Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25
Archives for WT:TOL edit
1 2002-07 – 2003-12 Article names
2 2003-11 – 2004-02 Taxoboxes
3 2004-02 Taxoboxes
4 2004-02 – 2004-08 Bold taxa; taxonomy
5 2004-03 – 2004-04 Taxonomy; photos; range maps
6 2005-04 – 2004-06 Capitalization; authorities; mammals
7 2004-06 – 2004-08 Creationism; parens; common names
8 2004-05 – 2004-08 Templates; †extinct; common names
9 2004-05 – 2004-08 Categories; taxoboxes
10 2004-08 – 2004-12 Categories; authorities; domains; Wikispecies; ranks; G. species; capitalization; Common Names
11 2004-11 – 2005-05 Capitalization; common names; categories; L.; authorities; algae; cultivars
12 2005-03 – 2005-05 Ranks; common names
13 2005-05 – 2005-06 Hybrids; taxobox format; cultivars
14 2005-06 – 2005-07 Categories; food plants; identification; Capitalization
15 2005-07 – 2005-09 Synonyms; types; authorities; status; identification
16 2005-09 – 2005-12 Paleontological ranges; Rosopsida; Taxobox redesign; identification
17 2005-12 – 2006-04 Taxobox redesign; identification; APG; common names; capitalization
18 2006-04 – 2006-10 Categorization; include in references; snakes; range maps; seasonality graph; common names; bioregions; brya;
19 2006-10 – 2007-03 various
20 2007-03 – 2007-06 various
21 2007-06 (Next 64 Kb) various
22 (Next 64 Kb) various
23 (Next 64 Kb) various
24 (Next 64 Kb) various

Eukaryote phylogeny

I have been busily updating information on the eukaryote page (not controversially, like turning taxoboxes lavender), and I feel that the section that explains the eukaryote supergroups needs to be completely rewritten. I have added sentences explaining how the domain is divided into unikonts and bikonts, which pinpoints the eukaryote root, while there is a sentence saying "Otherwise the relationships between the different supergroups are mostly uncertain, and in particular there is dispute about where the root of the evolutionary tree belongs,..." I have also added that Cavalier-Smith has proposed that the apusozoa and centrohelida are bikonts, and that some canadian has published a paper putting the ebriids in the cercozoa, right next to a sentence saying "A few small protist groups have not been related to any of the major supergroups, notably the centrohelids, apusozoans, and ebriids." Can I please be given permission to rewrite the entire section? Werothegreat 20:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Be bold. You don't need permission. If you're worried that you'll be deleting something potentially useful, then mention it on the article's talk page and copy the slab of text you've removed there, noting that you've rewritten it. —Pengo 21:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, heck, Wero, it's not as if eukaryotes aren't so confusing that anyone will understand. Post on my talk page when you get done with the rewrite, and I will try to look it over. Try to remember there is currently little consensus, but a lot of slacker acquiesence to some of the newer taxonomies, and reference everything because of that. If someone jumps on you about it, say that I encouraged you to do it (as no one else is tackling it and the article is dreadful). I'm not an admin or anything, but I know you're trying to get some things organized in this area, and I'll support your efforts, even if I think your results need tweeked. And I'll work with you on tweeking, if you can take the time to post on my talk page--very busy right now. KP Botany 03:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Be bold, but you might want to take note of doi:10.1016/j.tig.2003.12.003 here:

Trying to estimate the divergence times of fungal, algal or prokaryotic groups on the basis of a partial reptilian fossil and protein sequences from mice and humans is like trying to decipher Demotic Egyptian with the help of an odometer and the Oxford English Dictionary.

Dysmorodrepanis 07:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe of interest

Wish Shyamal 11:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed templates?

I'd like to set up an article-assessment template for this WikiProject, similar to {{Wikiproject MCB}}. It would be used to assess articles that are not yet covered by a daughter WikiProject. Are there any objections?

Also, is there a taxonomy stub? If not, may I create one for this WikiProject? Thanks! Willow 11:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

For stubs, ask over at The stub project whether such a stub is viable.
As for assessment, maybe it's wee bit overboard for such a broad project, though integration with subproject templates (like we at WP:PLANTS did with WP:BANKSIA and WP:CPLANTS's already existing templates) might greatly help. Circeus 13:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Laminariales Families Confusion

Under the order Laminariales of the Brown Algae, there is some confusion as to which genera belong to which families, specifically Laminariaceae and Lessoniaceae. The specific genera include Macrocystis, Postelsia and Pelagophycus. They are listed on the pages of both families. I have visited various resources, and there does not appear to be any sort of consensus between them. Based upon morphology, I would think that Pelagophycus and Nereocystis are closely related, and Postelsia and Lessonia are closely related, and that Macrocystis is somewhere in between. Laminaria does not appear to resemble any of the previous as much as the previous resemble each other. However, I'm not an expert in algae. Could someone with experience in this field, who is very familiar with (or at least has a reliable resource describing) phaeophyte taxonomy please look at the family articles of Laminariales and make so much needed editing. Werothegreat 21:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Also, the Laminariales page itself needs work. Half of it is just a list of various Laminaria species. Such information belongs on the Laminaria page. Werothegreat 21:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thing Found in Pond Water Tank

These arthropods were found in freshwater, with I believe Elodea plants and some snails. I think they're branchiopods, possibly fairy shrimp, but I'm not sure.

Werothegreat 18:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a water louse (Asellus sp)?Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
No, it wasn't flat like an isopod. It was more like a shrimp, except it had the wrong kind of head, and it had these limbs on the hindquarters that moved very fast, as a blur. Werothegreat 00:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like what we used to call freshwater shrimp then. I don't recall the proper name though. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I looked at the shrimp. This thing has too many legs to be a shrimp. Werothegreat 01:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Freshwater shrimp is the common name in England, I finally found it's real name, Gammarus pulex. Or some relative. Check it out on Google Image. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
That's it! Thank you. Werothegreat 19:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Categories versus lists

Apparently a user has decided that living things should not be categorized by their nationality, but rather only listed by nationality. Instead of bringing this up for discussion on the lists versus category pages, the user is proposing categories for discussion (deletion) a number at a time.

