Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Raphitomidae - Same issue, needs BOT help

After completing the Mitromorphidae article I noted that there was also a dead link for a Raphitomidae article (which was also elevated to family level by Bouchet, et al. 2011). The article is in a basic start format, but again the genus links and species links all still say Conidae. Would BOT assistance be appropriate here?Shellnut (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done Moved all the species and genus articles from Raphitominae to Raphitomidae (188 edits). — Ganeshk (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!!! You are awesome!!!!! I checked it out and it looks good and all taxoboxes are fixed, however some of the genus articles and species articles still say Conidae in the first sentence. Can the BOT catch those or do I need to manually change them?Shellnut (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you give me examples for the articles that were not fixed? — Ganeshk (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done I have also moved all the species under Gymnobela to the new family. — Ganeshk (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done I had to move many sub-categories under Category:Raphitominae to Category:Raphitomidae. Let me know if I missed anything. — Ganeshk (talk) 04:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Ganeshk, did I tell you before how awesome you are? I did not expect you to just "drop everything" and do this, I was merely asking IF you thought that the BOT was the right tool for the job, and if so eventually get around to it. I checked again and found three genera with species articles that link to Conidae rather than Raphitomidae, they are: Xanthodaphne, Veprecula, and Tritonoturris. Now I have to go find pictures to upload! Thanks again Ganeshk, you are a gem!Shellnut (talk) 04:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

There are a few disambiguous links out there, i.e. Taranis and others, but those will have to be fixed manually ... if their gastropod pages can be found. Should the Raphitominae subfamily article get redirected to the family Raphitomidae rather than Conidae?Shellnut (talk) 04:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done I have removed all disambiguous links and created two new genus articles to put the orphaned species articles into, including Theta, Taranis, and Microgenia. Shellnut (talk) 04:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Florida horse conch - duplicate Wikipedia pages

I was Wiki-surfing today and noted that there was an old page for Pleuroploca gigantea which is now known as Triplofusus giganteus, as well as another page with the new name. WoRMS recognizes the species as Triplofusus giganteus which is the newer taxonomy. The original article was fairly well fleshed out so I corrected the taxonomy throughout, but it's name needs changed. The "new" article is merely a stub and therefore should be deleted and have the original article take its place. I do not know how to do this. Could either JoJan or Ganeshk teach me so I do not have to bother you with these kinds of things? After that is done I will go back to the genus article and clean up from there as needed. Thank you.Shellnut (talk) 23:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you JoJan! I saw that you made the change already. Can you teach me?Shellnut (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that to do the same thing, you'll need the extra buttons of an administrator. JoJan (talk) 15:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you JoJan!! Fair enough, so I will just inform you each time I find one of these little gems. I was trying to find an "easy way" to assist on things like this without being a nuisance. Have you had a chance to check out my draft articles in my sandboxes? The article in the second sandbox is a summary article on the Tucker & Tenorio treatise from 2009. The article in the first sandbox could be a stand alone article which could be reached from the first one as a greater explanation of the proposed family Conilithidae; alternatively the information could be placed farther down on the other article as a detailed section. Your thoughts?Shellnut (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

You can also request for these moves at Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Technical_requests. Any available admin will help with the request. — Ganeshk (talk) 02:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Rissopsetia

Please check the taxonomy of the genus Rissopsetia. WoRMS is classifying it under Cimidae. — Ganeshk (talk) 10:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

This is confusing. Only WoRMS classifies this genus under Cimidae. All the others, ITIS, gastropods.com, the Museum of new Zealand, etc. continue to classify it under Pyramidellidae. I can find no confirmation on the internet about Rissopsetia belonging to Cimidae. We need more input for this. JoJan (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2011

Conilithidae, and Tucker & Tenorio article

(Note to JoJan from above) Have you had a chance to check out my draft articles in my sandboxes? The article in the second sandbox is a summary article on the Tucker & Tenorio cone snail taxonomy 2009. The article in the first sandbox could be a stand alone article which could be reached from the first one as a greater explanation of the proposed family Conilithidae; alternatively the information could be placed farther down on the other article as a detailed section. Your thoughts?Shellnut (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

A belated answer. I looked at the drafts and I think they're well written. Conilithidae deserves its own article as any other family. The treatise on T & T is excellent, except for its title "Tucker & Tenorio cone snail taxonomy 2009". Do you think anyone would type such as request in the search box ? Probably not. Before a reader can read this article they must be aware of its existence and must be able to find it easily. Most titles of taxonomy articles start with "Taxonomy of (scientific name)....". In this case this could be "Taxonomy of the Conidae, as proposed by Tucker and Tenorio, 2009". When a reader would type in the search "Taxonomy of the Conidae" they would see at the same time the title of this article. Just a thought. JoJan (talk) 15:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you JoJan! I have put both article live now. The article title was Invertzoo's phrasing, and although I like it as she named it I do see your point. I do have launching points to the article from both Conoidea and Conidae so people can find it in its historical taxonomic context. Maybe a Redirect page or two to help search for it?Shellnut (talk) 05:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

The main way people would find this article now is from links in other articles, and links should be placed in the relevant places now. We can, if necessary, change the title of course. We could call it "Taxonomy of Conidae proposed by Tucker and Tenorio, 2009". Although I don't actually know how many people would really search for that title either. And by the end of 2012 or 2013, a new system will no doubt be accepted and the whole situation will be different. Invertzoo (talk) 22:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I played with the Wikipedia search engine and tried to find it about six different ways as if I knew nothing about T&T, and it came up in the top four searches each time. Therefore, locating the article should not be a problem. I have already provided links from the Conoidea and Conidae to the T&T article. Should I also place such a link in each of the genus articles so that it feeds back on itself?Shellnut (talk) 22:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we could put links in the genus articles too. For example, in Africonus, where it says, "The Tucker & Tenorio 2009 taxonomy distinguishes Africonus from Conus in the following ways" you could instead put, "The Tucker & Tenorio 2009 taxonomy distinguishes Africonus from Conus in the following ways". One thing to remember is that when the new cone snail study comes out we will have to revise and make careful changes or additions to every one of these articles. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 01:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Great idea Invertzoo! I was trying to see where the link would work best. Meanwhile, I have done a few more genus articles - cognizant of wording in single species genera. I have about one-third of the genus article drafted and on line, leaving around 54 more to go.Shellnut (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done Link added to each of the cone snail genus articles.Shellnut (talk) 21:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Wrong images and (c) violations

Today while adding a genus article for Fulgiconus I ran across the species article Conus moluccensis Küster, 1838 which had an image added in the last year by another member. The image was taken from Rehber & Wilson, 1975's publication - a clear copyright violation. Also, the image was from item #12 on the page (an Ovulidae species) whereas the correct image would have been #11 (the cone species). I removed the image promptly. I think we need to check images on all article that we are editing for both copyright issues AND to ensure that the correct species is in fact reflected in the image. Any thoughts?Shellnut (talk) 22:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Shellnut. Yes, on Wikipedia we must always be on our guard for copyright violations, not only in the case of images, but also the text in articles. (If things such as shell descriptions seem to be extremely professional and condensed in style, they may well be copied verbatim.) In this particular case, the editor who uploaded the image stated that the book was published between 1923 and 1977 without a copyright notice, and therefore the images are in the public domain, at least in the USA. As for the correct IDs on images, or the correct image uploaded, it would certainly be good to check them all, but that is not an easy task if people are not familiar with the species themselves. That kind of thing can also be tremendously time-consuming. We have over 23,000 articles and most people do not enjoy doing routine checking of hundreds or thousands of articles, so a lot of that does not get done. As you can see, we are very understaffed. The particular image that was wrongly placed in that article, that was, I am sure, a straightforward mistake of the kind that quite often occurs in publications. That editor knew a lot more about land snails than about sea snails. Fortunately you found the error and removed it after about a year. The name of the file and the description will also need changing on Commons, unless you already did that? Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 01:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The image in question was of Phenacovolva lahainaensis, Ovulidae. I've made the changes in Commons. Regarding copyright, I see no restrictions in the .pdf publication. Then this would fall under" Smithsonian Content is identified as having “no known copyright restrictions” (3) there are no copyright markings or other indications on the Content to indicate that it was copyrighted or otherwise restricted" [1]. JoJan (talk) 14:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Invertzoo and JoJan! I do not have the Smithsonian publication itself, but am surprised that they would publish something without a copyright notice. I do not have a specimen of the cone shell in question, otherwise I would photograph it and upload it myself.Shellnut (talk) 16:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Unaccepted

The Unaccepted page has been updated. There are 737 items on it. — Ganeshk (talk) 10:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

What are "unaccepted" species? Is this a list of species that are NOT recognized as valid by WoRMS or some other source?Shellnut (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes these are species names that are no longer considered valid as per WoRMS. Invertzoo (talk) 00:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there a way I can help? For example, Bursa thomae is accepted as Bursa rhodostoma (G.B. Sowerby II, 1835) according to WoRMS and the genus page Bursa lists both species, and B. thomae as a subspecies of B. rhodostoma.(Note: WoRMS also lists it as a subspecies at AphiaID: 422767.) I know that I can clean up the genus page and the one (correct) species page, but I do not believe I have access to delete the other page once it is "dead" and orphaned with no links to it. Do I just make a list of those species that are no longer active so that another editor can delete their dead pages? I actually have this species, and quite a few Bursa species that I can photograph and attach images of. I am sure that this list of "unaccepted species" is a back burner project and you might not mind a little help here and there. I just do not want to become a nuisance asking for help all the time while trying to clean things up.Shellnut (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you can help. We need lot of helpers on that page. Here are the steps:

1. Redirect Bursa thomae to Bursa rhodostoma. Replace all text with #REDIRECT [[Bursa rhodostoma]].
2. Add Bursa thomae as a synonym on Bursa rhodostoma
3. Move Bursa thomae to the "Species brought into synonymy" section on the genus article, Bursa.
4. Update the project template on the talk page of Bursa thomae to say, {{WikiProject Gastropods|class=redirect}}
5. Mark the item as complete by adding {{done}} on the unaccepted page next to the taxon.

That's it. — Ganeshk (talk) 21:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Ganeshk for the "how to" lesson. I will have to jot that down so I do not forget it. I am sure that once I have done it a few times it will seem "normal", but until then I will use the "cheat sheet" you have given me.Shellnut (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I have updated step 4 based on advise from another admin. I have added step 5 to the list. — Ganeshk (talk) 00:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Ganeshk!Shellnut (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk pages of a "redirect created by a move" fall under Category: Speedy Deletions and should be deleted as a G 6 (unless they contain text that should be retained, such as copyright issues in the past or discussions). I must have deleted many hundreds of such talk pages with just a template. Another thing, a redirect template (point 1 in the above explanation) can be easily created by clicking in the edit mode on "Advanced" and then on the second button from the right (a blue arrow pointing to the right). Then you can fill in the name of the new article (I do this by copy and paste). JoJan (talk) 15:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I think deleting the talk page is unnecessary. Leaving the project banner in place with a class=Redirect allows the project to watchlist the article for vandalism. Deleting the talk page will negate this functionaity. — Ganeshk (talk) 15:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

True. But who would ever think of vandalizing a redirect page ? I've never seen such an instance in the past. Talk pages of redirects are just clutter. And that is why there is CSD G6. Anyway, typing the name of the synonym in the search box will result in obtaining the article under the accepted name of the species. And only then one can go back to the redirect page. And that's way too much trouble for a vandal. JoJan (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I checked out CSD #G6, there is no mention of a policy to delete talk pages of redirects. I don't see them as clutter myself, there is a reason for the template to support a redirect class. — Ganeshk (talk) 15:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

It is more explicitly explained when you delete the talk page of a redirect (just try it with Talk:Bursa thomae). When you press on "delete" you open the delete page. Then press on the downward pointing arrow of "reason" and you'll see "Talk pages: G 6" : "Talk page is a redirect created by move of associated article". This says it all. JoJan (talk) 16:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

OK guys, now I AM confused. So what is the FINAL best method?Shellnut (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, Shellnut. Since you're not an admin, the only option you have is explained above under # 4 : Update the project template on the talk page of Bursa thomae to say, {{WikiProject Gastropods|class=redirect}}. There is no harm done by acting this way. Ganeshk and I just has a small difference in opinion (probably for the first time). Merry Christmas. JoJan (talk) 13:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that was a first. :) Happy Holidays to all. — Ganeshk (talk) 17:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

If you want to get rid of them, go to WP:MFD. If you wish to make talk pages of redirects speedy deleteable, please first go to WP:VP and get consensus for removing the "redirect" class in general. Nyttend (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Redirect talk pages

Can we just redirect the talk pages as well? Will that be acceptable? — Ganeshk (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy Holidays to All

Happy Holidays to the WikiProject Gastropods team!!!

Shellnut (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

A well-deserved cheers to you all !

Merry Christmas. JoJan (talk) 13:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy Holidays to all. — Ganeshk (talk) 17:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

All the best to everyone from me too! Invertzoo (talk) 22:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Best wishes from me too. May 2012 be a fruitful year in contributions to this project. JoJan (talk) 14:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

And from me too! Am I too late? I guess it's still between xmas and new years. Happy Holidays! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year to everyone!Shellnut (talk) 20:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Snail family

Can someone explain this picture? It that a snail family? — Ganeshk (talk) 12:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

No, what you are seeing in that image is four individual land snails which all appear to be immature, judging by the shape of the shells. They could be a haphazard collection of unrelated individuals all picked up in one area, or if they all came from under one log, they could conceivably be two larger juveniles from one batch of eggs and two smaller juveniles hatched from another more recent batch of eggs. (Although to be honest I am not totally convinced that all four individuals are even in the same species!) Snails and slugs lay a big batch of eggs and abandon them, there is no "family group" in gastropods, so to see this artificial grouping as a family is rampant anthropomorphism: "mom and dad and two kids, right?" No. The biology of invertebrates is often in reality very strange compared to human life, but we try to explain everything as a reflection of our own norms. Invertzoo (talk) 15:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Invertzoo. I was going to ask the owner to change the license if the picture was useful. It will be great if the red links at Gastropoda#Life_cycle were made blue. — Ganeshk (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I think there were actually too many individual red links in that article, an unrealistic number bearing in mind where we currently are with the Project, and so I just now reduced the number of links. Many of those individual topics can be combined into one article, if someone is willing to try to write it. It's quite hard to write big overview articles however. Invertzoo (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year

To everyone working in the Project, and in the encyclopedia as a whole,

Our vision for Wikipedia is one of beauty, natural symmetry and light.

I wish you a Happy New Year, everything good for your family, your loved ones and yourself, peace and joy for all the people of the world. I also wish a joyful and peaceful expansion for Wikipedia, may it bring helpful, generous, and peaceful information to everyone.
All the very best from Invertzoo (talk) 16:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

"Needed genus articles" now completed

I was happy that I managed to get all the "needed genus articles" created as stubs by the end of 2011. That means that now, finally, all of our pre-existing species articles actually have a corresponding genus article, which means that one can navigate all the way up and down through the tree of life structure. Phew! This is another small but significant milestone in our project's development. Invertzoo (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

ID on some bivalves needed

I took these at the market. Are they well-known? Pls give me the species name so that I can add it to the image description.

• 
  Bivalvia, family Veneridae, possibly ?Lioconcha lorenziana?
• 
  Bivalvia, family Veneridae, possibly ?Periglypta clathrata?
• 
  Bivalvia, family Veneridae, genus and species unknown
• 
  Bivalvia, family Psammobiidae, possibly ?Solecurtis consimilis?
• 
  Bivalvia, family Veneridae, possibly ?Gafarium divaricatum?

Many thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Anna! Off hand I would say that numbers 1, 2, 3, and 5 are in the family Veneridae and number 4 is in the Psammobiidae. I would need to know exactly where (or close) they were collected to chose the right regional book to start with. Bivalves are an extremely diverse group, and there is a lot of convergent evolution in species from different areas which tend to look alike. I would say that in the Veneridae you could start looking at the following genera: Chione, Tapes, and Tivela. The Psammobiidae is probably in the genus Solecurtis or Tagelus. I assume that these are from China, hence collected in the East China Sea somewhere, if in a food market they are probably locally collected. Do you have any better "close up" or macro photos?Shellnut (talk) 04:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Number 4 may be Solecurtus consimilis Kuroda & Habe in Habe, 1961.Shellnut (talk) 04:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Number 2 may be Periglypta clathrata (Deshayes, 1853)Shellnut (talk) 04:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Number 5 may be Gafrarium divaricatum (Gmelin, 1791)Shellnut (talk) 04:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Number 1 may be Lioconcha lorenziana (Dillwyn, 1817)Shellnut (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear oh dear. They were all fished from around Hainan Island, South China Sea. I guess it's really difficult to ID them. I think I might give up on the gastropod [Interjection: Actually these are not gastropods but BIVALVEs! Invertzoo (talk) 15:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)] image thing. It seems impossible to be sure what's what. I could look in Chione, Tapes, and Tivela, but they'd all look sort of the same to me. Thanks for your help. I'm not sure if I should delete them now. After all, if we can't be sure, what use are they?

There is a great seafood market/restaurant here. There are thousands of things utterly distinct and strange. Maybe that's better than images of clams which look like other clams. I can get a close up if that will help, but again, they are all so similar. As for the macro photo, I don't know what that is. So, you'll have to settle for a macaroni photo.

Thanks so much for the assist. It was actually very useful, because it showed me what is probably unidentifiable. Actually Snek01 asked me for market shell images a couple of years ago, but I just got my hands on a camera now. :) Best wishes, and many thanks for the reply. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I used a Japanese shell book to get close. I do not have the species shown in your photos, but do have many species in the same families. A nice book if you can find it would be Catalogue of the living marine bivalve molluscs of China (1993) by Bernard, F. R, Cai, Ying-ya, and Morton, Brian (Over 1,140 species discussed). Anna, they are NOT useless. Knowing where they were fished from makes it MUCH easier to identify them. A close up image in good focus of both valves, and the inside is helpful. Often one needs to look at a shell under a magnifying glass to see the microsculpture to get a better ID. Bivalves shells are not as hard to ID as they may appear at first. There are only so many kinds from each given region, so that helps. The fact that there are thousands of kinds of Bivalves doe not mean that there are more than a dozen or two species that may fit the shell in question, from the same region and from the same family. I have a fairly extensive Bivalve collection, but am not an expert on them by any means. Useful on line sources include the Rotterdam Museum (and others), www.conchlogy.be (which sells shells worldwide), private collector sites (there are A LOT of asian collectors who are very proud of their shells and post images, I just can't read Japanese or Chinese), etc. Do not give up too quickly. I am happy to help.Shellnut (talk) 05:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I bet that they would taste really good and make a nice soup or chowder! If you decide to buy and eat them, keep the shells!!!Shellnut (talk) 05:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if I can find that book here.

Next time I will buy some and open them to take better shots inside and out.

What you said about thousands there, but probably one of a few, is interesting. I guess it makes sense that they fish for the predominant species.

