Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 16

message: Can someone please identify these eucalypts. If these photos are not sufficient for identification, I can quite easily go back and take more - just tell me what of.
	
Thanks! --Fir0002 10:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Fir - it won't be easy, with there being over 500 species in the genus. Your best option is to collect a foliage sample, with flowers and fruit if possible, and send it (with these bark/tree photos) to Melbourne RBG for them to identify - MPF 00:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'll just leave as eucalyptus' and just put them in the Commons --Fir0002 08:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eucalyptus indentification 

message: I'm pretty sure these are acacia's but I would like postive ID, and maybe something more specific than just "acacia" (it looks similar to :Image:Koeh-004.jpg, but that species lives in Africa)
Image:MG 6960.jpg
Image:MG 7005.jpg
Image:MG 7002.jpg
Image:MG 6961.jpg
Image:MG 7001.jpg
Image:MG 6997.jpg
Thanks, --Fir0002 07:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Fir - same problem as with the Eucalyptus, there's '00s of species to choose from. Of the ones I know, it isn't far removed from Silver Wattle (Acacia dealbata), though the leaves don't look glaucous enough for this species. Again, I'd guess it would be worth mailing a sample to Melbourne RBG - MPF 09:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comment MPF, I'll try email something to the Botanical Gardens, but as much as I'm devoted to the project, I'd have to cycle a fair way to get samples, plus as a student at my age I don't have too much loose change for posting things for identification :-) --Fir0002 08:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acacia Flowers 

message: 






For groups known from the fossil record, we should consider adding the time periods they are known from to the taxobox.  This is something that has been suggested on occasion, but I don't recall any real decision on the matter being made; recently it was brought up again at talk:dinosaur.  In general, I think this is exactly the sort of information that should be provided in taxoboxes, provided we apply the usual caveats - i.e. it should be left out in cases where it is uninformative or controversial.  Possibly it could go in the header in place of, or as an augmentation to, the conservation status, as shown. Josh
:Good idea in many respects, though if only done for fossil taxa it would leave extant taxa with a long history in a bit of a limbo by comparison - e.g. Ginkgo (Permian to Present) - MPF 10:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  takes a single "when" parameter. Others could be given the same treatment. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I think it's a great idea.  I also think it's very important yet straightforward and standardised information that's perfect for taxoboxes.  I would suggest adding something such as "Range:Permian-Recent", "Palaeontological Range:Permian-Recent", "Pal. Range:Permian-Recent", or "Fossil Range:Permian-Recent".  I think separating Ginkgophyta from Ginkgo will take care of itself as articles on fossil taxa are written.  The specific article should pertain to the lowest taxonomic unit (Ginkgo) and the range should also relate to just that unit.  It does emphasize that although only a single extant taxon is in a higher taxonomic group, there may be call for a separate article for the higher group that describes the characteristics and lists both extant and extinct taxa.  --Aranae 20:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree that the  template makes things crowded.... but that could be changed so that the new concept works better. Nothing's set in stone here. *grins* Um... except the fossils. *grins* I think I like "fossil  record" better than "fossil range". It gives the same information a slightly different context. Things don't range through time, they range through space moving here and there and back again. Records have a time element to them saying when they were created or died or (in this case) fossilized, as the case may be. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I think range is the better option.  Range is a numerical term indicating from X to Y (linearly) or all points within a region in space defined by exterior points (X,Y), (V,W), (A,B), etc.  It's valid for both space and time.  Using the term record followed by a range of dates implies that fossils for the taxon have been found at all points in between.  A taxonomic group may range from the Paleocene to the Recent, but fossils may have only been found in the Paleocene, Pliocene, and Recent.  --Aranae 20:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I included it on a new page, Bristle-spined Porcupine and found that I needed a  between the status and fossil range.  Sandboxing it suggested that adding the  in an instance where the status is fossil would add an extra blank line.  Yet StatusFossil alone without fossil range doesn't insert the extra line.  Everything's great on another new page, Spiny rat which is a higher group and therefore has no cons. status.  --Aranae 20:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Just make sure that if you put it in a category (such as :Category:Eocene mammals), which belongs to a higher category (such as :Category:Prehistoric mammals), that the article appears in only one of those categories. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palaeontological ranges 