I think it is important for members of this project to decide which, if either, is the most useful method for categorizing species. Are there reasons for categorizing by country, or not? If not, they should all be deleted at once. Are there reasons for lists that make them preferable to categories for topics of this nature, or vice versa?

Please, let's decide upon our own policy here and now, rather than allowing someone outside the project, who is devoted to deleting categories decide how organisms should be categorized or not--although we should be glad to let him/her do the work of deleting all the categories if we decide that's how to go.

Categorize flora and fauna by country category, or put flora and fauna by country in lists only?

KP Botany 00:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This debate is a classic example of the List vs. Category debate. We've been accomodating both for a while now. I'm not clear what is the reason why we should have one and only one scheme. The provlem has more to do with the category scheme being poorly thought before it was implemented than it being inappropriate.Circeus 00:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Whatever. Personally I prefer lists because they're better presented, but if the category system is going to be used at all on Wikipedia for content (as opposed to for metadata), it might as well be used for species by country. Of course, we cannot have an overarching policy. Some countries have many endemic species, for example Category:Birds of New Zealand makes a sensible category (but the list is nice too (List of New Zealand birds)). Trying to add country categories to species with a more cosmopolitan distribution just gets silly. And as an aside, and as I know has been suggested before, we should be aiming to have lists (and categories) by ecoregion as well. —Pengo 00:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • What about lists of endemic species, rather than lists of species endemic, cosmopolitan and weedy? Is that more useful than a simply list? Ecoregion is useful, but a little harder to do with the resources available in botany. Unfortunately floras are done by political boundaries. KP Botany 03:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
What about categories of endemic species? There could be Category:Endemic Plants of North America, which would include both species and other categories, such as Category:Endemic Plants of the United States, which could in turn include such categories as Category:Endemic Plants of California. It is already a well-established (although not always followed) practice to place an article in the most restricted in a set of hierarchic categories.--Curtis Clark 03:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Lists have an advantage in that they can have annotations and serve as more complete and useful references. Shyamal 11:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Inasmuch as people will create categories anyway, they might as well be useful.--Curtis Clark 15:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Wish list for articles, categories and lists?

Hi,

A few of us are working on systematically producing a large number of taxonomic Wikipedia pages (tens of thousands), and we'd appreciate any advice or guidance you have on their format, etc. They'll all have a proper taxobox (with synonyms), references and external links, but they'll also be image-less stubs; a reference-less, synonym-less example is Pyrodictiaceae. Our plan is to start at the top of the taxonomic tree and work down, as we've been doing for the Archaea, but we're also open to any suggestions about which segments of the Wikipedian Tree of Life we should fill in first.

A key question for us is how to categorize the pages. If you look at Category:Archaea, you'll see that we created subcategories for the different taxonomic ranks (such as Category:Archaea taxonomic orders), but you all might have better suggestions for categorizing, say, the species of the Porifera.

Speaking of lists, it's also relatively easy for us to produce an initial draft of any taxonomic list you'd like. For example, it took about 12 seconds to produce the List of fungal orders. Please send your wish lists for taxonomic lists that you'd like to have added to Wikipedia. They won't be perfect, but they'll likely be pretty good.

Thanks very much for your help and suggestions, Willow 01:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you please have a look at the above discussion? (Laminariales) I would really appreciate some help on figuring out which kelp goes in which family, as I have little to no access to reputable sources of information of this kind. Werothegreat 01:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this helpful? I haven't proofread it yet, but I hope that it's useful. :) You may find that some genera are missing, though. Willow 02:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like a good idea to me. However, what are you using to generate the lists? "This article lists the genera of the Phaeophyceae, the brown algae." is rather bold without being tied to a specific reference considering the current state of upheaval in the taxonomy of the Phaeophyceae. KP Botany 03:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi KP Botany,

Thanks for your support and help! :) The Wikipedia lists and articles are based on the NCBI taxonomy files, which are admittedly imperfect but a good start; they're updated weekly, publicly available and provide references. You're right, the opening sentence is too bold, as I see now; I was trying to state the intention of the article, rather than its success. Perhaps we should soften it maybe like this: "This article seeks to list the genera of the Phaeophyceae, the brown algae." and provide a reference? Maybe a reference to the NCBI site (with access date) and/or reference(s) to the literature?

The Wikipedia pages are generated using my own program, which I've been called "Daisy" and which I wrote on a strange whim. As part of a wiki-game, I made some missing encyclopedic articles; since a quarter of those were taxonomic, it seemed like a Good Thing for Wikipedia to add more. Daisy can generate a list or the corresponding set of Wikipedia stubs for any branch of the taxonomic tree known to the NCBI; here's a list of the articles she's made already. These were uploaded and proofread manually, but Opabinia regalis wrote a program for uploading whole sets of pages automatically. She, David D. and TimVickers have all had excellent ideas for improving the pages. Looking forward to your ideas and insights as well — thanks! Willow 11:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Systematic changes in the NCBI nomenclature can be made as well, if you'd define them for Daisy.

Archive please!

