Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles/Archive 3

Photo in taxobox help

Ok, I've uploaded this photo of a Spilotes pullatus I took about ten years ago on a trip to the Peruvian Amazon, and I cannot for the life of me get it to work in the taxobox of that page. Anyone know how to fix it? Mokele (talk) 00:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mokele, I had a go at adding your image with no success, it might be that it needs to be a .jpg image (rather than a .GIF) also I'm not sure if this is a problem but try and stick to using lower-case names for your files. Upload the image as a .jpg and try again and see how we go from there. Aviceda talk 01:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

That did it, thanks! Mokele (talk) 01:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you move the image to Commons, so Wikispecies can use it? StevePrutz (talk) 02:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It's now on Cmmons. I'll crop the black lower border out too and fix the contrasts. FunkMonk (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Archive?

Does anyone else think some of this page should be archived now? Forty sections is quite a lot. StevePrutz (talk) 02:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Archived. bibliomaniac15 03:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Listservs

I am working on a reliable listing of active listservs that cover herp topics (mostly research and jobs). So far, I only have a handful, including ECOLOG-L and Froglist. Can anyone recommend other big mailing lists? StevePrutz (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone from this project regularly upload from Flickr?

I have been working on bird images a bit lately, but can do some for this project as well. What I would really like to do though is get more people uploading from Flickr. It looks like there are over 6000 species here that need photos too, so it's not a job one person can do alone. If anyone wants help with getting/transferring pictures I would be happy to provide a tutorial. Richard001 (talk) 05:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a stab at a few of the pages I haunt, and try to find a good (free) pic from Flickr. WP:FLICKR is a good shortcut for help, by the way. Also, I think CalPhotos has some free-use images. StevePrutz (talk) 05:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Urspelerpes bruceii inside info?

I read an article on a new species of a primitive North American salamander recently discovered (tentatively named Urspelerpes bruceii), but I cannot find any publications or web info. Does anyone have a good search engine to find papers on this? StevePrutz (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I found this: http://www.warnell.uga.edu/h/alumni/flog/pdf/log_F08.pdf but no peer-review pubs (it may still be in submission/review/press, and just not out yet - that stuff can take months). Mokele (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Cobra

The Cobra article was created on 14 May 2003 and has since seen almost 1,000 edits, but is still in very poor shape. Perhaps this is because the subject is relatively vague: many snakes are referred to as cobras, so what it really needs is to become a disambiguation page. That's why I've suggested that this article be deleted and replaced with the Cobra (disambiguation) page, which I think is of much more value. After four days no one seems to have noticed my proposal, but since such action may be regarded as controversial (it's a popular term) I wanted to get this group's opinion first before putting in an official request. Thanks, --Jwinius (talk) 18:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, "Cobra" should probably redirect to "Cobra (snake)", since that's the most common usage, with a link to the disambig at the top. As to improving the article, I'll try to remember, but I don't have any particular expertise in that genus. Oh, and I'd keep the concept of cobra = naja, mostly because anything else if often referred to via a modifying prefix: king cobra, shield-nosed cobra, spitting cobra, false water cobra, etc. Though there should probably be something on that page about that. Mokele (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the Cobra (snake) idea, as long as that article would be a disambiguation page in addition to Cobra (disambig). Somewhat like toad. StevePrutz (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hold on, I'm confused now. Why should "Cobra" redirect to "Cobra (snake)"? That makes no sense. Perhaps the choice of words was unfortunate. If so, are these the moves you were thinking of, Mokele?

• "Cobra" => "Cobra (snake)"
• "Cobra (disambiguation)" => "Cobra"

The new "Cobra" disambiguation page could then link to the "Cobra (snake)" article, which in turn could be kept short and made to look something like the Toad article. Is this what's being suggested? --Jwinius (talk) 01:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Cobra would be an empty redirect page pointing to Cobra (snake) [the serpent disambig article], for indexing purposes. It sounds somewhat silly to me now. Cobra might be best for the 'pedia as the serpent disambig itself. StevePrutz (talk) 04:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting maintaining the status quo and only modifying the current version of "Cobra"? If so, remember that over the years this article has proved to be a magnet for vandalism and other useless edits. I was hoping for a different approach. --Jwinius (talk) 11:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You are right in saying that a disambiguation page for w:Cobra would setup a roadblock for vandals. However, the primary dictionary definition of "cobra" is snakes, not about those derivative works like Cobra Beer, etc; and (in my opinion) w:Cobra should point to the snake(s) disambig.

• w:Cobra ---> "the Cobra snake disambig page"
• "Cobra (snake disambig page)": for specific snake example articles
• "Cobra (non-snake disambig)": for everything else

I will try to put a message up on the page for additional opinions. StevePrutz (talk) 14:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

So, you're saying that the situation should remain as is, except that the "Cobra" article should simply be fixed up... to become a disambiguation page for all snakes referred to as cobras? --Jwinius (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The beginning of the w:Cobra (disambig) that lists all the cobras should be moved to plain w:Cobra. StevePrutz (talk) 21:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I could live with that. If nobody else has any better ideas, I'll see what I can come up with. --Jwinius (talk) 02:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't so difficult! Cobra is now a set index article and has been thoroughly revised, mostly using the snake information moved there from Cobra (disambiguation). I also found an excellent image for it. If there are no more comments, I will assume that this is satisfactory. I imagine that it will still be a target for vandalism, but hopefully not as much. --Jwinius (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

StevePrutz (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Pseudohaje

I noticed on the Cobra page that the Pseudohaje genus does not have an article yet. Do you need help making one for this cobra type? StevePrutz (talk)

The elapid section is not where I usually concentrate my efforts, so sure; I'd be grateful if you were to help out with that. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Initial work is done. A photo and some extra characteristic and distribution info would help if you have some decent go-to resources (I do not). StevePrutz (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI: New articles

A bot has been set up, which looks through the new Wikipedia articles and picks up those that are likely related to amphibians and reptiles. The search results are available at User:AlexNewArtBot/HerpetologySearchResult and are normally updated on a daily basis. Colchicum (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Anaconda

Here's another common name situation similar to Cobra: the Anaconda article. To may people here this may seem like a non-issue, since there are three species of anacondas and they all belong to the genus Eunectes. However, the problem is that, while all of these snakes are consistently referred to in the literature as anacondas, the general public tends only to associate the species Eunectes murinus with this name. As a result, it doesn't to matter that the "Anaconda" article starts out by saying that it is about the genus: after a while it always seems to fill up with specific information for E. murinus anyway.

As in the case of the Cobra article, I've left a proposal on the Anaconda talk page to change it into a disambiguation page for the genus -- exactly the same as the Cobra article is now), while moving much of the information there to the Eunectes page (a name that currently redirects to Anaconda). So far, though, I have received no responses. I would again be grateful for this group's opinion regarding my proposal before taking any action. --Jwinius (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Care page/s?

Ok, this issue came up on the corn snake page, but was never really answered. A lot of herps are becoming more common in the pet trade, and as a result, their articles are developing lengthy sections on captive care, many of which overlap extensively because, frankly, the care of most herps falls into a few 'types' (aquatic, desert, arboreal, etc). Should we try to make a generalize 'herp care' page? I'm inclined towards it, because it can cover some of the general basics (ectothermy and heat gradients, feeding frequency, shedding skin, etc), and then have subsections for types (desert, arboreal, etc), and notes within those sections about individual species. It would substantially reduce the clutter on many herp pages, and we could just say "this is a commonly kept pet species" with "pet species" linking to the care page. Thoughts? Mokele (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the answer was to refer users to Wikibooks (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Amphibians_and_Reptiles/Archive_2#Husbandry). I am all for forming Husbandry pages to get rid of some of the redundant info. The correct way to make a proper article would be to follow something like this: History of dendrobatid frogkeeping. StevePrutz (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Like I said last September, not all captivity info is bad, such as including facts on longevity, observed feeding habits, reproduction, problems with zoo exhibits and so on, but in general I don't like the idea of allowing husbandry info because I fear that it will make any article look like a HOWTO. There are probably about as many books on herp husbandry as there are opinions on the subject, but I would expect even worse: that most people will only make contributions based on their own experiences, since that's all I've seen so far. I certainly don't believe this is something we should attempt to encourage or legitimize. Sure, it might help remove much of the general husbandry cruft from the species accounts, but I doubt everyone will be satisfied with that. Also, there are already so many websites and forums out there dedicated to the husbandry of so many different species, why bother? Having said all that, I rather like History of dendrobatid frogkeeping, but that's not really a husbandry article. --Jwinius (talk) 23:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jwinius at this point. I think we should form a task force and just comment-out the Captive care sections across the board. Maybe put <-- THIS SECTION IS HIDDEN BECAUSE... --> StevePrutz (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