I don't really eat a lot of market shellfish. They stink of pollution. Plus, I've seen them being collected right where horrid rivers dump into the sea. You can't even stand near some of those areas. It smells worse than being in a hotdog factory. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the pollution Anna. I can see that would make the prospect of eating them not a good idea. Nevertheless I find all Mollusca species interesting, if only for the variety of forms and textures in even the more dull colored species. There are probably twenty major families of Bivalves, and once you get used to seeing them you can usually get them ID'ed to family easily. Beyond that, getting them to genus may take looking at a decent book, even a world wide book is somewhat helpful. For about ten years I traded shells with three men from Japan who had spent over forty to fifty years collecting shells. I sent them shells from California, Mexico, Washington state, and Florida, and they sent me shells from Japan, Korea, China, and the Philippines. It was a great opportunity and I made two really good friends that way. I ended up with over 400 species from the Western Pacific, many of which could be described as "boring". I still think they are neat! I am happy to help you out on these.Shellnut (talk) 05:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow. You are so passionate about shells. It's great that you are here. There are really only a small handful of like individuals at project gastropod. I wish there were more like you. :) :) :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Anna! As the nickname implies I am a "nut" about shells. My given first name is David. Thanks for the compliment!!!Shellnut (talk) 00:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Bivalves or gastropods?

Hi Anna, Can I ask: do they sell any sea snails at that market, or only clams? Invertzoo (talk) 21:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC) I ask because we might be able to do better with the sea snails than with the clams as several of us here are strongest on gastropods rather than bivalves, and plus, gastropods are often a bit easier to identify from these kind of general market photos. I certainly would not delete your images, they are good ones. I would leave them and ID them to family and put a suggested genus and species name on them. Someone will come along at some point who can confirm or correct the IDs. Invertzoo (talk) 14:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Invertzoo, is there a Project Bivalvia?Shellnut (talk) 22:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Good question, but no unfortunately there is not, because so far there has not been enough interest, and as I said before we are very short-staffed, so as a result there is no Project Bivalves and no overall Project Mollusca. Currently we still only have a Project Gastropods and a Project Cephalopods. A few of us do contribute bivalve articles and bivalve images and work on the bivalve articles, so you will see that the bivalve coverage is not too bad. Invertzoo (talk) 14:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I just started the Bivalves project. The hope is, if you build it, they will come. Please add {{WikiProject Bivalves}} template to talk pages of related articles. And, please join that project as well. :) — Ganeshk (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Awesome Ganeshk! Thank you. Is there a cute little link with an image (a User Box?) we can come up with so that Project Members / Users will have an item that they can place on their User Page as an easy shortcut? I have some really neat bivalve images we could use, such as an attractive Spondylus species. Your thoughts?Shellnut (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC) See, e.g. Spondylus princeps image:

Shellnut(talk) 18:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I have added a user box for the project. — Ganeshk (talk) 19:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Ganeshk! You are a busy guy, yet you found time for yet another new project. Wow. I have been taking pictures and uploading images of Cone snail shells today. Not much otherwise.Shellnut (talk) 19:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey Ganesh! Wow, that's a radical move! I sincerely hope Wikipedia can attract some new dedicated bivalve people to work on this new project. Because us gastropod people are spread very thin already! A thought: can we maybe get AlexNewArtBot to generate a BivalveSearchResult page for the new project? Because that is the main way I recruit gastropod people, via seeing who has written any new gastropod articles and then welcoming them etc. I guess it would work for finding bivalve people also. Invertzoo (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I have setup the ruleset for AlexNewArtBot. I will let you know once the bot creates the new articles page. — Ganeshk (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

User:AlexNewArtBot/BivalvesSearchResult is now available. — Ganeshk (talk) 13:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Thiaridae stubs

Greetings! A stub template or category which you created has been nominated for renaming or deletion at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type most likely doesn't meet Wikipedia requirements for a stub type, through failure to meet standards relating to the name, scope, current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals! This message is a boilerplate, left here as a courtesy, and should not be considered personal in nature. Dawynn (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Clades and references

Do we have a good reference for the unranked clades that we add to articles like Odostomia? We will need a reference other than WoRMS since we differ from the WoRMS classification. Thoughts? — Ganeshk (talk) 12:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts on the Unaccepted list

I just checked a few species on this list that I know and have in my collection, Mitra pele and Mitra vexillum. Both are valid species under WoRMS. They seem to have been flagged only because they have used a WORMS reference which is either an "alternate representation" or the wrong id number. Are they flagged off of a WoRMS search? If so, maybe the BOT that does this needs to NOT flag species that are valid but have other names that are accepted as "alternate representations". This would reduce the list considerably and make fixing it not look like a daunting task. Any ideas?Shellnut (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

These species were valid when the bot created them (April 2010). The classification was subsequently changed as seen in the change history below (for Mitra (Mitra) pele). The unaccepted page alerts the project about these changes. The way to fix it is to replace the WoRMS ID reference in these articles and also add {{TaxonIds}} template to them.

Date	Action	By
2009-10-02 09:41:28Z	created	Robin, Alain
2010-09-29 14:58:18Z	changed	Rosenberg, Gary
2011-12-12 00:42:37Z	changed	Rosenberg, Gary

— Ganeshk (talk) 00:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible new member

Hi JoJan! Hello again Invertzoo! I made a new shell friend in Russia, a cone guy, who is an awesome photographer and has thousands of beautiful cone shells which he has photographed. His name is Alexander Medvedev. He has a website devoted to his cone shells and has uploaded images to Gastropods.com and Schooner Specimen Shells' cone pages. He has logged on as a new user onto Wikicommons with my urging, using the new User name Almed2. I saw that you promptly welcomed him. I have written to Invertzoo about using his images as Alexander gave me permission to do so over Facebook, yet I perceived future issues with copyright since I am not the author of the images (uploading could trigger a BOT deletion). Anyway, the long and short of all this is that Alexander has now uploaded images for six species of cones. He has over 2300 images!!! With some friendly welcoming and encouragement I see that Alexander would likely enjoy collaborating with us here at WikiProject Gastropods and working on improving the cone species articles by uploading and posting his excellent images.Shellnut (talk) 05:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I had noticed this already. His contributions could be most valuable. But at the moment, there is one spot of trouble : copyright. He has to send an email to OTRS (permissions-commons-at-wikimedia.org.) with the following boilerplate text filled in Commons:Commons:Email templates. The best copyright tag to use is Creative Commons 3.0 - attribution (adding "share alike" makes it difficult for publishers of books to use such a photo). At this moment, at least one of his photos is marked for deletion Commons:File:Conus andremenezi.jpg. Awaiting the OTRS permission, he can add {{OTRS pending}} in the section "further information" of the upload wizzard. Once he has received the OTRS permission (this can take a while), he can then add the code to each photo he uploads and no one will bother him again about copyright. JoJan (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

That first image is one which I uploaded with Alexander's written permission. I assumed that it would likely be deleted since I could not find a good link to show that I had his permission when I uploaded it. That's why I talked Alexander (Almed2) into uploading the images himself.Shellnut (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

JoJan, our new friend Alexander has added images of 41 species of cones snails in the last two days, most in the genus Africonus. I have been encouraging Alexander to keep up the good work! I have put image captions on the ones below the taxobox, after saving a few from deletion by an overzealous outside editor (meaning not a member of the WikiProject Gastropods group). I sent this editor a polite message on his talk page requesting that he not just delete these images outright and to please "let us police our own." I do not think we want a newbie like Alexander to be turned off by having his first day or two of work deleted in large part without a thought process or discussion with group members. Shellnut (talk) 06:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I've put these photos in their proper categories in the Commons. JoJan (talk) 10:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks JoJan! Alexander has now joined WikiProject Gastropods as an official member. I just replied to an e-mail from Alexander, who was discouraged over the categories issue and considering stopping his work. I told him how to categorize, and reflected that I too was confused and frustrated by it at first, but that it is really easy. I walked him through it step by step in the reply e-mail. English is NOT his first language and it is confusing enough to new timers who have read, written and spoken the language our whole lives! I have seen how fast he has learned and how much he has done already. An encouraging word from another (more senior editor) would probably be well received. He has added images for probably 60 species in three or four days. Thanks again. Shellnut (talk) 05:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Conus leonardi Talk Page - Species Name Incorrect

Hi JoJan, Invertzoo, Ganeshk! Please see the Conus leonardi talk page. Almed2 just added some very nice images here. The correct name is Conus lienardi, and I tried to move the page but there was already a name place with a redirect to the incorrectly named page so it would not let me do it. I have killed the redirect but can not delete that page to accomplish a move. Help please! Thank you. Shellnut (talk) 06:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. JoJan (talk) 13:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you JoJan! I did not have the "power" to do that, and had to ask since I could NOT just leave it alone and forget about it. Shellnut (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Progress on List of Conus species article

 Done I have made stub articles for all red-lined species in the List of Conus species article so that there are no empty species articles listed there. As the genus articles under T&T (2009) progresses I am finding many more new species identified under WoRMS which will need new species articles. Those "new" species show up as red-lined in the genus articles and still have to be added. An important side note, WoRMS recognizes as valid genus and species names (rather than as "alternate representations") newly described species where the authors have used the T&T (2009) genus names, therefore species will be added to the List of Conus species article alphabetically by species (ignoring the genus for alphabetizing). Shellnut (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Clades

I'm pretty ignorant but we seem to have some very knowledgeable editors in this project so perhaps someone could explain why several clades are mentioned in the taxoboxes of lower taxonomic groups of gastropods. For example, Elysia is a sacoglossan but 4 other unranked clades are included in the taxobox besides Sacoglossa. Why is this? I have written several species accounts for members of this genus. I use the genus taxobox, extending it for the species, and normally include a reference to the appropriate page of WoRMS. However our taxobox is not completely supported by WoRMS taxonomy. Could someone please explain the thinking behind these decisions. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

We follow the Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005), which is the most recent taxonomy available for the Gastropoda. This mentions under the clade Sacoglossa, two subclades : Oxynoacea and Placobranchacea. For one reason or another, WoRMS doesn't mention these subclades. Furthermore : the superfamily Placobranchoidea is spelled Plakobranchoidea in WoRMS. Thanks for drawing my attention to this situation. I'll send an email to WoRMS to investigate. JoJan (talk) 13:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Good. I appreciate that we are using Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005). But why do we include in the taxobox all the other clades that are not part of the direct line for the species or other article? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Cwmhiraeth and thank you so much for your numerous excellent articles which are a fabulous addition to the project! Yes, we do follow Bouchet & Rocroi taxonomy from 2005, BUT more recently the taxonomy of some groups of gastropods has been updated considerably based on new research, see Changes in the taxonomy of gastropods since 2005.

In our taxoboxes we don't mention just one clade; for the more evolved groups we try to show the position of the taxon in the whole nesting set of clades to which it belongs.

If you look at the branching cladogram on the Bouchet& Rocroi article page you will see that the Saccoglossans formed part of the Opisthobranchia which were in turn part of the Heterobranchia. However, Jörger et al. (2010) redefined the major groups of the Heterobranchia and created the new clades Euopisthobranchia and Panpulmonata.

If you look at the Panpulmonata article you will see it has a cladogram (branching diagram) for the Heterobranchia, and that will give you the new correct sequence of nesting clades for the Sacoglossans.

I hope this is not too insanely complicated! Invertzoo (talk) 14:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Progress on uploading images of cone snail species

Almed2 has finished downloading the pictures to the section «A» of Cones

"I finished to download the pictures to the section «A» of Cones To my mind there is two species of Cones missed

• Conus acutimarginatus (Note: WoRMS has this species listed as "unaccepted", and shows it accepted as Conus jaspideus Gmelin, 1791. Shellnut 1/16/12)
• Conus archetypus aka Purpuriconus archetypus (Note: WoRMS has this species listed as "unaccepted", and shows it accepted as Conus ziczac Mühlfeld, 1816. Shellnut 1/16/12)

These species I dont have in my collection:

• Conus alabaster Reeve, 1849
• Conus alainallaryi Bozzetti & Monnier, 2009
• Conus albellus Röckel & Korn, 1990
• Conus alconnelli da Motta, 1986
• Conus anaglypticus Crosse, 1865
• Conus arangoi Sarasúa, 1977
• Conus armiger Crosse, 1858
• Conus athenae Filmer, 2011
• Conus auratinus da Motta, 1982

For those I put the links to the Gastropods.com site

For these species I need to specify the taxons

• Conus adami Wils, 1988
• Conus advertex (Garrard, 1961)
• Conus aristophanes G. B. Sowerby II, 1857

Question: this file contains a mistake? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AConus_australis.shell001.jpg It is a Conus aureus Hwass in Bruguière, J.G., 1792 Who has a right to change the name of the file and move it to another category? The author or the editor? Good luck to everybody! Alex" Almed2 (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Great work Alexander!!! I will repost this on the WikiProject Gastropods page. I do not have the ability to change file names, but JoJan does and he is also into cone shells and will likely help out on that. I will check my collection to see if I have specimens of any of the missing species, photograph and upload them. It looks great!!! Keep up the good work, our team is definitely making progress. Shellnut (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

File names in the Commons cannot be renamed, unless you download it on your hard disk and then upload it again under a new name. Then one can ask for the deletion of the original file. This is just too much trouble. I simply changed the description and the category, but retained the original name. It has the same effect. JoJan (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Almed2 has uploaded images and installed links to images for cone snail articles up through the letter "P" and is through adding images to over 450 cone snail species articles. At this rate I expect he will finish his portion of the collaborative project before I finish with the next 29 genus articles (I just finished Plicaustraconus). Shellnut (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Conidae genera

I have created the following genera articles. I can have the bot do a Conidae species run if these articles look good. Shellnut, I hope these are helpful starter articles to build upon. Please review.

1. Kenyonia
2. Lindaconus
3. Miliariconus
4. Monteiroconus
5. Nataliconus
6. Parviconus
7. Perplexiconus
8. Phasmoconus
9. Pionoconus
10. Plicaustraconus
11. Profundiconus
12. Protostrioconus
13. Pseudolilliconus
14. Pseudonoduloconus
15. Puncticulis
16. Purpuriconus
17. Pyruconus
18. Quasiconus
19. Rhizoconus
20. Rhombiconus
21. Rolaniconus
22. Sciteconus
23. Seminoleconus
24. Stellaconus
25. Stephanoconus
26. Strategoconus
27. Taranteconus
28. Tenorioconus
29. Textilia
30. Trovaoconus
31. Turriconus
32. Varioconus
33. Viminiconus
34. Virgiconus
35. Virroconus
36. Vituliconus
37. Ximeniconus
38. Yeddoconus

— Ganeshk (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice start Ganeshk! We need to ensure that all articles get the rest of the content sections appropriate to each family and/or subfamily, if that can be done via the BOT. I have fixed up Miliariconus just now, but without doing it my standard way (the prior ones were done) it takes a few more edits now. If you can, just leave the description section out, and I can add that part. What do you mean by running the BOT on species articles? There are about 20 right now that are not created or on the List of Conus species, mostly newly named species from 2009 through 2011. I have added a lot of species articles so far, removing redlines. Let me know what you think. Shellnut (talk) 23:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It will be difficult for the bot to add content on existing articles. It will have to be done manually. Here is what I meant by bot run for species articles. Please review these as well. Thanks.

1. Conus amplus
2. Conus branhamae
3. Conus cingulatus
4. Conus compressus
5. Conus coriolisi
6. Conus daphne
7. Conus gratacapii
8. Conus ichinoseanus
9. Conus judaeus
10. Conus longilineus
11. Conus morrisoni
12. Conus mulderi
13. Conus novaehollandiae
14. Conus paraguana
15. Conus pauperculus
16. Conus pica
17. Conus queenslandis
18. Conus reductaspiralis
19. Conus roberti
20. Conus sauros
21. Conus thevenardensis
22. Conus vautieri
23. Conus xanthocinctus
24. Dauciconus fenzani
25. Dendroconus royaikeni
26. Endemoconus bonfigliolii
27. Gradiconus maya
28. Gradiconus ostrinus
29. Gradiconus tortuganus
30. Jaspidiconus fluviamaris
31. Jaspidiconus pealii
32. Jaspidiconus roatanensis
33. Jaspidiconus vanhyningi
34. Kenyonia pulcherrima
35. Kohniconus janowskyae
36. Pseudoconorbis traceyi
37. Purpuriconus belizeanus
38. Textilia lucasi
39. Virgiconus tethys

— Ganeshk (talk) 04:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ganeshk! Thank you!!! Are these ALL of the cone species in WoRMS that did not currently have species articles on Wikipedia, as located by the BOT? I had a list which I was compiling from my work on the genus articles and have not compared them yet. I will continue to work on the genus articles, however if you look at the list in Tucker & Tenorio cone snail taxonomy 2009 you left out just a few of them, including Protoconus, Spuriconus and a few fossil genera. Also, Lindaconus is no longer recognized as a current cone snail genus, it has been synonymized with another genus so I will have to make that name into a redirect. Shellnut (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, these are all the accepted Conidae species in WoRMS that do not have articles on Wikipedia. Protoconus is not yet accepted on WoRMS.[2]. So the bot did not create it. WoRMS taxonomy note: (Invalid: junior homonym of Protoconus Yu, 1979 and Protoconus Stinchcomb, 1986; Tenorioconus is a replacement name). A subsequent bot run (like few months later) will catch these. Lindaconus is accepted on WoRMS. — Ganeshk (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done Hi Ganeshk!! I have made redirects for Protoconus to Tenorioconus, and for Spuriconus to Lindaconus after confirming all the taxonomy changes. Shellnut (talk) 05:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ganeshk! I just added the standard text content (regarding these cone snails being predatory and that the can sting) to each of these articles. Have they been added to the List of Conus species article? Shellnut (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I just refreshed the list of Conus species using the bot. Please feel to rollback the edit if you notice any issues. — Ganeshk (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ganeshk! Yeah, it needs to be rolled back, but I do not know how to do it. We lost a lot of info and species links that way, so I will just add them by hand like I did for all the others. Shellnut (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

If you are referring to species such as Jaspidiconus vanhyningi that have gone missing, those just don't belong in that page since they are different genus. — Ganeshk (talk) 20:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted my edits. The updates are available on this permanent link for reference. — Ganeshk (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Stiliferidae as a separate family?

Copied here from the talk page of Eulimidae, by Invertzoo (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems Stiliferidae are considered part of Eulimidae by some sources. For example, WoRMS called Stiliferidae "not accepted", but concedes that some sources classify Stiliferidae as a family in their own right under Eulimoidea. Should Wikipedia follow WoRMS, or continue as it does currently, with a separate article for Stiliferidae? Inductiveload (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

There are a number of malacologists stating that Stiliferidae is a synonym of Eulimidae :

W. Ponder stated in 1978 : "It is suggested that the Stiliferidae is not separable from the Eulimidae"

W.G. Lyons stated in 1978 : "Differences between Eulimidae and Stiliferidae are unclear, indicating the latter should be combined with the former family."

On the other hand, a number of recent authors still use the name Stiliferidae (check in Google Scholar).

The Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005) clearly states however that Stiliferidae is a synonym of Eulimidae. WoRMS follows this classification and so should we. All the genera in Stiliferidae are already included in our article of Eulimidae. Therefore, I suggest that we make Stiliferidae a redirect to Eulimidae. JoJan (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Update on cone snail collaborative project

Here's an update on the cone snail work. Almed2 has joined in and has uploaded images for all cone snail species which he has from species starting with the letter "A" through "P" (about 450 species); he has over 2300 images of cone snails which he has generously agreed to waive copyright to, upload to WikiCommons, and put on Wikipedia articles. Ganeshk has run the BOT and has identified another 39 species of cone snails listed on WoRMS but which did not have species articles; they are now stubs thanks to Ganeshk. I have written genus articles based on the Tucker & Tenorio work, completing around 50 genus articles so far, and am in the letter "P" as well. Ganeshk has run a BOT on the "red lined" genus articles and has placed a stub article in place of "red lined" genera; I am tackling these one at a time and fleshing them out.

