Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 15

message: What class does Dinosauria belong to? There seem to be a lot of conflicting articles, and we need a decision so that articles don't say different things. DarthVader 10:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely. The Dinosauria superorder should be in Reptilia, but it seems that they are often put in Archosauria on wikipedia. Unfortunately some articles say Reptilia and others say Archosauria, and this is inconsistent. As you suggested, I am sure that there would be lots of opposition to demoting the birds. I much prefer the Linnaean classification than the Clades system. DarthVader 08:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dinosauria

message: I've just noticed the same picture is on the Plantago page twice captioned as P. major and P. media. The image is called "Plantago major3" but I'm pretty sure it's not major. Would someone with more knowhow than me be able to sort this out? Richard Barlow 13:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Commons page refers to it as Plantago lanceolata. which I think is probably accurate (although I must say the Plantago lanceolata I see in quebec are very different from these.) Circeus 13:51, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
It does look similar to some lanceolata I've seen and that was my first thought but I don't have much experience of other species so I couldn't be sure. Thanks for that. Richard Barlow 14:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with P. lanceolata - MPF 20:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Plantago'' pics 

message: 200px
200px
200px
200px
Any help on identifying these two animals?  Both pictures were taken August 3 in Chandler, Arizona in a retention basin that filled on August 2.  I suspect the beetle survived for the roughly one week period between this filling and the previous time.  The spider is roughly .5 inches across (1.5 cm).  The beetle is roughly 2 inches (5 cm) long.  The spider was clearly mobile on the surface and the beetle an obvious swimmer. Sorry about the resolution on the spider.  Shot with a 75-300 and he moved pretty quick.  Best I could do without my shorter lens. Wikibofh 04:49, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
:The beetle looks like a Hydrophilus sp to me. I'm afraid I don't know anything about American species though I'd imagine the large size will narrow the options a bit. The spider doesn't look like anything I'm familiar with, sorry. Richard Barlow 07:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identify water beetle and spider? 

message: There are two animal genera named Gongylus: (1) Gongylus Linnaeus 1758, a genus of mantids now in the family Empusidae; (2) a genus of skinks. I can't find an authority for the latter, but unless it was named in Clerck's Aranei Svecici (rather unlikely!) it is a junior homonym. So our article Gongylus (Scincidae) needs to be moved somewhere. But where? What is the valid name for this genus? Gdr 12:44:35, 2005-08-04 (UTC)
:Of the two species named in the article, G. aldrovandii seems to be a synonym of Eumeces schneideri, while Gongylus brachypoda seems to be a "real" name (although possibly a synonym of Lygosoma chalcides). See http://srs.embl-heidelberg.de:8000/srs5bin/cgi-bin/wgetz?-e+[REPTILIA-Species:'Gongylus_SP_brachypoda'] the EMBL Reptile Database. I think this is a previously unknown homonymy, but I am not sure. Ucucha|... 13:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The external link is http://srs.embl-heidelberg.de:8000/srs5bin/cgi-bin/wgetz?-e+[REPTILIA-Species:'Gongylus_SP_brachypoda']. The software doesn't recognize it, it seems. Ucucha|... 13:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I sent a mail to Peter Uetz of the EMBL Reptile Database. If he doesn't answer, we may try the Journal of Herpetology, yes. Ucucha|... 16:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxonomic puzzle: what is the valid name for ''Gongylus'' (Scincidae)? 