What would be the advantage in hiding it? By not deleting it, it will only be more likely to come back again (like the undead). I say we just delete it entirely; it will be preserved in the revision history anyway. With snakes, I think most of the articles burdened with this nonsense are in the Colubridae section. I haven't seen many of them, so perhaps processing them in this manner will be a good excuse to take stock of what's there and reorganize them. --Jwinius (talk) 01:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

My thinking behind the comment-out (instead of full-delete) is that "nature abhors a vacuum". If a breeder goes on an article and sees no instructions, he is obliged to Edit and make a new section. StevePrutz (talk) 15:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The information is often appropriate for inclusion at wikibooks, the useful (unencyclopedic HOWTO) stuff should be moved there. The facts on captive animals, and how they are cared for, can be carefully presented in our articles - new and/or well intentioned contributors can be directed to the pages like this transwiki. cygnis insignis 09:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you're right that this kind of information is admissible in Wikibooks. However, even if all we plan to do is move information over there to create transwiki articles in the Pet category, similar to Bearded Dragon, the next question would be: How long must a husbandry section be before it (or the whole article) should be moved to Wikibooks? In the Bearded Dragon article, some 66% is about husbandry, so the whole article was copied there. With Corn Snake, about 25% is about husbandry and some 50% describes the variations produced by commercial breeders (=cruft). With Lampropeltis triangulum campbelli, about 50% is on husbandry, but since the article is not long and that part is only two paragraphs. Should something like that be moved to Wikibooks or simply deleted?

Otherwise, I must admit (and I'm happy to say) that I'm having some trouble finding any similar husbandry sections in the snake articles. Perhaps the problem is more prevalent among our articles on the other herps. --Jwinius (talk) 13:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Bearded dragons was not a very good example; I did clean it up when I created the transwiki, but the page has since moved from the genus article and been filled with the Howto-type info. Besides screwing up my efforts to sort out the Pogona articles, it also created a problem with the page history. The criteria for moving to Books would not be length or subject (pet), rather the manner in which it is presented. Encyclopedias do not contain instructions, but if some practices by herp keepers is 'factual' (objective and reliably sourced) it should be included. So-called husbandry may be notable, the relative length in unfinished articles should not be a basis for deletion or transwiki - expanding the article's other sections is, of course, encouraged :-) cygnis insignis 14:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, husbandry may be notable, but only with a historical context (in my opinion). Otherwise it's a free-for-all. StevePrutz (talk) 15:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Target article

Was just playing around with the page ranks by hits of wikipedia pages on http://stats.grok.se/ and noticed that snake is actually ahead of many other popular taxon articles. The ranks are - Tiger 853, Snake 1230, Fish 1394, Elephant 1793, Bird 2150, Ant 3548, Insect 4208, Frog 4817, Lizard 7754 . Seems like a good article for this project to collaborate on for a start. Shyamal (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Cut out some of the images and it looks prime for a GA nomination. StevePrutz (talk) 15:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Today I replaced the family tables and fixed the taxobox, but there's still has a long way to go. The last I've been doing is to fix the references, which are in a sorry state, but here are a few points I can think of:

• The text needs to be reorganized. For example, readers need to be presented with a description before any evolution is explained.
• Thee introduction needs to be rewritten. It contains nonsense (30 feet!?) and does not properly summarize the article.
• Something important that's missing is a word about how snakes are generally feared and misunderstood by people; they are part of the ecosystem and are great for pest control, yet most people kill them on sight.
• Certain parts can be shortened or deleted altogether. For example, much or all of the info in the Skin section can be found in the Snake scales article. Do we really need to repeat so much of that? The same goes for some of the locomotion subsections, and there's more.

This article is so long and so full of junk, it's going to be a real challenge to get it up to GA level. --Jwinius (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I do think that some things need to be removed (the snake scales thing, for instance), but other parts should stay or be added. I'm highly biased, but I think the locomotion aspect should stay - few people really understand how snakes move, even in science, and I can actually guarantee you that section is better written than anything in any textbook you'll find. I'm also planning on completely re-doing the feeding section, to make it, well, not suck - adding stuff about mandibular raking in scolecophidians, the exact mechanisms of swallowing in macrostomates, etc. However, that might not happy until February, as I'm currently swamped in my own experiments and fieldwork preparations. Mokele (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Just an observation: Now that I've had this article on my watchlist again for a while, it's amazing to see how often it gets vandalized -- for the past week it's happened about three times a day. I can't help but wonder how much less this would be if the article was renamed to "Serpentes". --Jwinius (talk) 01:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The inbreeds would find it off of the redirect.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but perhaps not immediately if it were a disambiguation page instead. --Jwinius (talk) 11:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

If the article was an FA, it could easily earn itself some semi-protection. Would be a lot better to try and change the younger vandalistic pranksters into budding herpetologists than to try hiding away an article. Shyamal (talk) 11:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Is this only an option for articles with FA status? Why not now? --Jwinius (talk) 12:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:PROTECT is the official policy but this Wikipedia:Rough_guide_to_semi-protection is a useful explanation. Shyamal (talk) 12:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

After reading your second link, it looks to me like "Snake" qualifies for semi-protection. Of the last 250 edits, 76 were to revert vandalism. That means that a number approaching 50% of the past (250-76=) 174 edits were vandalism, almost always by unregistered editors. I suggest we apply protection to the article for a month and monitor what happens after that. If the current pattern resumes, I believe unlimited protection will be in order. --Jwinius (talk) 14:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

After making a request at WP:RFP, semi-protection for "Snake" has been granted for a month. This is definitely going to make a difference. If the old pattern resumes after the protection automatically expires, I'm going to make another request for permanent semi-protection. Hopefully, this will also inspire a few more people to put in some serious work on this article. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the month of semi-protection for Snake was a success, but as soon as that ended the situation quickly returned to normal. Consequently, I've now requested permanent semi-protection for the article. --Jwinius (talk) 11:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Amphibians of Madagascar

I'd like to inform you that I created the article Amphibians of Madagascar traslating it from it:Anfibi del Madagascar. --Esculapio (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I've cleaned it up and given it a WikiProject tag. bibliomaniac15 00:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for cleaning it up! Does anybody in the project have a bot to insert a link to the page in all the related articles? --Esculapio (talk) 11:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Updating taxonomy

I moved Mantidactylus grandisonae to Blommersia grandisonae. The same should be done with others species previously classified as Mantidactylus and now moved to the new genus Blommersia (see amphibiaweb) --Esculapio (talk) 14:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless things are changing behind the scenes, I believe the amphibian people here at the English Wikipedia are using the AMNH database together with Frost et al. (2006) as their primary taxonomic reference. See our project page. Hopefully, that's where amphibiaweb get their taxonomy also, or else some further changes may have to be made. --Jwinius (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The new genus is accepted by AMNH too - see http://research.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/references.php?id=15972 --Esculapio (talk) 09:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

American croc

I'm going to work on the American crocodile in the next few days. If anyone sees something missing, please add it to the article or discuss here. StevePrutz (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone give me a hand with the citations for size records? StevePrutz (talk) 18:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Almost everything I have is on snakes. However, I do have a few sizes and references for you regarding this species:

• 14 feet 2 inches - Ditmars RL. 1933. Reptiles of the World. Revised Edition. The MacMillan Company. 329 pp. 89 plates.
• 7.5-12 ft. (2.3-3.7 m) - Conant R. 1975. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and Central North America. Second Edition. First published in 1958. Houghton Mifflin Company Boston. 429 pp. 48 plates. ISBN 0-395-19979-4. ISBN 0-395-19979-8 (pbk.).
• 7-15' (2.1-4.6 m) - Behler JL, King FW. 1979. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Reptiles and Amphibians. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 743 pp. LCCCN 79-2217. ISBN 0-394-50824-6.

