --liquidGhoul 11:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll recreate the article from scratch (quicker than translating), but it may be a few days before I get the chance. jimfbleak 12:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Regional lists

message: Due to this change in the software codes , the background of taxoboxes has suddenly become transparent. Lines under headers are now visible when they run through a taxobox (at least in Firefox). I was told that adding style="background: white; " to the taxobox template would solve this problem. Can someone look into it ?  JoJan 08:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also in Internet Explorer. I noticed the lines too. Peter Maas 09:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was noticeable on most browsers, we were talking about it on Template talk:Taxobox. Thakyou Jojan, I added the change, and the line has disappeared! If you can still see a line, editing the article will get rid of it. Thanks again. --liquidGhoul 09:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lines visible through taxoboxes 

message: This image needs to be identified over at Pinniped. Circeus 00:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Location implies either a common (harbour) or grey seal. The face suggests common to me. Grey seal faces are much longer. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 05:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  --Aranae 06:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Definitely Phoca vitulina. Richard Barlow 08:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name that seal 

message: Fauna of New Guinea is in need of photos! At the moment, I am still creating it, and many sections have not even been started, but I would like to have some photos for this article. I would much prefer endemic fauna, so it doesn't become a group of Australian animals which are also found in New Guinea. If anyone is willing, could you please have a look around the net, and maybe ask some people, for photos of New Guinea fauna. I have been asking around at Flickr (got the tree-kangaroo), but it is pretty poor in diversity. Thanks. --liquidGhoul 08:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo hunt

message: There'a a lot of links being made to ARKive.org (link list), and it's unclear whether they are adding to the articles or are just a case of extreme linkfarming.  See spam project discussion for details. --SB_Johnny | talk 11:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We already decided that ARKive links were good. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could someone look into a this? 

message: User:Dinoguy2 has raised an issue at Talk:Amniota about the use of microphylum as a taxonomic level. This use of 'microphylum' as a taxonomic classification appears to be a neologism in Wikipedia. Using Google, I cannot find any instance of 'microphylum' in association with 'Amniota' anywhere other than in Wikipedia and its mirrors. Unless someone can point me to a reliable source for 'microphylum' as a taxonomic level, and particularly applying to 'Amniota', I will remove 'microphylum' wherever I find it it, and nominate the redirect at Microphylum for deletion. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 11:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: has one instance of the term before its use in Wikipedia. Don't know how authoritive that is. More importantly, a Google books search shows the term has been used in literature. The first hit is Biological Systematics: Principles and Applications by Randall T Schuh, who gives an example of cladistic classification following Loconte and Stevenson 1990, 1991 including the microphyla Coniferales and Anaspermae. Most of the hits are for linguistic microphyla, however. -- Eugène van der Pijll 11:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so it's not a neologism on Wikipedia, although it doesn't look like it is widely accepted in taxonomy. It also doesn't look like it's use in Wikipedia is sourced, and that still needs to be addressed. When I have time ... -- Donald Albury(Talk) 11:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Microphylum - neologism? 

message: Were you aware that cricket links to the sport, not to the insect or a disambiguation?  Am I the only one who thinks that's crazy?  --Aranae 08:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know what you mean but I'd say that the majority of people looking for "cricket" would be looking for the sport. -- Froggydarb croak 11:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the sport would be much more commonly searched than the insect. --liquidGhoul 11:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cricket

message: Several botanical editors have pointed out that the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature differ substantially in many respects, and have quite rightly edited numerous articles to reflect or clarify these differences. But has there been any consensus on when terms or concepts used in both should be covered by the same article? The examples at hand are Nomen nudum and Nomen conservandum. The terms are in use in both botanical and zoological nomenclature, are spelled identically and have essentially identical meanings (although the conservation process is certainly different). My own opinion is that, given such a close similarity, it makes little sense not to include references to both the botanical and zoological concepts in the same article. I have been butting heads over this with Brya, who seems to think these articles must be reserved for the zoological concepts, and the botanical concepts should be... well, I don't quite know.  All I know is that s/he has been removing all botanical references from these articles.  Separate articles for Nomen nudum (zoology) and Nomen nudum (botany), both saying pretty much the same thing? As Brya and I have had some several acrimonious disputes in the recent past, I need some relatively objective third-party opinions. MrDarwin 13:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with MrDarwin on this one. If the terms are so similar for both systems, it makes no sense to create separate articles. Besides, having them in the same articles and explaining the differences there would also be good from an educational standpoint. --Jwinius 14:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that this is also being discussed (in a manner of speaking) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants. MrDarwin 15:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Nomen nudum]], [[nomen conservandum]], and other nomenclatural terms 