message: I am assembling a list of taxonomy terms from the 1911EB list, many of which may be obsolete. I wouls like to invite anyone interested to glance at them and help decide whether to keep or discard them. Any comments on these terms are appreciated. See Wikipedia:1911 Encyclopedia topics/15. --DanielCD 15:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Old Taxonomy terms

message: Some more plants to identify:
Image:MG 7065.jpg|Narcissus, a garden cultivar
Image:MG 7067.jpg|A Photinia species
Image:MG 7069.jpg|tree of previous flower photo
Image:MG 7070.jpg
Image:MG 7394.jpg|Leucojum aestivum
--Fir0002 08:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My idents added to each photo - MPF 12:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks as always for your accurate and prompt responses MPF! --Fir0002 11:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unknown Plants 

message: I remain uneasy about conservation status for chicken, domesticated goose domesticated turkey etc. Instead of "secure", why not have a status "domestciated"????. jimfbleak 05:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be good with that. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Domestication

message: Hi there! It seems we have some fish and seaweed on the WP:RD/SCI subpage of the reference desk. Could someone go over and take a look? Thanks for your help! --HappyCamper 01:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identification of fish and seaweed 

message: This is probably the wrong forum, but I'm not sure of the correct one, so apologies. 
At present articles have the time and date of the last edit at the bottom of the page. Would in be possible, or indeed desirable, to add, either there or on the Page history statistics, the current size of each article? jimfbleak 05:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong place?

message: Wasn't taxonomy about classification and name-giving taxa, and systematics the study of organisms' evolutionary relationships? The latter is a research program and the former a practice. 
Quoting :
 Systematics: the science of organizing the history of organismal evolution
      the science of ordering
   Identification: recognizing the place of an organisms in an existing classification
      Use of dichotomous keys to identify organisms
   Taxonomy (Nomenclature): assigning scientific names according to legal rules
      Recall discussion of ICZN Green Book (see also Phylocode homepage)
   Classification: determining the evolutionary relationships of organisms
         A "Natural Classification" will accurately reflect phylogeny
            Classification should be a hypothesis of evolutionary relationships
Shouldn't we divide taxonomy from systematics more clearly? Even in the taxoboxes? I noticed that the French wikipedia put a 'classical classification' (with Linnean categories) in their taxoboxes as well as a 'phylogenetic classification' (without Linnean categories). This seems like a good  practice. Maybe we can do the same at other wikipedia's but call these Taxonomy and Systematics respectively.  Fedor 09:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that some professionals and near-professionals in this field use "taxonomy" to include much of what is called "systematics" above. I am sure that "taxonomy" was regualrly so used in the popular essays of Stephen Jay Gould for example. I am not sure what the usage is in actual professional publications. DES (talk) 18:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Molecular biology is the great mangler of technical language (just consider the mangling that "homology" has gone through *sheesh*), and "taxonomy" has not escaped being a victim.  Professional molecular biologists can be found to often use "taxonomy" to refer to organismal relationships, despite its improper usage ... another example of "proper is as proper does" unfortunately. Courtland 01:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life.  Perhaps this belongs on their Talk page.  (SEWilco 02:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I think it would be useful if you created an example or two of your proposed changes. Pcb21| Pete 11:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The usage of taxonomy versus systematics is slippery. Actually there are three elements: systematics, taxonomy and nomenclature. Taxonomy is the real work of dealing with organisms, defining taxa and giving them a name. Taxonomy happens in Herbaria and Natural History Museums. Systematics concerns itself with evolutionary relationships, and these days this means DNA and cladistics. Nomenclature deals with the framework of names, that taxonomists have to deal with. Systematics and nomenclature cannot exist without taxonomy, and taxonomy is not immune to the results of systematics and nomenclature. The exact boundaries and exact usage are slippery. Brya 08:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate taxonomy from systematics! 

message: User:Snottygobble added diversity and synonym templates to the new taxobox, with the effect that some ugly whitespace was added to taxoboxes without these parameters. Trying to remove this whitespace, I totally broke the Banksia page (see ). Does anyone know how to solve this? -- Eugene van der Pijll 17:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whitespace problems in new taxobox 

message: Check out Wikipedia:Featured article review, particularly Featured article examples.  The goal is to standardize the basic layouts of featured articles of a specific type.  There doesn't appear to be any real standard section divisioning for organisms, though three featured articles were similar enough that I tweaked them to be in the same format.  Do the participants of this project think it would be useful to come up with a standard? Tuf-Kat 02:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article layout 

message: :Copied over from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants - MPF 21:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub proposals 

message: Hi!
I've got some fern photos for identification. Thanks! --Fir0002 22:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fern Identification 

message: Hi!
Could someone tell me where the best place to put this image is? It was taken at the National Botanical Gardens in Canberra, and it looks like some kind of parasite, but I'm wondering if there is a better article than "parasite"?
 