I think it's past the time this page was archived. It's taking altogether far too long for it to load on my computer. Werothegreat 19:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Consider it done. --Stemonitis 19:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Need help proofreading taxonomic references

Hi, so we've got a working system for generating the taxonomic references for arbitrary taxa, but we need help checking that the references produced are OK, i.e., proofreading them. It's described on my Talk page, if you have time to help out — thank you very much! :) Willow 22:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, this would be a good time to express your wishes about the categorization and other properties of the new taxonomic articles (see discussion above and on my Talk page). If we're going to add tens of thousands of new taxonomic pages, then those pages should reflect your wishes in their form and content. Any help with the proofreading would be most welcome as well; thanks! Willow 09:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Schmidt Sting Pain Index

Can some of you knowledgable and discerning scientist Wikipedians take a look at this please? This article has currently been getting some coverage in popular "gee whiz funny link of the day... how goofy!" type blogs ( I hate it when this happens and the article in question is dubious... I think it gives a bad impression of wikipedia), but it seems to be mainly based on the idea that this one insect scientist guy wrote some goofy comments for an insect sting pain index one day. Ok, I agree that insect scientists are allowed to have senses of humour (WITHIN LIMITS, for the sake of us all), but I am concerned that 1) this scale is not really widespread and may be just one scale promoted by one guy without much acceptance in the insect expert community. 2) the pdf article linked which this wikipedia entry seems to be based on does not seem to say that Schmidt actually wrote those goofy comments. Its a bit ambiguous, but its seems to say that "the media" (without specifying what media) came up with the goofy comments to append to Schmidt's original dry scale (I think this may be another case where people exaggerate or misinterpret what an article is saying). I dont have any access to science journal databases, and am certainly no science or insect expert. But these concerns and quick scans of google books and google scholar led me to bring this issue to wiser heads. Thanks very much for checking this out. 88.109.1.60 16:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Taxoboxes, vernacular names and automated parsing

We've been discussing the possible inclusion of multiple vernacular names in taxoboxes and how this might aid automated parsing; please see Template_talk:Taxobox#Space for "other" common names and comment there if you have a view. Thank you. Andy Mabbett 23:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No, if any additional names go into the taxoboxes, it should be synonyms, not common names. And common names in the USA are not, as we've discussed many times, official. Too much information to add to something that is not designed to be its own list article, but merely a quick glance information tool. Taking away the original purpose of the taxobox (quick data table) to expand it to include a purpose that occludes the original purpose is pointless. KP Botany 03:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, eventually if everything is in the taxobox, there is no need for the rest of the article. (What happened to :), btw?) I'm not even sure that synonyms should be in the taxobox.--Curtis Clark 05:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
As for Template:Smiley (and its little brotehr template:Emot), very normal TFDs, apparently.Circeus 21:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Who is asking for "everything" to go in the taxobox? Andy Mabbett 10:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
As is said, discussion is taking place at Template_talk:Taxobox#Space for "other" common names; I've already addreessed KP B.'s points there. Andy Mabbett 10:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Everything in the taxobox is fairly common around here, there is always another thing that should go in the taxobox. KP Botany 13:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

CfD

Just a heads up - Category:Biota by country is up for deletion. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_28#Category:Biota_by_country. Guettarda 12:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Eukaryote Kingdoms

I hate to bring this up again, but I was skimming the brown algae pages, making edits, when I came across the Heterokontophyta page. Someone had took it upon themselves (some IP number) to change Chromista from an (unranked) to Kingdom status. I looked at it for a while, and thought how that was so much better than (unranked). It doesn't make sense to have an unranked taxon between domain and phylum when we have the perfectly reasonable kingdom classification. The same thing for the Rhizaria and the Excavata and the Amoebozoa (though someone along the way decided that all of the amoebozoa were a single phylum for some reason). The only reason I can think why haven't embraced monophyletic kingdoms is because (WARNING: Extreme opinion ahead) we're all too conservative and scared to move away from protista. And please don't say "But we've got to let people find information in many ways." There's a reason why taxa like Monera and Coelenterata are currently rotting away without a taxobox. It's a little sentence in their article describing how they're obsolete and paraphyletic. We could do the same thing with Protista, leaving a taxobox so that "people can find information in many ways." I propose a system something like this:

Subdomain Unikonta

Kingdom Amoebozoa
Phylum Mycetozoa
Phylum Archamoebae
Phylum Tubulinea
Phylum Flabellinea
Superkingdom Opisthokonta
Kingdom Metazoa
Kingdom Choanozoa
Kingdom Mesomycetozoa
Kingdom Eumycota

Subdomain Bikonta

Kingdom Apusozoa
Superkingdom Cabozoa
Kingdom Rhizaria
Phylum Radiolaria
Phylum Foraminifera
Phylum Gromida
Phylum Cercozoa
Kingdom Excavata
Phylum Metamonada
Phylum Loukozoa
Phylum Percolozoa
Phylum Euglenozoa
Superkingdom Corticata
Kingdom Chromalveolata
Phylum Alveolata
Phylum Haptophyta
Phylum Cryptophyta
Phylum Heterokontophyta
Kingdom Archaeplastida
Phylum Glaucophyta
Phylum Rhodophyta
Subkingdom Viridiplantae
Phylum Chlorophyta
Phylum Charophyta
Infrakingdom Embryophyta

Comments? Questions? Rants? Werothegreat 12:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this system published anyware, or is it your original creation? I think the best option would be to choose one fairly widely accepted taxonomy from a published source, standardize the taxoboxes to follow it, and discuss alternate schemes in the text where needed. Dinoguy2 13:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this is generally how we do it, except for the picking one "widely accepted texonomy from a published source" as there isn't one because of the turmoil in the taxonomy of the somewhat unfamiliar eukaryotes due to new DNA information and the somewhat controversial nature of environmentally skimmed DNA as the basis for phylogenies of the relatively unknown eukaryotic kingdoms.
Wero, you do understand that your "thoughts" about how much better something is don't really matter. As Dinoguy2 asks, is this from a published source? Please make it a routine habit to list the source of your taxonomies when you post them, in fact, you can just list the source, not even the phylogeny itself. KP Botany 15:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
All of the supergroups come from these two sources:
The New Higher Level Classification of Eukaryotes with Emphasis on the Taxonomy of Protists (Adl et al. 2005)
<http://www.hisl.ent.msu.edu/discussion/Adl_et_al_2005.pdf>
The Root of the Eukaryote Tree Pinpointed (Cavalier-Smith, Stechmann 2003)
<http://www.cladocera.de/protozoa/stechmann_2003_cb.pdf>
They sort of shy away from the use of "phylum" or "kingdom" so I took the liberty of adding those myself, because it depresses me so much to see half of a taxobox say (unranked). Werothegreat 18:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you understand that we can't use your unpublished phylogenies for Wikipedia taxonomies? PS You're going to have real issues should you venture towards the Plant Kingdom, so I suggest you not, as Linnaean taxonomies and ranks are not that popular here. Ranks are artificial constructs, they don't have a whole lot to do with nature, anyhow, other than species and below, sometimes genera. KP Botany 19:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
To put it more simply, taking groups and giving them your own rank and/or name, in the absence of a published reference you can cite for those ranks or names, is considered original research--a definite no-no in Wikipedia. MrDarwin 19:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'll admit I was stupid to bring this up. Just one thing, though. Can we change Alveolata and Chromista to Chormalveolata? Both the sources I listed above use that taxon as a supergroup above its four phyla. We can leave it (unranked) if you like. Werothegreat 12:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Not stupid, let's try "overcome by enthusiasm for the topic," instead. When you read deeply for understanding in a topic, scientist, amateur or student, things sometimes jump out at you. I'm certain there will be papers out within the next year or two, after doing a bit of reading myself, that justify your taxonomy. For now, how about adding the information from these papers to the Chromalveolate article in more detail, well referenced to both articles, and briefly with a wikilink to the Alveolate and Chromista articles, ditto with references? KP Botany 17:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Rabbit identification

