Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles

Snake confirmation

File:Green tree snake Stevage.jpg

Speaking of snakes, can anyone confirm by looking whether this is a Dendrelaphis punctulata (green tree snake)? I googled a bit and thought it could also be an Eastern tiger snake. Seen in Baw Baw National Park last week. Its neck was all puffed up (apparently characteristic of green tree snakes) but the eyes seem too small. Not sure what else I can add, it literally crossed our path, stared at us for a bit, then eventually slithered off. Stevage 04:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not that familiar with Australian snakes, but to me this definitely seems more like Notechis scutatus (eastern tiger snake), [1] than Dendrelaphis punctulata.[2] This specimen's neck may looked puffed up, but it may actually be more flattened, which is a typical Notechis threat display. In addition, the geographic range for D. punctulata does not not seem to extend as far south as the state of Victoria, which is where Baw Baw National Park is located. --Jwinius (talk) 14:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, looks like you're right. With a bit more googling, there are certainly references to tiger snakes in the area, but not the green tree snake. Stevage 09:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no way you would get a tree snake in Baw Baw, it is far too cold. I'd say it is a tiger, they can withstand the cold a lot better. --liquidGhoul (talk) 00:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I live in Queensland and see a lot of common tree snakes (Dendrelaphis punctulata -- and most are not green), and this picture is definitely NOT one. It looks a bit like a marsh snake and a bit like a spotted black snake, but I don't know Victorian snakes very well. --Zeno Klinker (talk) 10:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Marginated tortoise

Marginated Tortoise has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

tree frogs

I moved the article on 'tree frogs' to Hylidae. I notice the category:Tree frogs also needs correcting, it seems the Rhacophoridae family, that were complicating the article on Hylidae, have already been moved to their own category:Rhacophoridae. cygnis insignis 15:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Rankin's dragon

Pogona henrylawsoni needs an experts touch. Also, redirects need creating --129.215.49.129 (talk) 05:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I've created the necessary redirects, but I'm not really an expert. I'll see what I can do, but I might not get through with it. bibliomaniac15 20:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I can take a crack at that when I finish up the Agamid Adenovirus page I'm working on. TariStar (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Agamidae

There seems to be a problem with this category:Agamas, which states: This category contains articles about taxa in the Agamidae family - the agamas. It gives a 'see also' for category:Agamidae and is catgorized in that family, and in cat:Lizards. There is a genus Agama and a subfamily Agaminae, but neither of these articles give an indication that the taxa of those ranks are known as 'Agamas'. I noticed this after copying and pasting from existing articles, so the link to the sankrit word Agamas was appropriate: "that which has come down" (i.e., that which has been handed down to the people of the present from the past). I will attempt a summary of this miasma of taxonomy with these questions:

1. Is Agamas a synonym for any rank in the order Squamata? (other than genus Agama)
2. Are there any other cats in this project's scope that use synonymy for categorization?
3. And does anyone have AWB and want to fix it all?

• Thanks to all at the wikiproject for improvements to this area. cygnis insignis 14:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC) & refactor 17:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't be surprised if some yo-yos show up trying to say agamas are venomous.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

In December I did a lot of category work for the snake articles. Somebody had suggested that it would make more sense to follow the taxonomic hierarchy and I couldn't help but agree. I've now also created parallel categories for common names and synonyms. For an example, see Crotalinae (pitvipers).

If you want to work along these lines, I would suggest creating a new category, Agaminae, and then moving the contents of Agamas to the new category and to Agamidae accordingly. After you make sure nothing else links to it, you can delete the empty category. --Jwinius (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Ta for the reply. My quick search seems to indicate that Agamas is a pluralised forms of Agama. I was aware that agamid is a term for taxa in the Agamidae family. I don't plan to create categories of synonyms or subdivisions of ranks, although various attempts at groupings of things like sea snakes (Elapidae?) might be worthwhile. cygnis insignis 17:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Parallel categories for synonyms and common names are nice, but I'm not saying that they're as important as the main categories. Regarding the sea snakes, they're a special case because they currently do not form a well-defined taxonomic group. Nevertheless, they are different, so for the time being I see no better solution than to maintain a Sea snakes subcategory for them under Elapidae. --Jwinius (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Turtle photo