Thanks --Fir0002 06:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Platycerium bifurcatum is an epiphytic Australian staghorn fern (and not a parasite). Unless you want to write an article about the species, you could place the photo at the Platycerium article.  JoJan 14:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! --Fir0002 06:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Placement 

message: So far, looking through pages for various reptile lineages, I've found class Reptilia, class Sauropsida, class Archosauria, and class Aves. Various archosaurs are listed under each of these classes--birds obviously are Aves, dinosaurs and pterosaurs are currently Archosauria, crocodiles are Reptilia, and the entry for Archosauria itself is Class Sauropsida! This is needlessly confusing. Someone on Talk:Sauropsid had the idea to use the taxonomy presented in Benton's textbook Vertebrate Paleontology, which is widely used and well respected. While I personally have a few minor quibbles with that taxonomy (found here ), I think it would be an excellent starting point to implement in order to reach some form of standardization within Wikipedia entries. Who's with me? Dinoguy2 20:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am happy with that. My only caveat is that, in the relevant places, you make clear what the alternative classifications have been used in the past and why they are no longer the most preferred. Pcb21 Pete 23:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a good idea to have this information somewhere, but I'm not sure on which page it would best fit. It would be a little redundant to have it repeated over multiple pages. Maybe add a new section on this to Taxonomy, or to Wikipedia:How to read a taxobox, or both? Dinoguy2 00:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standardize Taxonomy 

message: Hi, Just a friendly reminder that Dinosaur is a FAC. Please vote & leave comments here, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Plus, if you want to see it appear on the main page, don't hesitate to lend a hand to improve the article. Thanks, Spawn Man 22:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Dinosaur]] is a FAC!!! Yay!! 

message: The authority given in the Moreton bay bug taxobox is "(Lund, 1793)". Currently, Lund (taxonomy) redirects to Peter Wilhelm Lund, born in 1801. This is obviously incorrect. Does anyone know the correct reference? Eugene van der Pijll 08:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be N.T. Lund --nixie 08:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I've changed the link in that article. But that means there are two zoologists both cited as "Lund". Is that possible? Should Lund (taxonomy) now be a disambiguation page? Eugene van der Pijll 09:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and I've just made it so. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authority of [[Moreton bay bug]] 

message: Hi!
Can any identify these photos? I think it is a crow but then I think just about all black birds are :-)! --Fir0002 07:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi! Its a Pied Currawong (Strepera graculina) - see . Richard Barlow 10:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Btw, the pic on the left is a good image of the bird from an unusual angle - maybe it could be used on the Currawong page? Richard Barlow 12:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bird Identification 

message: Can someone please identify this photo: :Image:MG 9563.jpg, it's one of those fluffy chooks --Fir0002 02:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identification of a chicken 

message: I hadn't even noticed that there are names from other languages until someone edited them on a page I was watching (I saw the "in other languages", just hadn't noticed that the links pointed to common names). Is there any way I can set the controls so I can see them without going into the edit page? Otherwise, why aren't they just visible, perhaps next to the language links? I like seeing other names, particularly for plants native to other regions, as there are often etomological hints to old usages, etc.SB Johnny 11:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They are actually interwiki links. You can see them by moving your mouse over the links at the sidebar. Ucucha (talk) 13:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That works, but is kind of a pain. Is there any great reason why they shouldn't be visible? SB Johnny 13:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seeing other language names 