On the List of Conus species article we have run into an issue which needs a consensus. It was originally written when the ONLY recognized genus for cone snail species was Conus. Now there are more genera which have achieved primary recognition on WoRMS, and I suspect that this will continue to grow by 14-18 per year as new species are named and their authors use other genera in naming them. First, should the List of Conus species article contain the names, WoRMS references, and links to all cone snail species? Second, if the answer is "NO" and the article only contains species currently (or ever) recognized as Conus then where do we place the other species? Third, if the List of Conus species article only contains those species which use the genus Conus, should we have another article listing cone snail species alphabetically by species, with a similar format including references to WoRMS and links to the species articles? Shellnut (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I had anticipated problems with that long list article now our treatment of the taxonomy is changing. I would like input from other editors, but my feeling is that despite all the work that went into it, that list is no longer serving a useful purpose and should perhaps even be deleted. I think we should decide what to do by simply imagining that the list article does not exist at all, and then deciding if we feel we need any cone snail articles or lists other than the obvious taxonomic ones. Shellnut and Almed might try to decide if cone snail collectors would find a list of cones by species name useful, and then the rest of us would have to decide if that kind of list was acceptable encyclopedic content. Invertzoo (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

article creation to watch

User:J.H.McDonnell has started to create article for Paleozoic gastropods Special:Contributions/J.H.McDonnell. While this is a good thing, the user is noted for purposely not following formatting guidelines with respect to headings, taxoboxes, and templates. Often times when this user updates a page he will remove templates from citations and for citation needed tags. New article created will have a forced color parameter and at least regnum if not regnum and phylum levels will be left out of the actual box. I try to keep up with the new pages and edits done by this user, but I am not familiar with how the Paleozoic gastopod taxonomy should be displayed in taxoboxes, eg at Sinutropis or Euomphalidae. --Kevmin § 06:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll bet that Invertzoo knows how the taxonomy of fossil gastropods should show up in taxoboxes! Shellnut (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

No... I don't even know what taxonomy we should be using as a standard system. The tricky thing with Paleozoic fossil gastropods is that the taxonomy that paleontologists use is totally different from what we now use on living gastropods. I don't know what people are using when they first make these articles. "The Treatise" did not cover the taxonomy of fossil gastropods, so maybe people are going by the "Paleobiology Database" (?) or by bits and pieces published by other more recent authors? I see some fossil gastropod articles use Archaeogastropoda as an order, and I understand why: Archaeogastropoda, Mesogastropoda and Neogastropoda were easy, they were defined using shell characters. When you study fossil shells, all you have is the shell characters; you don't have any DNA, RNA or mitrochondrial DNA to look at. And then also the very early gastropods are basal, some of them predate the earliest diversification into orders, so you have to go straight from Gastropoda to the family name I guess. You Kevmin might actually know more about this than I do. Invertzoo (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Notes From Kevmin

I was asked by Invertzoo to post clarifications on some of the WP:Paleontology guidelines.

(Yes, I asked Kevmin to do this because we are currently getting a lot of new fossil gastropod articles, and I think it would probably be good to follow the Paleontology guidelines if possible on those articles, and I thought he could explain some of them to us, at least those guidelines which differ from what we are used to. I may be tweaking and trimming his prose because I think we may need to make the final version of this into a subpage of our project page for reference. Invertzoo (talk) 00:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC))

Species articles

Paleontology generally prefers genus articles to species articles. If you have info on a species you may want to create it as a subsection of the relevant genus article. The thought process behind the consolidation of species descriptions into genus articles is that for fossil species generally not much information is known about them, and when looking at the literature the definitions tend to change or be rather fluid.

The general guidelines at WP:Paleontology when deciding whether to create a species level article is to look at how much of the article would be duplication of prose found in a sister species article/parent genus article. If the only major changes in prose are going to be minor points of identification (eg overall size, hinge tooth structure, type locality) then creating a single comprehensive genus article is recommended, with the species being covered as subsections in the genus article. See Lambeosaurus and Palaeovespa for examples. On the occasion where the species sections may be overwhelming the rest of a genus article then they may be split out into a "Species of xxx" article (eg Psittacosaurus and Species of Psittacosaurus). These guidelines cover almost all fossil taxa excepting ones that are from about the last ice age to modern times, many of which are more well known and defined then older taxa. Also, of course it is not meant to be applied to extinct species within a living genera, such as Equisetum thermale, where the other discussed species have stand-alone articles.--Kevmin § 22:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Daggers

In WP:Paleontology, the use of daggers is generally restricted to taxoboxes and taxa lists in articles. When an extinct taxon is mentioned in running prose of a living taxon article it is normally mentioned as extinct, which obviates the need to mark it with a dagger. Similarly in an article on an extinct taxon, the status of the taxon as extinct should usually noted in the first or second line of the introductory prose. Daggers are used in the body of an article generally only in taxon lists. Thus a List of Acer species will have a notation at the top explaining the presence of the †, while the species themselves are formated thus:
†''[[Acer stonebergae]]'' <small>[[Jack A. Wolfe|Wolfe]] & [[Toshimasa Tanai|Tanai]]</small> ([[Early Eocene]], [[Washington (U.S. state)|Washington State]] & [[British Columbia]])<ref name="Wolfe1987"/>
which gives this
†Acer stonebergae Wolfe & Tanai (Early Eocene, Washington State & British Columbia) The dagger is placed in front of the taxon name, while the area after the authority information (fo me at least) is used for age and formation/location information). The dagger is used in a taxobox to mark the extinct levels of the taxonomy from the extant ones, with the first instance of a dagger linked to the extinction article (eg {{extinction}} or [[extinct|†]]) If you use the automatic taxoboxes, the taxonomy template has a built-in parameter for marking a taxon extinct. --Kevmin § 22:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Automatic taxoboxes

The use of automatic taxoboxes is by no means a universally accepted practice. In fact WP:Paleontology is the only project that has adopted use of them for all new articles created. Currently the explanatory documentation needs to be reworked to make it more intuitive for users. However, I think use at both the WP:Gastropods and WP:Bivalves could be beneficial as the higher taxonomies of both are, for the most part, in flux at this point. Creation of the taxonomy templates is not very difficult, and conversion of a taxobox to an automatic taxobox is also not complex. A lot of the work involved actually comes from the initial creation of the first few taxon template groups, after those are done, other lower level templates link in fairly quickly. I will be the first to admit that I don't know nearly every in-and-out of the automatic taxoboxes or the speciesboxes, but the users who maintain/work on them are willing to help with problems. I think a lot of what is needed to clarify the documentation is more new eyes there working with us to clarify and streamline it. This page Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Automatic taxobox has a good overview of how to create and covert taxoboxes.--Kevmin § 22:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Automatic taxobox

I have created the Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastropods/Automatic taxobox page reusing much of the content from a similar page on the Plants project. I have added project-specific examples of various possible scenarios. Please let me know your comments. Also, please feel free to tweak the page. — Ganeshk (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Use of automatic taxobox on bot-created articles

I was thinking whether it would be okay to use the automatic taxoboxes on the bot-created articles. This would eliminate the need for newcomers to learn the complex syntax and prepare stubs that can be expanded. It will also give the project members a chance to work with the automatic taxoboxes. Please comment here whether you approve/disapprove of this. Thanks. — Ganeshk (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that is a good idea since the BOT would be able to prepare a stub species article, complete with a taxobox, with little manual oversight to begin with. Shellnut (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

In principle I would approve, but.... The bot is creating lots of articles in Pyramidellidae. Polyphyly is rampant in this family. WoRMS is waiting for the publication of an authoritative review of this family in the near future. This means that many hundreds of articles in this family will have to be moved. An automatic taxobox means that for every move the template must be changed as well. This doubles the workload, unless Ganesh knows a way to circumvent this. JoJan (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It depends on where the changes will be. If they are at the subfamily level and above, then we will just need to update one template. If the change is at the genera level, then we can have a bot to do those updates/create new templates. — Ganeshk (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Scientific vs. common name

This section is transcluded from Talk:Panopea generosa/Scientific vs. common name. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments. This section is included at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bivalves, and Talk:Panopea generosa; and can be edited from any of those pages

Is there any reason this article shouldn't be moved from Panopea generosa to the common name of Pacific geoduck, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)? --Tom Hulse (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tom! Just like you are a self proclaimed "plant nut" I am a "shell nut", hence the moniker. This article comes under the global umbrella of WikiProject Bivalves, which is patterned after WikiProject Gastropods. We are trying to use proper taxonomy throughout both projects, up to date per the World Register of Marine Species. Knowing that a lot of people use the common names for organisms we try to use redirects to get the common name search moved to the formal name article. Part of the problem we run into with marine fauna is that "common names" have not always garnered full acceptance, and sometimes there are multiple common names. With birds I know that there are generally accepted common names; maybe this is true in botany too. If you are interested, go to the main class article Bivalvia and scroll down through the taxonomy. For starters we are trying to clean up the major taxa through families, working down to species articles as we have time and interest. Shellnut (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Can I ask if you've taken this idea higher up, to WP:TOL or WP:FAUNA? The reason I ask is that WP:FAUNA has clear and binding conventions for all animals, including bivalves. You may not locally override them at your bivalve project, per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS; you would need to get the wider community's permission to change their guidline for all animals. So just becuase "some" common names of marine fauna may not have garnered wide acceptance doesn't mean we can apply that to other related articles. I don't think Pacific geoduck is in any way ambiguous, do you? --Tom Hulse (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi again Tom! You raise interesting points. I will copy this thread onto the talk page of both projects and see what the senior editors thoughts are. Thank you for raising this interesting issue. Shellnut (talk) 04:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Tom. I think you will find that "geoduck" is the common name most often used for this species, rather than "Pacific geoduck". However there is a related clam that is sometimes known as the "Atlantic geoduck". I think "geoduck" for the Pacific species is arguably a really genuine common name, like "quahog", a species which we currently have under the article name "Hard clam", a name I myself have actually never heard used! But the great majority of mollusks (gastropods and bivalves) really only have a scientific name. You can find so-called common names for all kinds of species in various field guides and other publications (and very often these so-called common names are different from one publication to the next), but just because names exist doesn't mean that anybody actually uses them. If we try to enforce the guideline you are talking about it will be quite chaotic trying to decide whether a name actually really counts as a common name or not. However if you want to move Panopea generosa to Geoduck, please go ahead, and if you want to move Hard clam to Quahog, please go ahead with that move too. Thanks for your interest in our projects, we appreciate it. I should perhaps explain that WikiProject Bivalves is brand new, having been started this January, so no doubt we will find all kinds of weird things that need fixing as we gradually go through the bivalve articles. The gastropod project never really bothered much with the bivalve articles as it had so many of its own to deal with. Best wishes to you, Invertzoo (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

After looking closer at the references, I agree 100% that just "geoduck" equates best to this species, rather than the genus. I grew up here in the PNW, where Panopea generosa is native. Even the kids here know what a geoduck is, but no one but a few scientist will even recognize Panopea generosa.

One note regarding common names, you might also interpret a scientific name to be a common name. So whatever the most easily recognized name is, in the areas which it occurs, for your species of clam, whether it's Hard clam, quahog, or Mercenaria mercenaria, then that might be the name you could use (not spelled out in the policy, but you might use it in cases where a "common" name is grossly obscure). Your complete guide to article naming for animals is at WP:FAUNA. --Tom Hulse (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

My first attempt at transcluding a talk section onto multiple pages; please tell me if I got any of if wrong. --Tom Hulse (talk) 11:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tom, I "moved" the Geoduck article to Geoduck. From now on if you come across anything like this (and you have already checked and are certain you are right about the common name being much more recognizable than the scientific name) please Be Bold and just go ahead and change it yourself, no problem. You can always just leave a note on the talk page explaining why you changed the article name. Invertzoo (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Habitat and migration.

Many years ago it was known that Sea Hares inhabited the coast off Aransas Pass and Padre Island Texas in great numbers, but migrated away in the colder months. What wasn't known is where they migrated to. Does anyone know of further studies on this matter?

The article here mentions that NeuroScientists are interested in Sea Hares, but don't elaborate that it is because of the simplicity and dimensions of their neural network makes them easy to work with.

In the 80's researchers at UT and other area laboratories had problems getting specimens for study off season. I haven't followed the situation since then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IRobt (talk • contribs) 16:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Great images that we can use

File:Adelomelon brasiliana egg cases 2.jpg

Adelomelon brasiliana egg cases cast up on a beach after a storm are as large as a chicken egg.

A friend of mine published an incredible image of very large gastropod egg cases. I thought it might interest the WikiProject Gastropods members. Shellnut (talk) 05:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I just looked, and apparently we do not have any information or images on gastropod egg cases in the main article, or in the reproduction and mating behaviour article. Undoubtedly there are a lot of images of gastropod egg cases on Flickr, etc. Any ideas Invertzoo? Shellnut (talk) 05:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

After searching WikiCommons I was only able to find one other example of gastropod egg cases for Busycon contrarium (A Most Valued Image award winner), AND it was not even placed on the species article!

Busycon contrarium egg cases.

The truth is that there are probably dozens if not hundreds of really great mollusk images on Commons that have not yet been placed in any of our articles! I must confess that I don't usually go looking around on Commons for mollusk images, and currently probably no-one in this project or the bivalve project is doing the leg work to find all the relevant images on Commons and place them (let along seeing what's available on Flickr). Anyone who is prepared to find unplaced images and post them, please do go ahead (!) because these are very valuable contributions! A picture is worth a thousand words! (Especially after the ID has been checked for correctness). As for the marine mollusk egg case images, we could even maybe start an article on that topic, as well as placing the images with the appropriate species article? Invertzoo (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Taxonomy tree

I have used the WoRMS database file to create the User:Ganeshbot/Animalia/Gastropoda page. It can be used to traverse through the taxonomy down to the species. I have completed the run for the Heterobranchia. — Ganeshk (talk) 13:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I found these missing articles that may need creating.

• Murchisonelloidea - http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=578926
• Neomphalina - http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=579262

— Ganeshk (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

All sub-classes are done. — Ganeshk (talk) 02:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The full listing is here. — Ganeshk (talk) 03:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Is Super family a major rank?

I would appreciate your comments at this thread. Thanks. — Ganeshk (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC) (this answer is also copied to User_talk:Stemonitis#Always_display

This is a strange discussion. The rank of superfamily is where in our taxoboxes of the gastropods the Linnean taxonomy makes contact with the unranked clades above it (replacing the ranks of subclass, superorder, order, and suborder). The databases we use (especially WoRMS) always mention the superfamily, e.g. in the case of the species Turbonilla juani [3]. The database gastropods.com requires the knowledge of the name of the superfamily to go deeper into the database [4]. In the Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005) clades are used between the rank of class and the rank of superfamily (showing the importance of the rank of superfamily). The ICZN mentions explicitly the rank of superfamily. Nowhere it is mentioned that a superfamily is a minor rank. Then I can't see why the rank of superfamily would suddenly become a minor rank. Also how else could we make a distinction in the taxobox for families that are not assigned to a superfamily, but directly to a clade, such as Dotidae and families under a superfamily, but with this superfamily not expressed in the taxobox (most other families) ? Try to explain all this to the professional malacologists who are the editors of WoRMS [5] and I don't think you would get very far. JoJan (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

There's more discussion of this at User_talk:Stemonitis#Always_display, which perhaps belongs here. No-one disagrees that superfamilies and other nodes/ranks belong in the taxonomic hierarchy. The issue is how much of the complete hierarchy should be shown in a particular taxobox. The principle which Stemonitis is arguing for, and which I strongly support, is that we don't show the entire hierarchy in every taxobox. Instead, there's a kind of "moving magnifier": immediately above the subject taxon we show the detail, but when we reach a principal rank above the subject taxon, only the outline is shown. What's relevant for a species is how it fits in a family; what's relevant for a family, is how it fits into an order, and so on. For example, it's irrelevant to understanding a species to know precisely what the nodes are between family and order, or for understanding a family to know precisely what the nodes are between phylum and kingdom.

It's for this reason that using the automatic taxobox system, adding |always_display=true to the "Template:Taxonomy/..." pages is almost always a bad idea. Note what the documentation for these pages says "If the taxon is not a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus or species, but should nevertheless be displayed in all descendant taxoboxes (this is not a common occurrence!) ..." Instead, use |display_parents= in the relevant display template in the automatic taxobox system with some number chosen to show the required extra nodes up to the next principal rank (i.e. the next up of the 7 Linnaean ranks). Peter coxhead (talk) 09:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with JoJan that having the superfamily in all the taxoboxes is essential for understanding where a species fits in to gastropod taxonomy. Perhaps people don't understand how large a phylum the gastropods are. Without superfamilies I would not be able to tell where thousands of species are supposed to fit in, honestly I would not. Invertzoo (talk) 17:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Created a subcategory--did I do wrong?

I am not in any way, shape or form an authority on Gastropods. But having a general scientific interest, and being a somewhat obsessive personality, I've been doing A LOT of work on Category page. Most of that has been in pages for some genus or another. (Mostly, that's been in the plants.)

I just did a big job of that with a family of Gastropods, and now I'm afraid I might have done something wrong.

I recently stumbled on a large category for the sea snail family Category:Fasciolariidae. It had well over 500 articles. It also had one subcategory for one genus in the family, Category:Fusus with 53 articles. But I saw that on the family category page, there were 176 articles for species of the genus Fusinus. So I created a Category:Fusinus page, set it as a subcategory of Fasciolariidae and moved all 176 Fusinus articles to it.

But now I find the far bigger Category:Muricidae with over 1600 articles. Again, this is for a family, with many genera. One might conceivably sort out the larger genera into subcategories. But there's a note on the page. It says, "Preventive warning: Do not split this category! Otherwise discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods." There's also a note that says, "For convenience, all Muricidae are included in this category. This includes all Muricidae that can also be found in the subcategories." (BTW, there are no subcategories, apart from the Stub Category page.)