Hi, I took a shot of a rabbit in my yard [1] which I believe is a Desert Cottontail (given the physical similarity and the geographical area -- I'm in Thousand Oaks, California). On the other hand, I don't actually live in the desert. Can anyone help confirm before I upload this to Commons? Thanks. howcheng {chat} 19:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know either, but seeing as it's on flickr already, you might want to try too adding it to the ID please pool, and get an opinion there too. —Pengo 12:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Article Elaphe bimaculata in need of love

Tripped over this article: Elaphe bimaculata while doing some wikifying and categorization work. It is in dire need of help, especially in the zoological taxonimical kind of way. I tagged it as missing a taxobox, but it needs some serious TLC, and I figured this was a good place to start. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Use taxobox for genome decodes or create new box ?.

Which is better,

  1. extend taxobox to have details of genome decoded or
  2. create new infobox that can be added to an article on anything that has been sequenced

e.g. for each Organism (i.e. the article) have a box with,

  • Type
  • Relevance
  • Genome size
  • Number of genes predicted
  • Organization
  • Year of completion

basically stuff taken from List_of_sequenced_eukaryotic_genomes or references as they get decoded. Ttiotsw 21:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Since it's not taxonomy (and the taxobox is arguably already overloaded), a new infobox would be more appropriate.--Curtis Clark 04:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, in my opinion, make a new box for genomic information, formatted for this in particular. KP Botany 04:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
But leave out "relevance", since that should be evident from the text. --Stemonitis 07:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, probably, depending upon what you mean by relevance, it is most evident from the text, not from a single short blip in a box. KP Botany 02:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Controversial page moves

FYI, User:Kugamazog has recently made a large number of page moves, such as Poplar hawkmoth (Redirected page to Laothoe populi). Andy Mabbett 07:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that six or seven moves since the 7th of March really constitute such a "large number" that we need to shout too much about it. A quiet word, perhaps. --Stemonitis 14:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Is this really that controversial? There seems to be a broad consensus (maybe only among the botanical editors) that articles should have scientific names rather than common names as their titles. This makes sense because (1) all taxa (in theory) have scientific names but not all have common names; (2) many species have numerous common names that vary from region to region; and (3) a single common name can often refer to two or more, sometimes only distantly related, species. MrDarwin 16:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Consensus to use scientific names definitely only exists among botanical editors. I doubt there will ever be consensus to use common names in zoological settings, because some of their common names are simply too common to ignore. Surely noone would seriously advocate moving dog to Canis lupus familiaris. Hesperian 02:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I would, but I'm not going there since I can't even convince folks to use all the oaks of California should be either under scientific names (Quercus chrysolepis instead of Canyon live oak) or common names (but Coast Live Oak instead of Quercus agrifolia). KP Botany 02:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
In general, arthropods are still given their common names, in line with more general Wikipedia conventions, unless there is ambiguity. In these cases, however, it is less clear that "common names" really are the commonest means of referring to them. When I moved Bedstraw Hawk-Moth to Hyles gallii (on Kugamazog's behalf), I found that the scientific name was actually considerably more frequently used on in the Internet than the vernacular name, and the same applies to Hyles euphorbiae and, to a lesser extent, Mimas tiliae and Sphinx ligustri. In the other cases, the disparity between the numbers for vernacular and scientific names are similarly slight, but favouring the common names. Searching Google Scholar or Google Books is likely (I suppose) to add more weight to the scientific names. But yes, there are many advantages to using scientific names, although they are not a panacea. (As a for-instance, I keep wanting to move Alpine Bistort to a scientific name, as advocated by WP:PLANTS, but the name I know, Persicaria vivipara is less common than Polygonum viviparum and Bistorta vivipara; the common name is much more stable in this case.) --Stemonitis 17:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
In the botanical sciences there are correct scientific names and incorrect ones, it doesn't matter which is more commonly used. If a scientific name is accepted, it is used. If it is an unaccepted synonym, it's a redirect. If it's a synonym for a differently described species the issue is discussed in the article. Please do not select article titles by what you know for plants, but rather by the International Code for Botanical Nomenclature, and confirmation of nomenclature through IPNI or Kew or some standardized source. This article should be titled Polygonum viviparum, not Alpine Bistort. KP Botany 01:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Taxon authors : Implicitly notable ?