message: Does anyone support the use of a template to mark new and exisitng pages that need a taxobox/ distinct from the ToL cleanup template (if it still exists)? --nixie 04:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be nice for people like me who don't do taxoboxes :). SB Johnny 17:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text: "Tree of Life taxobox cleanup" is ambiguous (it sounds like the taxobox is wrongly coded). "Articles needing taxoboxes" would be better a name, I think.Circeus 06:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd agree that these should be put on the talk page or just the Category:Tree of Life taxobox cleanup included on the main article. Either would create a list for people to work from without putting another template box on lots of articles. As to the taxoboxes themselves... there are a few versions floating around as a result of the meta-templates issue. I think there's a possibility of coming up with a single template ( that should satisfy everyone soon. Hoping for more input from the people who put together the taxoboxes in the first place. --CBD ☎ ✉ 12:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles that need taxoboxes

message: Can someone please identify the photos of these cows: :Image:MG 9351.jpg, :Image:MG 9352.jpg ? Thanks --Fir0002 10:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong sex . . . it's a bull, not a cow ;-) It looks like a Charolais to me. - MPF 16:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identification of cows 

message: There's a inactive WikiProject tag on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Viruses
*132.205.45.148 20:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish the people who go round pointing these stupid pointless tags on things would spend their energy on creating content. Pcb21 Pete 14:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  inactive project? [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Viruses]]  

message: Not sure whether this is proper wikiquette (sp?), but I have a request that whomever might have something to contribute come on over to the List of publications in biology, a page that needs some serious help.  Since there are so many different sub-disciplines in biology, the more people who have a glance and add what publications they know have been influential, the better.
-Safay 18:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speaking of creating content... 

message: Hi. I noticed that the Alvord cutthroat trout page states that its trinomial name is Oncorhynchus clarki subsp. However, the Cutthroat trout page says that Oncorhynchus clarkii subsp refers to the Snake River fine-spotted cutthroat trout. Which one is correct? Also the Yellowfin cutthroat trout page says that it's trinomial name is salmo clarki macdonaldi but I found another website  that says it is Oncorhynchus clarki macdonaldi. I have added that one to Cutthroat trout, but I'm not sure if that's right. Please help. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 07:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "subsp." is just shorthand for "an unspecified subspecies" (so shouldn't be in italics). I'd guess a google search ["Alvord cutthroat trout" Oncorhynchus] ought to supply the relevant subspecies names without too much difficulty - MPF 16:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorted. The two ones tagged "subsp." are both subspecies which have not been formally described, so they don't have trinomials yet. The name Salmo clarki macdonaldi is an old synonym from before the genus Oncorhynchus was split off from Salmo. - MPF 17:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with classification 

message: Hi!
Could someone help out in the identification of these photos:
Image:MG 9257.jpg
Image:MG 9262.jpg
Image:MG 9265.jpg
Image:MG 9268.jpg
Image:MG 9272.jpg
Image:MG 9286.jpg
Image:MG 9573.jpg
Image:MG 9574.jpg
Image:MG 9577.jpg|A different one
Thanks! --Fir0002 10:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Blind Cervidae (no-eye deer) - I'm not very good on orchids - MPF 16:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you any other ideas where I could go to get them identified? I kinda want to put one up on FPC and can't without naming it properly --Fir0002 21:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you tried Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants? It,snot very active ATM, though. Circeus 21:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unidentified Orchids? 

message: Hi!
Back again (already!), here are a range of plants for identification:
Image:MG 9174.jpg|Possibly a Calendula sp. (Marigold) (not definite)
Image:MG 9178.jpg|A Papaver cultivar (poppy)
Image:MG 9180.jpg|A Papaver cultivar (poppy)
Image:MG 9283.jpg|Iris sp. (Iris)
Image:MG 9294.jpg|Probably an Osteospermum sp. (not definite))
Image:MG 9297.jpg|Strelitzia reginae
Image:MG 9299.jpg|Probably an Osteospermum sp. (possibly the cultivar 'Pink Whirls)
Image:MG 9302.jpg|Pericallis x hybrida (Florist's Cineraria)
Image:MG 9303.jpg|An Anemone coronaria cultivar
Image:MG 9321.jpg|Probably an Osteospermum sp. (not definite)
Thanks for your expertise --Fir0002 10:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unidentified plants 

message: Here is some more photos! 
Image:MG 0648.jpg
Image:Linaria canadensis04.jpg
Image:Linaria canadensis.jpg
Image:Linaria canadensis02.jpg
Image:Linaria canadensis03.jpg
Merry Christmas! --Fir0002 01:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Fir - it is a Linaria species, not sure which one (there's about a hundred of them to choose from) - MPF 19:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unidentified purple flower