So now, I'm wondering if there's some reason for the Gastropods to have huge pages for families, and some reason the Gastropod Project members do not want them broken down into smaller categories for genera. In short, I wonder if I SHOULD have done what I did. BTW, I was thinking of pulling two more genera out of the Category page for the family Fasciolariidae. But I'll hold off. In case I wind up feeling obligated to put the Fusinus species back, I'd rather keep it to just those 176. Uporządnicki (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The reason for such huge categories for families is historical. This project started off with few articles without much need for categorizing. It has since grown to more than 24,000 articles and is still growing at a considerable pace. We're only with a small number of collaborators and we're concentrating our precious time on the creation of new articles. It is indeed advisable to split up the categories of families into categories of genera. But this a time consuming job that can be done by anyone without a thorough knowledge of the taxonomy of the gastropods. But sometimes you may run into difficulties, as you did when to found Fusus. This is a genus that has been defined, in the course of time (1779, 1789 and 1815), three times by different authors who didn't know about each other. This has led to much confusion afterwards and caused this genus to be declared invalid. Most species involved have become synonyms, but a number were ill-defined and are still classified as nomine nuda. These are the ones found in the category Fusus. I left a small note at this category to explain the situation. JoJan (talk) 08:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a very special problem with the Muricidae. That family is a mess and will probably remain so for several years at least. Several competing systems of subfamilies and genera are available to be used, but all of them are based on shell characters and are therefore not very reliable! Experts cannot agree as to which system is the most trustworthy. Probably none of them are really trustworthy as they currently stand. Until massive amounts of DNA and RNA analysis has been done on hundreds of species it is really not worth trying to assign subgroups to this massive family. Invertzoo (talk) 18:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HighBeam

Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research.
—Wavelength (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Monotypic article titles

Hi all, there appeared few new articles of species in monotypic genera: Ayna mienisi, Truncatophaedusa evae, Pontophaedusella offenses. Few WikiProject members (usually considered as crucial project members) have seen these articles and they did not noticed the article title discrepancy! I can apply Wikipedia:Requested moves but I would like to try explain, why de facto the whole this project prefer(preferred) the name of the species in the title:

• The species is the main unit in biological classification and the species is a subject of such articles.
• LOGICAL PRINCIPLE. The lower taxonomic rank title name is always used: for example Bertia cambojiensis for Bertia; Boettgerilla for Boettgerillidae; Bulla (gastropod) for superfamily Bulloidea; Dyakiidae for Dyakioidea, and so on. (It seems that such principle for suprageneric taxa is used thorough the whole Wikipedia.)
• EASY TO UNDERSTAND AND EASY TO EDIT. The name of a species is unambiguous (the main criterium for Wikipedia:Article titles). The biological classification is always changing and no reader can ever be sure if a certain sentence is related to a genus, to one species or to another species in such changing environment. This is true especially on Wikipedia, where included texts should (always!) be corresponding to article title as well to the classification. It is even easier for wikipedians to create and keep updated such articles during the continuous process of discovering and describing new species. (You can even see real example: First there was created Aiteng ater article for that monotypic family; and when there was discovered another species, there was very easy to create such Aiteng mysticus article as well as Aiteng article.)
• AVOID NUMBER OF COMPLICATED NAMES WITH BRACKETS. You can normally use the title of name of the species in all cases. While the name of a genus is occupied in huge number of cases: not only in all biological homonyms, but also with synonymous non-biological articles. Compare titles: "Ayna mienisi" and "Ayna (gastropod)". There is necassary to use brackets in many cases, but using brackets in monotypic genera titles is always redundant.
• PROJECT ALREADY USES IT. There is such tradition of naming in Wikiproject Gastropods. (Contrary there is a different tradition of naming in Wikipedia for example in Fungi and for example in prehistoric vertebrates.) I could provide very much examples (maybe over a hundred of gastropods?), but few will be enough:
  • monotypic genera: Indrella ampulla, Quantula striata, Pachydrobiella brevis, Faunus ater, Chytra kirki, Afropomus balanoidea, Pebasiconcha immanis, Indoplanorbis exustus, Escargot de Quimper, 6 monotypic genra within Dyakiidae, 7 monotypic genera within Trigonochlamydidae, 2 monotypic genera within Viviparidae, 3 monotypic genera within Lithoglyphidae, 6 monotypic genera within Streptaxidae, (also notice how are these articles of families and their wikilinks organized) and so on
  • monotypic families: Fiona pinnata, Spelaeoconcha paganettii, Otina ovata, Helicostoa sinensis, Tantulum elegans, ...
  • For example Acochlidiacea contain various examples of families with the only genus and some examples with families with the only species.

Thanks for your attention and happy editing! --Snek01 (talk) 01:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello Michal. I am not sure that I understand the main point or the other subsidiary points you are trying to make in your message, because your prose is quite difficult to understand. However, I left a message on the talk page of WikiProject Tree of Life to ask them about what I think you are probably getting at. Here is what was said:

"Hello everyone. I wanted to ask whether the Tree of Life project has an agreed-upon convention as to which name to use as the title of an article about a monotypic taxon? For example, do we use the binomial name of the species as the title of an article about a monotypic genus? Or do we use the name of the genus as the title? Thanks,Invertzoo (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)"

"We use the genus, unless that title's ambiguous. If the genus name is ambiguous (e.g. "Gregoria"), we use the binomen (e.g. Gregoria fenestrata), unless that is also ambiguous (rare, but it could happen). --Stemonitis (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)"

If you disagree with that convention, I suppose this is something you should try to sort out with that project. Invertzoo (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that example. That is very useful example, because at least we can immediately move "Ayna (gastropod)" to "Ayna mienisi". Hmm... there really is written recommendation for such names at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life#Article titles and it is there since 2004: "However, for a genus that contains a single species, the genus name should be used since it is included in the binomial." There is not explained why generic name should be used in the WikiProject Tree of Life. That sentence includes an exception into guidelines and such exception is there included without any (apparent) reason. Not all wikiprojects follows that, for example fishes (Category:Monotypic fish genera) uses binomen. If we are looking for universal and unified solution(s), then it is like this:

• Ayna mienisi, Truncatophaedusa evae, Pontophaedusella offenses.
• not like this: Ayna mienisi, Truncatophaedusa, Pontophaedusella.

Wikiproject Gastropods have always used such universal solution. It is also as much as stable solution. And it is also as much as unambiguous: every article that contain binomen is about the certain species; every article that uses genus is about at least 2 species. Also consider, that there are hundreds of unresolved articles Category:Gastropod genera with single species that we do not know, if they are monotypic or not. Also consider that titles of common names of species (such as Tumbling Creek cavesnail, Flat pebblesnail, ...) are used for monotypic genera. Common names are not always possible to apply to gastropods, but for example all monotypic genera of birds and many of mammals redirects from generic name to common name of species. So why there should be such great difference in common names of species and scientific names of species? All articles (or I could rather say very great majority) about gastropods are unified in as much as universal way now. What we will do, when we know now, that other Wikiprojects used different titles? Will we blindly follow the crowd and will we perform hundreds of moves as well as modify much more associated articles? Will we continue using our way? Will we be satisfied with unresolved problems and will we be claiming that we do not understand each other? Or will we ask them why they did so? If there will be any reason, then we can DECIDE what to do: either modify our articles or suggest modification of the guideline. --Snek01 (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

If this particular convention is something you care deeply about, as seems to be the case, then I really think you should transfer your discussion to the Project Tree of Life talk page. Obviously it would be better with this kind of thing if one or the other choice was standardized throughout Wikipedia. Invertzoo (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Pyramidellidae - section break 2 (continued) - Ganeshbot

Good news. The bot request has been approved. I will create the next 100 articles and post back here. — Ganeshk (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Please review the 100 new species articles and let me know they are good. — Ganeshk (talk) 13:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Checked and OK. While I was at it, I've already added some text and images to Chrysallida fenestrata and Chrysallida terebellum. JoJan (talk) 15:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The next 100 are ready to review. Should Eulimella (Bacteridium) be deleted? — Ganeshk (talk) 22:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Checked and OK; Eulimella (Bacteridium) (last edit in WoRMS in 2006) has been moved to Eulimella carinatum (based on a report from 2010). JoJan (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The next 100 are ready to review. I wish I had asked for a 250 limit. :) — Ganeshk (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Checked and OK. Data added and a few moves made. Needed articles of genera : Megastomia, Miralda, Monotigma, Mormula, Noemiamea, Odostomella. JoJan (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The next 100 are done. There were a couple of genus articles with no species on them. — Ganeshk (talk) 03:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Checked and OK. Some genera of the Pyramidellidae in WoRMS haven't been edited since 2004. Dr. Bouchet wrote to me in an email that there are ca. 1500 species (of Pyramidellidae) in WoRMS, while the total number of valid species is about 3,500. He wants to wait for the results of the research of Lafolette et al. before adding the missing species. This could take some time. Therefore, I didn't add missing species that I found in other databases, since these could be synonyms and this would complicate things afterwards. JoJan (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The next 100 articles are ready for review. Thanks for your help, JoJan. — Ganeshk (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I corrected a few strange glitches of the bot in the section "synonyms" of Turbanilla. "Chrysallida thetisae" : I didn't know your bot could pick up new additions to WoRMS. That is certainly a major asset. Checking further.... JoJan (talk) 13:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Checked and OK JoJan (talk) 19:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The next 100 articles are ready for review. — Ganeshk (talk) 00:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Checked and OK. JoJan (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The next 106 articles are ready for review. — Ganeshk (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Checked and OK. Sent 4 emails to WoRMS. Received personal communication from Dr. Bouchet. Edited more than 200 articles and uploaded more than 200 images. That's why it took so long. But it had to be done. JoJan (talk) 15:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The next 100 articles are ready for review. Thanks. — Ganeshk (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Checked and OK. No problems. JoJan (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The next 100 articles are ready for review. — Ganeshk (talk) 01:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Checked and OK. One email to WoRMS. JoJan (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The next 100 articles are ready for review. — Ganeshk (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay to proceed. JoJan (talk) 13:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Checked and OK JoJan (talk) 14:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The next 100 articles are ready for review. — Ganeshk (talk) 04:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Checked and OK. JoJan (talk) 19:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The next 100 articles are ready for review. — Ganeshk (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Checked and OK JoJan (talk) 19:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The next 100 articles are ready for review. — Ganeshk (talk) 02:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Checked and OK JoJan (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The next 100 articles are ready for review. I have used the automatic taxobox for these stubs. — Ganeshk (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Checked and OK. One email to WoRMS. JoJan (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The next 100 articles are ready for review. — Ganeshk (talk) 17:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Checked and OK JoJan (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The next 100 articles are ready for review. — Ganeshk (talk) 02:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Checked and OK; One email to WoRMS. JoJan (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting ZooKeys article?

Hello all. Noticed an article in the new Zookeys which might be of interest to you. All Zookeys articles (text and images) are CC-3.0 so you can use all of it on wikipedia. The article is: Annotated type catalogue of the Bothriembryontidae and Odontostomidae (Mollusca, Gastropoda, Orthalicoidea) in the Natural History Museum, London [6] Cheers, Ruigeroeland (talk) 08:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ruigeroeland, that's a lot of useful information. Invertzoo (talk) 12:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Omphalotropis costulata

I just came across a taxonomic revision in the IUCN database for the species Omphalotropis costulata. They say the name proposed in 1999 is invalid, since it was already used in 1870. They have taken to calling this critter O. sp. nov. 2. Thoughts on how we should deal with the issue? --TeaDrinker (talk) 07:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello Teadrinker, and thanks very much for your interest in gastropods! You could I suppose deal with this fairly easily by simply moving Omphalotropis costulata Emberton and Pearce, 1999 to "Omphalotropis sp. nov. 2" (Emberton et al. 1996, Emberton 1997) and giving the Red List as a reference. (I suspect that the 1870 Omphalotropis costulata is perhaps now grouped under a different genus, because I don't seem to be able to find any evidence of it with a Google search.)

Alternatively you could make Omphalotropis costulata into a disambiguation page, and list both of the species on that page, then create a minimal stub for the older species which we can then at some point update, if we can work out what genus it is currently placed in.

We usually go with the database WoRMS as our basis of reference, but it seems that this genus has not been revised on WoRMS recently:

http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=405035

Let me know if you need a hand with this.

Invertzoo (talk) 13:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I went ahead and moved the article to Omphalotropis sp. nov. 2, leaving a redirect. It would be nice to fill in a stub for the original O. costulata, but I have been unable to find it in jstor or in web of science. My suspicion is that the original pub was in French (only because the binom authority, Mousson, is also a town in France). The IUCN seems to indicate the species was transferred into the genus Omphalotropis at some point, rather than being placed in it originally. So there are at least two pubs on it somewhere. However "costulata" seems to be a pretty common name (I think it derives from the Latin for "ribbed," which is a pretty simple descriptor of a lot of shellfish), so sorting out the taxonomy is not a trivial matter. --TeaDrinker (talk) 10:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much TeaDrinker for moving the article and tweaking the article contents to reflect the move. Maybe eventually we will be able to work out what the older Omphalotropis costulata is now called. Invertzoo (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

TeaDrinker, thanks for notifying the mistake. I have started that Omphalotropis costulata (Mousson, 1870) article. --Snek01 (talk) 23:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Radiodiscus iheringi and Spanish

Could someone who speaks Spanish and/or has some taxonomic experience take a look at Talk:Radiodiscus iheringi? What I think is going on is Radiodiscus iheringi was named in 1881 by EA Smith. In 1899, Ancey named Stephanoda iheringi, which Fonseca and Thome moved into Radiodiscus in 1994. That would make it a secondary homonym which should be renamed. I'm not really sure this is what's going on, but if someone who can clarify (or read the Fonseca and Thome paper), it would be quite helpful. --TeaDrinker (talk) 06:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello again TeaDrinker, and thanks for your efforts, they are much appreciated! I do have some Spanish, but not enough to understand this technical science paper. By the way, these species are not on WoRMS because WoRMS deals only with marine species and these are land snails. The IUCN recognizes Radiodiscus iheringi Smith, 1881, but they are not taxonomic experts. I do very much see what you are saying, but unless you can get more info from your own reading, I think we may perhaps have to leave this as it is for the time being, unsatisfactory though it is. Invertzoo (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

(Fonseca and Thome is in Portuguese language.) I have resolved the authority and synonyms within the genus and added information: see the talkpage of the species and see synonyms in the genus article. --Snek01 (talk) 00:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Pyramidellidae: huge category--no subcategories?

Is there some reason all 1776 species have gone into the category for the family, instead of into separate subcategories for the genera? Are the genera in this family particularly uncertain? Uporządnicki (talk) 02:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gastropods/Archive_5#Created_a_subcategory--did_I_do_wrong.3F. — Ganeshk (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I do remember that discussion--which I initiated. The thing was, at one moment it seemed to say, yes it can be helpful to break these things up; the next moment it seemed to say it could lead to problems in the future as things change. I decided to do no more with that particular family.

I have a feeling that here I might be dabbling where I shouldn't. I'll stick to plants--separating large genera out of family categories; I'm not a botanist either, but that's worked well for me here. Uporządnicki (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Are we talking about the category Muricidae again? If so, then no-one wants to tackle it because the classification is so unstable. Yes the genera are extremely poorly defined and experts disagree radically. Invertzoo (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Whoops! No. I wrote my original inquiry in this thread as if I were posting it to the talk page for the Category--sorry! (I know better than that.) I was looking at Category Pyramidellidae. Uporządnicki (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, good. I changed the heading of this thread to reflect which category you are talking about. Actually User:JoJan is currently working on that family and you could maybe ask him about this question on his talk page. However I do know that it is a very large family indeed, mostly consisting of obscure micromollusks, many of which are ectoparasitic. I also know that the family has been very little studied in general, and therefore the taxonomy within the family is not at all well worked out. Invertzoo (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Fossil gastropods

Hello to everyone!

I'd like to introduce myself. My name is Rodrigo B. Salvador and I'm a graduate student at the Museum of Zoology of São Paulo, Brazil. I am specializing myself in land snails, mainly fossils but I've also worked with the recent fauna. A colleague of mine from the museum, Daniel C. Cavallari, encouraged me to start adding some content to Wikipedia. I've started today with the Cerionidae and intend to keep on adding content from now on.

Best regards, Rodrigo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RodrigoSalvador (talk • contribs) 19:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Ahoy! Welcome to Wikipedia Rodrigo =)! Daniel Cavallari (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, glad to have you aboard! Our coverage of Cerionidae needs your help. It's a very interesting family! Invertzoo (talk) 12:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

"Godiva banyulensis" = Dondice banyulensis

WoRMS doesn't have this. Is the name right? Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure looks like this guy: [7][8] Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is Dondice banyulensis Portmann & Sandmeier, 1960. It is called in Spanish "godiva anaranjada" and in Italian "godiva arancia". That is probably why there is any connection with the name "godiva". The only synonym I can find is Dondice nicolae Vicente 1967 JoJan (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with JoJan's identification on this nudibranch. Maybe Anna you could change the name of this file on Commons? Thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 12:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The WoRMS page for this species is here if Anna or anyone else would like to make a stub for it. Invertzoo (talk) 12:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Moved to [[9]]. Thanks folks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Anna. I changed the Commons page description of the file somewhat because Dondice banyulensis is not the "English name" but the scientific name (which is the same in every language of the world), whereas "godiva anaranjada", i.e. "the yellow godiva" is simply the Spanish common name of the species. Invertzoo (talk) 13:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely fine. I knew it was the scientific name, but was rushing through it at the time and missed. Many thanks for the correction. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I created two extremely primitive stubs for the species and for the genus. It seems that Godiva is a genus name for a group of sea slugs in the same family, so I assume that this species was previously sometimes placed in that genus, although I can't find anything to that effect in the synonyms listed on WoRMS etc. Anyone who feels like working my pathetic stubs up into something more worthwhile, please go ahead! :) Invertzoo (talk) 14:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Lists of marine mollusks?

I would very much like to get input from project members on the question of how to organize marine mollusk faunal lists and whether regional list articles should even be created. Two or three years ago this question came up, and back then this project seemed to have a consensus that it would be better to have lists of marine mollusks by faunal zone, for example the northeast Atlantic, the Mediterranean Sea, the Caribbean faunal zone and so on, rather than having a different article for every single country or every island, articles that would attempt to list all the marine species for that rather small area. I should point out that there are hardly any marine species that are endemic to one small area, which is not at all the case for the non-marine fauna.

To be fair, I should also point out that in the past, people have already started "List of marine mollusks of" articles for New Zealand, Venezuela, South Africa, Chile, Mozambique, Brazil, Australia and Angola. However, all of those lists are currently extremely incomplete, since all of those areas would in reality have a marine fauna of more than a thousand species.

Please think about this issue, and put your comments here. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 00:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I've seen those lists. I haven't reacted to them, even if I think they are (almost) useless. Only in rare cases (such as endemic species) a species can be linked to a political entity such as a country. And even if they are thought to be endemic, it is only because they haven't been found yet in another area. Even linking a species to one geographical or "faunal" zone is in many cases useless, since some occur worldwide in tropical areas, many others in several geographical zones. I consider such lists a waste of time. There is so much work to be done in this project that one can use one's efforts in a more productive way. I hope you agree. JoJan (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

In some ways I agree with you, although I think we should ultimately have articles on each of the different marine faunal zones, even if those articles do not attempt to list the whole marine mollusk fauna of each zone. However, I want to try to find out what all of us think about this, not just trying to suggest what the project members ourselves should do or not do, but for the encyclopedia as a whole. Should we try to discourage other editors from creating country lists? The reason those articles get created is because there are often (partial) published lists out there of the marine mollusk fauna of individual countries or islands, and people end up creating list articles based on those published sources. Of course the editors who create these list articles don't see anything wrong with doing that. One reason I am asking this now, is that a WP editor from Ireland saw the list of non-marine mollusks of Ireland (which I had done a lot of work on several years ago) and asked me if I was going to do a list of the Irish marine mollusks. To be fair, I suppose that quite a few shell collectors and naturalists would enjoy knowing what marine species occur in the area they live in, plus, as this editor pointed out, certain species are protected in certain countries because they are locally endangered, and that info can also be included. Although I personally have no intention of creating a marine mollusk list for Ireland, I want to know what project members think about this whole question. Invertzoo (talk) 13:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

List by country should be considered a standard (compatible with non-marine snails; well defined geographic range) even if they will be incomplete for a long time. Exceptions can appear of course. For example I can imagine, that there would be good a Pacific part of a List of marine molluscs of Nicaragua and its Atlantic part. I can also imagine that marine lists by some country can be merged if there will be a good reasoning, but such lists did not appear yet. - Incompleteness is no reason for re-arrangement. I think, that if the list of small area is incomplete, then the list of larger area is likely to be much more incomplete. - When a list of Atlantic marine gastropods has over 4600 species, then a list northeast Atlantic (as suggested above) will have over 1000(?) gastropod species anyway. I consider lists by country as an advantage, because they are a bit smaller. I do not discourage wikipedians to create lists by faunal zones, but I still consider lists by country as a standard. --Snek01 (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Video: Cone snail eating a fish

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/life/Conus#p00msm0v I ran into this interesting video. — Ganeshk (talk) 00:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That was, errrrr.... spooky. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Glad you liked it. :) — Ganeshk (talk) 03:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm not very tiny because then there are more big things that eat you. Of course there are really tiny things that eat us, but we have sprays for them. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Might be worth making a link to this BBC video from our article Cone snail. Invertzoo (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Pardon the intrusion, but I believe that doing so would result in copyright issues... Or am I wrong? Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It's OK to list it as an external link, just the same as any other piece of info that is external to Wikipedia. Invertzoo (talk) 12:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'm curious to know the bottom line on this. Was this removed because the host was likely not the owner? Lots of external links contain content they do not own. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

You would have to ask the person who removed the link (to that shark video) why they removed it. I would say in general, the more professional a site is (like for example the BBC who have that cone snail video) the more likely it is that they own the video, or at least have rented or leased it legally. Invertzoo (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I have added it to the External links section. — Ganeshk (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Pyramidellidae (continued) - Ganeshbot

The bot is active again. The next 100 articles are ready for review. — Ganeshk (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Checked and OK. Is it possible to insert the missing synonyms of Odostomia and Turbonilla ? They're just too numerous to do manually. Thanks. JoJan (talk) 08:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I will update the species and synonym lists once I complete all the articles in the family. — Ganeshk (talk) 02:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The next 100 articles are ready for review. — Ganeshk (talk) 02:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Checked and OK JoJan (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The next 141 articles are ready for review. This completes the Pyramidellidae family. A total of 1998 new articles have been added. — Ganeshk (talk) 04:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Checked and OK. JoJan (talk) 13:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Great, what family should we choose next? — Ganeshk (talk) 13:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I think Turbinidae would be a logical choice, since there are many missing articles for the genera and the species. JoJan (talk) 13:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I have updated the synonym and species lists on Odostomia and Turbonilla. Sure, will start work on Turbinidae. — Ganeshk (talk) 14:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Strange. Your bot removed a number of valid species from Odostomia. I'll put them back. JoJan (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Feel free to rollback the change or fill in the removed ones. — Ganeshk (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I use for the columns colwidth=20em; otherwise the columns don't show up on my screen. JoJan (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi gastropod lovers!