message: Image:Unk_desert_flower_1.jpg|Unidentified desert flower
Image:Unk_desert_flower_2.jpg|Unidentified desert flower
Image:Unk_desert_flower_3.jpg|Unidentified desert flower
Hi all, these photos are of a small, very low-growing flowering plant which I found all over the place in desert areas of Lanzarote. I was fascinated by the little 'globules', but have no idea of the species. Might I call upon your knowledgeable ranks for some assistance?
Thanks in advance, --Yummifruitbat 01:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This plant is Mesembryanthemum crystallinum of the Family Aizoaceae, see .--Berton 02:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Desert flower for identification 

message: Homo floresiensis is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality.  Sandy 21:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Homo floresiensis]]

message: Someone is having another shot at removing all categories by country (as in [Fauna of India] or [[Avifauna of New Zealand]). Check it out here. While doubtless there are some worthless cats in there some good ones have been swept up in the mass nomination.  Sabine's Sunbird  talk 06:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  cats for deleting again. 

message: When just the genus is mentioned should it be in italics. Obviously binomial form should be, but if it is just the genus that you mention should it be, and should it have a capital? chris_huh 21:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The genus alone should be in italics and capitalized.  --Aranae 21:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italics on genera 

message: I'm a bit confused on what is a division. If you read Division (biology) it says a division is the equivalent of a phylym for plants. There is however another division in the taxobox called zoodivision. This should probably be used for animals, but then I read a page like this, which has two taxons called Division. One of them can't be used in the taxobox. Can anyone explain the difference to me. --Maitch 19:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Division 

message: Hi!
I'd appreciate some help getting ID's on these pix:
		
		
I assume that they are some kind of sparrow? Anyway thanks! --Fir0002 09:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks very much like the house sparrow to me. Where were the pictures taken? --Stemonitis 09:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, that's a house sparrow. And try not to feed them, they are a huge pest. --liquidGhoul 10:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You had best not let the RSPB hear you say that. They are a bit concerned about the 50% decline in House Sparrow numbers in the UK - (RSPB) (BBC). -- Solipsist 14:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Their red list has some of the biggest pests in Australia (the sparrow and European Starling), but doesn't have the worst. Is disease taking them out, because it can't be habitat. --liquidGhoul 14:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Outside Bakers Delight in Bairnsdale, Australia. Taken in August 2006. Sorry LiquidGhoul. --Fir0002 11:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's cool, I have accidentally done it as well thinking it was something else. Beautiful photos by the way. --liquidGhoul 11:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanx, any idea on the genders? --Fir0002 12:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just looked at the house sparrow article (stupid to not have done it earlier). Here's what I'd make them out to be: 1: female, 2: male, 3: juvenile, 4: female? --Fir0002 12:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: For what it's worth, no. 2 is, in my opinion, the best photo of a house sparrow on Wikipedia (inc. Commons), although it could perhaps be cropped a little more closely. The one in the taxobox at the moment is horrible. --Stemonitis 12:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sparrows 

message: Somebody  might want to keep an eye on the Paratype article and its most recent edits. I simply don't have time to deal with another Nomen nudum, Nomen conservandum, etc.-type dispute right now. MrDarwin 18:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Brya got this one right. I don't know about the term in zoological nomenclature, but what the article refers to is in botany called an isotype.--Curtis Clark 19:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, the edit suggests that neither the term nor concept of paratype (and that is the title of the article) exists in botanical nomenclature, when what was needed was a clarification of the difference between the zoological and botanical concepts of a term that exists in both nomenclatural codes. I’m holding off any editing until I can check the new Vienna code (although I can't believe they've altered it so much as to throw out "paratype"). MrDarwin 20:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 9.5. A paratype is a specimen cited in the protologue that is neither the holotype nor an isotype, nor one of the syntypes if two or more specimens were simultaneously designated as types.  --Stemonitis 07:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm also concerned that the zoological definition is flat wrong. One solution would be to move the article to Isotype (nomenclature) (Isotype is a dab page), put in the correct definition for botany, and hope that a zoologist does whatever is necessary to make the article correct for ICZN.--Curtis Clark 02:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Paratype]]

