Talk:Northern green anaconda

Article picture?
The article used to have File:Anaconda (Eunectes akayima).jpg (right) as an illustration added by @Haplochromis, which was later removed by @UtherSRG as being of the wrong species (as the title might seem to indicate). However, the newly discovered species E. akayima is a split from E. murinus, rather than the discovery of an entirely new population. The pictured snake, found in Northern Venezuela, is squarely in the range of E. akayima rather than (post-split) E. murinus. As the pre-split name E. murinus encompasses both currently defined species, it shouldn't be surprising that an E. akayima would have been labeled this way at the time, and the range is more consistent with it belonging to that species. Should it be added back as an illustration, or would jumping from "E. murinus in northern South America" to "E. akayima" constitute original research? Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 17:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * If added back, it should be removed from the E. murinus article as no longer belonging to that species. Also, if added back, the file's description should be updated to indicate why the file's name is misleading. As for whether or not to add it back in, I think the OR/not-OR dividing line is fairly thin here. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've already removed it from the E. murinus article given the reasonable doubt induced by the split. I see Haplochromis already edited the file's description on Commons, so it should be good to add back. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 22:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Well that's ok then! XD - UtherSRG (talk) 11:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Eunectes akayima is not a valid species!
Recently, two rebuttals to the work of Rivas et al. (2024) were published, in which the authors provided evidence that Eunectes akayima is not a valid species. This page should be removed or re-structured completely. The only Green Anaconda species currently recognized is Eunectes murinus.

https://mapress.com/bn/article/view/bionomina.37.1.1

https://mapress.com/bn/article/view/bionomina.37.1.2 2800:E2:B27F:FD28:34A2:1D35:E77F:9E1B (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the additions! I don't think a controversial status should be a reason for removing the page entirely, but it would be a good thing to add these works to the page. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 02:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * In the Spanish page a detailed text explaining why this species is now considered invalid was added, in case you want to include it:
 * Recently, two articles have been published criticizing the description of this particular species. In the first one, the authors discuss the difficulty in accurately determining the provenance of the type material of the species described by Linnaeus and its implications when describing a new species. This is because the only known specimen of the type series of Eunectes murinus was part of the curiosity cabinet of King Adolf Frederick of Sweden, which could have been acquired through naturalia merchants, thereby increasing uncertainty about the material's provenance. The suspicion of Suriname as a possible type locality is based on a well-documented idea in the literature that many of the specimens Linnaeus described in his Systema Naturae came from there. This could be true, although valid only for material that can be linked to Linnaeus's "South American emissaries", such as Pehr Löfling or Daniel Rolander, which is not the case. However, the purported new species, Eunectes akayima, as mentioned by its authors, could also be found in Suriname, making it impossible to determine which of the two evolutionary lineages the green anaconda described by Linnaeus over 250 years ago belongs to and which corresponds to the new species. On the other hand, the authors of the new species violate several articles of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, thus compromising the integrity of their description, regardless of their evidence. For example, the authors confuse the terms validity and availability, making the name Boa gigas [= Eunectes gigas], proposed by Latreille in 1801 for a species with a distribution similar to that of the purported new species, unavailable without any valid reason, which would have priority over Eunectes akayima. Because of this, the name Eunectes akayima was synonymized with Eunectes murinus. The second article, on the other hand, considers the name Eunectes akayima as a nomen nudum, so unlike the previous one where it is considered available but invalid, here it is considered unavailable. The difference between both critiques lies in the interpretation of what the authors consider a diagnostic attribute, so that for the former, the justification for the use of the species' evolutionary history and distribution satisfies the availability criterion of the Nomenclature Code, while for the latter, it does not. In both cases, the authors of the respective critiques consider that the description of this new species does not meet the requirements of zoological nomenclature and therefore do not recognize it as valid. 2800:E2:B27F:FD28:4D91:592D:7751:D31C (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 16:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Suggest Deletion