I recently I took photos of a turtle on our pond, some kind of slider, that I think would be good to upload for Wikipedia. Here is an image of the turtle. First, do you know what exact species it is (I live in upstate SC, USA)? I first thought it was a red-eared slider (which are very common in my area), but then realized it didn't have red ears. :) Second, what reptilia article could that photo be best used in (I might have a photo that's a little better than that one; I just grabbed something decent and uploaded it to Flickr). Thanks a lot, JamieS93 14:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Deirochelys reticularia. Joelito (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that definitely looks like it. Unless there's any opposition, I'm going to add my image (or a photo very similar, if I have one in better quality) to the article as a "secondary image" (not replacing the one in the infobox). Thanks, Joel! --JamieS93 17:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't confirm/deny the ID, but if it is Deirochelys reticularia, then move the current taxobox image to the article body, and use your photo for the taxobox. Your photo shows more features than the current photo (red on carapace, the neck). Crop it a bit though. --liquidGhoul (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I neglected to mention that I was going to crop the image before submitting it. I currently have a section at the Reference desk to confirm the idenfitication, just to be sure. Thanks for the assistance, y'all. :) --JamieS93 12:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Your turtle is Pseudemys nelsoni, the Florida Redbelly Turtle. The only thing strange is you say the photo was taken in South Carolina? If so, this turtle is an escaped pet. P. nelsoni is not native to SC. MFuture (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Amphibian Species of the World, online

I've been using this site quite regularly and found it impressive as a taxonomical reference for amphibian. I therefore considered adding it to Phylogenetic and Paleontological references on the front page of this group, but doing so would clearly not be fair without asking you (especially considering that I'm not even a member of this group...). If some of the more established members feel that it is, I can only recommend that it is added. RN1970 (talk) 03:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• However, I would add that it only deals with extant taxa. RN1970 (talk) 03:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Looks okay. I don't work a lot with amphibian stuff, though, I'm more of a reptile person. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 03:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added it to Secondary References. Should someone feel this is inappropriate, feel free to remove/edit it. RN1970 (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Name move proposal

I have proposed Stump-tailed skink be moved to Shingleback skink - discussion at the talk page. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

How many more common names are there for this species? Why not move it to something more neutral and systematic, like Tiliqua rugosa? Almost all of the skink articles use scientific names for their titles already. --Jwinius (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...I hadn't checked that one. Everyone I know calls 'em shinglebacks...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Do you mean a Bobtail? I'm being bold again.cygnis insignis 00:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I prefer Scientific names, myself. Still, I've only ever heard them reffered to as "Shingleback skinks".--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this discussion belongs on the talk page associated with the article. Some folks over there seem not to be aware of what's been said over here (and possibly vice versa). In these cases, it may also be a good idea to make more use of the Move template. --Jwinius (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

ID challenge

pic 1

pic 2

Fancy a challenge (or not)? I saw this gecko on the island of 'Eua, Tonga. It was in my hut, but was much larger than the run of the mill house geckos. I estimated that it was the length of my hand (18 cm, 7 inches). I know the island has some interesting endemic species, so is it one of those or an overgrown introduced house gecko? Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Aspidoscelis/Cnemidophorus

The species list and the species articles would seem to need updating; e.g. Cnemidophorus dixoni has the 2002 taxon as a synonym. Why Reptile DB does not use Aspidoscelis I don't know, perhaps they have a reason, perhaps they simply have not been updated yet. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 04:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

ITIS also doesn't have Aspidoscelis. I would also think that they weren't updated. bibliomaniac15 Do I have your trust? 04:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Amphisbaenians

I think it should be noted here that I've set up a new category for the Amphisbaenians (a suborder under Squamata), and linked some pages. Also, I've redone the page for the family Amphisbaenidae, if only in a small way (previously, it gave Rhineura floridana as the only species, despite the genus Rhineura usually being listed as the only species in Family Rhineuridae.! JamesFox (talk) 10:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Reptiles

There is currently an argument at Talk:Tuatara about the use of the word "reptile" to describe the tuatara. Is "reptile" no longer valid? I'm sorry if this topic has already been discussed. Axl (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Australian Lizard photo identification

What species is he?