Hope that helps! Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Additional info: all of the above measurements are for specimens found in the United States only. However, both Conant (1975) and Behler & King (1979) also give 23' (7 m) as the maximum for C. acutus in South America. --Jwinius (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Blue-tongued Skink

Is the picture in Eastern Blue-tongued Lizard quite right? A search for Tiliqua scincoides gives the impression that this reptile looks rather more like the one shown here www.scienceviews.com/photo/browse/SIA0151.jpg . I also note that this article refers to the reptile in question as a lizard rather than a skink, unlike Northern Blue-tongued Skink and Western Blue-tongued Skink. I am a lemon (talk) 04:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Both photos are correct - the species has a wide range of regional color variation. And it should be called a skink like the others. Mokele (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Eastern Blue-tongued Lizard (Tiliqua scincoides scincoides) is an article on a subspecies and its image closely accords with the description of that. It is placed in the family Scincidae (Skinks), and has been informally named as a lizard and a skink, or simply the Common bluetongue. These 'common' names have also been applied to the whole species Tiliqua scincoides, except in the West where the common bluetongue is the Shingleback or bobtail, Tiliqua rugosa.

... actually, this is not clear at all! If only there was some systematic arrangement that gave a unique name to an organism's description. What's that you say? There is one and I've been using it!? And so does every reliable source in the world! Then it is out of our hands, we should use it. Any objections to removing the ambiguity from the titles? cygnis insignis 07:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Working systematically with common names

Even though Wikipedians love making lists of all kinds of names, the way in which they deal with common names in articles on biological taxa -- just by mentioning them somewhere in the lead section -- has always struck me as distinctly unsatisfactory. If there are many names, why don't we list them all? If there are none, why don't we say so? And shouldn't they be displayed so they can be more easily found? At first I followed WP:LEAD like everyone else, but soon found myself wondering about how to improve matters. I wanted something that would be systematic, predictable, catch the eye, accommodate any reasonable number of names and treat them all as equally as possible.

After some development, I eventually figured the solution would be to list a few names on a single line above the lead and any others below in a section called "Common names". Here are some examples:

• No common names: Brachyophidium, Bothriopsis peruviana
• One common name: Bitis parviocula, Gongylophis colubrinus
• Few common names: Python reticulatus, Typhlops monensis
• Many common names: Agkistrodon piscivorus, Vipera berus

Despite being a little different, some of these articles, such as the last two, have GA status, so the format is already considered acceptable to some degree. Nevertheless, I've never been completely happy with the current format. I think the best thing about it is the concept; the way it looks can likely be improved. What do you think of this idea? Would it be useful in the articles you've worked on? If so, perhaps we can work together to produce something even better. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 01:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

For the varanids, I suppose we've done it on a case by case basis. Some, like the Komodo dragon, have one highly recognizable common name, so we keep it at that. Others, like Varanus salvadorii, have a ton, so they have their scientific name for the article name. So far though, I think that article is the only one in which I have implemented the format you've done. bibliomaniac15 01:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

After re-reading this discussion I believe the indented list should be a part of any new article that is binomial. For those other thousands of articles, maybe a new parameter in the taxobox template could be an avenue for giving multiple common names face-time. StevePrutz (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, in my recent articles I have been bolding the actual names instead of the phrase "common names". I think this makes more sense. See Pseudacris fouquettei and Chiromantis samkosensis. StevePrutz (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

When I was developing the format, I came up with a bunch of different versions. See User:Jwinius/Style. I once considered bolding all the names as well (example 3g), but didn't favor it because too much bold is not a good thing either. --Jwinius (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Related discussions are going on now on several other talk pages (here, here, here). One issue is that in some cases the base article uses a common name, and it is also necessary in many cases to disambiguate common names (eg Category:Plant common names). --Una Smith (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Taxonomy amendment

According to our current guidelines, the primary taxonomic source for snakes is ITIS. I would like to suggest an amendment to this: to add the TIGR Reptile Database as a secondary source. The problem is that, although ITIS is the most authoritative taxonomic source currently available on the Internet for snakes, it is not yet complete. The only group affected is the family Colubridae, but it is huge and represents almost two thirds of all snake species. At the moment, TIGR lists 1938 colubrid species, while the ITIS has obvious gaps. Of course, it must be made abundantly clear that ITIS always overrides TIGR whenever there is a conflict, or else we will quickly run into problems. On the other hand, a few problems will be inevitable, such as with Elaphe. Regardless, I don't see that we have too much choice in the matter, as we can't really go on ignoring the colubrid section and ITIS may take as much as another 5-10 years to complete. Comments, objections? --Jwinius (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Please provide references that support your assertions regarding ITIS. cygnis insignis 07:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The snake info at ITIS is based on the continuing taxonomic work of Dr. Roy W. McDiarmid, which was compiled for the Herpetologists' League and adopted as the Standard Reference for Snake Nomenclature by CITES in 1997. The first volume, Snake Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference, vol. 1 was published in 1999. More will follow. It is probably the most important taxonomic reference since Boulenger's Catalogue of the Snakes in the British Museum (Natural History) (1893-1896). But, if you don't believe me, read this old discussion and see the comment made DFCisneros, who is an actual herpetologist. He also made some remarks about TIGR, which at the time was called the EMBL Reptile Database. --Jwinius (talk) 16:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The info at ITIS is severely and unnecessarily out of date for most groups. Newly described species take years to come online, uncontentious taxonomic changes that rapidly spread through the taxonomic literature take many years to become incorporated, etc. Just to give a couple of examples, in the genus Bothrops, ITIS does not list the species Bothrops alcatraz (decribed 2002) and Bothrops muriciensis (described 2001), whereas it lists Bothrops pradoi (synonymised 2001). In Trimeresurus sensu lato , none of the species decribed since 2000 is listed. I guess the generic rearrangement proposed for the core Trimeresurus group is still too contentious for many, but Protobothrops has been accepted pretty much universally since the beginning of this decade, and yet in ITIS, they are still listed under Trimeresurus. This is not caution, it is quite simply outdated. It is high time that this WikiProject gave up its slavish adherence to one particular database. Obviously, there is taxonomic disagreement on some groups. However, forcing everyone to adopt a database that is the best part of a decade out of date for largely uncontentious matters compromises the entire system - Wikipedia should up-to-date, not a museum of 1990s taxonomy. Including the TIGR database as a secondary source is a partial solution, but I would disagree with the "automatic priority" for ITIS - far too much of the apparent "cautious conservatism" is simply lack of updating, not deliberate caution. Caissaca (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, then what are you suggesting: that we simply decide for ourselves what and what not to include? That would conflict with WP:NOR. --Jwinius (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

"Follow ITIS unless that version has been overtaken in the peer-reviewed scientific literature" might be a good starting point. ITIS (just like the TIGR database) is a secondary source - it follows the WP:NOR principle and takes its information from the primary scientific literature. I really cannot see any reason why we shouldn't either, at least in reasonably uncontentious cases. In particular, new species descriptions that appeared in the mainstream, peer-reviewed literature should be accepted and the species added to the entry for the relevant genus on the basis of the description. It is absurd that species described 6 or 7 years and accepted without a hint of disagreement in the rest of the systematic literature should not be listed simply because a database has not been updated since then. I guess generic reassignments are more of a problem, since these are often contentious - a "cooling down period" might be appropriate. Or an agreement to wait for at least N subsequent systematic publications to follow the new arrangement. At the end of the day, there is room for comments in any Wikipedia entry that can reflect taxonomic uncertainty. The current policy of "if it isn't in ITIS, it doesn't exist" is starting to make Wikipedia look very out-of-date for herp taxonomy, and compromises the respect that all the hard work that has gone into it deserves. Caissaca (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact that ITIS is usually not up to date is something that I will not argue about with you. However, the process of determining which peer-reviewed scientific publications should and should not be followed, would be problematic at best, especially when access to many of these publications is restricted, or at least expensive. At worst this would lead to editors citing literature that they have not read, that might not even be relevant, or that turns out not to be peer-reviewed after all. And even in a best case scenario, in which we would have a group of professional herpetologists who would be willing to spend a lot of time here to argue with each another and hash out a taxonomy for us, others might still consider the result to be original research. So, I think that ideally your approach might be best, since that's the way it's done within the scientific community. But, here at Wikipedia, where we're expected to remain neutral and every anonymous fool's opinion carries as much weight as anyone else's, I think making the decision to follow one or more third party taxonomic sources is the most practical solution. --Jwinius (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

