Talk:Squamata

Taxonomy on Squamates is a mess
We need to clean it up, because it goes in so many directions I can't tell what is what anymore. OviraptorFan (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

The map
Errr, does this really mean there are no lizards neither snakes in Canada? --195.148.184.89 (talk) 04:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The map is simply incorrect. Red sided garter snakes, for example, live as far north as Forth Smith, Northwest Territories (60°N). Nathair Nimheil (talk) 12:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Came here to say this.

Snakes I have encountered in Canada (specifically Alberta):

Western Garter snake (Thamnophis elegans)

Bull snake (Pituophis catenifer sayi)

Prairie rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis)

...and the beautiful corn snake I'm currently snakesitting, but he ain't from around here.

Ispollock (talk) 01:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)ispollock

We should really delete the map or change it... :/ (Comment made by a guest) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.221.122.58 (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed the map which was obviously wrong, as people noticed already 8 years ago. The distribution of garter snakes alone goes way further to the North (see also this map). Also, the map does not show Antarctica, so in its current form it's not even complete. It was time to delete it. Kolorado (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * yeah Ghhghggg (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Merging with Toxicofera
I think this should merge with the main Toxicofera page.--4444hhhh (talk) 05:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? The Toxicofera page says that it only encompasses 60% of squamates.  I can see the argument not to make a new page if there wasn't already one, but I don't see what's wrong with having separate articles.  Both are currently short, but not really stubs.  - Enuja  (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What I was trying to say is bring Toxicofera to the classifacation like this:

Classification

Classically, the order is divided into three suborders:

Of these, the lizards form a paraphyletic group. In newer classifications the name Sauria is used for reptiles and birds in general, and the Squamata are divided differently:
 * Lacertilia, the lizards;
 * Serpentes, the snakes;
 * Amphisbaenia, the worm lizards.


 * Suborder Iguania (the iguanas and chameleons)
 * Suborder Scleroglossa
 * Infraorder Gekkota (the geckos)
 * Infraorder Anguimorpha (the monitors, goannas, Komodo dragon, Gila monster, and slow-worms)
 * Infraorder Scincomorpha (skinks, whiptail lizards and common European lizards)
 * Infraorder Serpentes (the snakes)
 * Infraorder Amphisbaenia

The exact relationships within these two suborders are not entirely certain yet, though recent research strongly suggests that several families form a venom clade which encompasses a majority (nearly 60%) of Squamate species. The group is call Toxicofera. Toxicofera combines the following groups from traditional classification:


 * suborder Serpentes (snakes)
 * suborder Iguania (anoles, chameleons, iguanas, etc.)
 * infraorder Anguimorpha, consisting of:
 * family Varanidae (monitor lizards, including the Komodo dragon)
 * family Anguidae (alligator lizards, glass lizards, etc.)
 * family Helodermatidae (Gila monster and Mexican beaded lizard)

--4444hhhh (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we should expand the sentence that links to toxicofera, and come up with some way to make a phylogeny, including toxicofera, but I I think we should not merge the pages. The lists of traditional classification groups that make up new groups make sense in the absence of a phylogeny, but instead of making one big article with lots of lists of traditional classification groups, we should have a hypothesized phylogeny or two of Squamata on this page, and discuss toxicofera in more detail on its page.  - Enuja  (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In the newly constructed phylogeny that includes Toxicofera would Anquimorpha be an infraorder or a suborder? It seems to be of the same rank as Serpentes and Iguania and as such it looks like it should be a suborder  or perhaps Serpentes and Iguania would be infraorders of the suborder Toxicofera and Anquimorpha would stay an infraorder?.  The Vidal, Hedges paper, "The molecular evolutionary tree of lizards, snakes,and amphisbaenians" page 134, seems to put them at the same rank although it doesn't state what rank the authors think that should be.