Hi, just wondering if one of you folks could help me out with identifying this lizard/skink?). I'm in Queensland and took a photo of him in the Botanical Gardens on Mt. Coot-tha. I'd like to know which species he is so I can upload a nice closeup of his head for the relevant article. Please let me know on my talk page. Cheers. SMC (talk) 08:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Eastern water dragon - Physignathus lesueurii Caissaca (talk) 09:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. SMC (talk) 10:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Testudo atlas

See talk there. This critter has been languishing for a while, and I am unable to resolve the issues with the article. Distribution also needs confirmation... hell, basically everything in that article needs the good old fact-check. Unfortunately, there are very few sources on Google Scholar that seem to be really interesting here. They dig up bits and pieces of this beast in India every few years, but that's not very informative really. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 15:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Scientific Names

Hi all. First post! I was looking for a specific policy on when to change the scientific name of a species. For example, Amphibian Species of the World lists now the cane toad as Rhinella marina. They provide the reference (Chaparro, Pramuk, and Gluesenkamp, 2007, Herpetologica, 63: 211.). I guess this would be enough, but I want to check with the group first. --Ljvillanueva (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Since it was first named by Linnaeus in 1758, I'm sure that many different names have been proposed for what is now commonly referred to in the English language as the cane toad. Most of those names are now considered taxonomic synonyms, but the question of which one is now the valid one really depends on the taxonomy you use. This is a concept that I feel has so far been poorly understood here at Wikipedia. Whether you study amphibians or fish or insects, if your chosen zoological field is alive you will always find competing taxonomies, by which I mean collections of scientific names that are used to categorize the different species in different ways. All researchers seem to have their own opinions about how the species should best be grouped, sorted and categorized, often by resurrecting old names (synonyms) or by making up entirely new names for them in order to do so. It may sound confusing, but it's the way this type of science moves forwards. The opinions (names) that ultimately triumph are the ones that are backed by the most convincing arguments and evidence. The consensus among the field's experts is then said to favor one name over another (or one publication over another).

So, when I look at your question -- should Bufo marinus be changed to Rhinella marina? -- I ask myself: Who first suggested that we use the latter over the former (which is very well established) and is there a consensus for this among the experts? In other words, should I take this suggestion seriously and argue in favor of changing the valid scientific name in our article to Rhinella marina, or should I not? Then again, remember that this is Wikipedia, so we're supposed to be neutral about all this and not promote any particular names or opinions over any others. On the other hand, we still need a scientific name for the article on this animal -- and preferably the right name! -- so what do we do? How do we settle this? IMHO, the way to do this is to first decide on applying a single, authoritative taxonomy (preferably one that's available on-line) to an entire group of articles. Usually this means following a taxonomy that has been compiled by one or more of the field's leading experts. Of course, this may seem conservative to many people, since its names change only slowly, but isn't this what we should be looking for? What you don't want is to settle on some bleeding-edge taxonomy that receives new changes almost every other day and is thus guaranteed to drive us nuts as we struggle continuously to keep up with it.

How does this work in practice? For example, I've worked on many snake articles for the past few years, especially vipers, and am happy that we settled on using ITIS as a taxonomic reference for this project. Every article I've worked on includes a specific link to an ITIS page containing the valid scientific name. At the same time (Sep. 2006), some folks working on frog articles decided that the AMNH taxonomic database would be best suited to their needs, but it looks like they never followed through to apply this idea systematically. I find that a pity, because IMHO it really is the best way to settle all of these arguments. --Jwinius (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Split "Phylogenetic and Paleontological references"