If any individual chooses to read and cite recent taxonomic literature, then it makes perfect sense to consider that a reliable source! People who don't understand the peer-reviewed literature won't read it, and therefore won't try to cite it in the first place. "ITIS and more recent peer-reviewed literature" is a perfectly fine, workable suggestion for what to base Wikipedia taxonomy on. In fact, neither using TIGR to supplement ITIS, nor directly using the peer reviewed literature, sounds at all contradictory to using ITIS as the primary taxonomic source. - Enuja (talk) 21:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Jwinius, I can see where you are coming from, but I just cannot believe that there is no better system than the present one. It seems to me that we are deliberately discarding the main advantage of Wikipedia, which is that of rapid updating. We should at least agree to bring new species into species lists for genera when they have been described in the peer-reviewed literature (mainstream journals - rarely difficult to tell apart from self-published, self-promoting pieces of garbage, which aren't all that common anyway). By and large, these tend to stay in the system, and relatively few end up the subject of major contention. Even then, that contention can be reflected in the species' or its genus' entry. To my mind, it would be better to include questionable species, with the possibility of suitably referenced comments pointing out any controversy surrounding them, than to simply pretend they don't exist. Many users would presumably come here to find better information on something they have heard about elsewhere - not mentioning the questionable species provides no service to them. For issues like genus redefinitions and reclassifications, I agree that this is much more difficult to handle. However, your ITIS vs TIGR list suggestion is unlikely to make much of a change. Giving automatic supremacy to ITIS will in most cases result in "no change" - TIGR gets updated, ITIS doesn't (or at least not very often). Taxonomy is a dynamic field, Wikipedia is a dynamic resource that changes and adapts everyday, not a book that is unchangeable forever once it's off the press. It seems unfortunate that this WikiProject should renounce this tremendous benefit of the Wikipedia system.... Just my $.02 Caissaca (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It's possible that what I've been advocating amounts to an overly cautions and conservative approach to a very complicated and dynamic situation, but at least it offers a way keeps things relatively manageable. If we decide to do as you and Enuja suggest, then the task of describing all snake species (over 2,900 of them) will become much more difficult to complete without becoming a mess. In being so progressive, we would be attempting to do more than ITIS or TIGR, but with fewer capable people and limited resources. Therefore, I think that what you are advocating currently amounts to a choice of quantity over quality. --Jwinius (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

If you mean that we are doing more than ITIS and TIGR in terms of updating more frequently (or at least leaving the possibility open), then I would consider that a good thing. I simply cannot see any good coming from waiting 5-10 years to insert a newly described species into a list of the species of a genus. People will want to read about them as soon as they hear of them. Take the recent revision of Leiopython as an example: a number of species were either revalidated or described in revision published in a major, mainstream, peer-reviewed herpetological journal. The default option should be that the conclusions of such a paper are accepted and used, end of story. People will want to know about them. I simply cannot see how pretending that they don't exist and continuing to refer to Leiopython as a monotypic genus, until however many years it takes the good folks at ITIS to pull their fingers out and update their database, helps anyone whatsoever. Will all those species find unanimous resonance in the systematic community? Maybe, maybe not. But then all databases also contain questionable entries. The beauty of Wikipedia is that we can change the entry to reflect developments. Let's not forget Wikipedia:BB, and let's not be scared of reflecting the dynamism of our rapidly changing and expanding understanding of biodiversity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caissaca (talk • contribs) 10:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Caissaca, I fully understand what you mean by the "beauty of Wikipedia" and it would indeed be nice to have everything up to date all the time. I too often find the idea of being able to add new species only as soon as they are recognized by ITIS (or TIGR) just as unfortunate as you do, but simply stating that we want something better won't make that dream come true. Even for skilled professional taxonomists with entire libraries at their disposal, developing a reasonable taxonomy for so many species is a daunting task that is rarely undertaken. At the moment, we simply have to be realistic and admit that we don't have anyone who is capable and has the time and resources necessary to do this, and that includes me. We can still mention new species in the taxonomy sections of the various articles, but in my experience following a third party taxonomy is a great way to remain neutral while giving us the chance to build up a series of quality articles. In addition, not following a third party taxonomy is a great way to cause endless debates about which species should be included, the likes of which will probably make the ones about common name titles look trivial. --Jwinius (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we will have to agree to disagree on some of this - I guess it boils down to degrees of caution. However, let me make sure that I really understand what you are suggesting when you propose using ITIS as the primary source and TIGR as the secondary one, but ITIS overriding TIGR in case of conflict. Can you describe what you think we should do in the following situations of apparent conflict between the two: 1) a new species is described but not yet listed in either ITIS or TIGR; 2) a new species is described and listed in TIGR, but ITIS has not been updated and the species is not mentioned; 3) a new species is described, listed as valid in TIGR, and listed as a synonym in ITIS? In other words, does ITIS reign supreme only where ITIS actively disagrees with TIGR, or also when ITIS "abstains"? Caissaca (talk) 09:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Don't forget, I actually think it's a waste of time to make a page for every species, much less subspecies: I think we should have page for every family and for many geneses, and for every species that someone cares enough about to make a page for. If you want to use a source more up-to-date than ITIS for some particular group or species, go for it. That's all I'm saying. Wikipedia is not a top-down organized project with a team of workers, so it'll have whatever content people are interested in adding, not whatever content you or I or the Amphibians and Reptiles project page says it should have. I cannot chose either the quality or the quantity of Amphibian and Reptile pages: the totality of the people working on these pages is determines both. Jwinius, I think you try far, far too hard for consistency. It isn't going to happen. - Enuja (talk) 01:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You make consistency sound like a bad thing. At least I make an effort. --Jwinius (talk) 02:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, authors often need to submit their taxonomic finding to the ITIS themselves. Roy and the staff of the ITIS can't handle that large amount of new taxa described in several journals every month. When it comes to the revision of the genus Leiopython, the names and new taxa were submitted to the ITIS, and they will insert them by the next database update. Same for the TIGR database. Actually, there are some professional taxonomist hanging around Wiki, contributing things and correcting false claims. Cheers, Wulf 80.136.201.137 (talk) 12:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Conflict situations

(Continued debate with Caissaca)
In my view, no matter what we do, the idea should be to maintain a system in which one or more third parties are used to resolve all taxonomic questions. So, in case of 1.) Mention the new species and its reference in the Taxonomy section of the article for the appropriate higher taxon. In case of 2.) Same as in 1, at the very least using TIGR as a reference. In case of 3.) Make sure the synonym is included in the article and there is a redirect for it. We may want to mention that other sources still recognize the name as valid, again using TIGR as a reference. In other words, in all cases ITIS would reign supreme.
Okay, that would seem like a simple solution, and it's what I had in mind to begin with, but I see now that this isn't going to work. That's because, although these rules would be fine for the other families, if we were to apply them to the Colubridae section absolutely nothing would change (ITIS would still reign supreme). One or more exceptions would therefore have to be made to the rules for the Colubridae, but that would certainly serve to complicate matters, probably to the point of impracticality.
This leaves only one simple solution: to use ITIS as our primary source for all snake families, while using TIGR as our primary source only for the Colubridae -- at least until ITIS completes its own Colubridae section, but I fear that won't be any time soon. Using TIGR as a primary source would mean that we would have to accept some bad things, such as Pantherophis, but I guess it would be a price worth paying for the taxonomic guidance and stability that we would receive in return. --Jwinius (talk) 14:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

"at least until ITIS completes its own Colubridae section, but I fear that won't be any time soon" - and that encapsulates the entire problem, which is that while some of the other sections, e.g., Viperidae, Boidae etc. were brought up to a common standard through following McDiarmid et al. 1999, that is nevertheless the 1999 standard, and in dire need of updating as well. Going back to the three scenarios I suggested, I guess I could live with your solutions for scenarios 1 and 3 (let ITIS rule where there is active contradiction), but feel that that would be entirely inappropriate for scenario 2, where the inertia of ITIS would force us into a state of gradual fossilization. Pantherophis is of course one scenario where no arrangement will please everyone, since it's all still up in the air. Caissaca (talk) 16:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

"and that encapsulates the entire problem" -- Yeah, yeah: we're damned if we follow a third party taxonomy, but we're also damned if we don't. With any taxonomy, the knowledge is in the organization, so if we try to make one up for ourselves we will suck at it for sure.