message: I just came across the flatworm genus Lagenivaginopseudobenedenia. At 27 letters is this the longest taxon name or can anyone top that? Also do you think Mr Yamaguti was having a bit of a joke with this one (I bet it is commonly known as L. in the platyhelminth world:) Richard Barlow 07:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gammaracanthuskytodermogammarus Dybowski, 1926 (amphipod; longest genus name at 31 characters; see below for binomial) (courtesy of Doug Yanega's personal page . Apparently, now an invalid name . Shyamal 10:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bit of fun 

message: Hello! 
1. I copied everything important from the Site Lions in Europe to other lion Artikels, like Asiatic lion or European lion and deleted the contend of this Site. I want to shift the Lemma "Lions in Europe" to the Lemma  European lions and keep it as a forwarding-site to European lion. I think there is no need for such lemmas like "Lions of Europe", "Ants of Italy", "Moles of northern Asia" ect.. Who does not agree with this opinion?
2. May be this is not the best place to ask, but I already started to write now: Where is the reference for the existence of Panthera leo europaea and Panthera leo goojratensis. -Altai 14:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Panthera leo goojratensis is a junior synonym for Panthera leo persica, thus the Asiatic Lion. Panthera leo europaea has been described, named, but cannot give you a reference now. However, many scientists consider Panthera leo europaea as an invalid subspecies too and recognise the European lions as actually being "Asiatic lions". I will try to look for a reference. Peter Maas 16:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: At first is did disagree to the merger/move, but not anymore (as the content can now be read elsewhere). Although I would also not object lemmas like Lions in Europe, Ants of Italy, etc. Some I would support actually. Peter Maas 16:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: P. leo persica is not extinct in the wild as it survives in the Gir Forest National Park in India. Peter Maas 14:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  European Lions 

message: The Brya/KP_Botany-related topics on this page are rather nasty, and do not reflect well on the TOL project (heaven forbid a newcomer should arrive and see this!) I ask for consensus for moving these discussions to a subpage: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/The troubles of October 2006. This stuff really doesn't belong here.
*Support - as nominator --SB_Johnny|talk|books 22:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please move these sections

message: I apologize to everyone at Wikipedia for my contributions which allowed this to continue, including to Brya.  The fact is that Wikipedia is bigger and more important than Brya.  Most people get this.  The Wikipedia community as a whole should consider just how much energy should be devoted to those who don't get this versus how much energy can better be devoted to continuing to make Wikipedia one of the world's great collaborative projects.
KP Botany 18:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Apology 

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal below. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this section.  
User:Brya has been blocked from editing and there is a discussion going on here as to whether this should be a temporary or indefinite block or ban.  Is there a consensus for a community ban of Brya, i.e., that Brya should be blocked from further editing indefinitely? MrDarwin 19:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: my support is for an infinite block. If he wants to start over, he should just start a new account. There's too much bad blood between him and the community now, as he's really exhausted the patience of a large number of contributors. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 20:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section
*I am closing the above. The above has been brought to my attention via WP:AIV. The process above is not how we do things on Wikipedia -- first, polls that are of interest to more than a page or project must be mentioned more broadly than on a moderately obscure talkpage. Second, we don't do community bans in this way (we once did, a long time ago, but that was years ago) - community bans happen when admins, who are familiar with policy, make a judgement to block a user and no other admin challenges that decision. Third, if community bans are not done, RfC and arbitration should be used, which at least give the person the ability to speak on their behalf to explain things. Piling on a user who can't explain their own side is not appropriate. --Improv 15:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Community ban of Brya?