This taxon author Hans von Boetticher's AfD turned up and I presume that the "Implicit notability" principle given of taxa can be extended to taxon authors. Are there any policies or guidelines ? Shyamal 15:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think to extend the notability of taxa to their authors as well is perhaps stretching it a bit far. I firmly believe that taxonomists are far more notable than they are normally given credit for, and that we should have articles about the authors of most scientific names. However, there are a lot of people who will only ever have authored a few names, possibly of pretty unremarkable taxa, and who are not sufficiently notable for inclusion. Just in the last hour, I ran out of information on Christine Marie Berkhout, who is the author of one of the most important yeast genera, Candida. It seems that beyond her thesis, nothing much is known about her. In her case, I think the importance of the taxa do lend some weight to the author, but someone who named a taxon or two isn't necessarily notable (I believe I have named a taxon or two, and I'm certainly not notable). If Boetticher is notable, then it's probably for his books, not just on the weight of Amazonetta. I don't think there are any guidelines more specific than the general biographical notability criteria: WP:BIO and WP:PROF. --Stemonitis 15:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
You've probably named a taxon or two? If you don't even know, then naming yeasts certainly is different from naming plants, birds and other animals, all of which require a rigorous formal and published description. KP Botany 01:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Taxoboxes for clades?

I haven't been doing a lot of editing lately so I don't know if there is any consensus on how to treat the unranked clade names used by APG II and some other recent references. An editor has added a taxobox to the Eudicots article, but aside from the error of calling Eudicots a "class" I don't know if it's appropriate to have a taxobox for a group that does not have a formal botanical name at any taxonomic rank. MrDarwin 16:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Cladobox?--Curtis Clark 04:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of a cladobox, does anyone know how to make the clade template output fit into a box. I tried several div and table formats, but nothing as simple and wrong as this. The text flows around it with some nice padding, something that does not seem to happen with the tables. Shyamal 15:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

We've discussed this before without good results. On French Wiki they make 'em into a static image to get around this issue. KP Botany 19:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Advice needed

I would like to seek advice from anyone in this WikiProject. I feel quite passionate against a section of an article, and in some way, against the whole article as it stands. I would like to hear objective points of view on this matter. I disagree with the section Extinctions in dependent territories of European countries which is inside the article List of extinct animals of Europe, because I believe it uses political terms to classify extinct animals, as if Falkland Island Fox is a British extinct subject or a Lava Mouse is a Spanish national. I would propose that we should use scientific terms, such as geographical or geological terms. So if an animal became extinct on the Falkland Islands we should classify it as a American, or at least, a South American extinction and not a European country dependant. The poor animal was never dependant on any country, not even now. I believe this is a use of Human nationalistic pride over extinct animals that never lived in those political constructs because in the first place, they still did not exist. I would propose that we should delete the section hear objective points of view on this matter. I disagree with the section Extinctions in dependent territories of European countries just like other articles such as List of extinct animals of Catalonia, List of extinct animals of the Netherlands. I would only accept articles such as List of extinct animals of the British Isles or List of extinct animals of Europe if they use the geographical or geological term. I would even suggest to merge List of extinct animals of Europe with List of extinct animals of Asia into List of extinct animals of Eurasia , because it is a more truly scientific term. Anyway, I would like to know what do you people of the Wikiproject think? Thanks.Francisco Valverde 19:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right that extinct animals of European overseas territories have no place in an article on the extinct animals of Europe. However, I think the remainder of your suggestions are much less clear. Dividing species ranges along political lines may not be good science, but it is commonplace. Many lists of endangered species and the like are compiled on a country-by-country basis, and presented as such for use by policy-makers and others. I see no philosophical reason why Europe and Asia must be united into a single article and much less why lists of animals of the British Isles (a term that is only defined geographically, and not politically) cannot continue to exist. We also need to be careful about original research if we start proposing new biogeographic definitions. --Stemonitis 20:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Peer-review of Evolution

Hi everybody, comments and suggestions on this core topic are welcome. Wikipedia:Peer review/Evolution/archive1. Thank you. TimVickers 22:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Darwin's Domestic Pigeons

The first chapter of Charles Darwin's hugely significant book The Origin of Species discusses Darwin's hobby of pigeon breeding and domestic pigeon breeds such as the English carrier and the short-faced tumbler. I recently came across a drawing of just a few pigeon breeds (1.8 MB jpeg) and found, like Darwin, "The diversity of the breeds is something astonishing".

Wikipedia is sorely lacking in images (or articles) on the vast majority of pigeon breeds, and it's a pity that we don't even have the breeds mentioned specifically by Darwin as articles, photos or drawings. I suspect that the drawings in the book linked to above have fallen into the public domain, but the book lacked a source. However, there must be a large number of public domain drawings, at the least, of the breeds around in Darwin's day, and I'm sure there must be some pigeon fanciers around today?

This is a call for photos, drawings, etchings, etc, and for anyone interested in writing articles on the animals which launched Darwin's thesis on natural selection, which has become the cornerstone of biology today. —Pengo 23:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Metadata

I think it would be a neat idea to make a box similar to {{Persondata}} to be put on Animal articles.

It would look like this.

It could have the name, and the classification data. I think it could help for future database use, like the above template. ~ EdBoy[c] 21:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

We already have something like that. It's called a taxobox. Werothegreat 19:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
They have an infobox for people, too. But they still use Persondata. ~EdBoy[c] 00:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a great idea. The taxobox and metadata will get out of sync as soon as someone changes a Cronquist family to an APG II family on one but not the other, and then the article will reflect two different views of the classification, one overtly and one cryptically.--Curtis Clark 03:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree, sarcastically speaking. Taxonomy is too variable. Besides, the most important data (binomials and taxonomic references) CAN be extracted automatically the same way persondata can. Fr the rest... I thought that's what Wikispecies was for? Circeus 04:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this is a solution looking for a problem. (BTW, EdBoy, you forgot about familia - it's a pretty darn important rank, you know). Hesperian 05:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
The proposed Species microformat is much neater way of encoding such data, and can be applied using taxoboxes, so there is no out-of-synch issue and all data is visible. Andy Mabbett 09:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Help wanted: Greenland nature

A new project resource is in need of professional help so the Latin names are done properly:

Please take a look and start improving the Latin. -- Fyslee/talk 08:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent redirect of Binominal nomenclature