This section contained mostly paleontological references, I left the paleontological references and created a new section on phylogenetic references. This would be related to my question above, maybe here we can list a few online sources of current nomenclature from which to get name changes and the reasons for changes. --Ljvillanueva (talk) 01:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Unidentified frog photo

Unidentified frog

A friend of mine brought in this frog for me to photograph at school and I was hoping someone could identify it. The frog was found in Ensay, Victoria, Australia in September 2007. I'm not entirely sure but I believe he found it near a small creek --Fir0002 07:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You may wan't to try this website http://frogs.org.au/ good luck with it. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 08:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I got an ID as Striped Marsh Frog which seems a pretty good bet. --Fir0002 23:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I will second you on that, good work. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 05:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm they sent me another email saying the previous ID was incorrect, apparently it's actually the Eastern Common Froglet - thoughts? --Fir0002 07:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It's Crinia signifera --liquidGhoul (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

C-Class Assessment request

Please look at Nelson's Milksnake to see if it is C-Class or at least Start. Thanks. WilliamKF (talk) 03:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, please look at Cnemidophorus inornatus to see if it is Start or C-Class. WilliamKF (talk) 03:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

One of the reasons why I opposed C-class inclusion is because the difference between start and B class back then was pretty blurred. Now, there's an extra level of arbitrariness. I'd say that the former is C, and the latter is Start, but that's only based on my view of the ASSESS scale. bibliomaniac15 04:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

On a closer look, the milksnake is probably Start. bibliomaniac15 04:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirects on "G. species" disambiguation pages

Please see this discussion so that we can come to a conclusion about redirects used on "G. species" disambiguation pages.

Thank you, Neelix (talk) 00:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Status of poisonius vs non-poisinous species

Hello, Ran into a snake this morning by my kitchen door. As a parent my first concern in researching the species was whether or not it represents a threat to my kids. I was amazed at how difficult it is to find that information. I was able to identify, fairly quickly, the type of snake it is, I'm still unclear of it's potential threat. I suggest to the experts among us, that contribute so much great information, that this be added to every article on snakes. I think it will add a great deal of value. Once I figure out whether our new neighbor is poisonous or not, I want to learn all about her and share that with my kids. Thank you for considering this suggestion. Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guthrys (talk • contribs) 16:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with your idea, but most poisonous snakes do not have deadly venom, especially in North America. When I was living in Australia, I treated all snakes as venomous, which is a decent idea because snakes are especially hard to identify. Also, this "venomous" tagging (or article section) could be applied to animals other than snakes (dart frog, hornet, platypus). StevePrutz (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be problematic. Like Steveprutz says above, right now the best way is to consider all snakes as poisonous depending on the country. When working in the US I'm not that worried, but when in Costa Rica I assumed all were poisonous. In addition, how to classify a mildly poisonous species? The venom may not be enough to kill a healthy adult (human), but may kill a kid or have severe effects on an adult due to an allergic reaction. --Ljvillanueva (talk) 03:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you guys mean Venomous. Venomous, it bites you...poisonous, you bite it. :) --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

A few comments. First, yes, unless you own a book or two on the snake species in your area, good info is hard to find. That's why we need to work harder on our articles -- it's the first place many people look! Second, I agree with Chris that it's worth mentioning in every snake article whether a species is venomous or not; to some it may look a little weird in a boa or python article, but not to a lot of people. It's a small price to pay. Third, the chances of someone encountering a wild venomous snake vary depending where you are in the world. Only in Australia do venomous species dominate. In the United States, the few venomous species are not too difficult to recognize. In other parts of the world, such as in Africa, the greater diversity makes easy identification of dangerous species much more difficult. Finally, do not take the North American venomous species lightly: more than a few are potentially deadly and suffering a bite is never a pleasant experience. --Jwinius (talk) 01:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This needs to be handled carefully in the case of many colubrids. Virtually all are technically venomous, but the overwhelming majority are also absolutely harmless to people. A fair few are entirely harmless to the general public, but can inflict unpleasant bites in the sorts of circumstances that might apply when people keep them in captivity, e.g., feeding bites with prolonged chewing. Hognose snakes (Heterodon) are a classic example: totally harmless to the general public, hardly ever bite even when picked up, yet several cases of quite substantial swelling, pain, discoloration and even excessive bleeding and nausea have been reported after prolonged bites by captive specimens. The difficulty is reporting the facts and advising against carelessness by herpetophiles without causing unnecessary fear and loathing among the general public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caissaca (talk • contribs) 07:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I think just be sure to include a "Danger to humans" section (like I have seen in other herp articles) on any "publicly menacing" herptile. Maybe a better name for the common section? An alternative, like a threat assessment scale/infobox would not be practical, because most of the herp articles are curated by just a handful of people. StevePrutz (talk) 14:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