Actually, ITIS isn't entirely static. Since I began poring over McDiarmid et al. (1999) I have discovered a fair number of minor mistakes in the ITIS database. At first I was concerned, thinking that there might be too many, but after contacting them I found that they were quite happy to listen. All of the problems have since been corrected. Once example of of this was the omission of both Crotalus durissus unicolor and C. d. vergrandis. After I pointed this out, Dr. McDiarmid decided to overhaul the entire species based on a 2005 paper by Wolfgang Wüster. To me, this is curious, because Dr. Wüster is the consulting expert for TIGR and they still haven't updated their database accordingly. I've also been in contact with Dr. Peter Uetz of TIRG and have pointed out problems with that database, but although Uetz admitted the problems and seemed like a nice enough fellow, no corrections were ever made. Conclusion: neither ITIS nor TIGR is really up to date.

As for scenario 2, if we were to recognize TIGR's new species, we could get into trouble: what happens if a new species isn't really new, but it just got moved from one genus to another? We could end up with two articles the describe the same taxon. But, like I said last time, I don't think anymore that we should attempt to merge these two taxonomies using those kind of rules; I'm sure it would cause too many problems. --Jwinius (talk) 01:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is claiming that TIGR is perfect - as you found yourself, there are many inconsistencies. The problem is probably that it is being run on a volunteer basis by people have too much else on their plates as part of their day jobs. I understand that they are trying to do something about that. Regarding scenario 2, it is actually extremely easy to see if a species is new or has been moved - it gives author and year for the original description of the species. So if you look up the pitviper with the species name "mangshanensis", it comes up Zhaoermia mangshanensis Zhao 1990 - even though the listing under Zhaoermia may be recent, it is obvious that it is not a new species description. Contrast that with the entry for Oxyuranus temporalis Doughty et al. 2007, where it is very clear that it is new. But of course, if we were to stick to ITIS, we would have to continue pretending it doesn't exist. Fortunately, it already has an entry, and is already listed under Oxyuranus, including also the fact that it was listed as one of the top five new species of 2007 by the International Institute for Species Exploration (IISE). Are you seriously saying that that entry should be deletred because ITIS can't get its act together? I am not clamining that a more flexible approach would be problem-free, but they are probems that will be resolvable. To my mind, that would be vastly preferable to the current approach of self-enforced obsolescence. Caissaca (talk) 09:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

There really is no reason to stick to any single source for reptiles or indeed attempting to provide rules of thumb for sourcing of taxonomy for this or any other group. As long as there is a proper examination of the literature and citations are provided, it fits into WP. Taxonomic debates should be presented following WP:NPOV and that can sometimes be tricky when combined with CoI and citations to grey literature (non reptile example - this fly Bengalia article has a visiting author who has to move it to a new family that he has created for it - the way it is dealt here is to provide both sides of taxonomic debate with references and leave it until someone really resolves it - wonder how EoL plans to deal with that). However a nice electronic database does have the advantage of allowing easy creation of stub articles on WP. And it helps to be a little conservative when it comes to higher level systematics (see Wikipedia_talk:BIRD#The_Recent_DNA_Study_Bird_Orders - for example of following the bleeding edge in higher level grouping based on just one website - Tolweb in this case, and again conflicts here are solved by the application of WP:RS ). Shyamal (talk) 10:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Great. If only we could count on regular, rational debates in this small corner of Wikipedia. I still think that what you guys want is idealistic at the present time. Many years from now, I imagine (hope) that a significant number of herpetologists will regularly hang out here hash out a taxonomy together that will beat the pants off of other on-line taxonomies, such as ITIS and TIGR (which so far have basically been one-man shows and are thus never up to date). If I'm still here by that time, I will have mostly played my part already, which will have been to help create the intermediate environment that attracted them here in the first place.

The question would then be, How should we define that intermediate environment and what's the best way to get there from here? I think the majority here would agree that the most important step we can take in that direction is to get WP:NC (fauna) to look more like WP:NC (flora), although that will clearly not be an easy task.

As I see it, the next important step will be to get our house in order so that it will at least look somewhat presentable: a place that might be considered deserving of the volunteer time of busy professionals. It sounds like what you guys want to do is just go for it: let the amateurs do now what we hope the professionals do for us later. The result? A mess, of course, which won't impress anyone. I would rather that we first give ourselves the opportunity to build up something more substantial and attract the attention of some more capable individuals before we take that step. --Jwinius (talk) 15:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

hang out here hash out a taxonomy together  !! Jaap, it does not look you have interacted with many taxonomy/systematics folks ! You only need to see a member of the old school (much endangered species) taxonomist meet someone from the new molecular systematics school (often someone who may well have never heard of Ernst Mayr or his writings) to see how hopeless the taxonomic community is at collaboration. (Paying money for EoL contributors can only worsen their lack of collaboration !) Take a look at what taxonomists think .... Shyamal (talk) 05:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I haven't. But, if what you're saying is correct, then what hope would there be for us? It almost sounds like you're now arguing in favor of following third party taxonomies. Or, do you consider us more capable of constructive collaboration, despite the fact that, as amateurs, we not only lack access to the library resources that the professionals have, but most of us refuse to read that which we do have access to, let alone attempt to weigh the arguments therein (we're not even equipped to understand it all). --Jwinius (talk) 16:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand what "third party taxonomies" is or indeed what the first or second parties are either. The newer evidence in species delineations arise from examinations of phylogeographic patterns in selected molecular sequences and these lead mostly to applications of the phylogenetic species concept (although many of these "species" may well "potentially interbeed" a la BSC). I would suggest that as biologists and editors that it is important to examine edits carefully. Some of these may well be made by experts in the field and putting them off by saying only ITIS or TIGR is right is part of the problem of WP. As an example, take your edits on Trimeresurus popeorum (which may well be a lapsus) and your reverts of an anonymous editor. I examined the literature then and found that many of the anons' edits were indeed correct and supported by literature such as [1] and did try to prevail on you. It helps to ensure that all relevant literature is reviewed in the article with citations. Rewriting the contents from just one book is helpful to some extent but ensuring that newer evidence is reviewed and incorporated is a key advantage offered by WP over books. The historic trend is that the bounding lines between "species" have consistently narrowed and blurred with most people accepting that the sense in which one uses a name is dependent on the application. I would claim that one of the chief applications of taxonomy in this decade is conservation despite your claims that Conservation efforts, by the way, often have little to do with taxonomic status. Nothing personal, but I think we need to be knowledgeable enough to recognize others who can contribute positively to WP. Shyamal (talk) 04:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree entirely with Shaymal - the Trimeresurus popeiorum entry is a classical example of where slavish adherence to ITIS in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary has frozen the entry for this species in the state of knowledge of the 1990s, which actually means the state of knowledge of the early 1980s! The simple facts are that the correct spelling of the species epithet is popeiorum, for the reasons outlined by David & Vogel (andthe Code is available online for anyone to check the facts - www.iczn.org), and that several groups of herpetologists have made profound progress in unravelling the relationships between the different populations and shown them to consist of multiple species, even though this may not yet be reflected in a unanimously agreed nomenclature. I find it absolutely untenable that clearly knowledgeable contributors have their contributions overturned with a glib comment that ITIS and McDiarmid et al. (1999) are the sole source of all taxonomic wisdom, and nothing must deviate from them. This is insulting and arrogant towards those contributors, and, at the end of the day, it is also a slap in the face of those scientits who work hard to unravel the systematics of so many taxa. Finally, I think we need to put McDiarmid et al into some kind of context here: this is not necessarily a work of consensus across much of the herpetological community. Yes, they used over 20 reviewers for the book, which is a very creditable effort indeed. However, at the end of the day, where there were differences among reviewers, the three main editors (McDiarmid, Campbell and Toure) had to make decisions as to which reviewer's recommendations to follow, and did so - quite rightly, of course. However, let's not kid ourselves that every last taxonomic decision in that volume has the unanimous backing of each and every person who had some input into that book. Some of the decisions taken in that book were controversial at the time of writing. In a number of cases, the stance taken in that book has long since been abandoned by most of the herpetological community, due to later evidence contradicting it. That's not a criticism of McDiarmid et al., but simply a reflection of the progress made in science since 1999. However, when it comes to the Viperidae, it seems to me that the volume by David & Ineich (The Venomous Snakes of the World: Systematics annd Distribution. Dumerilia, 3: 3-499, 1999) is a better reflection of the currently widely accepted nomenclature of the family. The bottom line is that Wikipedia simply cannot carry on ignoring all progress in systematics under the guise of compliance with a single data source. Consistency and stabilit are good things, but not at the price we are being asked to pay in terms of everything being grossly out of date. Caissaca (talk) 09:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Caissaca, I should clarify that the problem is not due to WP itself - in fact all the improvements are possibly by adhering to the core principles of WP:NOR, WP:CITE and WP:NPOV. (Also worth noting WP:AGF, and WP:OWN) I do not keep track of the current literature on reptiles, but those who do should weigh in. Active projects such as WP:BIRD with a number of participants have far fewer problems partly because there is a culture of cooperation there with a number of qualified (professionally even) people who can weigh in on problematic issues. It would be wonderful if users like Caissaca can make the necessary improvements while providing inline citations using the ref tags (I am sure we have enough hands for formatting text) and it would be great if we can ensure that WP articles are ahead of 1999 books. Primary literature sources need to be examined and cited to fill the gaps and update the structure provided by earlier secondary/tertiary sources. Shyamal (talk) 10:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