Should this redirect have occured?[2] Someone more knowledgable on zoological nomenclature please let me know if anything on the page should be carried over with the redirect, or if the redirect should not have been made. KP Botany 18:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a Bryism to me. Everyone on the planet uses "binomial nomenclature", but Brya had to insist on separate article on "binominal nomenclature" for zoology, and "binary nomenclature" for botany, even though they are different names for exactly the same concept. Hesperian 23:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it does look precisely like that. Still, people keep telling me she really knew her stuff, and all I ever see is turgid prose which has to be edited out of hundreds of plant articles, inability to communicate (in prose, on talk pages, anywhere), in ability to listen, to work with the community, overt hostility, blah blah blah. Still, I don't know much about zoological nomenclature, but the user who is doing the forwarding is checking to make sure everything is in the other article. Would you mind looking over the changes at binary nomenclature just to make sure you agree? KP Botany 00:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
See also Binary name and Binomen. MrDarwin 16:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Evolution FAC

Hi there, I've nominated Evolution as a featured article candidate, the discussion page is here. Comments and suggestions would be appreciated. TimVickers 15:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Nothofagus

Can someone format the Nothofagus page to include both pictures, the tree in the taxobox, but put the leaves picture in a useful location? I will never figure out how to do it. KP Botany 19:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I gave it a try. JoJan 09:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Note on rollback

I added "If you'd like to help add species and species-related pages, browse Wikipedia:Requested articles/Natural sciences/Biology; remember to look over existing well-sourced and constructed pages before beginning new start-ups". This was rolled-back by User:Circeus. As I'm obviously not a vandal, and the addition by itself was obviously non-vandalism, I'm not sure why s/he choose the rollback tool.

Anyhow, is this addition redundant with anything on the page? Seems sensible. Marskell 19:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it belongs at the bottom of the page in the section on New Articles--look at the contents, then click on the new articles, and add it to that section. KP Botany 19:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, it is a double mention. Does the general suggestion of start-ups belong at the bottom of the page? I'd say not. Marskell 19:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
In fact, I'd say it's good—obvious at the top, brief re-mention at the bottom. Marskell 19:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, the project page does have an index, and the discussion of new articles already has a section. I think when I go to a project page and read the introductory paragraph, I want a general outline of what's going on, not specifics on things to do, and really, starting new articles is just one of many ways that participants may assist the project. I suggest it belongs at the bottom, in the new articles section. KP Botany 19:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Ho hum. Can you suggest why it's bad to mention an established Wiki page (Requested Articles) at the top? I agree start-ups are only one way to help, but there's nothing wrong with mentioning them to begin with. And, you'll notice, I didn't gut the page or anything silly—I added a sentence to useful intra-wiki link. You avoid "specifics on things to do"—hm, don't think that's good policy. Marskell 19:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
It's not bad to mention anything on the top--there's no need to put words into my mouth because you want something so badly. It's just not usually how introductory paragraphs are done on Wikipedia and for good reason. The introductory section of an article or project page should be designed to give the reader an overall introduction to the scope of the project. This is pretty standard for books, articles, all sorts of things, to give an introduction in general terms, and elaborate later on with specifics. If you want to debate the issue, please feel free to head to WP:MOS and bring the issue up. In the meantime, please place specifics in their appropriate sections, and leave the introduction to generalities, or elaborate upon why this particular specific, of all the specifics, belongs in the introductory section. If you opt for your arguments, rather than setting up straw men for me, you might find others agreeing with you. But if you just make up arguments for me and attack them, nobody will agree with anything. KP Botany 19:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi KP. "Putting words in [your] mouth" suggests I have said something to the effect of "In X thread on Q topic, KP has said [XYZ] regarding [ABC], etc. and so forth..."
I have done nothing of the sort. I have put no words in your mouth. OK? I would, everything else being equal, continue to debate the relative merits of my addition. But I won't, because I'd rather not interact with fragile people who misunderstand content and person.
In the meantime, get a grip and all that—and I'll see you tomorrow. Marskell 20:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Not surprised you didn't read your own post.[3] With "bad" in italics no less. No grip necessary, the keyboard doesn't require that, but I think I've gathered the level of your insertion: you want it now. I'll revert it, and you can put it in the appropriate place if you desire. KP Botany 20:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
KP, if I put something "in quotes" I'm putting words in your mouth; if I put something in italics, I'm not. I did not put words in your mouth. I just asked a question.
Anyhow, rather than placing it in the Overview, I will give it a small section and shuffle it further down. Marskell 08:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Neomura needs lots of love

Big news!!! Neomura has been rated of TOP IMPORTANCE to WP TOL. But it's still only a stub. I think a section describing the 20 novelties that characterize Neomura would add a lot to it. Unfortunately, I do not have access to the paper in which TCS describes these novelties. Could someone help me on this, please? Werothegreat 21:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If you e-mail me I can send you a copy. The original paper includes 19 as I recall, and then he adds one later. However, I don't know how appropriate something this technical would be to the article, they really should be summarized generally as to what type of similarities the Neomura and Eukaryotes share, ie, rRNA, tRNA, DNA enzymes, etc., rather than listed or anything. The paper is some dense reading as all of TCS's articles are. KP Botany 23:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

PS It's not one of his shorter articles. KP Botany 23:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I've modified the text; if anyone would like to worry about the formatting (e.g. citations). Lavateraguy 15:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Bird peer review

I've thrown bird to the wolves. Hopefully in the next two weeks enough eyes will look over it and we can send it to FAC. I'd appreciate people from various TOL projects to give it a once-over and leave their thoughts. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Life/Death Vandal Swap

Someone has (through some VERY circular logic) swapped the titles of the life and death articles. Can someone please fix it who knows how? Werothegreat 09:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