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Lambis crocata 2010 G1.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on August 25, 2012. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2012-08-25. —howcheng {chat} 16:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I have asked Howcheng if possible to give us more notice on these POTDs. I would definitely have added to and tweaked the caption, but I was on vacation and did not notice this until it was too late. Invertzoo (talk) 13:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

New BOT request

I have submitted a new bot approval request requesting approval to create 500 stubs at a time. — Ganeshk (talk) 01:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Great, I hope it is accepted. Do you need us to back you up on that? if so then give us the page link. Invertzoo (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It's here, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Ganeshbot 11. — Ganeshk (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Turbinidae - New bot task

Please confirm the introduction sentence and the taxonomy. — Ganeshk (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

X
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Mollusca
Class:	Gastropoda
(unranked):	clade Vetigastropoda
Superfamily:	Trochoidea
Family:	Turbinidae
Genus:	X
Species:	X. X
Binomial name
X. X

Genus

X is a genus of sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Turbinidae, the turban snails.

Species

X is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Turbinidae, the turban snails.

WoRMS classification

Biota > Animalia (Kingdom) > Mollusca (Phylum) > Gastropoda (Class) > Vetigastropoda (Subclass) > Trochoidea (Superfamily) > Turbinidae (Family)

This seems fine. It is always best to keep the introductory sentence as simple as possible. JoJan (talk) 14:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Section break 1

The stubs are ready for review. — Ganeshk (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Checked and OK. JoJan (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The next 100 stubs are ready for review. — Ganeshk (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Checked and OK. JoJan (talk) 13:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The last 41 stubs are ready for review. — Ganeshk (talk) 02:37, 14 September 2012 (UT

Checked and OK. Could you add the about 1200 missing synonyms of Turbo under the header "Species brought into synonymy" ? I think it would be wise in the next step to proceed with the other families of Trochoidea. JoJan (talk) 08:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I have updated the synonym list on Turbo. Please review User:Ganeshbot/sandbox/Turbo to see if any additional information can be added. I will take break before I work on other families. — Ganeshk (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, take a break and proceed at your own pace. JoJan (talk) 12:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Gastropod anatomy template?

I was thinking that it might be very nice to have a navigational template like this one:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Template:Cephalopod_anatomy

But for gastropods. It could perhaps be divided into shell, external soft parts and internal soft parts? Invertzoo (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It seemed like a good idea, so made a first version of it. Currently it is not in any articles yet but I will soon be adding it unless anyone has objections.

Please feel free to tweak the template and/or to give me any feedback on it. Thanks! Invertzoo (talk) 22:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Awesome =)! Daniel Cavallari (talk) 23:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Glad you like it Daniel! Hey, Jose Leal left for Rio for 2 weeks today for a conference, are you going? If so, and if you see him, please say hello to him from me. Invertzoo (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I added the template to all the relevant articles. I also tweaked the template a little. If anyone has some spare time they may want to check some of these articles, a lot of them very much need some improvement. Invertzoo (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Taxobox for Snail...

For a long time we have not had a taxobox in the article Snail, because this common name does not strictly refer to a whole taxon, since Gastropoda includes both snail and slugs. However, I see from Article Feedback that a lot of kids come to the article wanting to know which phylum snails belong to, and similar questions, so I decided to try putting a very simple taxobox into the article. If anyone thinks this is a bad idea, let me know. Invertzoo (talk) 13:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea. It is indispensable information. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Unaccepted

I have updated the synonym page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastropods/Unaccepted. — Ganeshk (talk) 11:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Isotrophy?

I see that Wikipedia and Wiktionary have entries for Isotropy, but neither have an entry for Isotrophy, which is not the same thing. Our articles about Bellerophonts and other similar mollusk groups use the term isotrophic quite often, so maybe we should try to think about creating a stub article for this concept? Invertzoo (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Would that be similar to radial symmetry? Shellnut (talk) 01:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

No, isotrophic (corrected) means planospirally coiled, flat coiled. In other words the shell is coiled, but in a totally bilaterally symmetrical way, like a Nautilus, not like the shell of most shelled gastropods. The bellerophonts are a good example of this. Experts disagree as to whether they were gastropods or monoplacophorans. Invertzoo (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't this term be "isostrophic" ? This means "with two faces of the shell in a symmetrical position with respect to a median plane perpendicular to the axis". JoJan (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are exactly right JoJan. That was a typo on my part and I have gone back and corrected it. The fact remains that neither Wikipedia nor Wiktionary have an entry for isotrophic or isotrophy and we probably should, don't you think? Invertzoo (talk) 13:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

A new note

How about for animals etc Tell us their sizes

Eg giant abalone How big / heavy is it? And how big are normal ones? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.60.0.106 (talk) 04:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello 122.60.0.106, and welcome to Wikipedia. We do try to give approximate maximum size in most of our article that have gotten beyond the stub stage. I am not sure what you mean by a "giant abalone"? Do you mean the largest one ever recorded? Invertzoo (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Is seafood a subset of cuisine?

Should articles on seafood be given titles that restrict them to cuisines, as a user maintains in this thread? There is a referral for comment on this issue where members of this project are invited to give their views. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I gave my view; I agree with Epipelagic's perspective on this. I would encourage others to weigh in with their opinions. Thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 19:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Using our info

I wanted to report a nice experience today with our gastropod articles. Within my own research I am currently drafting a new paper that includes a list of 19 fairly common Caribbean mollusks, mostly gastropods. For the first time ever I tried using our articles as a source for the authority and date of each of the species. I was happy to see that all 19 of the articles had author and date included. I then checked all the info against Gary Rosenberg's Malacolog database and it matched up. This was just a small test, but I feel we are really doing well! Invertzoo (talk) 20:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Schepman

"Schepman" from all gastropod articles (around 200 articles(?)) should link to "Mattheus Marinus Schepman". Maybe good task for a semi-automatic work. But do not overlink. Thanks, --Snek01 (talk) 19:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done I pulled the species list from WoRMS using an Authority Search (containing Schepman) and have updated these articles. — Ganeshk (talk) 01:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

1. Abyssochrysos melvilli
2. Amalda abyssicola
3. Amalda edgariana
4. Asperdaphne elegantissima
5. Asperdaphne suluensis
6. Astralium provisorium
7. Babelomurex ricinuloides
8. Benthomangelia celebensis
9. Benthomangelia trophonoidea
10. Biplex aculeata
11. Brachytoma rufolineata
12. Buccinaria abbreviata
13. Calliostoma crassicostatum
14. Calliostoma quadricolor
15. Calliostoma rufomaculatum
16. Calliostoma simplex
17. Calliostoma virgo
18. Calliotropis bicarinata
19. Calliotropis calcarata
20. Calliotropis concavospira
21. Calliotropis limbifera
22. Calliotropis multisquamosa
23. Calliotropis muricata
24. Calliotropis pagodiformis
25. Calliotropis pulchra
26. Calliotropis spinulosa
27. Cerithium claviforme
28. Cerithium koperbergi
29. Chryseofusus chrysodomoides
30. Clavosurcula
31. Clavosurcula sibogae
32. Cochlespira pulchella
33. Crassispira rubidofusca
34. Cryptodaphne affinis
35. Cryptodaphne gradata
36. Danilia weberi
37. Daphnella celebensis
38. Daphnellopsis
39. Duplicaria tiurensis
40. Entemnotrochus rumphii
41. Ergalatax martensi
42. Fusinus thielei
43. Gemmula sibogae
44. Gemmula truncata
45. Glyphostoma granulifera
46. Guttula
47. Gymnobela ceramensis
48. Gymnobela dubia
49. Gymnobela pulchra
50. Gymnobela sibogae
51. Inquisitor aesopus
52. Inquisitor subangusta
53. Isodaphne perfragilis
54. Ithycythara septemcostata
55. Leucosyrinx pyramidalis
56. Maoridaphne supracancellata
57. Marshallena nierstraszi
58. Mioawateria extensaeformis
59. Neopleurotomoides rufoapicata
60. Oliva dubia
61. Oliva rufofulgurata
62. Oliva semmelinki
63. Pagodula obtuselirata
64. Pagodula pulchella
65. Paracomitas undosa
66. Pazinotus sibogae
67. Pazinotus smithi
68. Peristernia incerta
69. Pleurotomella clathurellaeformis
70. Pseudococculina
71. Pseudodaphnella virgo
72. Shutonia variabilis
73. Splendrillia suluensis
74. Stellaria gigantea
75. Terebra virgo
76. Trivellona paucicostata
77. Turrilatirus melvilli
78. Xanthodaphne pyriformis
79. Ziba abyssicola

What I observed as I did a manual advanced search of wikipedia for articles containing his name was closer to 500. When I manually did about 40 or more additions of wikilinks, what I noticed was that the genus articles weren't linked. I posted this on a request for bot page help. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Mattheus Marinus Schepman

Hi all. Long time no post. :)

Mattheus Marinus Schepman needs expanding for a possible DYK.

See also: User talk:Anna Frodesiak#Mattheus Marinus Schepman

Thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Anna, it's always nice to hear from you! I went through the article and fixed up the prose a bit, moderating the tone where it did not sound quite neutral enough. Maybe I will also add some of the taxa he named. Invertzoo (talk) 14:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Susan. :) Lovely to hear from you too. You must have been on my mind lately as I just called an editor Sally by the name of Susan accidentally, twice. :) Thanks for the copy edits to Schepman. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Mattheus Marinus Schepman as a possible DYK?

Anna, would you be interested in submitting the DYK for this? It's been so long since I did one that I am very rusty, and also I am a bit too busy IRL. Invertzoo (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Anyone else care to submit it? That has to be done pretty much right away. Invertzoo (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'll have to pass. I am due to review another before I can nom this one, and I'm a bit rusty and wouldn't want to rush it and get it wrong. Could someone else please nom it? Thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Doug Coldwell did it! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Great! I hope the DYK makes it to the Main Page. Invertzoo (talk) 17:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth wins the cup!

WikiProject Gastropods is honored to be able to say that among its active members is Cwmhiraeth, the winner of the the 2012 Wikipedia cup!!! Fantastic work! Invertzoo (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Shell images

I just found this gallery of quality shell images, commons:Shells_by_H._Zell. — Ganeshk (talk) 02:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they are very good shell images, and they should all (or almost all) be incorporated into our articles. I will add this to my list of things to do. I am not sure who else (other than you, JoJan and I) is available to help out with the gastropod project right now, but if any editor wants to assist by adding the images to the appropriate articles, that would be really great. Invertzoo (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that they are very nice images. Great photography and editing. Shellnut (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I am starting to add shell images to species articles again. I just added a number of Ranellidae; images of shells from my personal collection. Shellnut (talk) 00:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Excellent Shellnut, good news! Photos are an invaluable addition to articles, especially those articles that have no image at all. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I have added a number of these excellent photographs to articles that did not have them, including some genus articles where the image was present for the appropriate species, but no image was present at all for the genus. I also created a number of stubs in order to be able to place some of the images. However, I found that for some of the land snail species names such as within the genus Cyclophorus, I could not find evidence to support their existence via a quick google search, so I left many of those for the time being. There are so many images that I got only a small distance through the set, down to part the way through the Strombidae. The photographer is constantly uploading new images too, so any help someone can give in placing images into articles would be much appreciated. Invertzoo (talk) 20:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Scope of this project?

Hi! I've seen that Kulindroplax has been listed by someone under the scope of this wikiproject. I'm all for having more eyes looking at the article I've created, but Kulindroplax is by no means a gastropod -it's a basal aplacophoran. It's okay to keep it there or was the listing misguided? Just to avoid confusions for you guys. Thanks! --Cyclopia^talk 12:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I've seen it has been removed now. Oh well, see you guys when I'll deal with a gastropod . --Cyclopia^talk 23:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure, that sound good! Actually I was the one that removed the project template. WP does not yet have a WikiProject Mollusks, and even less so a WikiProject Aplacophorans, but maybe one day! :) Invertzoo (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Are Sarasomia and Sarasinula synonymous?

I made the following observation at Articles for deletion/Sarasomia; can someone knowledgeable about the subject look in to this?

The family of leatherleaf slugs, Veronicellidae, includes the genera Sarasomia and Sarasinula. The only species of Sarasomia mentioned anywhere is Sarasomia plebeia, the Caribbean leatherleaf slug. Sarasinula plebeia, the bean leatherleaf slug, is also found in the Caribbean. Sarasomia plebeia was described by P. Fischer in 1898; Sarasinula plebeia was described by the same in 1868. idtools.org writes that Sarasomia plebeia and Sarasinula plebeia are synonyms—as are the common names "Caribbean leatherleaf" and "bean leatherleaf"—are these the same? Is idtools.org reliable? Do the sources cited there confirm that the two are synonymous?

הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 05:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing our attention to this! We will do a bit of nomenclatural research and attempt to sort it out. Thanks again, much appreciated, Invertzoo (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

More detailed observations on the subject:

Google Scholar shows no results for "Sarasomia" ("Sarsomia" brings up some references to a genus of nematodes) . Google Books brings up two results, the older of which is from Common and Scientific Names of Aquatic Invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Mollusks (1998).

Searching Google overall for "Sarasomia", one finds about 4,000 results—surprisingly few for an animal genus. All taxonomy sites mentioning Sarasomia that I checked cite ITIS as a source. ITIS, in turn, mentions only one species in Sarasomia: S. Plebeia, the Caribbean leatherleaf. The source provided is the 1988 edition of Common and Scientific Names of Aquatic Invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Mollusks. The reference, if I interpreted the ITIS reference correctly, refers specifically to the "Caribbean leatherleaf" as "Sarasomia plebeia (Fischer, 1898)".

Searching for "Caribbean leatherleaf" finds numerous results for "Sarasinula plebeia (Fischer, 1868)". This is confirmed by the ITIS database, which cites the 1998 edition of Common and Scientific Names of Aquatic Invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Mollusks.

Final point: Sarasinula seems to be named for one of several naturalist named Sarasin. Sarasomia has no apparent etymology.

Thus, it seems to me (a complete ignoramus in taxonomy, so my word doesn't count for much) that Sarasomia plebeia (Fischer, 1898) is originally a typographical error for Sarasinula plebeia (Fischer, 1868).

הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 16:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

User:JoJan, who started the gastropod project has this comment:

Land slugs isn't my field. At first I was tempted to recognize Sarasomia plebeia as a synonym of Sarasinula plebeia, based on [10]. But then ITIS recognizes Sarasomia plebeia without any explanation [11]. Also the Terrestrial Slug Web doesn't mention Sarasomia plebeia as a synonym of Sarasinula plebeia [12]. Lacking the original paper by P. Fischer and lacking more information on the internet, it is difficult to make a decision. Perhaps User:Snek01, who deals mainly with land snails, can provide more information. JoJan (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I have left a note on his talk page. Invertzoo (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• http://idtools.org/id/mollusc/index.php is very reliable source made by biologists from University of Florida.
• ITIS is not reliable source especially for non-marine molluscs. See also note about ITIS at Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastropods/Links.
• EOL is also just a database and thus can contains errors in poorly known taxa. In this case it apparently automatically imported the name form the ITIS.

You can redirect Sarasomia plebeia to Sarasinula plebeia with an easy conscience. Thus we can be nearly sure that Sarasomia is a misspelling and we can also redirect Sarasomia to Sarasinula plebeia with very high degree of probability. We have a resource (idtools.org) by professional biologists for such decision. הסרפד resolved it correctly without any malacological knowledge but with critical thinking. הסרפד thank you for good work! --Snek01 (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I have been bold and made all the necessary redirects, however, the AfD tag is still up on the redirect page and the AfD discussion has not yet been resolved. Invertzoo (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way, if I understand the rules correctly, this kind of misspelling is considered to be simply a "lapsus", it is an "incorrect subsequent spelling" (see article 33.3 of the ICZN) and therefore this is NOT an available name, and it is not a synonym, just an old fashioned mistake of no significance at all taxonomically speaking. Invertzoo (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all!

I wanted to point out, however, that the note added to Sarasinula plebeia may be correct factually but is problematic Wikipedicly (?); see WP:NOTOR#Conflict between sources for the guidelines on analyzing conflicting or incorrect sources in articles.

הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 00:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello Hasirpad, thanks again for your help. Yes you are right. Just now I pruned that note down quite a lot, but I am busy (and weary) in real life currently, so if you think it is still not really acceptable, please feel free to "Be Bold" and change it yourself to a better version. Good wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Trochidae - New bot task

Please confirm the introduction sentence and the taxonomy. — Ganeshk (talk) 15:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

X
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Mollusca
Class:	Gastropoda
(unranked):	clade Vetigastropoda
Superfamily:	Trochoidea
Family:	Trochidae
Genus:	X
Species:	X. X
Binomial name
X. X

Genus

X is a genus of sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Trochidae, the top snails.

Species

X is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Trochidae, the top snails.

WoRMS classification

Biota > Animalia (Kingdom) > Mollusca (Phylum) > Gastropoda (Class) > Vetigastropoda (Subclass) > Trochoidea (Superfamily) > Trochidae (Family)

This looks correct to me. Shellnut (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks Shellnut. Completed with 250 edits. Please review. — Ganeshk (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Any update on the review? I have addressed all the issues reported on my talk page. Can we proceed with the bot run for the next family? — Ganeshk (talk) 15:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I have almost finished the review of this run. You can already proceed to the next run. Don't forget the inclusion of a list of synonyms of species in the articles of genera. Thanks. JoJan (talk) 08:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks JoJan. The bot is setup to create the list of synonyms on the genera pages. See Trochinella. — Ganeshk (talk) 13:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Checked and OK JoJan (talk) 05:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Solariellidae, Liotiidae, Gazidae, Cyclostrematidae - New bot task

Please confirm the introduction sentence and the taxonomy.

