Talk:Reptile/Archive 3

Radical confusion in this article?
I'm not an expert, but am aware of the widely- (though not unanimously-) accepted views that (a) dinosaurs were endothermic and (b) birds are of dinosaur stock. The diagram given in this article under Phylogeny places dinosaurs and birds as part of Sauropsida, for which the synonym Reptilia is given. Fine - if one decides to use the term Reptilia (which is the title of this article) in that way, then dinosaurs and their bird descendants are Reptilia. BUT under Systems, the descriptions given relate almost exclusively to "traditional" reptiles, e.g. the 3-chambered heart. Then under Metabolism, it is stated that except for some extinct groups including "some subgroups of Avemetatarsalia" all reptiles are exothermic. Avemetatarsalia includes dinosaurs (for which there is considerable evidence that they were endothermic, see the eponymous article), but not (apparently) birds (only bird relatives). The article therefore contradicts itself - birds both are and are not reptiles - and misleads - by no means all reptiles (by the broad definition already given) are exothermic or retain primitive structural and metabolic features.

I lack the specialist knowledge and access to sources to make the article coherent and consistent. I have amplified the definition of Avemetatarsalia which will be meaningless to the non-specialist reader, even with reference to that article, and tried to de-emphasise the implication that all reptiles are exothermic and exhibit primitive features. Finally, even I am aware of Bakker's opinion that the Class should be abandoned, for the reason that (as seen in this article) the scope of Reptilia it so wide as to make it well-nigh impossible to give a coherent and consistent definition of "typical" reptilian characteristics.

IMO this article needs the urgent attention of a specialist who can write a balanced and internally-consistent article incorporating the competing points of view. Chrismorey (talk) 07:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem is that there are legitimately different views of "reptilia" at two levels, which collide in this article because it must balance readability and general public access with accuracy. Strictly speaking, a monophyletic clade "reptilia" includes birds and dinosaurs, but the vast majority of the public use the term to mean the paraphyletic sense (extant reptilia minus birds).  If we use the strict cladistic definition, we get an article that'll confuse the living hell out of 99% of readers.  If we use the "common" definition, it winds up excluding significant chunks of their evolutionary tree and history.  Then you have the fact that, in casual conversation, biologists tend to actually use the "common" definition because it's more useful for most fields (even though paraphyletic, it has numerous unifying physiological and ecological traits) - there's a reason why herpetologists and ornithologists go to separate conferences held by separate scientific societies.  Personally, I've always favored including a sort of "taxonomic disclaimer" and then using the "common" definition, since the primary users of the encyclopedia are the general public, and if we get bogged down in taxonomic disputes (which, in fairness, are attempts to apply human language and discrete concepts to the continuous, branching nature of evolution), it'll become so much less useful to the public that we've done an educational dis-service. HCA (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with what you say, but it is still true that parts of the article are worded as if both dinosaurs and birds are included in the Reptilia, and others use what you sensibly call the "common" definition of sprawling exotherms with 3-chambered hearts. I'm sure you could make a much better job of revising the article than I, although as a last resort I'd be prepared to have a go at distinguishing the two conflicting uses of "Reptile/Reptilia" and following that through.  I may even make a start now! - but please correct what I've done as necessary Chrismorey (talk) 03:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC) PS I do feel that the article is written from the traditional point of view that dinosaurs were "good" reptiles, which is now widely questioned.


 * I've now had a go at revising the lead to make clear the difference between the common and monophyletic definitions. I've made some minor changes in the body of the article to clarify which definition is being used where.  However I have by no means been rigorous in this, at least partly because I don't know the answer.  But I feel it now reads more clearly, to me as an informed lay-person at any rate.  I've removed the following, because it doesn't relate to reptiles in the common definition.  There are many other places where the article uses a broad definition (usually without any clue that it is doing so) but this is one which appeared to confuse the sense of the section, if not the whole article.  The rest of this section (Systems) is clearly talking about "common" reptiles.