In the articles I've worked on, I've used labels like "venomous" for viperids and elapids, "non-venomous" for large pythons and boids, and "harmless" for others. Barring a few notable exceptions that are dangerously venomous, I recommend "harmless" for most colubrids, even though many have a saliva that is toxic to some degree. Examples:

• Agkistrodon piscivorus - venomous
• Heterodon nasicus - harmless (although it has a slightly toxic saliva)
• Python reticulatus - non-venomous (although it can be dangerous due to its size and strength)
• Python regius - non-venomous

As for colubrids that have for some time been recognized as mildly venomous, but not dangerous, such as Boiga dendrophila, I'm not sure how to describe these. We could label them as "mildly venomous", but as Caissaca points out, this would be somewhat misleading to say if a species is almost never inclined to bite. It's a gray area and decisions may have to be made on a case-by-case basis. --Jwinius (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 7992 articles are assigned to this project, of which 335, or 4.2%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Dwarven

How did dwarf crocodile get moved here? Since when is "crocodile" a proper noun? I'd move it back if it didn't generate a double-redirect, & I'd say it still needs doing. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 13:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I moved it back to Dwarf crocodile. bibliomaniac15 20:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Oophila amblystomatis

I just started up a small article on Oophila amblystomatis. If anyone has some free images of salamander eggs, or any other additions, feel free to go for it! StevePrutz (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

No new images, I'm afraid, but the article looked like it needed some general attention, so I went ahead and fixed it up for you. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 14:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Identification of a lizard

I'm uploading some images from Naturalist on the River Amazons to Commons but I'm having a bit of trouble with identifications. My most recent upload is Image:Naturalist on the River Amazons figure 19.png, a lizard. It is described as "The Jacuarú (Teius teguexim)", but I can't find any such species listed at Teius. I think any more accurate identification of the amphisbaenid is pretty hopeless, but surely the current binomial name for the lizard species can be found (assuming it has changed, rather than that we just don't have a red link for this species). Richard001 (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Found on Encyclopedia of Life: Teius teguexim BATES 1864: synonym of Tupinambis teguixin LINNAEUS 1758. I am updating the Tupin article with the synonym. StevePrutz (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see, thanks for that. I will remove it from the generic article since it is not actually in that genus anymore. Richard001 (talk) 08:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

New WikiProject proposal: Biota of the UK and Ireland

I've proposed a new WikiProject named WikiProject Biota of the UK and Ireland which would encompass all species and conservation efforts within Britain, an extremely interesting area. The project would include vegetation classification, Category:Lists of British animals, Category:Conservation in the United Kingdom, Category:Ecology of the British Isles, Category:Forests and woodlands of the United Kingdom, Category:Fauna of the British Isles and anything else to do with the flora and fauna of Britain. If anyone is interested just leave your name on the proposal page. Cheers, Jack (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Strawberry Poison-dart Frog

Is no one here watching this article? I just reverted some old vandalism to the page as well as the talk page (from May 2008 and June 2008 respectively -- months!). One of you AAR folks should take it on, if you don't mind. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 18:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've watchlisted it. I've never done an amphibian article before; it might be a nice change of scenery from the monitors. bibliomaniac15 20:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I made a few fixups on the article, but there is lots of work to be done (across the board), and I think the manpower has gotten a little work-shy. StevePrutz (talk) 00:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Common names template?