New Archaea Phylum - ARMAN

At this site: <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/314/5807/1933> there is documented the finding of extremely small archaeans, dubbed ARMAN, or Archael Richmond Mine Acidophilic Nanoorganisms. They are the size of large viruses, and would be smaller than nanoarchaeum. Just google brett baker archaea and you'll get lots of news sites talking about it. They were discovered last december (2006). And yet we don't have a page for them here. I'd think the Archaea project people would be all over this. Does anyone have more information about this? Like maybe what the phylum is called? Werothegreat 19:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:TOL template

I'm working on a proposal to subsume all the WP:TOL project banners into a single one. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Template union proposal and its talk page. Circeus 19:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

My problem with this will be my problem with all things about organisms in general on Wikipedia, they're about animals, not plants. It's like a recent barnstar proposal supposedly about work on organisms, it wasn't, it was about work on animals. What will the banner look like and will it be made in a way to not perpetuate the myth that plants aren't living organisms? Other than that, this is probably a technical issue, and I don't know. KP Botany 19:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm assuming any issues about formatting can be cleared up at a later stage. Maybe I should create a mock-up, though >.> Circeus 20:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Plants and animals are also not the only organisms. Werothegreat 21:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the picture should be of Cladonia rangiferina, a symbiosis between a fungus and a plant, named after an animal. But seriously, animals ooze charisma - I think it's inevitable that TOL will choose animals for its barnstars, template pics, etc. I don't see that as a big deal. Hesperian 00:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I didn't see it as a big deal until I suggested to someone proposing a new barnstar that maybe one of the 5 images should be a plant, since it was a wildlife barnstar, and was met aghast that anyone would consider the flora of a region to be wildlife--so they changed the name to the Faunal Barnstar to prevent ever having to give it to botany editors. Multiple pictures would be nice, a circle with pie slices, a plant, an animal, one of those things Wero seems to thing are so great (just kidding, a photosynthetic "protist", and a nonphotosynthetic something or other), a fungi, a bacterium, an archaeabacterium, a virus. Maybe something specifically really important or model genetic organisms. I hope the animals starve to death all the way up the trophic level for dissing plants. KP Botany 00:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, charasmatic bacteria.... Seriosuly though, the tree of life barnstar should be a stylised five pointed cladogram, and any illustarion for templates should be a tree (oak maybe) shaped cladogram. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I heart you, KP. How about we have a zoological barnstar, a botany barnstar, a mycology barnstar, etc. for bacteriology, protozoology, archaeology? and virology. That way everybody is happy. Then have a general biology barnstar with a tree of life, like in the "This article is part of the WP:TOL" template. Werothegreat 19:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Wait, just kidding. Barnstars are off topic. For the BANNER we should definitely have representatives from all branches of life.Werothegreat 19:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Starfish, star anise, earthstar, starphylococcus?--Curtis Clark 04:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I like the earthstar. Really cool. Werothegreat 21:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Animals

Should we not have a separate WikiProject for animals? We have projects for viruses, plants, and many single animal taxa, but nothing specifically on animals. We could then develop the project further, e.g. having a daughter project on animal behavior etc. This project seems very active as a parent, so it seems perfectly doable, though I've very little knowledge about this particular project, so let me know if there's some consensus not to do this. Richard001 04:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What would WikiProject Animals do that is not already done by the various other WikiProjects? There are already Projects covering every type of animal. If anything animals are way overrepresented already. Sheep81 04:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
A synonymous, slightly more academic name for it would be 'WikiProject Zoology', which could then include subtopics such as ethology, serving as a place to deal with such articles in the mean time. The fact that we have 'animal projects covering every type of animal' is more reason than anything to have an animals project. Should we delete the biology project because there are already subprojects covering most aspects of biology (besides zoology and a few others)? Of course not. It's important to have a guide for writing about animals in general, somewhere for people to go for help with animal articles, and somewhere for people from all the animal projects to meet or perhaps seek a wider audience. Would the formation of subprojects on all the major types of plants call for the deletion of the plants WikiProject? I could take that up with them, but I don't think they'd be very impressed. Richard001 05:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, the plants people are unpredictable, there are very few of us, and we seldom agree more than two of us on any one thing, so assuming we'd be unimpressed is leaping. There's no reason that I see not to create a WP Animals if it is felt one is needed as an umbrella project--but I would take it up with the various animal projects. KP Botany 05:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Richard, that answered my question. I was concerned that you were just proposing the Project in order to add another level of hierarchy, but you have suggested numerous legit activities for a WP:Animals. Your article on mobbing behavior, for instance, would fit under the umbrella of an Animal Project, while not fitting entirely under any of the smaller taxa projects. Sheep81 00:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Rename project?

Is it okay if I move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of life as per tree of life? Richard001 01:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization of article titles

I'm sure this is discussed somewhere on the project page and I've just missed it, but since I couldn't find it I figured I'd ask here. What is the standard for capitalization of article names under this WikiProject?

Just a couple of examples. Thanks for the help! PaladinWhite 13:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It varies from group to group, and different wikiprojects have different standards. Most chordates are capitalised, whereas most arthropods (and most other invertebrates) are uncapitalised. WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles does not seem to have specific guidelines. --Stemonitis 13:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
IMO, article titles should always be Genus species, where the generic name is capitalized and the specific epithet isn't.
As far as common names, there emphatically is no global standard. Some zoological editors subscribe to the standard in WP:BIRD (capitalize all elements), even for non-avian animals. On the other hand, there is a strong tradition among many US botanists (and elsewhere, too, perhaps) that only proper names that are a part of a common name should be capitalizd, e.g. California poppy, but corn poppy (and then of course the first word is capitalized for the article title per WP:MoS, and at the beginning of a sentence, but not elsewhere).--Curtis Clark 14:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Just today I added, this on the Mammals project as an agree-to-disagree measure. Marskell 14:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

status template for deletion

Template:StatusSecure (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), a child of {{taxobox}}, has been nominated for deletion. Can somebody familiar with the intricacies of the status element of the template see whether the template is necessary? Circeus 21:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Requests for comment on new article