X
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Mollusca
Class:	Gastropoda
(unranked):	clade Vetigastropoda
Superfamily:	Trochoidea
Family:	X
Genus:	X
Species:	X. X
Binomial name
X. X

Genus

X is a genus of sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family X within the superfamily Trochoidea, the top snails, turban snails and their allies.

Species

X is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family X within the superfamily Trochoidea, the top snails, turban snails and their allies.

WoRMS classification

Biota > Animalia (Kingdom) > Mollusca (Phylum) > Gastropoda (Class) > Vetigastropoda (Subclass) > Trochoidea (Superfamily)

Should we include the text "within the superfamily Trochoidea, the top snails, turban snails and their allies" in the genera pages alone or both? I have lumped in four smaller families into this bot run. — Ganeshk (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be restricted to genera. Only a few species in these families have a common name and if so, they aren't called top snails but e.g. "varicose solariella" for Solariella varicosa [13]. JoJan (talk) 15:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done Completed with 128 edits. Please review. — Ganeshk (talk) 05:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Checked and OK. JoJan (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Shell images

Hello folks. For those of us who are working on marine species, especially those of us who are shell collectors, I just wanted to point out that our taxon articles are about species of animals, not species of shells. The taxon name refers to the animal, not just simply to the shell of the animal, which is only its skeleton left over after the animal has died.

1. In our taxoboxes, an image of the living animal (when available) should come first, followed by an image of the shell.

2. In the text of articles be sure to say things like, "the shell is used for jewelry" rather than just the saying "Biggus snailus is used for jewelry".

I believe it is essential to let readers see and understand that shells are not simply beautiful aesthetic objects that just somehow come magically into existence, but are the remains of living individual creatures that have died. Thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 16:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 03:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Slug nominated for GA

Someone outside of our project nominated this currently C-class article for GA. If anyone can help try to fix it up even a little bit over the next few weeks please do so, because it needs a fair bit of clean up to get it to GA! Many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Lobatus gigas

With the addition of a Phylogeny section, Lobatus gigas is now closer than it has ever been from being a candidate to our first FA. Some of us know how overwhelming a FA review can be, specially when things take the wrong turn... Moreover, before we can submit it to FA review, a throughout Manual of Style adjustment must be made. I'm not wiki-proficient enough as an editor to accomplish this alone. Still, most of us working together should be enough. I dream to see our first FA since I joined this project. It may be worth trying. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 03:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Reasons to believe in a FA candidacy:

- The article basically covers all matters relating to the animal. Highlight for sections on taxonomy and nomenclature, description of the shell, ecology, human use and conservation, which are all excellent in my opinion.

- The article is well illustrated, and includes a FP. There is no section without illustrations.

- The writing is good, with a few caveats.

Things to do:

- Check out MOS;

- Check all the prose;

- Check all links;

- Improve the arrangement of images throughout the text.

- Improve anatomy session by providing details (proportions and sizes of structures, for example) based on Simone (2005).

That's it, IMHO. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 03:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Pilsbry's Land Mollusca of North America (North of Mexico) on Wikisource

Hello, everybody. I'm not sure if this message belongs here, because it relates to Wikisource, but as it's about an important work on gastropods, I thought you might be interested.

In short, I'm currently working on converting scans of the volumes (found here) to djvu format, so they can be transcribed using Wikisource's index system.

Unfortunately, those who aren't partners of Hathi Trust can only download PDFs of individual pages, so the scans of each page have to be downloaded individually (there are over a thousand pages!), combined, then converted. Once the DJVU files are uploaded to Commons, editors can start transcribing. (Luckily, Hathi Trust provides OCRed text for each scan).

If anyone wants to help with the downloading of the scans (or with transcribing), please leave a reply. I am working on Volume I, Part 1 2.

The Wikisource page of the book is at Land Mollusca of North America (north of Mexico)

Thank you!--Frglz (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: The index files for Part 1 have been uploaded and are ready to be transcribed at Index:Land_Mollusca_of_North_America_(north_of_Mexico)_Vol._I_Part_1_i-276.pdf and Index:Land_Mollusca_of_North_America_(north_of_Mexico)_Vol._I_Part_1_277-end.pdf.--Frglz (talk) 21:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I have a script that downloads the PDFs automatically now, so the book needs only to be transcribed.--Frglz (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

All the parts have been uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons:

• Vol. I.

Part 1:

Land Mollusca of North America (north of Mexico) Vol. I Part 1 i-276.pdf

Land Mollusca of North America (north of Mexico) Vol. I Part 1 277-end.pdf

Part 2:

Land Mollusca of North America (north of Mexico) Vol. I Part 2 (1st half).pdf

Land Mollusca of North America (north of Mexico) Vol. I Part 2 (2nd half).pdf

• Vol. II.

Part 1:

Index:Land Mollusca of North America (north of Mexico) Vol. II Part 1 (1st half).pdf

Index:Land Mollusca of North America (north of Mexico) Vol. II Part 1 (2nd half).pdf

Part 2:

Index:Land Mollusca of North America (north of Mexico) Vol. II Part 2 (1st half).pdf

Index:Land Mollusca of North America (north of Mexico) Vol. II Part 2 (2nd half).pdf

Each part had to be split into two PDFs because of file size limits. If you want one PDF per part, you'll have to merge them yourself.--Frglz (talk) 06:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

A tip on etymology

Sometimes finding the meaning of a scientific name derived from Latin or Greek is a hard task. This is specially hard to do in Wikipedia articles, since you need a good, verifiable reference to back every claim. To make things a little easier, I'd like to suggest a very good book from 1954, by Mr. R. W. Brown, which you can find here:

Brown, R. W. (1954) Composition of Scientific Words

This should help us all when writing on the etymology of our favorite gastropods.

Best, --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 15:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

You can find an biographical etymology of marine names here : Biographical Etymology of Marine Organism Names (BEMON). JoJan (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Laevistrombus canarium FA

I nominated Laevistrombus canarium for a Featured Article review. Here is the review page:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Laevistrombus_canarium/archive1 If you can help in the process, I would greatly appreciate it! Let's hope it succeeds. Best,

--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

More kudos for our project

A couple of days ago I was doing a Google search to try to find an image of a shell of a species of small pyramidellid sea snail (a micromollusk) that I found in Florida. I was checking to see if I had identified it correctly. The species is Peristichia toreta. I was able to find one photograph on the website of the Bailey-Matthews Shell Museum, but since the shell is white on white it was not easy to see what the sculpture of the shell really was like. An even better image was to be found using the Google search, but only in our Wikipedia article, the image being from the original publication of Dall's. I was surprised and delighted that we have such a nice article and such a nice illustration for such a small and rather obscure shell! Thanks to Ganeshbot and to JoJan! Invertzoo (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the kudos. I've uploaded quite a number of images and descriptions from Dall's Manual of Conchology. And there are so many others waiting for treatment by us, but I can't dwell too long on the same family, otherwise the Ganeshkbot would be brought to a halt. There is so much to do and so little time. JoJan (talk) 17:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Ataphridae - New bot task

Please confirm the lead sentence and the taxonomy.

X
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Mollusca
Class:	Gastropoda
(unranked):	clade Vetigastropoda
Family:	Ataphridae
Genus:	X
Species:	X. X
Binomial name
X. X

Genus

X is a genus of sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Ataphridae within the clade Vetigastropoda, the false top snails.

Species

X is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Ataphridae, the false top snails.

WoRMS classification

Biota > Animalia (Kingdom) > Mollusca (Phylum) > Gastropoda (Class) > Vetigastropoda (Subclass) > [unassigned] Vetigastropoda (Superfamily) > Ataphridae (family)

This is OK. Don't forget to supplement the list of synonyms of Calliostoma; Merry Christmas. JoJan (talk) 08:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I have updated the synonym list and the species list of Calliostoma. Merry Christmas! — Ganeshk (talk) 16:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we continue in the same clade Vetigastropoda, first with the genera not assigned to a superfamily and then the superfamilies in alphabetical order. This will keep us busy for quite a while. Working this way also puts some logical structure in the use of the bot. JoJan (talk) 16:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I have a bit of a problem with the phrase "within the clade Vetigastropoda, the false top snails." The Vetigastropoda must not be characterized as the false top snails. Perhaps you mean that the common name of this family is the false top snails? Invertzoo (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to the family here. — Ganeshk (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done with 17 edits. — Ganeshk (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ganesh! Invertzoo (talk) 22:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Checked and OK. Now to Angarioidea. JoJan (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Few more before we go to the next super family. — Ganeshk (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Pendroma
2. Pendroma perplexa
3. Rugulina antarctica
4. Rugulina ignobilis
5. Rugulina tenuis
6. Rugulina verrilli

Checked and OK JoJan (talk) 15:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Angarioidea

Angarioidea is  Done. Please check User:Ganeshbot/Animalia/History/Vetigastropoda#December_31. — Ganeshk (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Angaria aculeata
2. Angaria javanica
3. Arene adusta
4. Arene balboai
5. Arene bitleri
6. Arene boucheti
7. Arene brasiliana
8. Arene carinata
9. Arene curacoana
10. Arene echinacantha
11. Arene echinata
12. Arene ferruginosa
13. Arene flexispina
14. Arene fricki
15. Arene guttata
16. Arene hindsiana
17. Arene laguairana
18. Arene lucasensis
19. Arene lurida
20. Arene miniata
21. Arene olivacea
22. Arene socorroensis
23. Arene stellata
24. Arene tamsiana
25. Cinysca forticostata
26. Cinysca granulata
27. Cinysca jullieni

Barnstar for all active members

		The Gastropod Barnstar
		This barnstar is dedicated to all contributors who helped Wikiproject Gastropods this year. If I failed to leave a star on your individual talk page it was an oversight because I was rushed for time, so please help yourself to a copy of this one. I hope our project can grown and increase this year as well as it did this past year! All the very best wishes for 2013! Invertzoo (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Cancellariidae

Apertural view of shell of Cancellaria cooperii Gabb, 1875.

Hello and happy new year to all WikiProject Gastropods members! I just finished adding images of Cancellariidae shells to genus and species articles, and created a few articles in the process. Amazingly these beautiful snails are a not commonly figured or collected. I just happen to have a really good collection of specimens of this family available (many from the Panamic Province) so I took the time to take and post some macro photos to improve our coverage of this lesser known family. (33 species and 18 genera) Shellnut (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Phew, what a fabulous shell of Cancellaria cooperii! I am very much looking forward to seeing the other articles with their gorgeous new images! Invertzoo (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Gorgeous pictures, really! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Daniel Cavallari! Shellnut (talk) 04:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Calliotropidae

I just added three species of Calliotropidae both macro images and new species articles: Bathybembix bairdii, Lischkeia alwinae, and Ginebis argenteonitens. These are unusual trochid-like shells which until recently were lumped in the Trochidae. Shellnut (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I have really been enjoying all of your new images Shellnut! Fantastic! Invertzoo (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

If you felt like it, in future you could include the size of the shell in your captions maybe? Invertzoo (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I have done so in the past and will have to go back, measure them, and add the sizes. It is time consuming though with stainless steel calipers, since you have to be VERY careful not to break the shells. Mea culpa! Taking pictures is a lot of work by itself, then uploading, adding to articles, etc. Yes, I know. I need to measure them. Sigh! More fun coming up. But first, the Hipponicidae and Calyptraeidae are on my to do list, as promised. Shellnut (talk) 05:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't feel that you have to do that Shellnut, it was just an idea. It is possible to measure sizes using cheap plastic calipers, or even a ruler, which is quite inaccurate, but would be plenty good enough to give someone just a rough idea of how big something is. We don't have sizes on the vast majority of our shell pictures so far, but a rough size does enable a reader to know how big or small the thing is, which otherwise has to be only a wild guess. Of course another possibility is for people to place a ruler, or a mm or cm grid, at the side of a shell when it is photographed, but some people don't like the look of that. Invertzoo (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I used to have a very nice set of plastic dial calipers. My son borrowed them a few times and swears that he put them back. Hmmm, we know what happens when young adults borrow things. My brother gave me a pair of his stainless steel calipers, which he swears by - for auto engine work. Not the same, but they work. Shellnut (talk) 04:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

If you put "cheap plastic calipers" into Google you will see you can get OK ones for $2.50, of course they have no dial, but the price is low enough that you can buy half a dozen and never run out. Invertzoo (talk) 13:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to say: your work is fantastic Shellnut, don't feel that you must "improve" it by having to do extra things that could be a nuisance or a pain in some way. It's essential that we enjoy what we do on WIkipedia otherwise we soon run out of steam. Invertzoo (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments on a new article please?

Hello gastropod people! We have a new article which suddenly appeared from a new contributor who then disappeared. The article is currently tentatively called Shell growth in estuaries. It is pretty good, but a bit essay-like. Despite the current title, the article is not solely about estuaries. Actually the article is currently mainly just about about marine calcareous shell growth and the factors that influence it. The article has a lot about mollusks in it. Will anyone who can spare the time, look at it and please let us know what they think. Does anyone have ideas about what the article should be called, and how they think it should be expanded or maybe teased apart into separate articles? User:Epipelagic has submitted it as a possible DYK. Thanks. Our pre-existing discussions about it are here and also here. Invertzoo (talk) 14:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright, it's brainstorm time! Perhaps we should call it Growth of marine calcareous shells or Marine calcareous shell growth, or even Development of marine calcareous shells... Maybe Environmental influences on marine calcareous shells? --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I like your last suggestion, "Environmental influences on marine calcareous shells", because to me it seems like the most accurate and clear suggestion so far, but maybe Epipelagic might think that was too long a title. He is in favor of making the topic just "Growth of calcareous shells" or even simply "Calcareous shells", although that would mean expanding it to cover land and freshwater shelled groups, and also every aspect of shell growth (which would of course include shells from other phyla, not just mollusk shells.) Anyone else feel like commenting? Invertzoo (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

New bot task - Fissurellidae

Please confirm the lead sentence and the taxonomy. — Ganeshk (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

X
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Mollusca
Class:	Gastropoda
(unranked):	clade Vetigastropoda
Superfamily:	Fissurelloidea
Family:	Fissurellidae
Genus:	X
Species:	X. X
Binomial name
X. X

Genus

X is a genus of sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Fissurellidae, the keyhole limpets and slit limpets.

Species

X is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Fissurellidae, the keyhole limpets and slit limpets.

WoRMS classification

Biota > Animalia (Kingdom) > Mollusca (Phylum) > Gastropoda (Class) > Vetigastropoda (Subclass) > Fissurelloidea (Superfamily) > Fissurellidae (family)

This OK. Go ahead. Happy New Year ! JoJan (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done Fissurellidae done with 256 new articles. Please check. Happy New Year to all! — Ganeshk (talk) 05:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ganesh, can you supplement the list of synonyms in Emarginula and Fissurella ? Thanks. JoJan (talk) 14:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done I have updated the synonym list on the two genus pages. — Ganeshk (talk) 07:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Checked and OK. Several emails to WoRMS. Now proceed to the superfamily Haliotoidea. Please also add the list of synonyms of Haliotis. JoJan (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The gastropod project's very first Featured Article!

So... Ladies and Gentlemen, a round of applause please for the sea snail article Laevistrombus canarium, aka the dog conch. Today it was promoted to Featured Article status. I wanted to mention that User:Daniel Cavallari did most of the work to get it to GA status, and then most of the careful painstaking work necessary to get it up to FA status. Go admire (or even click on) the small bronze star in the upper right hand corner of the article: the bronze means FA. It may be a small star, but it is a lot of work to get there! Hopefully we will gradually have more to follow this one. Invertzoo (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations and especially to Daniel Cavallari. It has taken a (very) long time, but finally we have our first Featured Article. Upgrading an article to GA and then to FA requires an tremendous effort, but the satisfaction afterwards is all the greater. Well done to all who contributed. JoJan (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but looking at the listings of all the FAs, it seems to me that this may actually be the first FA for any invertebrate species or any invertebrate topic! Invertzoo (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

There exist also two featured articles of invertebrate animals: Chrysiridia rhipheus and Myxobolus cerebralis. This is is (for now) the third of all invertebrates. It is the first of all Lophotrochozoa. --Snek01 (talk) 12:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

So... that's one butterfly FA article, and one on a parasitic cnidarian, and now, finally, one on a gastropod mollusk. Invertzoo (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Whoa! Awesome! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations!!! That is totally awesome. Nice work. Shellnut (talk) 05:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations from me too. Well done!!! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations! Excellent work. — Ganeshk (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely phenomenal! I knew this day would come, a day where our amazing works were recognized, even though I only joined this project about a month ago, I am glad I could submit in a little bit of effort into the gastropod articles. A good accomplishment, fabulous work! The whimsical enigmatic Solo Toady! 11:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Well Done! Amazing to finally have a FA, congratulations and thanks to all those who put in the hard work to get the article there. Inspiration for the rest of the project indeed! Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 08:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Congrats to Daniel. --Snek01 (talk) 12:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

New bot task - Haliotidae

Please confirm the lead sentence and the taxonomy. — Ganeshk (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

X
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Mollusca
Class:	Gastropoda
(unranked):	clade Vetigastropoda
Superfamily:	Haliotoidea
Family:	Haliotidae
Genus:	X
Species:	X. X
Binomial name
X. X

Genus

X is a genus of sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Haliotidae, the abalones.

Species

X is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Haliotidae, the abalones.

WoRMS classification

Biota > Animalia (Kingdom) > Mollusca (Phylum) > Gastropoda (Class) > Vetigastropoda (Subclass) > Haliotoidea (Superfamily) > Haliotidae (Family)

 Done There were only 6 of them. Please check. — Ganeshk (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

1. Haliotis drogini
2. Haliotis marmorata
3. Haliotis melculus
4. Haliotis parva
5. Haliotis speciosa
6. Haliotis varia

Confirmed. JoJan (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Checked and OK. Can you add the list of synonyms of Haliotis ? JoJan (talk) 09:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I have updated the synonym list of Haliotis. — Ganeshk (talk) 01:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Kelletia kelletii

Hello, review DYK hook of my new article if you like. Thanks. Template:Did you know nominations/Kelletia kelletii. --Snek01 (talk) 13:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

New bot task - Lepetodriloidea

Please confirm the lead sentences and the taxonomy. — Ganeshk (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

X
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Mollusca
Class:	Gastropoda
(unranked):	clade Vetigastropoda
Superfamily:	Lepetodriloidea
Family:	X
Genus:	X
Species:	X. X
Binomial name
X. X

Lepetodrilidae

Genus

X is a genus of small, deep water sea snails, hydrothermal vent limpets, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Lepetodrilidae.

Species

X is a species of small, deep water sea snail, hydrothermal vent limpet, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Lepetodrilidae.

Sutilizonidae

Genus

X is a genus of deep water sea snails, hydrothermal vent limpets, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Sutilizonidae.

Species

X is a species of deep water sea snail, hydrothermal vent limpet, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Sutilizonidae.

Confirmed. JoJan (talk) 14:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done No new articles were created. — Ganeshk (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Pleurocera

Genus Elimia was synonymized with Pleurocera. Do you prefer those names of articles of species, that were previously in the genus Elimia, move to scientific names or do you prefer to keep vernacular names (that contain the word elimia) in the name of these articles? I prefer scientific ones. It seems a bit misleading to keep those elimia vernacular names. Will vernacular names change after this taxonomic change somehow someday?