I've seen a "common names hatnote" at the top of a handful of herp articles. Example -- ":Common names: eastern coral snake, common coral snake, American cobra, more."

...Does anyone else think this is a good idea to add to every article? StevePrutz (talk) 19:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

When the reptile/amphibian in question has a lot of common names (≥3), yes, I'd say it would be good to implement some sort of template. bibliomaniac15 22:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

An example would be Agkistrodon piscivorus. This is a solution I originally came up with in 2006 to solve a number of problems with the snake articles that I work on. First, snake species often have so many common names that listing them all in the usual manner can make an introduction look rather awkward. Second, I remembered a complaint that when a scientific name is used for an article title, it was not possible to find a common name as quickly in the introduction (conversely, if one common name is selected for the title, it can be assumed that readers will have similar trouble finding any of the others). So, inspired by a book that I own, I experimented with a list of a few common names at the very top of some articles, terminated it with a link ("more") to a separate "Common names" section in cases where there were more than could fit on a single line. It seemed to work and soon two such articles even had GA status, the format not being seen as a great departure from MoS guidelines. The current form was even somebody else's idea, so I can no longer even take total credit for the solution, but the result is still that one or more common names can be found more quickly than before, while allowing the introduction to be reserved for a more relevant and descriptive summary of the article. Currently, some 500 snake articles share this format. --Jwinius (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

What would be a good name and format for the template? {{CommonNames|eastern coral snake|common coral snake|American cobra}}? StevePrutz (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The name sounds okay, but how much of the current concept are you planning to duplicate with this template? And, would this still work with the inline references (footnotes)? --Jwinius (talk) 22:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Reference citation ability, check. I have never created a template like this, but I'll start something in User:Steveprutz/Sandbox. Feel free to help out with ideas and code. StevePrutz (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Just butting in to say that I think this is a bad idea. I deplore the trend towards the creation of infoboxes, templates, conventions, etc, whose sole purpose is to allow people to replace quality prose with simplistic dot points. It is possible to write a thorough treatment of common names, you know; e.g. Banksia sessilis#Common names. I'd rather see common names left in the prose where there is some prospect of them receiving an in-depth treatment eventually, rather than segregating out into a hatnote, forever condemning them to be a shallow, mediocre list. Hesperian 06:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Banksia sessilis#Common names gives excellent explanations for the origins of the various common names used for this species of Banksia. I've done just a little of this myself, such as in Agkistrodon_piscivorus#Common_names, but so far I've encountered very little background information regarding the common names for snakes. However, I don't see why we can't have the best of both options: a list of common names (with a few at the top of the article where they are easy to find) followed by a more detailed explanation. After all, if a reader knows it only as the prickly dryandra, then they won't find that name very quickly in the Banksia sessilis article. --Jwinius (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I think common names have a definite importance to the article (as it is English Wikipedia), and something is lacking with the current norm for reptiles and amphibians. Like Jwinius said the etymology of common names can be hard to source. I think the "shallow list" remark has a valid point, but a template with the words "see article for more..." would rectify that situation and provide room for a prose-rich section. I also want to note that this hatnote idea works also for genera, families, etc. (e.g. Leptotyphlops).

I did get a few things out of the current discussions: a) articles need to be mass-renamed to binomial nomenclature, and b) creatures with multiple common names need a section near the top. StevePrutz (talk) 01:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding a), I'm all for it, but from experience I know that this is easier said than done. Unless we can somehow manage to arrange an official and overriding naming policy for articles on reptiles and amphibians (or even just for snakes), then this will be impossible to achieve. If you want to know why I say that, then here is a recent example and here is another one. --Jwinius (talk) 11:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Amphibian and reptile

A collection of Wikipedia articles is being collected together as Wikipedia 0.7. This collection will be released on DVD later this year, and will be available for free download. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles; a team of copyeditors has agreed to help improve the writing upon request.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 03:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