PS: Google Scholar is an excellent resource for finding the latest literature and those of us without library access can now make use of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange. The folks there have been doing an excellent job of obtaining reprints on request. Shyamal (talk) 10:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Shyamal, I did not mean to imply that the problems I highlighted were an inherent WP problem - and everything I suggest here is consistent with WP:NOR, WP:CITE and WP:NPOV. I think we both agree that none of these require us to stick to a single source of taxonomic information, especially a frequently outdated one. Taxonomy is a messy world, and although sticking with one single database may provide an illusion of stability and there being one correct answer, it also holds WP back from answering very legitimate questions that users are entitled to ask of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caissaca (talk • contribs) 10:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Caissaca, Shyamal: I want to thank you both for your patience with me in this debate. I see now that I can no longer defend my old point of view, which was to follow a single taxonomy. This method may seem easier to work with, but also has serious drawbacks as you've pointed out. The alternative -- which is to always leave our taxonomy open to debate based on the latest and best possible scientific research -- will not always be as easy to work with, but is definitely a step forward and I cannot stand in the way of progress. The best thing is that I've actually learned something. I can think of many changes that will have to be made, including Trimeresurus popeiorum, so there is much work to be done. Also, if there are no objections I believe some changes to the Taxonomy section of our policy page will be in order: to remove ITIS for the suborder Serpentes and probably the AMNH for the order Amphibia as well. Thanks again! Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 00:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Jwinius, for your contribution to this discussion and for understanding our point of view. You have made many very valuable points, and I have certainly learned much as well. I am glad we have come to an agreement after a long debate, reflecting much thought and deeply held convictions on all sides. Caissaca (talk) 09:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Snakes

Following the recent decision to allow the taxonomy for our collection of Serpentes articles to be open to debate, I can only imagine that this will require a degree of coordination to keep things organized. I think it would be constructive to have a separate place to discuss and organize these matters. Is there anyone else here who would like to see the creation of WikiProject Snakes? --Jwinius (talk) 14:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd be interested, but it probably should be more of a task force under this project.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It would be a "descendant wikiproject" of WP:AAR, similar to WikiProject Dinosaurs. --Jwinius (talk) 14:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably a good idea - there are plenty of bones of contention that would benefit from a place to discuss them with a view to reaching a consensus, rather than anarchic edits and reversals. Caissaca (talk) 15:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If the AAR project was a hive of activity I would be all for this. But truly how many active members (a dozen?) work on this project every day? ...too little to divide up. I would recommend a task force instead of a whole new wikiproject (see WP:TASKFORCE). Perhaps have Crocodilia, Serpentes and other forces. StevePrutz (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

To me, a taskforce doesn't look like much more than a talk-shop. I was thinking a little beyond that. For example, to explain and standardize the organization. --Jwinius (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we should figure out centralization for the main project first before we branch out. In the future, though, that would be nice. bibliomaniac15 05:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

A potential feature

Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis cost several organizations multiple millions of dollars this year in the AZA Year of the Frog program. I think the public ought to know about it. Is there any way the people in the Amphibians and Reptiles project can contribute to the article to get it featured as a Did You Know article? All that is disqualifying it at the moment is no new information. A few paragraphs should suffice. Thanks, Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It cannot qualify as a DYK article (neither new nor newly expanded 5-fold), but it could be developed into a Good Article then Featured Article. --Una Smith (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Identification

Identification is needed for this image (File:Unidentified lizard.jpg) which I believe is a a juvenile and from the Lophognathus family however I'm unsure. Bidgee (talk) 12:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Boiga id

Can someone confirm or dismiss the current id on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BoigaWynaad1.jpg and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BoigaWynaad.jpg Shyamal (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Judging from the images available at the Reptile Database, it looks to be a pretty close match for Boiga ceylonensis. --Jwinius (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems so but I am not convinced that the species in Sri Lanka and the species in the Western Ghats are one. The separation of Sri Lanka and India goes to about 20 mya and I am not sure this species is an ocean traveller like Boiga irregularis and http://members.fortunecity.com/ukp001/naja/colubridae/boiga_ceylonensis.htm suggests that there are dentition differences in the Indian populations of this species. Shyamal (talk) 04:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

So, you're hoping that someone has described the Indian population as a separate or new taxon? It will be interesting to see if this turns out to be the case. It reminds of the taxonomy section that I added to the Crotalus ruber article the other day. Cedros Island is not much closer to the mainland than Sri Lanka is to India, but the snakes on the island are not considered different enough to be regarded as a separate species. Campbell & Lamar (2004) considered this island population to represent a separate subspecies, but others don't. --Jwinius (talk) 11:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Being more interested in processes rather than patterns, I am not into the new species itches (that red link needs to be fixed). The problem in this case is that we have rather old literature and the few who work on herps publish in completely inaccessible private circulation journals- Hamadryad, J Bombay Nat Hist Soc etc. Shyamal (talk) 12:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ashok Captain writes to say that the Boiga beddomei-ceylonensis-nuchalis complex needs review. Shyamal (talk) 04:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Broad-Headed Snake

I'm afraid the photograph of this snake is of a Diamond Python. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skibum261 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're referring to File:Broad-Headed Snake.JPG, please explain your fear. --Jwinius (talk) 09:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The snake in the photograph is not a Broad-Headed Snake it is a Diamond Python. ---. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skibum261 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what species a broad-headed snake is supposed to be. --Jwinius (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The photograph actually indicates that the species is Morelia s. spilota.Skibum261 (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That was my doing. Common names are so confusing. --Jwinius (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The image very clearly shows a diamond python (Morelia spilota spilota), not a broad-headed snake (Hoplocephalus bungaroides) - having said that, it is a nicer picture than any of those currently showing under Morelia spilota, so could perhaps be inserted there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caissaca (talk • contribs) 11:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

naming conventions

It has been suggested that Wikipedia should change its naming conventions for organism articles to require scientific names, and this suggestion is being discussed fully at Wikipedia naming conventions. Just a head's up, since this would affect you guys. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I, for one, would welcome such a change. Thanks! --Jwinius (talk) 10:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Cold-blooded