I created a new article yesterday on mobbing behavior - just a short one, but it covers most aspects. I'd like to request someone have a read of it and give me a little feedback - this is the first time I've created and article and brought it up to a standard and length like this. Do you think it would be worth nominating for GA, or does it need more work? By the way, if anyone knows of any mobbing behavior images floating around here or commons, or perhaps some free ones on the web, please upload them. Ideally I'd like to create a sister page on Commons. Richard001 02:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I took a quick (read: about fifteen second) look at the article, and I can say that it is something I'd be interested in coming back to later. One thing that I noticed is that the caption of the image of the squirrel needs to be changed; Wikipedia:Images states, "Images that aren't properly identified [...] are unencyclopedic and hence not useful for Wikipedia." Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images also says, "Use captions to explain the relevance of the image to the article." Right now, that caption could just be another section in the article; I was left asking myself, "Is this a random photograph, or does it really relate to the caption?"
Looking good so far on the article! PaladinWhite 14:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I like the article a lot. Always have been fascinated to watch animals chase off their predators. I don't have a lot of problems with the article at all. I notice that it seems to focus a lot on gulls, which seems strange since many other types of animals do this as well. Maybe instead of dividing it up into "gulls" and "other animals" you can make sections like "mammals", "birds", and "fish" instead.
A few other examples you might mention among larger animals: dolphins mobbing sharks, gaur and African buffalo mobbing lions big cats. There is actually a fantastic video on YouTube right now (at the risk of advertising, it's here) showing the cooperative defense of a calf by African buffalo. This kind of behavior is pretty well-documented, I'm sure you can find references. And of course crows themselves both get mobbed by smaller birds and themselves mob larger birds like hawks. I wonder if you could even go so far as to talk about insects like bees and fire ants, which often attack predators together when defending a nest. I believe there is even a pheromone that they put out to attract conspecifics to the defense, kind of like the bird calls you mentioned, right? Just some thoughts. Great article! Sheep81 00:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Daspletosaurus peer review

Hello folks! I've put an article I (mostly) wrote, Daspletosaurus, up for peer review here. Most of the WP:DINO editors have already had a look at it, but I wouldn't mind suggestions from a wider array of editors. So I invite anyone reading this to look the article over and comment on the peer review page. Thank you! Sheep81 23:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

List up for deletion

This list is up for deletion, List of environment topics. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of environment topics It has been well-maintained for the last four years. My concern with it being deleted is that the going trend on WP:Categories for Discussion is that categories should be deleted and turned into lists (the flora/fauna of geographical area categories for example). But now it is proposed that lists be deleted because they should be categories. Is this list valuable? KP Botany 18:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Citation for WP:DYK article

Can somebody look up an author citation for Sea pineapple (Halocynthia roretzi), currently linked from main page? Circeus 16:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Got it and updated article. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I had given it a try, but hadn't been able to do it. I did manage to fill the full name, though. Circeus

Naming conventions

Is there any reason fauna shouldn't use the same naming conventions as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora)? Having everything scientifically named seems more consistent. -Ravedave 18:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably too hard to achieve consensus at this point. A lot of people are put off by scientific names. And it would be a hell of a lot of work to make the move. And there area a lot of unscientific articles that link to various animals. Personally I might support it if the article title that appears at the top could be made to actually be in italics, but since that isn't likely.... Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
English animals name tend to be more strongly standardized than plants' have ever been, but the latin name is used in some cases, such as many articles about insects, rare fishes or birds... Circeus 20:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
As I've said many times before, it is difficult to argue that Canis lupus familiaris is a better name than dog. Hesperian 23:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok so the scientific name isn't always the best choice, but a guildeline can still be created. Below are my proposed conventions -Ravedave 04:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Dude - this is what we do already. All fungi and plants are scientific unless cultivated, and most vertebrates have a much better known common name.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Then that mean you agree with these conventions, right? Something should be written down so people like me don't have to ask all the time. -Ravedave 02:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed naming conventions

Scientific names are the preferred titles, except where the common name is the sensible choice. Disputes should be resolved through discussion on the WikiProject Tree of life talk page.

  1. Cases in which multiple different names stem from the same scientific name should have the common name. (eg. Wagyu and Holstein cattle).
  2. Pages where there are a vast amount of links to the common rather than scientific name should have the common name. (eg. Dog, Cattle)
  3. Pages where there are many, many common names should have the scientific name. (Unless there is a large number of links to one major common name)

Common names are to redirect to scientific names.

All known current English common names for a taxon should be listed in the article. The article may refer to the animal by the common name or the scientific name.

  • The Northern Cricket Frog (Acris crepitans) is a...

In cases where multiple taxa share the same common name, a disambiguation page should be used.


I'm not too sure about this. We don't need a convention to tell us to take the "sensible choice". Disputes shouldn't necessarily be resolved through discussion here - they can be resolved on the article talk page or user talk pages or offwiki, so long as they are resolved. And the number of incoming links are irrelevant. I would boil this down to:

Articles about taxa should use the scientific name unless there is a unambiguous, universally accepted and widely known common name.

All the rest is window dressing. Hesperian 04:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Conflate both naming convention

The two conventions aren't that far apart, and the issue that popped up recently at WP:PLANTS over genus placement could probably be more easily dealt by using a single convention: Wikipedia:Naming convention (organisms). Circeus 02:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Puma

I invite participation on the discussion page at Cougar. I have suggested a move to Puma as it is the more generally accepted common name internationally (see links there on the talk page). If one visits scientific journals and searches the two names, puma is used many times more often. On the Journal of Zoology for instance, Puma produces 259 hits while Cougar produces only 42, many of which use the common name Puma in the title. An administrator will be needed to make the move as Puma already redirects to Cougar.--Counsel 01:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Animals project

I've already suggested this before (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive20#Wikipedia:WikiProject Animals), but I'm now formerly inviting members of all the 'daughter' projects to convene here to discuss starting such a project. Hopefully we can get things off the ground and have something up and running soon, but I need to see that at least a few people are interested before starting anything. Richard001 08:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/Archive_20&oldid=1045935341"