 * Except for some possibly-warm-blooded extinct groups (e.g. dinosaurs, crocodilian ancestors and Mesozoic marine reptiles ),


 * Ugh, looking at Sauropsida and Diapsid, I notice that our automatic taxoboxes employ Reptilia as if it were a valid clade! Something is going deeply wrong here. Anyone know how the taxobox mechanism works?
 * Clearly, Sauropsida and Reptilia are not synonymous, but neither are Sauropsida a subgroup of Reptilia. Sauropsida are Reptilia + Dinosauria (including Birds), hence, it is Reptilia which is the (paraphyletic) subgroup, in fact. Paraphyly has a useful illustration that we could use here. In fact, this reminds me that there are two different definitions of Reptilia: one that includes the Stem-Mammalia (hence, Amniota without Dinosauria/Aves and Mammalia) and one that does not (hence, Sauropsida without Dinosauria/Aves). I understand that the taxoboxes use Reptilia when the intended term is actually Amniota. However, the taxobox at Synapsida does not make this mistake and uses the proper term Amniota.
 * The article should be clear about the fact that Reptilia has two definitions and both are paraphyletic. Neither Sauropsida nor Amniota can be treated as homonymous with Reptilia, ever. Dinosauria/Aves and Mammalia just are not Reptilia, never. If you wish to include them, use an unambiguous cladistically valid, holophyletic term such as Sauropsida or Amniota. If there are still misguided biologists who wish to shoehorn Reptilia into a cladistically valid, holophyletic term, we should notice this usage, but warn that it is improper, problematic and all kinds of confusing and should be avoided on Wikipedia like the plague. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with just changing the definition of reptilia to be synonomous with sauropsid? How is it confusing? People will just be like "So birds are reptiles? Cool." and move on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:58C:C400:4BBA:A090:D1E3:7081:9342 (talk) 03:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuvosaurus

^What about animals like Shuvosaurus? It's an archosaur with a very dinosaur-like appearance but not only is it not a dinosaur, it's from a clade of archosaurs that are more basal than modern crocodilians, which are included within reptilia by definition. Is it magically "not a reptile" just because it doesn't scurry around on its belly? It doesn't really make any sense to exclude dinosaurs from a group that includes both crocodiles and snakes.

"Reptiles" have been redefined before. The group used to encompass the animals that we now recognize as amphibians. It seems to me that the word "reptile" should either be redefined again or completely discarded, but I suppose it's beyond the scope of Wikipedia to make that call. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.109.237 (talk) 00:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Exactly, it's beyond WP's scope. And until the public perception aligns with a scientifically valid definition, we're stuck using the old, imperfect definition because otherwise it severely compromises WP's educational purpose. HCA (talk) 03:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * For the last few years, all that's been happening on this talk page is a discussion of phylogenetic nomenclature. All of those demanding re-wording or tossing the term "Reptilia" altogether argue from dinosaur palaeontology point of view. This is understandable, as phylogenetic nomenclature us almost universal in that field. It also seems a lot of contributors working on reptile-related articles comes from just dinosaur palaeontology. The wast majority of researchers working with reptiles are zoologists though. In zoology, traditional evolutionary taxonomy is the most common. To the waste majority of herpetologists and laypeople, the whole dinosaur-birds-reptile discussion is a very minor point. The "confusion" is only really there if one insists on being confused by the phylogeny. Petter Bøckman (talk) 10:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Re-working the intro
I just commented out (not deleted, so it can be moved to the main-body section and so references aren't lost) the absolutely excessive section on phylogenetic nomenclature in the intro. Yes, they're paraphyletic, etc, but that's all covered in the expansive section of the main article. As it stood, the intro was 60% how we humans classify reptiles, 40% stuff actually about reptiles. I think the current version is far superior (note that their classification is tricky, link to grade, move on), though it should be expanded with general notable stuff about the group (as you can see in the intros of the other vertebrate classes). Especially look at fish, another paraphyletic class - they mention it in the intro, but don't get bogged down in it, with the lion's share of the intro being about what they are, where they live, what they eat, etc.

We've got a *huge* section of the main article about phylogenetic nomenclature, paraphyly vs monophyly, etc., and interested readers can find what they're looking for there (not to mention the actual articles on those topics). Let's not force everyone to wade through a dense, technical taxonomic discussion in what is supposed to be purely introductory text. The intro should cover the general highlights of the article/topic.

I'll expand upon the intro later (and welcome others to do it in the meantime), but please, let's try to keep the phylogenetic details for the appropriate section of the main article. HCA (talk) 14:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I feel that a good section of the intro should acknowledge the emphasis on phenetics (appeareances) in how common animal classifications work. Most biologists work in either "herpetology", "mammalogy," or "icthyology" simply out of convenience and tradition rather than actual evolutionary reasoning. Given that the average reader won't know this ahead of time, obviously we should define reptiles the old fashioned way, but I think it's important to emphasize the "traditional" (i.e. "old-school") format of the phenetic reptile classification in the introduction. Readers should know right off the bat that this style of classification isn't technically correct from an evolutionary/monophyletic point of view.