IMO, most of the articles that have been selected from WP:AAR have major problems, either being incomplete and/or not citing their sources. Some are long and badly organized, and I suspect that more than a few contain a good deal of nonsense. That's unfortunate, because a number of these are on key subjects, but I expect that it will be a few more years before they are properly fixed up. So, aside from the GAs and FAs on this list, I recommend that the rest be omitted. --Jwinius (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Undoes and the Article Discussion Pages

Well, I thought I had found a nice place to become a part of the herp community. But after several unsuccessful attempts at edits, I get the distinct feeling that other editors have staked out claims. I don't really need to waste my time here if someone is going to follow me around to "undo" everything I post. The general rule with wiki articles is, if you disagree with an editor, engage him/her in the discussion page. Don't just go around and click undo on everything. That standard seems to have been missed by one editor in particular. So, you folks enjoy your editing. I won't be back. Gladtohelp (talk) 19:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)gladtohelp

Have I become one of those awful Wikipedia ogres that new contributers love to hate? This has to do with me reverting Gladtohelp's edits to a couple of articles. The problem is that he was altering referenced information without citing any alternative sources. He then started up a dialogue (I didn't; my mistake) after which I did my best to explain, but I guess the experience was just to frustrating for him. The sad thing is that he may very well be a knowledgeable "herper" who may eventually have made valuable contributions here, but now I suppose we'll never know. I guess some people just don't have the patience to understand and deal with WP:Cite. --Jwinius (talk) 22:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he has given up entirely on Wikipedia, just on reptile articles. In any case, I've left him a polite note on his talk page. bibliomaniac15 22:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Tuatara

There is a debate going on about the lead sentence going on here. Some outside opinion would be useful here. bibliomaniac15 22:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Is that debate still going on? Now that you mention it, why do so many of our (higher taxon) reptile articles mention the class "Sauropsida" instead of "Reptilia"? Who's taxonomy is that? Benton (2004)? Is there a consensus for using this source as our common roadmap for higher level reptile taxonomy? Why don't we as a WikiProject simply make a decision here to follow one higher level taxonomy for all of our reptile articles and be done with it? --Jwinius (talk) 00:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the expertise to decide what is correct: "amniote", "reptile", "higher animal", or "Sauropsida". As a general reader though, I think that reptile is most friendly to the layman. bibliomaniac15 03:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. All reptiles are amniotes, but not all amniotes are reptiles. "Higher animal" is no help whatsoever. Sophomoric Pseudointellectualism is the devil.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

How about, instead of thinking about this problem too deeply, we ask around and see what the professionals consider to be the most conservative and authoritative higher level reptile taxonomy around? We don't want anything bleeding-edge; just something that most of those guys tend to agree with. If we find out that most of them agree with Benton (2004), then so be it, but at least we won't be making the decision based on the arguments in that publication, or on what most of us think should be the case. After all, as Wikipedians, we're not supposed to be the experts in these matters and we're expected to remain neutral as well, right? --Jwinius (talk) 11:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Today I wrote ITIS to ask about their view on higher level reptile taxonomy, mentioning how their system is vastly simplified compared to Benton (2004) and the like. They replied, saying "ITIS is not trying to 'chase' the latest and greatest in higher level classifications, but is rather trying to offer a view (sometimes a bit simplified) that is (1) broadly acceptable and (2) reasonably stable, so that more time is available to focus on the bulk of the names at the finer taxonomic levels." Isn't this what we should be doing?