I am bouncing some ideas on how to handle the messy cold-blooded article. If you have any thoughts, I would welcome them at Talk:Cold-blooded#Proposed_Change. StevePrutz (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

{{thermoreg}} was created to try to help navigate the many articles about ecto/endothermy. The articles themselves are needing some significant work, if you want to pitch in. StevePrutz (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Mass article moves taking place

Hi Folks, Just thought I'd call you attention to the activities of User talk:Shpiglet who has been been busy unilaterally moving many of our articles (almost 50 in the past 3 weeks) from their previous scientific-name article titles to (capitalized) common names. This is despite the fact that multiple common names usually exist for the species in question. This user has been addressed on numerous occasions regarding his or her behavior, but does not respond. Does anyone here care? --Jwinius (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Mike Searson and I had talked about Shpiglet, and I've warned him on several occasions. I'm starting to think that this issue is beginning to need outside intervention. bibliomaniac15 00:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I left him a tidbit about using capitalization properly. I didn't mention the hot-topic of pagenames, because I prefer to remain neutral. StevePrutz (talk)

Pachyostosis

I just created an article for Pachyostosis, which is was a redlink in Dugong, Dinocephalia, and Anteosaurus. It is rather stubby right now and could use some beefing up and proper cats, but I do not know enough to provide this. Any help expanding and classifying would be appreciated. Thanks! --Kevmin (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Basking article?

I noticed that there is not an article on basking (or "sunning"... that crocs, snakes, etc do to heat themselves). Anyone else think there should be something on this? StevePrutz (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Would lean towards a section in thermoregulation which seems like a more encyclopaedic option and less-dictionary like. Shyamal (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Haasiophis expansion

I just finished expanding the Haasiophis article from a one line stub. Would anyone be able to look over the article and proofread/teak it where needed? Also I haven't quite figured out how to asses the 5x expansion part of the DYK process, if someone familiar with it could see if it qualifies would they be willing to submit it for a DYK? Thanks again --Kevmin (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I decided to go for the DYK, Does anyone else have input on the article? Thanks --Kevmin (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Taxonomic and Phylogenic Classification Systems

I think the taxonomic and phylogenic classification systems shown in Tree of Life, Amphibians and Reptiles, and Palaeontology projects are confusing to folks who are not familiar with classification systems (who are, after all, a primary customer) because the two systems seem a little contradictory. A short, standardized lead-in paragraph describing the criteria of each system anywhere they are introduced would help immeasurably. To keep everyone on the same page, I’ve made this suggestion to all three projects. 74.242.254.68 (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Mike Sarles

To be honest, it's something the projects haven't really figured out how to implement. It's already a confusing and ever-changing science, and the problem is compounded by our inability to get a proper consensus around. bibliomaniac15 21:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, getting all three of these groups to agree to use the same approach is not going to work. For a while, we tried using a common higher-level taxonomy for reptiles and certain dinosaurs, but many of us found it confusing when our palaeontologists wanted to call the class "Sauropsida" instead of "Reptilia." It would be nice if we could all agree to use the same classification system, but seeing as zoology and palaeontology are rather different disciplines, and there is already plenty of disagreement among zoologists, I don't see that happening. After all, if our work is supposed to be a reflection of their work, any common system we might come up with would always be controversial to begin with. In conclusion, any attempt at unification at this point would be an idealistic and controversial exercise and it's therefore best to let the different WikiProjects do their own thing, however confusing that might seem. --Jwinius (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this comfusion what we have article space for? The systematic classification in the taxo-box should ideally give a quick systematic overview for the general reader. The experts (those fighting over whether to use Reptilia or Sauropsida) don't really need the taxo-box. Ideally, bout views should be given space (see amniota for an example of a text with two systems discussed). Wikipedia isn't constrained by the same limitation as paper encylopedia, those wishing to embelish the finer points can write an ten page article if they wish to, but the discussion over what units one preffer or what systematic system to use should be a part of the main text, not the taxon-box. Petter Bøckman (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed rule for maximal lengths

With particularly large reptiles, there's a persistent problem of exaggeration. Weeding out obviously false claims, such as 100 foot boa constrictors, isn't that difficult, but it becomes progressively more difficult as the claims become more plausible. However, if we're sloppy, we can let claims based on nothing but rumor add several feet, or even several meters, to the animal's length. Furthermore, once we allow a suspect report that adds one foot to the maximum, we're no longer in the position to deny other reports that increase it even further, since if we accept one, why not the other? Thus, I propose that we accept ONLY maximal lengths which are backed up by a museum specimen or peer-review journal accounts of reliably measured specimens. This gives us a simple, absolute position which is not vulnerable to the usual exaggerations and wild stories. All in favor? Mokele (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, but what about publications in book form by notable authors? I'm uncertain whether these are always subjected as rigorously to peer-review, but they're a damn site more reliable than Fox News. --Jwinius (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we can actually stick to the peer-review requirement. Some of the more technical works published in book form undergo peer review, and some of the books targeted at the general public or hobbyist audience have peer-review references that we can track back to. However, IMHO, unless there's some form of peer review somewhere along the line, it's just too prone to error. Even well-known, well-meaning authors can succumb to the desire to believe in a 30 foot snake. Mokele (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

We'll probably be repeating some of what is already stated in WP:RS, but if it helps some people to understand the value or relying on the one, as opposed to the danger of relying on the other -- especially when we consider the long history of mythology and misunderstanding that is often involved -- then I think this will be a step in the right direction. Anything to help contributors understand that we want our articles to be factual and accurate above all else -- not sources of entertainment or tourist information. --Jwinius (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

For most size ranges, I don't think it's that necesarry, however, for extraordinary claims for certain species: Retics, African Rocks, Anacondas, V. Salvadori, et.al. I think we need to adhere to peer review and in something like V. Salvadorii...split the atom even further(as I recall there is a peer reviewed journal citing a length longer than what is listed in the wiki, but due dilligence proved it to be unreliable). Zoo records and jouurnals are acceptable, but zoo placards should not be. There is a pic on here of a chuckwalla [2]that was misidentified as a Mexican Beaded Lizard because the photographer claimed "That's what the sign at the cage at the zoo said".--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I would be inclined to agree with Mike. It's safe to assume that smaller lizards and snakes have a more reliable count of their size. It's really when we talk about pythons, varanoids, and the like that we see the accounts of exaggeration. Also, OR be damned, that image was not a Beaded lizard of any sort, it's a chuckwalla if I ever saw one. bibliomaniac15 02:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Safe to assume? It's better not assume anything and certainly not with reptiles. Besides, the chances are that (most) all of your references for the smaller lizards and snakes come from reliable sources anyway. Or at least, I would hope so. --Jwinius (talk) 11:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 04:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed project of interest - organismal biomechanics

Hi all, I'm trying to start a Wikiproject to cover Organismal Biomechanics, and I was wondering if anyone else would be interested? Articles such as animal locomotion. gait, muscle, and similar would be our targets. See my userpage for a list of what I'm planning to work on, including some truly awful articles in desperate need of attention. See proposal page at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Wikiproject_Organismal_Biomechanics. I'll keep anyone who signs up updated via their userpages until I get a project page made. Help of all kinds is appreciated, from brain dumps to wikifying, grammar and dealing with references. Mokele (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:47, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

ID help

An unknown frog here, thanks jimfbleak (talk) 07:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

A direct link to the frog here. My ID skills are nil. bibliomaniac15 21:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It's Bufo crucifer, http://santuario-ra-bugio.htmlplanet.com/custom4.html Mokele (talk) 23:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Gekkota messed up?