This should be deleted the recent description has been shown to be a mess, as stated above the name is nomen nudem, its also not a senior synonym for the taxon in anycase. If the northern form is a species it will be Eunectes murinas with the southern form being the new taxon, though it has several pre-existing names also. There is no scenario where this name will be seen as valid, the Lectotype for Boa murina set by Dubois et al is from Spanish West Indies, ie Trinidad and hence represents the northern form and the oldest name for a Green Anaconda of any form. This is a case of jumping to make a page about a new species before the dust has settled. I strongly recommend delete and wait and see what happens in next few months as there is more work on this in production. Its not ready for a page yet and is presenting false information. Cheers Scott Thomson  ( Faendalimas ) talk 03:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a move to draft space as Draft:Northern green anaconda would be most appropriate. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 06:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The fact that the taxonomy is a mess doesn't prevent us from writing an article about it explaining the situation and the controversy about it. Saying that "the southern form will be the new taxon" is WP:CRYSTAL, as for now E. akayima is the taxon that has been published. While the species itself is controversial (which is repeatedly mentioned in the article), it has received enough coverage to be independently notable, and Wikipedia shouldn't wait until "the dust has settled" (in some cases, never) to make articles about ongoing scientific controversies. As you can read throughout, the article is not taking a side, and repeatedly refers to it as an "alleged" or "proposed" species. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 08:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually whether or not the species is controversial is not the issue, its the name that is the problem. It has now been demonstrated to be nomen nudem ie not available by Dubois et al. Cheers Scott Thomson  ( Faendalimas ) talk 13:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The article is only titled "Northern green anaconda", not "Eunectes akayima", and it is mentioned in the article (notably, in #Nomenclatural availability and validity) that the name is controversial. We report the results of Dubois et al. as well as the results of the other studies concerning the species, without asserting that one study in particular is correct. In any case, I don't think deletion is an appropriate solution, given that the studies and reporting on them make the northern green anaconda notable whether it is actually the species' correct name or not. Having an article discussing the controversy over the species' name and validity is much preferable to having no article, and which name to use in the taxobox is a completely separate question from deletion. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 13:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Part of the difficulty is that the specimen now set as Lectotype for Boa murina by Dubois et al is according to the original Dutch version of Seba from the Spanish West Indies, which means it is from Trinidad (ie thats the type locality for Eunectes murinas. Making the so called Southern Green Anaconda actually the northern one. I agree with discussing the issue but it may have been better to include this in the current page for now rather than making a new one which will ulimately have to be merged as both articles are referring to the same population, whether or not you consider them species. This is the problem the Northern Green Anaconda is Eunectes murinas not the southern one. Cheers Scott Thomson  ( Faendalimas ) talk 14:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not really that clear-cut. Dubois et al. made a choice for the lectotype, different from the previous choice made by Rivas et al., and, waiting for consensus, we don't have to say that one is more accurate than the other. Ultimately, I don't see the point of a merge: there is no reason for the article green anaconda to be about whichever species ultimately ends up called E. murinus (that's just semantics, really, and doesn't change what the underlying populations are) and we do need several articles given that this northern population is notable in its own right. A compromise I'd be happy with would be to have green anaconda discuss the green anacondas in general (both species/populations), with this page being about the proposed northern species (variously called either E. akayima, E. murinus or something else, depending on the author). Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 14:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * umm Rivas et als lectotype is invalid under the code, it was collected in 2011 and hence could not have been examined by Linneaus. To be a lectotype a specimen must be part of the original type series (syntypes) examined by the author, ie Linneaus. How did Linneaus examine a snake collected in 2011? Dubois lectotype is part of the original series and has been declared and must be accepted as the valid Lectotype as per the ICZN code. I am fine with rearranging the discussion to be part of the article on Green Anaconda. Cheers Scott Thomson  ( Faendalimas ) talk 15:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We could (and should) have the section about the lectotype be on the green anaconda article, although it is good to also have it here to provide context in terms of nomenclature. However, saying that this specific syntype "must" be accepted is WP:OR, we have to follow scientific consensus (and see the reactions in the community) rather than follow a single author. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 15:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Its not OR it is the rules of the ICZN Code once a Lectotype is validly declared it must be followed. When it comes to nomenclature we are bound to this like any publisher. Rivas et al Lectototype has been invalidated by two publications so far. The one set by Dubois is the valid one and has to be followed or do you not believe WP is bound to the ICZN Code for zoological nomenclature? Cheers Scott Thomson  ( Faendalimas ) talk 16:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe it would be wise to turn this into an 'official' deletion request and alert WP:REPTILES? As for the article presenting false information, it seems like the article treats the species with neutrality, without really taking a side on its validity. The Morrison Man (talk) 09:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The point about the lectotype designation throws things into a bit of a mess. Based on the paper by Dubois et al., it would appear that the northern population is the one from which the lectotype was taken, in which case both gigas and akayima would be junior names to murinus. One thing that is not subject to dispute, as noted in the previous comments in this thread, and also by Dubois et al., is that the lectotype designation by Rivas et al. for murinus is literally impossible under the ICZN, and absolutely not a valid designation. That's not just a matter of opinion, but objective fact (Linnaeus very definitely never saw the specimen used by Rivas), and that fact has been published by Dubois et al., and can be cited as such. The only thing that is even marginally unclear at this point is whether the lectotype designation published by Dubois et al. is valid under the Code. In other words, there are only two issues not resolved already, and for which it will take time for things to become clear: (1) are there two taxa? The molecular evidence is not a slam dunk, but it's probable that it will hold up to scrutiny. (2) If there are two taxa, which one is murinus, and what is the correct name for the other one? At this stage of things, it pretty much looks like Dubois has settled the matter by using a northern specimen as the lectotype, which may very well mean that the southern taxon has no name at all at this point, unless one of the present synonyms is based on southern material. In a sense, it's less of a controversy than it would appear, but the details do need to be explained to readers, and the uncertainties delineated. Dyanega (talk) 16:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yep, I agree that the Rivas et al. lectotype is pretty much not valid at this point. In this case, while it's mostly clear that there are two species, the main issue is that there hasn't been a formal description of the southern species. Until a valid description is made, it's better to mostly keep things as they are, with this article being edited to present more clearly the opinion of Dubois et al. in naming the northern species E. murinus (which ultimately is a matter of semantics and doesn't change the existence of underlying species), and having the article green anaconda about, well, the green anacondas (i.e. both species). Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 18:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Faendalimas I vote to not delete. I skimmed through the page and it looks like it does a great job at explaining its status as an invalid species, and nowhere is false information suggested. I think the size of the content itself makes it eligible to remain undeleted. Both invalid or obsolete taxa and lower taxa such as subspecies or varieties can be notable enough to retain their own page, it all depends on the amount of literature that exists for it. As a last resort I would suggest merging, but I think the amount of information already present would make it difficult to merge. A shorter summary should absolutely be present in the older synonym's page, though. —Snoteleks (Talk) 06:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I vote not delete, because the page very clear both in the lede and throughout the article about how the status of the Northern green anaconda is disputed. starsandwhales (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Size information
I did not find a size description in the article by Rivas et al. The Wikipedia article refers to "confirmed specimens measuring up to 6.3 m long", apparently sourced by this article in The Independent that quotes Bryan Fry of the University of Queensland, who is a coauthor of the Rivas paper. The quote refers to only one specimen, not "specimens". But more importantly, it bothers me that this information seems to be from a verbal remark reported in a newspaper rather than from the published scientific paper. We shouldn't be getting such information from comments quoted in newspaper articles, and no description was provided about how rigorously this measurement was established. Is there any other published size information available? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 10:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)