The reply continued, saying "Some workers will use much more complex classifications, sometimes to accommodate fossils too (which ITIS generally doesn't... e.g., Anapsida/Diapsida), sometimes to reflect detailed branchings/clades that may be proposed (i.e., the full extent of their 'knowledge' of relationships), and so on." In other words, it sounds like we should not be using that kind of classification for our articles on extant species. I say we keep things simple, stick to ITIS' simple classification for (higher) reptile taxa, and let the dinosaur people use a different classification for their articles. We should adopt ITIS' approach on this issue to avoid the bleeding edge and all the endless heated debates that come with it. If nobody else has any suggestions, how about we settle this now in a vote? --Jwinius (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That was my suggestion and what I did to the article, it was deleted and reverted as if I linked to a myspace page about breeding leopard geckoes:[3]. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to believe that the ITIS solution is best course of action. bibliomaniac15 00:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm generally in favor of conservative taxonomy and the recognition of paraphyletic taxa when such taxa have enough commonalities (whether plesomorphic or apomorphic) to make such a grouping informative. More to the point, "reptile" is currently widely used in the scientific literature as well as offering superior readability. Given this, I see no reason for a change.Mokele (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Mokele, can we take that as a "yes" from you for using ITIS for our higher level classification of extant reptiles? --Jwinius (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the ITIS is the best for consistency. Mokele (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus to use Sauropsida was established at Talk:Reptile#Plea_For_Standardization and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/Archive16#Standardize_Taxonomy. It might be courteous to at least let Dinoguy2 know that this discussion is taking place. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I've dropped him a line on his talk page. Also, the use of the classification system and offical terms doesn't necessarily lead to particular vernacular names for taxa: we still use "shark" rather than "selachimorph", and "lizard" instead of "saurian".Mokele (talk) 11:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Since he's also been involved, I've asked Pschemp to join in too. --Jwinius (talk) 13:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

To what extent is this still about tuatara?

There seems to be confusion exactly what is being debated here. I take it that since the discussion was moved here, and it was explained to Pschemp as being about the use of reptile taxa,[4] we are now discussing the merits of "reptile", "sauropsid", "saurian", etc. I'll just point out that matters at tuatara have moved on to a version where we are introducing tuatara in terms of their nearest surviving relatives.[5] This solution is preferable for several reasons:

1. We're avoiding any mention of paraphyletic taxa, both the concept and any actual examples of it, in the lede of the article.
2. We're using less technical language than previously; easier to understand.
3. We're being more accurate by referring to the closest living relatives.

Hence, I believe we are avoiding a lot of potential pitfalls in the tuatara article. Tuatara should not be the battleground for a content debate that belongs on reptile and possible related articles. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This is no longer just about the tutatara article. We've zoomed out and are trying to form a consensus on whether to use ITIS for higher level reptile classification for all of our articles on extant reptile taxa. This will then settle the tuatara debate and nip any other such debates in the bud. See above for the arguments in favor of using this strategy. --Jwinius (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Video category

I have created a Reptile videos category at Commons. There aren't really enough for an amphibians category right now, but I don't really like paraphyletic groupings so I have avoiding combining them with reptiles (let's not speak of fishes or birds). Richard001 (talk) 03:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Prospective GA and FA?

I know this is a tad random, but are there any herp articles that I/we could help bump up to GA or Featured? StevePrutz (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind helping me with Heloderma, Mexican Beaded Lizard, and Gila Monster? I have a goal to make a featured topic out of them. bibliomaniac15 02:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind pitching in on those, myself. I was also going to dust-off Green Iguana to get it from GA to Featured.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Will look at and add to all 4 articles tomorrow. StevePrutz (talk) 03:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I've requested peer review for Gila monster (which I think is ready for FA). I will touch-up Green Iguana soon. StevePrutz (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Green Iguana appears to need more work, notably the bloated Captivity section. I also noticed the turtle articles (Testudines, Tortoise, Terrapin) needed cleanup. StevePrutz (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ctenosaura bakeri is a rated GA, but I think it needs more work. Moving to that next. StevePrutz (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyone want to help with the Poison dart frog article? I think it is close to GA. StevePrutz (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong photograph "Japanese Rat Snake " was deleted.

I'm not good discussion in Englis, Sorry.

I deleted Wrong photograph in Japanese Rat sanke". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Rat_Snake

Deleted file is "Image:アオダイショウS-P8305010.jpg" which is Japanese four-lined ratsnake.

The grounds that I judged this photograph to be wrong are as follows.

> Belly scales have not keel. > Eyes color is very vivid red. (JRS is not vivid.)

> I observed Japanese 4-lined snake of this type. Reference: This site's 8th photo. [6]

I think that my judgment is not the mistake, but please identify everyone.

--Baikada (talk) 08:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)