Please see

Gamble, T., Bauer, A. M., Greenbaum, E. & Jackman, T. R. (2008). Out of the blue: a novel, trans-Atlantic clade of geckos (Gekkota, Squamata). — Zoologica Scripta, 37, 355–366.

it affects Gecko, Gekkota, Lizard and Squamata. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link to the abstract. bibliomaniac15 03:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice, but irrelevant. To preserve consistency, the project uses ITIS classification - otherwise we'd have to change all the pages every two weeks when a new study comes out. This way, we may lag, but we at least don't get caught up implementing changes that ultimately come to nothing. Once this reclassification is widely accepted and used, *then* we'll make the edits. Mokele (talk) 03:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Cane toad

User:Alan Liefting has nominated Cane toad for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Also proposal to re-merge Cane toads in Australia back into Cane toad. Discuss at Talk:Cane_toad#Merger_proposal. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Northern Redbelly Snake

Working on the WP:ASE project, I came across an article with the name Storeria occipitomaculata occipitomaculata. I believe it should be retitled and edited as Northern redbelly snake, but will call upon somebody with this project to do so if it is advisable. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Moved. bibliomaniac15 04:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this article was moved to Northern Redbelly Snake (capitalized). GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Aldabra tortoise taxonomic contradiction

A quick request for attention: the article for Aldabra_Giant_Tortoise cites 3 different genera in the intro, including some which I suspect are not recongized by this project's official taxonomic sources. I can't fix it myself, because I'm leaving for fieldwork in ~ 22 hours. Mokele (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

CAN ANYONE HELP PLEASE

I have been looking at the article Top 10 Deadliest snakes which is extremely doubtful, quotes NO sources, is badly written and is a personal list. On my user page User:Euc there is real data although a bit old. If anyone can add to it, update it or use it themselves I would be very appreciative. Euc (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you update the Top 10 Deadliest snakes yourself, as you have access to data on the matter? Petter Bøckman (talk) 06:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the article case and title need to be fixed as well. Wonder how "deadly" is defined. Shyamal (talk) 03:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Added a general intro and did a bit of formating. I hope this will make it easier for other to start contributing.Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Crocodyliform / Crocodyliforms: redlink

We have a couple of articles which mention Crocodyliform or Crocodyliforms, which as you can see are currently redlinks. Can somebody please either make the appropriate stub for this or the appropriate redirect? Thanks. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I've just gotten a paper that discusses this clade and some of its background, I'll get a stub going now. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

What to do?

I have five photographs of the Puerto Rican Garden Snake (Arrhyton exiguum), but the species does not have a page yet. Perhaps the photographs might be placed on some other page, such as the one for snakes or reptiles in general. Anyway, the photos are available for anyone to use on a corresponding page; to see them, just visit my home page. Do with them as you wish. Thanks. Wyvern J. Wynderunner (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Eleutherodactylus cryptomelas

I have just been trying to expend Eleutherodactylus cryptomelas and require some clarifications. It is referred to in fr.wp as Pristimantis cryptomelas and is on the IUCN Red List as the same. The page for Eleutherodactylus indicates that it is marked for a move to Pristimantis but there is no text accompanying the list. So I was wondering, should it be named Eleutherodactylus or Pristimantis? If anyone has any idea I would be greatful. Thanks ReformatMe (talk) 11:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Snakebites article

Hi everyone,

I've been editing the snakebite article recently (I'm 98.232.98.144 (talk · contribs) when too lazy to log in) and I noticed it is rated as top-importance for this Wikiproject group. The article is also a former good article, but was demoted for a variety of reasons. I've tried to address some of the problems on the to-do list, but I don't have enough free time in my day to do everything I'd like to. The article as it is now has the potential to regain good article status with a little more work, but I would like help from this group if anyone's willing. It would be nice to have some fresh eyes look over it and note potential problems and improvements, and add citation tags where they're needed.

In the "Frequency and statistics" section, we could note that the puff adder is responsible for the most bites in Africa and Bothrops asper in South America, and generally add more information outside of the United States, since U.S. centrism was one of the complaints. I'm having to spend a lot of time looking for good, reliable sources (academic journals specifically). Again, help would be appreciated.

The "Symptoms" section also could use some work. Should we include symptoms for the snakes responsible for the most deaths? general symptoms for snake families? I'm not sure how that information should be organized. It seems kind of random at the moment. Thanks! --Eightofnine (talk) 06:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

While at it, perhaps you can merge the Top 10 Deadliest snakes article into it. Shyamal (talk) 07:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Good thing you mentioned that; we can incorporate a lot of the information as a subsection and add a "main article" link, but I think the place to merge the Top 10 article would be with venomous snakes. I can't imagine why they would be separate since the latter is currently underdeveloped.--Eightofnine (talk) 08:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

List of Anuran families at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates

I have nominated List of Anuran families for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Tezkag72 (talk) 18:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

A salamander note from ITN

Hello, this "striking salamander" discovery received a nomination at WP:ITN/C (under 8 July). It requires an expert on the topic–are there any here? If it is updated, it will (probably) be posted on the Main Page. --candle•wicke 14:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems to have been started at Urspelerpes. Shyamal (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone expand it a bit more (so that it's not a stub)? Thanks. --candle•wicke 17:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I've had a sandbox version of the species for awhile. I was waiting for official publications/taxonomy. I will look into it. StevePrutz (talk) 20:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Picture help

Does anyone know if this is a spiny softshell or smooth softshell? http://www.flickr.com/photos/pr9000/1316789137/sizes/l/ It would help me greatly, I am trying to finish List of Minnesota reptiles-Ravedave (talk) 05:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

List of snakes of Trinidad and Tobago

I have nominated List of snakes of Trinidad and Tobago for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

Rough-skinned newt death?

The Tetrodotoxin page mentions a death in Oregon from the toxin exuded by a rough-skinned_newt when agitated, but I can't find any reference to back up that claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrishavel (talk • contribs) 15:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

http://www.caudata.org/cc/articles/toxin2.shtml

Laticauda/Hyddrophiidae/Elapidae hierarchy

The Laticauda (sea kraits) article has its family listed as Hydrophiidae (sea snakes), however that article has its family listed as Elapidae. Obviously there's something wrong, but as I'm not a taxonomist I don't feel qualified to fix this. Could someone more knowledgeable that me fix this? CS Miller (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It's both and neither. IIRC, hydrophiidae is nested deep within elapidae, making the taxonomic status of either very contentious due to issues of monophyly vs paraphyly. Laticauda, last time I checked, was basal to the other sea snakes, so it becomes an issue of where you draw the mostly-arbitrary line between hydrophiids and elapids, and there are plenty of justifications for putting Laticauda in each. So, in short, there is no answer, and the best minds in science are still fighting about it. Mokele (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Would it be fair to say that hydrophiiade is a sub-family to elapidae? Hmm. Wikispecies has this to say

rank	Laticauda	Elapidae
Subordo	Serpentes	Serpentes
Infraordo	Caenophidia	Caenophidia
Superfamilia	Colubroidea	Elapoidea
Familia	Hydrophiidae	Elapidae
Subfamiliae	<none>	Elapinae - Hydrophiinae - Laticaudinae

I'm just a little concerned that WP isn't consistent within itself. This started when I looked up sea kraits at (land) kraits , was going to put in a top-link, and then went of at this tangent to see how kraits and sea-kraits are related. CS Miller (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Can someone identify this lizard?

I have no idea what it is. I saw it in Istanbul if it is relevant. Spiderone (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a small lacertid to me. Most guidebooks should give you more specific options. Mokele (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Save a snakes featured list?

Can someone address the remaining issues at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of snakes of Trinidad and Tobago/archive1? It's so close to being a keep that it would be a pity to see its star lost. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Anolis barbatus

Just uploaded some images of this lizard on Commons link, but there's no article to put them in. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Year of original description: Erhard's wall lizard

Is the year of the original description of this lizzard really true? en.Wikipedia writes the year 1886. I'm uncertain abaout it, because IUCN and The Reptile Database write the year 1882. --Danny (talk) 12:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)