• For example, I think, that the article name "mud elimia" is not useful to reader anymore, especially when the genus Elimia does not exist. To move the article to Pleurocera alabamensis would be more proper. --Snek01 (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Some non-scientists can only manage to pronounce the common names, and intensely dislike the scientific names. In the case of these freshwater snails, many of which are very endangered in the USA, it helps to have a name that ordinary people can pronounce and remember, as it makes it more likely that people will pay some attention to conservation efforts and laws. Generally speaking, over the years, the so-called "common names" seem always to stay the same, even when a species has been moved from one genus to another, even though that does not seem at all logical. All that being said, I personally prefer (with a few exceptions) that our snail and slug articles use the scientific name as the title, with the common name standing as a redirect... but we should see if others have an opinion about this. Invertzoo (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with InvertZoo. All our snail articles should have the scientific name as its title. Common names can be made as redirects. JoJan (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

New bot task - Lepetelloidea

Please confirm the lead sentences and the taxonomy. — Ganeshk (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

X
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Mollusca
Class:	Gastropoda
(unranked):	clade Vetigastropoda
Superfamily:	Lepetelloidea
Family:	X
Genus:	X
Species:	X. X
Binomial name
X. X

Addisoniidae

Genus

X is a genus of deep water sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Addisoniidae, the true limpets.

Species

X is a species of deep water sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Addisoniidae, the true limpets.

Bathyphytophilidae

Genus

X is a genus of very small, deep water sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Bathyphytophilidae, the false limpets.

Species

X is a species of very small, deep water sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Bathyphytophilidae, the false limpets.

Cocculinellidae

Genus

X is a genus of small, deep water sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Cocculinellidae, the limpets.

Species

X is a species of small, deep water sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Cocculinellidae, the limpets.

Lepetellidae

Genus

X is a genus of small, deep water sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Lepetellidae, the limpets.

Species

X is a species of small, deep water sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Lepetellidae, the limpets.

Osteopeltidae

Genus

X is a genus of small, deep water sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Osteopeltidae.

Species

X is a species of small, deep water sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Osteopeltidae.

Pseudococculinidae

Genus

X is a genus of small sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Pseudococculinidae, the false limpets.

Species

X is a species of small sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Pseudococculinidae, the false limpets.

Pyropeltidae

Genus

X is a genus of sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Pyropeltidae.

Species

X is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Pyropeltidae.

All confirmed. JoJan (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done with 49 edits. Please review. — Ganeshk (talk) 03:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ganesh, can you change the Template:Taxonomy/Amphiplica to refer to the family Caymanabyssiidae, instead of to Pseudococculinidae ? The same for the templates of Caymanabyssia and Colotrachelus. Thanks. JoJan (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done — Ganeshk (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ganesh. Can you fix the taxobox of Pyropelta ? JoJan (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done — Ganeshk (talk) 14:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Checked and OK. JoJan (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

New bot task - Phasianelloidea

Please confirm the lead sentences and the taxonomy. — Ganeshk (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

X
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Mollusca
Class:	Gastropoda
(unranked):	clade Vetigastropoda
Superfamily:	Phasianelloidea
Family:	X
Genus:	X
Species:	X. X
Binomial name
X. X

Colloniidae

Genus

X is a genus of small sea snails with calcareous opercula, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Colloniidae.

Species

X is a species of small sea snail with calcareous opercula, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Colloniidae.

 Done 64 new articles added. — Ganeshk (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ganesh. I'm afraid you didn't handle some species in Argalista. JoJan (talk) 15:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I will investigate. — Ganeshk (talk) 11:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Found the reason. Argalista fugitiva and Argalista rosea were added to WoRMS db on February 16, 2013 (http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=719254). I must have pulled down the data right before they were added. — Ganeshk (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ganesh. Can you fix the taxobox of Rhombipoma rowleyana. Thanks. JoJan (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

What is wrong with it? — Ganeshk (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Now it looks OK. Before it was just programming text instead of a taxobox. JoJan (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I have created the missing pages. — Ganeshk (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

1. Argalista corallina
2. Argalista fugitiva
3. Argalista rosea
4. Argalista roseopunctata

Phasianellidae

Genus

X is a genus of small sea snails with calcareous opercula, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Phasianellidae, the pheasant snails.

Species

X is a species of small sea snail with calcareous opercula, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Phasianellidae, the pheasant snails.

Confirmed. JoJan (talk) 14:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done 29 new articles added. — Ganeshk (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Checked and OK. JoJan (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Mitra versicolor

There is a stale merge proposal placed at Talk:Mitra nubila stating that an external link there suggests that Mitra versicolor is simply a synonym for M. nubila. The external link in M. versicolor implies, but does not outright state, that they are the same. If you know something about this, please comment at Talk:Mitra nubila]]. Thanks, Ego White Tray (talk) 04:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

There seems to have been considerable confusion in the past with regard to Mitra versicolor Martyn, 1784 ,Mitra nebulosa Swains, Mitra propinqua Adams, 1851, Mitra nubila, Gmelin and Mitra infecta (See: Edgar Smith, Proceedings of the Malacological Society of London v.7 , p. 124, 1906-1907) ). G.W. Tryon states "Several species have been manufactured out of slight variations of color and form of Mitra versicolor. They can scarcely be designated as varieties." (See : G. W. Tryon (1889), Manual of Conchology tome IV, p. 112). I can only suppose that Mitra versicolor hasn't been described accurately enough by Martyn, to be accepted as a valid name. JoJan (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

WoRMS treats M. versicolor as a synonym of M. nubila so I made the former stub into a redirect to the latter. I am not really certain what "non-binominal" means here, but I think it means that in the original description of M. versicolor from 1784, the name was not expressed in the proper binominal form, so therefore this invalidates the naming... (?) I looked very briefly in my copy of ICZN, but could not work out if I am correct in this supposition. However, I trust the opinion of Dr. Gary Rosenberg of ANSP, the excellent malacologist who fixed up these two entries on WoRMS. Invertzoo (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

New bot task - Pleurotomariidae

Please confirm the lead sentences and the taxonomy. — Ganeshk (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

X
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Mollusca
Class:	Gastropoda
(unranked):	clade Vetigastropoda
Superfamily:	Pleurotomarioidea
Family:	Pleurotomariidae
Genus:	X
Species:	X. X
Binomial name
X. X

Genus

X is a genus of large sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Pleurotomariidae, the slit snails.

Species

X is a species of large sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Pleurotomariidae, the slit snails.

Confirmed.JoJan (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done 16 articles added. — Ganeshk (talk) 03:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Regal Sea Goddess Nudibranch.jpg

Regal Sea Goddess Nudibranch, Felimare picta

Is this Felimare picta ? Captured at Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary, Savannah, Georgia. The other pictures at Felimare picta look very different. I just noticed it has so many subspecies. So is it Felimare (Hypselodoris) picta picta? JKadavoor Jee 05:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

If it's the "Greek/Regal Goddess," then shouldn't it be "Felimare (Hypselodoris) picta edenticulata"?--Mr Fink 02:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the important thing is to ID it to species correctly. The genus name commonly used is Hypselodoris, and this animal does appear to be H. picta. Now I am not familiar with current research on the species... I only did a quick Google Scholar search, but it seems that the original descriptions of the numerous supposed "subspecies" of this widely distributed species were based simply on color forms rather than on molecular studies, and are therefore of questionable validity. So I personally would recommend not getting involved in that aspect of things, and leaving it to the experts to sort it all out gradually over time. Invertzoo (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, WoRMS gives the species as Felimare picta, and because we use WoRMS as our primary reference, we can keep using that genus. Right now WoRMS has only one subspecies listed, and that is subspecies verdensis from the East Atlantic (from the Mediterranean I think). Invertzoo (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The current description given at Nudibranch for this picture is "Regal Sea Goddess (Hypselodoris edenticulata)". Should it be corrected to Felimare picta? JKadavoor Jee 15:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for checking these things Jkadavoor! Let me look a few things up. Yes, I see that Rosenberg 2009 at Malacolog lists H. edenticulata as a synonym of H. picta, so we should change the caption at that page to Felimare picta. Let me see what the Commons page description of the image is; oh it looks as f you already changed that, good. Invertzoo (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

WoRMS uses in this case the latest information available and list this species as Felimare picta JoJan (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

New bot task - Scissurelloidea

Please confirm the lead sentences and the taxonomy. — Ganeshk (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

X
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Mollusca
Class:	Gastropoda
(unranked):	clade Vetigastropoda
Superfamily:	Scissurelloidea
Family:	X
Genus:	X
Species:	X. X
Binomial name
X. X

Anatomidae

Genus

X is a genus of minute sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks or micromollusks in the family Anatomidae.

Species

X is a species of minute sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk or micromollusk in the family Anatomidae.

 Done 57 articles added. Some of the Thieleella species are invalid, but they were active on the day of the download. — Ganeshk (talk) 03:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

There a few species in Anatoma, mentioned in WoRMS, missing in the list. Can you check this ? JoJan (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

1. Anatoma africanae
2. Anatoma argentinae
3. Anatoma bathypacifica
4. Anatoma eximia
5. Anatoma gunteri
6. Anatoma kelseyi
7. Anatoma peruviana
8. Anatoma weddelliana

 Done They were added to WoRMS right after the bot extracts. — Ganeshk (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Depressizonidae

Genus

X is a genus of small to minute sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks or micromollusks in the family Depressizonidae.

Species

X is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk or micromollusk in the family Depressizonidae.

 Done No new articles were created. — Ganeshk (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Larocheidae

Genus

X is a genus of small to minute sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks or micromollusks in the family Larocheidae.

Species

X is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk or micromollusk in the family Larocheidae.

 Done 7 articles added. — Ganeshk (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Scissurellidae

Genus

X is a genus of minute sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks or micromollusks in the family Scissurellidae, the little slit snails.

Species

X is a species of minute sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk or micromollusk in the family Scissurellidae, the little slit snails.

 Done 54 articles added. — Ganeshk (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

All confirmed. JoJan (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

All checked and OK. JoJan (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

More on Pleurocera and Elimia

A new editor tried to revert Snek's recent changes to the Elimia article. As a result we now still have a Elimia article, as well as having those species listed under Pleurocera. The new editor disagrees with the reassignment of Elimia species to Pleurocera by Dillon (2011) and mentions a new article that was still "in press" when he left the note. The new editor made the mistake of leaving his note on his own talk page, instead of on the talk page of the appropriate article. I copied and placed it there so people can see it. In any case... we can't use as a reference a science paper that is not yet published even though it is in press. I wonder if perhaps the new editor, User:Polarfire1, is one of the authors of the new paper? Invertzoo (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

New bot task - Seguenzioidea

Please confirm the lead sentences and the taxonomy. — Ganeshk (talk) 22:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

X
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Mollusca
Class:	Gastropoda
(unranked):	clade Vetigastropoda
Superfamily:	Seguenzioidea
Family:	X
Genus:	X
Species:	X. X
Binomial name
X. X

unassigned

Genus

X is a genus of sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks, unassigned in the superfamily Seguenzioidea.

Species

X is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk, unassigned in the superfamily Seguenzioidea.

A number of genera have been transferred from Turbinidae to Seguenzioidea (unassigned). Can you adapt their speciesboxes (e.g. Granigyra filosa) and check for more. I can't enter the template of the speciesbox as its red sign sits across Scientific classification in the taxobox. Thanks. JoJan (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I have fixed Granigyra. Please list other genera that will need similar fixes. — Ganeshk (talk) 03:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I've found another few: Lissotesta micra, Microcarina crenulata, Microcarina surgerea JoJan (talk) 09:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done — Ganeshk (talk) 11:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Another few: Palazzia nautiliformis, Palazzia ramosa, Putilla lucida, Trenchia argentinae, Trenchia wolffi , Wanganella porcellana, Xyloskenea consors, Xyloskenea costulifera, Xyloskenea depressa, Xyloskenea rhyssa, and Xyloskenea xenos. JoJan (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

All done. I just need the genera names (or just one example species in each genera). — Ganeshk (talk) 12:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed. JoJan (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done Added 50 new articles. — Ganeshk (talk) 15:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Calliotropidae

Genus

X is a genus of sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Calliotropidae.

Species

X is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Calliotropidae.

Confirmed. JoJan (talk) 13:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done Added 34 new articles. — Ganeshk (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Cataegidae

Genus

X is a genus of sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Cataegidae.

Species

X is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Cataegidae.

Confirmed. JoJan (talk) 07:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done Added 2 new articles. — Ganeshk (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Chilodontidae

Genus

X is a genus of mostly small deep water sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Chilodontidae.

Species

X is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Chilodontidae.

Confirmed. JoJan (talk) 13:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done Added 92 new articles. — Ganeshk (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Seguenziidae

Genus

X is a genus of extremely small deep water sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Seguenziidae.

Species

X is a species of extremely small deep water sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Seguenziidae.

All confirmed. JoJan (talk) 08:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done Added 22 new articles. — Ganeshk (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Cataegidae

I had created my first family article, Cataegidae. Can someone please take a look and let me know if it is good? — Ganeshk (talk) 02:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Well done. JoJan (talk) 08:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ganesh! Much appreciated. Invertzoo (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

New bot task - Abyssochrysoidea

Please confirm the lead sentences and the taxonomy. — Ganeshk (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Gastropods/Archive 5
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Mollusca
Class:	Gastropoda
(unranked):	clade Caenogastropoda
Superfamily:	Abyssochrysoidea

Abyssochrysoidea (unassigned)

Genus

X is a genus of deep water sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks, unassigned in the superfamily Abyssochrysoidea.

Species

X is a species of deep water sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk, unassigned in the superfamily Abyssochrysoidea.

Abyssochrysidae

Genus

X is a genus of deep water sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Abyssochrysidae.

Species

X is a species of deep water sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Abyssochrysidae.

Provannidae

Genus

X is a genus of deep water sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Provannidae.

Species

X is a species of deep water sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Provannidae.

New bot task - Ampullarioidea

Please confirm the lead sentences and the taxonomy. — Ganeshk (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Gastropods/Archive 5
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Mollusca
Class:	Gastropoda
(unranked):	clade Caenogastropoda
Superfamily:	Ampullarioidea

Ampullariidae

Genus

X is a genus of freshwater snails, aquatic gastropod mollusks in the family Ampullariidae, the apple snails.

Species

X is a species of freshwater snail, aquatic gastropod mollusk in the family Ampullariidae, the apple snails.

New bot task - Campaniloidea

Please confirm the lead sentences and the taxonomy. — Ganeshk (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Gastropods/Archive 5
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Mollusca
Class:	Gastropoda
(unranked):	clade Caenogastropoda
Superfamily:	Campaniloidea

Ampullinidae

Genus

X is a genus of deep water sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Ampullinidae.

Species

X is a species of deep water sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Ampullinidae.

Campanilidae

Genus

X is a genus of sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Campanilidae.

Species

X is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Campanilidae.

Plesiotrochidae

Genus

X is a genus of sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Plesiotrochidae.

Species

X is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Plesiotrochidae.

Student groups editing marine articles

This is a notification that what appears to be two student groups have started editing articles on marine life: EcoWikiGroup13 (talk · contribs) at Oncorhynchus, and Group9ecology (talk · contribs) at Coccolithophore. Their instructor doesn't seem to have notified anyone at Wikipedia that this would be happening, and so far the first group, EcoWikiGroup13, have been non responsive at attempts to communicate with them. The edits so far seem fairly competent and Copyscape doesn't detect plagiarism. However, the names they have chosen suggest there may be 13 or more groups involved, so this may be the start of considerable activity. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I have left notes on both of the talk pages of these editors (or groups of editors as seems more likely). This is an unfortunate development, since we need all editors to be communicative. Invertzoo (talk) 12:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

"Empty section" template is being considered for possible deletion

Since we use this template a lot in our bot-generated stubs, I figure that Ganesh and JoJan and maybe more of us, may want to comment on its proposed deletion. Use this link:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_1

Invertzoo (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed this too and I don't like it. This means each time I start to add data to an article I have to recreate those sections. Not too much work one would think, but multiplied by hundreds and hundreds of articles, this certainly amounts to a wasting of time. These empty sections do have a purpose. I don't know who started this consideration for deletion, but this was certainly not a bright idea. JoJan (talk) 14:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't use this template in bot generated articles any more. I feel it is a useful template. — Ganeshk (talk) 02:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion about the template closed with "no consensus", so for the time being we still have this template. Invertzoo (talk) 12:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Veined rapa whelk shell

Appreciating your comment here. JKadavoor Jee 14:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for letting us know about this; these nominations are very much worth us checking. Invertzoo (talk) 12:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Queen conch image for delisting?

Hello folks. This is an image by H. Zell of a queen conch shell, one of the five-view images that he does so well. Unfortunately the lip of the shell was heavily cut or filed before it was sold, in order to make it look "tidy". This modification is often done for the shell trade or tourist trade, but it makes the shell look very weird compared with an unmodified one. The other two thumbnails show how the lip really looks in an intact shell.

Please would a number of project members post their comments as to whether this image should be delisted here?

Delisting is not the same as deleting; it simply means the image would not be a Featured Picture any more. I think this is necessary because the encyclopedic value of the image is severely compromised by the shell having been unnaturally altered to such an extent. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Someone to check Featured Picture nominations?

It would be really great if a project member (anyone?) was prepared to keep an eye on all the Wikipedia Featured article nominations to make sure that nominated gastropod shell images (and bivalve shell images, for our sister project) show shells that are in good shape and hopefully are also correctly identified! If the project member does not really know how to judge some of the shells, the project member could at least leave a message about a nomination here. It was extremely nice of User:JKadavoor Jee (a new project member) to leave us a message about the current nomination of the Veined rapa whelk shell image, however, we should try to make an effort so that we don't necessarily have to rely on his kindness. Invertzoo (talk) 20:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Another image nomination for delisting

I have nominated another image for delisting as a Featured Picture. This one is cute and pretty in an "antique" late 19th century style, but no way is this a scientific illustration! It is an image that Snek tried to get delisted a while ago. The current nomination for delisting is here: [[14]]. Please, if anyone in the project agrees that this is not really FP material because it has poor encyclopedic value (because it is simply not good at all scientifically), then would you endorse the delisting? Thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixing up images

Hello folks, I just wanted to say that if you notice an image in one of our articles that could really use some adjusting, like for example the picture would be greatly improved with some cropping, or the color balance is off and needs fixing, or the background should be removed or made more uniform, you can simply leave a request at WIkipedia:Graphics Lab, in the Photography Workshop section, and the nice folks there will do it for you while you go ahead and work on other things. Or if you prefer you can tell me about it and I will put in the request. Invertzoo (talk) 12:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

flamingo tongue snail

Wish article on this creature had said why it is called "tongue" snail.69.230.188.45 (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

It sounds rather as if you wanted Wikipedia to do your homework for you; am I correct...? Did you try Googling flamingo tongue? I did and found the answer almost immediately. Invertzoo (talk) 12:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Liguus virgineus 01.JPG

The image looks fine; even though the shell seems to have some cracks. Please check thoroughly and do comment. JKadavoor Jee 13:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I hope that work is fine; because we didn't get any comment here or in that nomination page. (Usually images are nominated in Commons:COM:FPC first, prior to Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates; so picking any mistakes in the root level is more helpful to the contributors too.) JKadavoor Jee 03:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not notice this until message until now. I have left a comment on the nom page. The shell is actually not a really great shell of this species because it's a bit damaged in life and after death, but maybe that is not a problem in and of itself. Invertzoo (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, for the comment; always appreciated. JKadavoor Jee 13:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Abyssochrysoidea (brought back from archive)

New bot task - Abyssochrysoidea

Please confirm the lead sentences and the taxonomy. — Ganeshk (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Scientific classification Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Mollusca Class: Gastropoda (unranked): clade Caenogastropoda Superfamily: Abyssochrysoidea Abyssochrysoidea (unassigned) Genus X is a genus of deep-water sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks, unassigned in the superfamily Abyssochrysoidea.