 * I'm not saying it has to take up the entire intro, but a few short sentences would be preferable

ExpressElevatortoHell (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The idea that clades are more "scientific" is like the Monsanto House of the Future, an attraction at Disneyland from 1957-67. Today it is understood that cladistics has serious limitations, among them the fact that evolutionary history and phylogenic relationships are often not recoverable. As molecular biologists have found, stretches of the genome get overwritten with new data. One way of looking at is to think of cladograms as one set of layers of a document, with paraphyletic and polyphyletic groups on additional layers. The cladogram layers partly conflict with each other, and are constantly being revised and updated, while the Linnean groups provide islands of stability. "Reptile" is clearly not a clade, any more than "monkey," and therefore should not be evaluated as if it were. Since scientists rely on noncladistic groupings like reptile and have no intention of abandoning them, we should not call the tools of science "unscientific." Zyxwv99 (talk) 15:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Reworking the Cladogram
I noticed a couple problems with the large cladogram on this page.

The first is that it does not always split in a binary fashion, leading to confusing groupings, where it appears that several clades diverged simultaneously. The worst of these is Sauria, which brings me to the second problem.

Sauria does not include dinosaurs, pleisosaurs, mammals, etc. Sauria only includes the lizards, and following that link brings one to the lizards page. If anything it should be labelled Neodiapsida and link to that page.

Pulmon Butcher (talk) 05:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * So, the polytomies (where it doesn't split in a binary fashion) represent the limitations of our current knowledge - we know these groups form a clade, but finer-scale branching between them is either ambiguous or differs so much between studies that there's no consensus. The use of "Sauria", however, is problematic, especially with the redirect.  I found a recent paper that just defines it as Lepidosauromorphs + Archosauromorphs (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0089165), but they don't include ichthyosaurs or "euryapsids" in the mix, nor turtles.  Another paper (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17213912) uses it in a clearly lizard-focused manner.
 * I think at the end of the day, we should delete Sauria from the cladogram and leave that node unlabeled due to the clearly ambiguous use of the word. However, I think we should keep the polytomy, with an asterisk or something to explain that, basically, we don't know what happens there. HCA (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Taxonomy section needs rechecking and revision
I copy-and-pasted the section into Word to sort out the hierarchy and, as far as I can see, the current structure is wrong.* Of course it does not help that lower-level taxo pages do not seem to have been pulled into line with the new classification system. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the book from which it was taken so can't fix it myself.

The actual hierarchy visualization also needs to be fixed so that clades at the same level are shown at the same indentation.

.* E.g. Diapsida is given as Infraclass and not extinct, but its only subgroup (Order Younginiformes) is extinct and the next division is another Infraclass.

–GRM (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the best solution would be to convert it into a phylogeny. HCA (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Contradiction
From the lese: "Because some reptiles are more closely related to birds than they are to other reptiles (crocodiles are more closely related to birds than they are to lizards),  many modern scientists prefer to make Reptilia a monophyletic grouping and so also include the birds"

Further down, a diagram shows that reptiles include mammals, which would make the explanation quoted above nonsensical.-79.219.191.167 (talk) 23:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The diagram is of the obsolete version of the term, but I think we need to either make that very clear, or abandon it entirely. I'll delete it for now. HCA (talk) 00:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Whatever nonsense follows here belongs to some other section, please disregard.-79.219.191.167 (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Aves as a class inside Reptilia?
In the taxonomy sidebar for Aves, it says aves is a class. However, if you click on the list of clades that are each slightly bigger than aves, you eventually reach Reptilia, which is apparently also a class. Shouldn't wikipedia agree on one definition of class?


 * The class reptilia is paraphyletic. Linnaeus created his taxonomic system centuries before cladistics was invented so sometimes a class contains another class. --holizz (talk) 03:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 one external links on Reptile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110604220710/http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc99/5_22_99/bob1.htm to http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc99/5_22_99/bob1.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110716044246/http://www.sflorg.com/sciencenews/scn101707_01.html to http://www.sflorg.com/sciencenews/scn101707_01.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110628202149/http://www.stanford.edu/group/hadlylab/pdfs/vantuinenhadlyJME04.pdf to http://www.stanford.edu/group/hadlylab/pdfs/vantuinenhadlyJME04.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110724224354/http://www.advancedconservation.org/library/hansen_etal_2010.pdf to http://www.advancedconservation.org/library/hansen_etal_2010.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110706084815/http://www.ege.fcen.uba.ar/materias/general/Broken_ZigZagMACN_5_1_19_.pdf to http://www.ege.fcen.uba.ar/materias/general/Broken_ZigZagMACN_5_1_19_.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Global reptile distribution map:Misleading title and scope
The map displayed is purporting to summarize global reptile distribution, yet it plainly states that the references are the IUCN red list and Sea snake databases. It is therefore only showing the odd grouping of reptiles of known risk in the various threat levels included in the IUCN red list i.e. rare reptiles, and Sea snakes totalling 3809 species (stated), which comprise a fraction of the 10 026 (stated in main article) species of the reptiles sensu-stricto (not including birds). Readers will assume that large portions of Africa, South America, Australia, and Southern Asia are equally impoverished in species as northern Eurasia and Canada (definitely not the case). According the the lists of reptiles by region, Canada contains 60 species and Australia 860 species yet from looking at the map they appear largely similar. There is a coastal fringe in northern Australia showing the second tier of diversity which is highly likely to be solely due to the abundance of sea snakes in the region (28/31 species found along the northern coast of Australia as described in )