message: Does anybody know of a good website or up-to-date publication that lists mammalian subspecies? --nixie 02:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Websites vary in quality, but also have the drawback, for use as sources, that they are updateable without traces. Hard-copy publications are preferable, being able to be held to account. But you ask about a "good website" - Wikipedia. Stanskis 21:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The most important source is, I think, Mammalian Species (can't give the URL now). MSW 3, which will appear this year, will include subspecies as well as species. Ucucha|... 18:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Subspecies

message: I stumbled on this while doing taxo-categorization. An attempt at having it deleted didn't work, though I guess I should have pointed it out to TOL first.
Anybody think we can do aomething with it? Circeus 08:44, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
:No-one uses it, so I don't think it's a big deal. Gdr 08:54:54, 2005-08-12 (UTC)
:Deleted. Classic example of why centralized voting is often ineffective. Pcb21| Pete 09:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|Scientific classification}} 

message: Am I missing something, or am I right to be surprised at the rather poor state of several plant anatomy articles. I've just set up a stub at style (botany), and I can't make head nor tail of pistil. -- Solipsist 20:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right. Some person(s) has/have been creating lots of definition pages in the botany subject area.  Most are haphazardly written at best (doing definitions requires a good knowledge of the subject matter).  I've been working my way through them, moving many to Wiktionary where they belong. Please mark any you see as Botany stubs as I am working off that category listing.  I'll move to these ones you point out next. - Marshman 01:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I think the redirects to Carpel are a good idea. It is confusing and a waste of effort to try a describe each element in isolation. -- Solipsist 04:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm glad you agree.  In an encyclopedia (as opposed to a dictionary) the deciding factor in creating a "new" article should be the amount of material (text) existing.  Any of those terms could eventually become an independent linked article if enough gets said about them in the carpel article. Until then, consolidating makes sense by reducing stubs. Contributors know where to add new material and the project grows in a more orderly fashion. I'm always amazed by the poor linking characterizing a collection of stubs (not always, of course; some editors do a good job of linking up to existing relevant articles. - Marshman 18:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calling botanists 

message: The Dutch Wikipedians (I, mainly ;-)) have made a new taxobox, :nl:Gebruiker:Ucucha/taxobox, now, which includes only one template. There remain some problems to be solved, but it'll probably make things easier. Fyi, Ucucha|... 16:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's my opinion too, yes. Hopefully we'll be able to solve this problem. Ucucha|... 12:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New taxobox

message: Anon User:83.117.... has added (from at least eight different IP addresses!) several changes to various nomenclature and taxonomy pages which need verification (see 83.117.7.230 contribs, 83.117.4.76 contribs, 83.117.21.83 contribs, 83.117.23.63 contribs, 83.117.24.248 contribs, 83.117.5.153 contribs, 83.117.22.88 contribs, 83.117.14.217 contribs) - it seems he knows a fair deal and has provided some good data but also a burden of his own perceived superiority and some weird ideas. I don't know quite enough to be 100% certain where he's right on what, but they all need careful checking (I think some has already been reverted, but not all). - Thanks, MPF 17:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to various nomenclature articles

message: Should plant taxoboxes list the zones a plant will grow in? (Please drop a note on my talk page if you respond. I'll probably forget to check back here otherwise... Thanks) --Wulf 05:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but the article could mention them. Gdr 11:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally no, as they are not very meaningful - a zone 8 oceanic climate such as Shetland is very different to a zone 8 continental climate such as northern Florida, and the plants that will grow in them are completely different. All that the two share is the same winter minimum temperature, nothing else - MPF 00:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zones 

message: Does anybody know how to include alliances into taxoboxes ? This is especially useful for orchids species. Thanks.Qwertzy2 15:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Up to now, I've marked them in the taxoboxes as . JoJan 19:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alliances 

message: Can you create taxoboxes for clades that are between families, orders and classes e.g. the clade Ferae? I am relatively new here at wikipedia, so I can use some assistance. I'd like to be a part of the Tree of Life, I know a few things on mammalian taxonomy. However, English is not my native language, so can someone check my contributions (until now only carnivora\phylogeny and ferae) on spelling and grammar? And can you add extinct groups to taxoboxes, or do you prefer to use living groups only? What about creating stubs? I am creating several taxonomic articles on probosed super-orders (Atlantogenata, Meridiungulata), but there is not much to tell about them, so they are destined to remain stubs for a while. Is that a problem? DaMatriX 12:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  clades