Species X is a species of deep-water sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk, unassigned in the superfamily Abyssochrysoidea.

Abyssochrysidae Genus X is a genus of deep-water sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Abyssochrysidae.

Species X is a species of deep-water sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Abyssochrysidae.

All confirmed. JoJan (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Provannidae Genus X is a genus of deep-water sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Provannidae.

Species X is a species of deep-water sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Provannidae.

All confirmed JoJan (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

All checked and OK. JoJan (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

New bot task - Ampullarioidea

Please confirm the lead sentences and the taxonomy. — Ganeshk (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Scientific classification Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Mollusca Class: Gastropoda (unranked): clade Caenogastropoda (unassigned) Superfamily: Ampullarioidea Ampullariidae Genus X is a genus of freshwater snails, aquatic gastropod mollusks in the family Ampullariidae, the apple snails.

Species X is a species of freshwater snail, aquatic gastropod mollusk in the family Ampullariidae, the apple snails.

All confirmed. JoJan (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Checked and OK for the species mentioned in WoRMS. JoJan (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

New bot task - Campaniloidea

Please confirm the lead sentences and the taxonomy. — Ganeshk (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Scientific classification Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Mollusca Class: Gastropoda (unranked): clade Caenogastropoda (unassigned) Superfamily: Campaniloidea Ampullinidae Genus X is a genus of deep-water sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Ampullinidae.

Species X is a species of deep-water sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Ampullinidae.

Campanilidae Genus X is a genus of sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Campanilidae.

Species X is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Campanilidae.

Plesiotrochidae Genus X is a genus of sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Plesiotrochidae.

Species X is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Plesiotrochidae.

All confirmed. JoJan (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hexaplex cichoreum

Appreciating your comments here. JKadavoor Jee 17:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I have already commented, anyone else want to comment? Invertzoo (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

New malacology categories

I've played around a bit with the category structure. Previously we had malacological societies and malacology itself under Category:Malacologists, and shell museums and conchology itself under Category:Conchologists, which wasn't exactly ideal. Another problem was that the articles on malacology journals were not grouped with our other malacology-related articles. To remedy this I've created the new top-level Category:Malacology as well as the directly subordinate Category:Conchology, Category:Teuthology, Category:Malacological literature, and Category:Malacological societies. The last two are in turn parents to Category:Malacology journals and Category:Conchological societies, respectively. I've already populated the categories a bit but please add any articles I may have missed. And let me know what you think of the new arrangement! mgiganteus1 (talk) 01:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

This certainly looks like an logical improvement. JoJan (talk) 11:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea to me! Thanks Mgiganteus! Invertzoo (talk) 14:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

European non-marine mollusks?

Today I was in communication with Francisco Welter-Schultes and he said that we might be interested in his new book, "European non-marine mollusks a guide for species identification". You can see a webpage about it here. Apparently it has similar content to AnimalBase. Invertzoo (talk) 22:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I know it already, and I guess Snek01 also does. It is definitely based on AnimalBase; Francisco told me some years before that he is going to write a book based on this page, because there was no actual determination guide for non-marine mollusks at that time. Very very brave, if you know that mollusk taxonomy is complicated even in Europe and that some European field malacologists are quite critical. But at least someone dared it and did the first step. --Edmund Sackbauer (talk) 09:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Terrific, thanks for the commentary Edmund. You are right; someone has to stick their neck out and BE BOLD! Invertzoo (talk) 13:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and writing a book is a very good way to avoid legions of angry referees. Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing, I'm just being realistic... It is an awesome book. -Daniel Cavallari (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

World Congress of Malacology 2013 at the Azores

I´ll be there. Anyone else?--Edmund Sackbauer (talk) 14:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I wish I could, but it's way too expensive... Third world country, and all... =/ --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't afford it either. Sounds really great though. My friend Jay Cordeiro, who used to be collections manager of mollusks at AMNH, will be there, so say hello for me if you see him. Invertzoo (talk) 12:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I can understand your arguments. I also had this problem with lack of funds for many times in my life. @Susan, I will post it here, if I´ll meet him.--Edmund Sackbauer (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn´t manage it to meet him. But there were about 400 Malacologists at this congress. Nevertheless I met a lot of interesting persons there. --Edmund Sackbauer (talk) 14:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Glad to hear that you had a good time Edmund! Invertzoo (talk) 13:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Land snail taxonomy source?

Can someone tell me if we have an approved source for land snail taxonomy -- I mean a database with reliable listings at the genus and species level? I ask that because I recently got this message from one of our members:

"Hello there, Invertzoo! Long time no see! I was keen to revamp the Vertigo species articles today, but found all of the red links were not currently accepted, at least according to AnimalBase. This extends to some current Vertigo species articles already in place as well. I could go ahead and do a thorough literature search, but don't have time at present. If you agree, let me know and I'll add it to my to-do list. Kind regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)"

Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I am assuming that Animal Base is currently the best on-line reference that we have access to? Invertzoo (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

AnimalBase is OK (but always check). Other references have been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastropods/Links. Another (more general) source is Gastropod classification and References. But I don't think there is an authoritative database for terrestrial snails, such as there is WoRMS for marine snails. JoJan (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Really superb underwater footage

Our nudibranch people especially will like this, but it also shows other gastropods, octopus, cuttlefish, and many other fantastic marine creatures shot underwater in the Lempeh Straits, Indonesia: [15] 14:08, 26 October 2013‎ Invertzoo (talk | contribs)

Happy Holidays to all

		Happy solstice-related (aka winter-in-the-Northern Hemisphere) holiday(s)!
		To my Wikipedia snail and slug friends, I wish a joyful "winter in the northern hemisphere holiday" or "northern solstice day(s) in the southern hemisphere holiday", whichever of the holiday or holidays you celebrate (all or any)! Invertzoo (talk) 19:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year 2014

Dear members of the Gastropods project,

Our vision for Wikipedia is one of beauty, natural symmetry and light.

I wish you all a Happy New Year, everything good for your families, your loved ones and yourselves, peace and joy for all the people of the world. I also wish a joyful and peaceful expansion for Wikipedia; may our encyclopedia make information and education available, without charge, to everyone in the world.
All the very best from Invertzoo (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

New Year, new book

Out now: Molluscs of the Czech and Slovak republics. I´m already very curious! But, as I know the first two authors personally, it must be good! --Edmund Sackbauer (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Chlamydephoridae edit

Hi, I am a new editor here. I have edited the Chlamydephoridae page and I would like someone to check it and see if my edits make the page good enough that we can remove the cleanup label at the top of the page. Reefswaggie (talk) 05:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I've added the author of the family and the synonymy. This article looks now OK to me. I've removed the cleanup template. Well done. We could use a contributor on land slugs in our project. JoJan (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

New bot task - Liotiidae

@JoJan: Please confirm the lead sentence and the taxonomy. — Ganeshk (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Gastropods/Archive 5
Scientific classification
Domain:	Eukaryota
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Mollusca
Class:	Gastropoda
Subclass:	Vetigastropoda
Order:	Trochida
Superfamily:	Trochoidea
Family:	Liotiidae Gray, 1850

Genus

X is a genus of small sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Liotiidae.

Species

X is a species of small sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk, in the family Liotiidae.

All confirmed. JoJan (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

We don't have the authority and date for the taxon Liotiidae in the taxobox? It's Gray, 1850. We also don't usually put in a comma after the word mollusks. Invertzoo (talk) 20:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I have fixed the comma and added authority. Thanks Susan. — Ganeshk (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done 31 new articles added. — Ganeshk (talk) 01:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

And thanks to you Ganesh. Invertzoo (talk) 13:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, it is good to see that the bot is still working well! I've been away, but have we got the admin's permission to use it again? Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, that's right. The bot has been approved to create stubs under the condition that every article will be reviewed and verified by a human. See Ganeshbot 10. It is tedious work that JoJan has been doing for over an year now. — Ganeshk (talk) 01:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I am a new member. I edited this page yesterday and added a reference and description. When I looked it up it said it was subfamily Liotiinae, not full family status.Reefswaggie (talk) 01:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Reefswaggie! Thanks for helping with some of the gastropod articles; it's much appreciated. I could not see any edits from you on the edit history of the Liotiidae article -- was that the one you worked on, or another one? In any case, taxonomists used to think this was a subfamily within the Turbinidae, based on shell characters, but recent research has confirmed it as a family in its own right. At Project Gastropods we go by the taxonomy that is used at WoRMS, which is checked and updated by several of the most outstanding taxonomists in the field. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 00:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK nom for the giant tun snail, Tonna galea

Update: DYK accepted and will appear on the main page within a few days. Anyone who wants to add to or clean up the article some more please feel free. Invertzoo (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Peculator

The usage of Peculator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is up for discussion, see talk:Peculator -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 09:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Use whole sentences for more clarity please

Hello folks. I wanted to ask people writing taxon articles to try always to use whole sentences, not note form. This is an encyclopedia, not a specialist malacological publication, where extreme brevity is a necessity. Here, whole sentences make a text far easier to understand. I would ask that this guideline be applied even to the details of species descriptions, unless of course the text is being quoted verbatim from the original description. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 14:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bolinus cornutus

Review appreciated. Jee 02:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The subgenus Nebularia

I see that a new ultra-stub has been created for a subgenus of Mitra. Currently it has very little content. Should we try to expand it into a proper article? WoRMS does not seem to completely recognize this subgenus, seeing it as an "alternate representation", so maybe we should turn the page into a redirect? Please let me know what you think. Invertzoo (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: User:JoJan worked on it and so did I, so now it is useful and quite functional. A happy outcome. Invertzoo (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Taxonomy: Hydrobiidae & Truncatelloidea

Hello everyone, I am one of the newest members here. I need to clarify something: Are the taxonomic changes described in Criscione & Ponder's 2013 A phylogenetic analysis of rissooidean and cingulopsoidean families (Gastropoda: Caenogastropoda) accepted by Project Gastropods? WoRMS accepts them (Truncatelloidea and Rissooidea entries both cite Criscione & Ponder as status source) and in a previous talk page thread, Invertzoo had mentioned that "at Project Gastropods we go by the taxonomy that is used at WoRMS". About 3 weeks ago I edited a couple of articles on Hydrobiidae families, and species included therein, updating their taxonomy as per Criscione & Ponder. But my edits on the New Zealand mud snail, Mercuria and Hydrobia were reverted, because this taxonomic change is not included in the Changes in the taxonomy of gastropods since 2005 article, which the Project cites as one of its taxonomic references.

If the above is indeed an accepted change, should perhaps the Changes in the taxonomy... article be updated accordingly? Or, if it is impossible to keep the said article always up-to-date, should perhaps the Project template be modified so as to include WoRMS as a taxonomic reference? XenoVon (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much XenoVon, you raise some very good points. I will alter the Project template, and restore the edits you made that were reverted. For marine species of gastropods we do go by WoRMS. Invertzoo (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Our Project template is now updated. Invertzoo (talk) 23:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Eobania and monotypy

It appears that Eobania is monotypic. The article only mentions one species, and AnimalBase confirms this. If so, Eobania vermiculata should be merged into there, per WP:FAUNA. (I suppose you could have separate articles on a monotypic genus and its species, but it doesn't make much sense.) Before I go and merge, does anyone smarter than me know a reason I shouldn't? --BDD (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Personally I'm not such a fan of merging these articles, because of the possible existence of synonyms of the genus and other synonyms of the species. You can't put these together in the same article. And there is always the possibility of the existence of fossil species or the discovery of new species. I've had to delete numerous times the [[Category: Monotypic gastropod genus]] because meanwhile a new species or even several species had to be added to the list. JoJan (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

But we have to describe these topics as they are, not as they might be, right? If a given genus is considered monotypic and another species is discovered, the resulting editing is just a matter of updated material. It's not that we were wrong before per se. For now, don't Eobania and Eobania vermiculata describe the same topic? If another species is identified, it's not like a merge can't be undone. --BDD (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem, go ahead and merge. I just talked about my own experiences with monotypic genera who weren't really monotypic after all. JoJan (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree with JoJan on this, despite the guideline. As he says, separate articles, each with its own taxobox, would keep the synonyms for the genus and synonyms for the species separate, and it also allows for the fact that there are almost guaranteed to be one or more fossil species in the genus. I can't really see what the downside is to having two articles. That's my humble opinion, for what it is worth. I have never been comfortable with the idea of forcing a monotypic genus to occupy one article only. Invertzoo (talk) 12:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

BOT update

I am back on Wikipedia after a long break. I have bad news; my computer crashed and I lost all the programming code for the Gastropod BOT with it. I will have to write a new program to extract CSV data the WoRMS database and recreate the original BOT. I will have to go through another BOT approval process just to be on the safe side. This will take some time. Sorry about that. It was good reminder for me to backup all the code I write. — Ganeshk (talk) 12:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

It's good to hear from you again. Sorry about your computer crash and the loss of code. It must have given you a hard time recreating the loss of data on your hard disk. Next time perhaps, think about saving most of your data in the cloud, as I do. When the bot is ready again, let us know because we're running far behind. JoJan (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back Ganesh. Yikes, I am so sorry to hear about Ganeshbot, what a unfortunate occurrence both for you, and for the gastropods project as a whole. I am sure you will be backing up everything like crazy from now on. I know that most of us have to learn the hard way what happens when you don't think to do that. Invertzoo (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I know nothing about how bots interface with WP, but there was no copy of the code on the WP servers? Only on Ganesh's home computer? Invertzoo (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Susan, that is correct. Wikipedia only allows specific file types to be uploaded. The code has to be backed up on another site like Google Drive. Wikimedia does have Tools server, but access and training have a steep learning curve. — Ganeshk (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Article Sea slug

The article "sea slug" is certainly not one of our best efforts, although quite often consulting by readers. Of course the article is about the common name, which is applied to so many different shell-less or reduced-shell marine gastropod taxa, as well as (sometimes) to sea cucumbers and so on. On the talk page of the article someone suggested it be reduced to a disambiguation page, which might perhaps not really be very helpful... Does anyone have any suggestions? Or would anyone like to work on it? Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I decided to BE BOLD and so I reduced it to a disambiguation page. I think that is probably the best solution. Invertzoo (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Update: Ah... all my changes were reverted by someone who felt it was better as an article than as a dab page. Once again, any input from other editors would be very welcome. Invertzoo (talk) 13:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Since it seems we are going to keep this article after all, today I tried to fix it up into better shape and add a number of images. I would very much appreciate it if anyone would like to look it over and help out with it in some way. Invertzoo (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

List of edible molluscs

This list article was created a week or two ago; basically it was a bare list taken straight from Category Edible molluscs, with no additional refinements. This morning I put in three hours of work trying to improve it. It looks a lot better now but it still has only one small reference (!) and no doubt could use numerous other refinements. Would someone please be kind enough to take a look at it and see if they can improve it further? Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 20/05

What do you think of Draft:Slug mating behaviour? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry that I can't really be extremely enthusiastic about this draft. At first glance the article looks very impressive and it certainly reflects a very great deal of good work. However, it seems to me that the major problem is conceptual. The common name "slug" refers to an extremely polyphyletic group. (I know it does mention this fact, but is that one mention really sufficient -- I don't think so.) Many taxa of land slugs are not at all closely related to one another, and in many cases slug taxa are far more closely related to taxa of snails than they are to other slugs. Some land slugs are in the clade Stylommatophora; others, like Belocaulus augustipes are in the clade Systellommatophora, and these two clades are not at all closely related. Also even within the Stylommatophora, the families LImacidae and Arionidae are also not closely related. Making an article about all land slug mating is a little odd, because slugs are not really one group. It would be sort of like making an article about "walking in flying creatures" and including info on walking techniques in birds, bees, bats and flying squirrels. Also, it doesn't in any way establish that being a shell-less gastropod presents any special problems that shelled species do not have to face when it comes to mating, or special advantages that shell-less species have when it comes to mating, something that would unify the diverse group and explain why they are are lumped into one article. So honestly it seems a bit arbitrary to focus in on mating in slugs rather than mating in all terrestrial pulmonate gastropods. Very best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not necessarily saying that the article must be declined. I am just saying that I think it needs a major re-organizing along taxonomic lines, and it also badly needs at the very least a clear and precise and referenced explanation that there is no difference between slugs and their closest shelled relatives, except that 1. they have no external shell and 2. because of having no shell, fairly large land slugs can exploit microhabitats that are not suitable for most larger snails to live in, such as under rocks, under tree bark and so on. Invertzoo (talk) 23:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

If you need some help with the taxonomic re-organizing, I am happy to help you. Thanks for all your hard work, Invertzoo (talk) 13:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear Invertzoo, thanks for your input. That's not my article, however; I was just reviewing it as part of the AfC WikiProject. You are quite welcome to decline it yourself by installing the script, or let me know if I can decline and point the author to this discussion. Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh I see. Actually I think we probably should accept it, but it does have problems. Let me ask JoJan and/or Snek what they think. Invertzoo (talk) 12:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

It certainly has problems as it tries to describe a behavior of species that are wide apart in their taxonomy. But I still think its useful, if only it could make a better distinction between the mating behavior in terrestrial slugs and sea slugs, such as the nudibranch Goniobranchus reticulatus, which certainly has a strange mating behavior (see: Why Sea Slugs Dispose of Their Own Penises). I'm not an expert in the matter, as I deal mainly with sea snails and lately, in particular the Vetigastropoda. The study of mating behavior in slugs is so wide that one has to be an expert to describe this accurately. JoJan (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Accept. It meets criteria notability, verifiability, suitability. It focus on notable subject of gastropods. Rename it as Mating of gastropods, that fits the most to naming system of gastropod related articles. Then the article can be for example re-organized into sections according to the taxonomy. --Snek01 (talk) 21:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the input, I'll go ahead and accept it, leaving the ball in your court. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Goodbye Toolserver

I've put a notice on the VIllage Pump Technical [16] that the tool "Watchlist of changes to all Gastropod-related articles" [17] doesn't function anymore. This is a vital tool to our project. Without it, we cannot know what is going on or if any vandalism has occurred. JoJan (talk) 13:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much for noticing this JoJan. I added a note similar to yours. Invertzoo (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I left a note at WP:VPT#Is there a replacement for Dispenser's transcludedchanges tool? on using the related changes special page. Might not be very practical with a huge number of articles, but it could help. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

It is sad that the normal functioning of wikipedia is being harmed by a dispute between Dispenser and WikiMedia Labs. JoJan (talk) 11:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I had no idea that so many tools did not really belong here on WP, but were more or less on loan. Invertzoo (talk) 13:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The tool "Watchlist of changes to all Gastropod-related articles" is functioning again. What a relief ! JoJan (talk) 14:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I can't find the link you mentioned! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

This is the link: [18]. Hope this helps. JoJan (talk) 13:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah! There it is. Thanks a lot, JoJan! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I notice that the page is sometimes a proper listing, but sometimes just an error report. Invertzoo (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)