The best solutions would be: - Ensure the limited scope of the map is reflected in the caption, a change which would relegate a reduced status to the image rather than in the main article summary. - Find/produce a map which actually reflects the levels of global reptile diversity. Beseekay (talk) 10:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)Beseekay

Also they should add birds to the map because i know birds came from dinosaurs that are reptiles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.52.13.15 (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Hearing
It would be nice if Morphology and physiology had info on hearing. I think all reptiles have he same type of ear drum covering? Telecine Guy 03:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Reptiles have a stapes, and no incus. Other difference?Telecine Guy 03:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Should this page treat birds frankly as reptiles?
This page is about the Reptilia clade, which includes birds. Should we bite the bullet and stop going back and forth on whether birds are included? Not only are birds reptiles, they're the most successful reptiles on earth. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 04:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah but. The clade is one thing, the concept of "reptile" quite another, and of course it's paraphyletic. Best to admit that, rather than try to enforce a cladistic view which doesn't correspond to common usage. Of course we need to speak about the clade too, but we're doing violence to the concept if we pretend that people think of birds when they say "reptile". No doubt it would be more rational if they did: but they don't. Our job as editors is to reflect that reality. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Circulation and Anatomy of heart
There is little information about the anatomy of reptile hearts here, therefore adding the Iguana heart for an example will help people understand the circulation of the heart as well as the anatomy. I plan on additionally adding a scope picture of a bisected Iguana heart to clear depict and label the structures of the heart. Let me know any suggestions or questions you may have. Hartmacl (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Reptile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130204111508/http://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/summarystatistics/2012_1_RL_Stats_Table_1.pdf to http://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/summarystatistics/2012_1_RL_Stats_Table_1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Reptile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090917002815/http://www.curator.org/legacyvmnh/weboflife/kingdom/p_chordata/ClassReptilia/reptiles.htm to http://www.curator.org/legacyvmnh/weboflife/kingdom/p_chordata/ClassReptilia/reptiles.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Reptile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160221090143/http://server.ege.fcen.uba.ar/materias/general/Ecopaleo/Broken_ZigZagMACN_5_1_19_.pdf to http://server.ege.fcen.uba.ar/materias/general/Ecopaleo/Broken_ZigZagMACN_5_1_19_.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090209004721/http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/b/bulfinch/thomas/ to http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/b/bulfinch/thomas/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Traditional classification
has reverted an IP's edit which I believe was correct, also misprising my edit comment. The IP asserted that birds were traditionally not classed as reptiles. This is nothing to do with modern cladistics, which of course includes birds among the clade Ornithurae. The traditional classification of vertebrates (e.g. Romer, A.S. (1949): The Vertebrate Body. W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia.) however divided them into Class Agnatha (jawless fishes), Class Chondrichthyes (cartilaginous fishes), Class Osteichthyes (bony fishes), Class Amphibia (amphibians), Class Reptilia (reptiles), Class Aves (birds), and Class Mammalia (mammals). In that system, the birds indeed were not included, as the IP rightly stated. I hope this is clear, so we can reinstate the edit. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't mind the " but traditionally excluded" bird part. But your edit introduced the error Mammalia (mammals) (cladistically included but traditionally excluded) which is plainly wrong. I Have reintroduced the bird text as this is correct.  --Jules  (Mrjulesd) 12:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it. I just reverted; the IP made an obvious slip about the mammals. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Penguins as reptiles?
Per this reversion, we now have a lead which implies that penguins are reptiles. This should go.

Yes, I am familiar with cladistics and the limitations of Linnean taxonomy. There is an argument to support this. However the place to explain that is not in a throwaway comment about reptilian distributions. We are still first of all a general-access encyclopedia: we can't assume that offhand comments will be clear or properly understood by all readers.

We do not need this additional statement. In typical WP fashion it is not obviously 'wrong', but the habit of word-by-word editing loses sight of the overall editorial narrative. There is no virtue for a lead-level piece in the top-level article on reptiles implying that they might be thought of as inhabiting Antarctica, because of penguins! This paragraph needs to convey clear information about distribution, not corner-cases about taxonomy. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Earlier in the lead it states the following: Because some reptiles are more closely related to birds than they are to other reptiles (e.g., crocodiles are more closely related to birds than they are to lizards), the traditional groups of "reptiles" listed above do not together constitute a monophyletic grouping (or clade). For this reason, many modern scientists prefer to consider the birds part of Reptilia as well, thereby making Reptilia a monophyletic class.[1][2][3][4]. So I don't see it as a throwaway comment, the viewpoint of birds being reptiles is already explained. And as penguins are birds this seems correct to me. --Jules  (Mrjulesd) 17:33, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you read my comment? We do not need anything in a lead which implies in any way that there are reptiles in the Antarctic. Even if this is merely penguins, and especially not "we must print it because it's true". Many things are both true (in the perverse and confusing scope here), yet thoroughly misleading. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * But there clearly *are* reptiles in the Antarctic. That mere colloquialism doesn't reflect fact is no reason to pander to it. HCA (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There is nothing clear about such a statement. If we were to make it (and I see zero value to doing so), we have to treat it very carefully. Not because it's untrue, but because it's so misleading to almost the entire audience. Colloquialism (and it's far more than that to distinguish birds and reptiles) is not truth, but it is the context we have to work with.
 * For another thing, how many taxonomists do you think are reading (as consumers) this article? It's an extremely high level article in a generalist encyclopedia. Its opening paragraphs are not the place to be making this extremely subtle point, and most readers of such an introduction are not going to interpret "there are reptiles in the Antarctic" in anything like a correct manner. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Why is it misleading if many experts consider birds to be reptiles? This isn't an "extremely subtle point", but an important one about the nature of reptiles. Many lay-people know that birds are dinosaurs or descended from dinosaurs, so it is not a esoteric matter confined to specialist scientific literature.
 * The article correctly addresses the point that birds are considered reptiles by some definitions (with references give). The text correctly makes the distinction about non-avian reptiles not being found in the Antarctic, but this begs the question what about avian reptiles. To avoid belabouring the point, a brief although birds are also found in the Antarctic might suffice, as the non-avian/avian distinction is already raised at the beginning of the sentence.
 * The same paragraph also gives the number of bird species. Perhaps the whole paragraph should be omitted from the lede (the taxobox includes a distribution map) and the number of species for each group of reptiles given elsewhere in the article. The lede is supposed to summarise the article, not present information not covered later.   Jts1882 &#124; talk 11:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * So should the lead of Penguin begin "Penguins are the only reptiles in the Antarctic"? I would hope not!
 * I've no objection to either of these points, in isolation, but it's their combination that's the problem. There are no herps in Antarctica. We should state, clearly, "there are no reptiles in Antarctica": that is the clear single point message of this lead paragraph. Any introduction of penguins there just confuses it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There, fixed it so the wording is better/clearer. Plus, technically, penguins aren't the only reptiles in Antartica, as there are numerous seabirds which visit & nest during warmer months, though they are the only year-round residents. HCA (talk) 14:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "Modern non-avian reptiles inhabit every continent with the exception of Antarctica (birds, a type of reptile, inhabit all continents)." is certainly better, thanks. Although, especially as it begins "non-avian reptiles" anyway, I'd lose the parenthetical phrase altogether.
 * Ideally, we'd work to get rid of every parenthetical phrase on WP. They rarely encourage clarity. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * To the degree the penguin point is relevant, there are a few storm birds living in the archipelago around Antarctica, so the penguin claim is false. Petter Bøckman (talk) 12:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think it should say "birds, a type of reptile" as that is only one definition of Reptilia. I would argue that Reptilia comprises reptiles and birds, rather than that birds are reptiles (as in the common name). I also agree the parenthetic term is awkward. I have made a change that tries to address these issues. Thoughts?  Jts1882 &#124; talk 14:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

note on Aves in taxobox
" but excluded in traditional taxonomy", a note at Aves. If it is a fact inserted in answer to the perennial discussion, the response might be "which tradition". Is there a better way of phrasing this? cygnis insignis 07:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)