 * As an aside, I agree with the comment above that the article should include a complete phylogeny of squamata with Toxicofera incorporated into it. The paper shows the following clades at the same rank as the clades below Toxicofera: Laterata, Scinciformata, Gekkota, Dibamia, and Sphenodotida.Davefoc (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds good enough. I take the merge caps down.--4444hhhh (talk) 03:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Reperduction
We need squamate reperduction people. Look for sources, and get some info!--4444hhhh (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hopefully, that would be "Reproduction" that you'd like a new section on. However, I think it would benefit the article more to think about the ideal organization and for us all to read some of the primary literature.  One of the reasons I haven't yet tried to make a phylogeny is that the current squamate phylogenies, including the origin of snakes, the evolution of venom, the placement of Iguanids, and many other things, are still hypotheses undergoing testing.  It's not quick and easy to find the facts and simply write them in the article.  Instead, we need to read a variety of papers, look at the publication date and the way the literature has responded to each hypothesis, and figure out which hypotheses are well supported enough to go in the article, and with how much certainty they should be stated.
 * Personally, I think it makes a lot of sense to put a lot of the general squamate biology here at this article, but I'm not sure how it should be organized.   A good solid lead should start the article, but then what?  Although it certainly doesn't need the jargon, I think basic aim of a large group article like this should be to give details about the synapomorphies (shared derived characters) of the group.  As an example Bird is a featured article of a group of organisms (that has more synapomorphies than squamates, of course, so there is more to talk about).  Snake is a B-class article, but it's certainly got a lot more information than this article does. One suggested organization:
 * Evolution and Taxonomy
 * Origin (description of outgroups, basic synapomorphies)
 * Classification
 * Evolutionary relationships (including discussions of possible venom clade, ect)
 * Locomotion (include breathing & running stuff, specialized locomotion)
 * Physiology
 * Reproduction
 * Temperature biology
 * Ecology
 * I'm not saying we need to decide on a final organization now and stick with it, but I think it would be easier to write sections, and the work on the prose would be more long-lasting, if we try to write the section thinking about where it fits in a more fleshed out article.
 * By the way, I'm also willing to to put together a collage that has images of different squamates for the taxobox (as in Animal), so suggestions both of groups that should make it in and specific pictures to use, as well as opinions on whether a collage is a good idea, are very welcome. I was thinking that about four images should be good.
 * On making a phylogeny; I've downloaded Inkscape, so I should be able to make an SVG image with some fiddling, and I've found Template:Clade. I think that it probably makes sense to use the template first, and then make a fancy looking image later when the field is more resolved or I understand the literature more completely.  - Enuja  (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, Enuja...I like the collage idea for the infobox, I had to ditch that dinosaur. As for taxonomy, etc...I was told that the Reptiles and Amphibian Project uses ITIS as the standard.  I admit, ITIS is not always as up to date as I'd like it, but if it is the standard on wikipedia, we should use it as the source and not provocative theories that mislead the public into thinking all reptiles are venomous.  I'm working on rewrites to snake and lizard; snake is coming along but needs major work on the prose...I spent a few weeks gathering and formatting sources, lizard will be the same and information from both of those articles could be incorporated here.  Taking a section at a time was how I started to improve the snake article.--Mike Searson (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I like the organization, Enuja. He's mine suggestion of the organization:


 * Classification
 * History of Classification
 * Squamate Families
 * Evolution
 * Biology
 * Diets
 * Behavior
 * Locomotion
 * Reproduction
 * Temperature biology
 * Venom
 * Ecology
 * Humans and Squamates
 * Pets
 * Bites
 * Conservation

Oh, and one more thing, we should make this page longer, not short (like the first version of the article) I mean, the other reptile orders are longer but not this one. --4444hhhh (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I got great idea Enuja! What if we combine mine idea with your organization--4444hhhh (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mike Searson that we should write this article one section at a time. I, personally, like to have an idea of the organization in my head before I write a section, but I don't think that empty sections benefit the article while it is growing.  4444hhhh, I think your organization from Biology on down makes sense, but let's build it slowly, with good, cited prose at all times. - Enuja  (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hold your horses, this article does not need a pet section (at least yet) alot of the latest additions are out of place, poorly cited, and badly written; frankly they are best left to individual articles on species, genus, etc. I say edit "Top-Down"...Taxo, distribution, biology, ecology, etc.--Mike Searson (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Revision of Diets
Okay guys, I know what you said about me putting stuff with mis-grammar. So I'll do what Enuja suggested on my talk page. So, here's my revision version of diets:
 * Squamates have various diets. Snakes are strict carnivores, eating small animals including lizards, other snakes, small mammals, birds, eggs, fish, snails or insects. Lizards on the other hand, eat various of diets, eating berries, fruit, vegetables, insects, fish, snail, small mammals, small birds, eggs, other lizards, snakes, and large prey, such as cattle and deer. The worm-lizards mainly eat worms and insects.

So, what do you think guys? Any suggestions? --4444hhhh (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, I think this article is too broad to put these kind of details in it and they are better for articles further down the line. Think about it, Burmese pythons do not eat snails...Iguanas do not eat cattle...garter snakes do not eat berries, etc.  This article should just encompass the families that make up the order and that which is common to all of them biologicaly.  The details on diet, reproduction, etc belongs in articles on the genus, species or subspecies in question.  I do admire your willingness and effort, though.--Mike Searson (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * True, true. So, what else can do for a big favor for the article then?--4444hhhh (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Read the recent literature and make one phylogeny, or a variety of hypothesized phylogenies from different studies, depending on what you find the literature. Make the phylogeny using Template:Clade.  - Enuja  (talk) 00:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes sir!--4444hhhh (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please explicitly reference sources when making the phylogeny, and please work on the phylogeny in a sandbox. I suggest creating a sub-page of your own user space as a place to work on things before you put them live.  I'm going to remove the current phylogenies from the article.  It's superb that you are making the phylogenies, and I am quote confident that you will make one that is good enough to into the article, but please don't work on creating the phylogenies in the main space.  Also, phylogenies should go in the evolution section, not in the classification section.   - Enuja  (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The resources I undersyand, but the phylogeny was too difficult and hard!--4444hhhh (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead section
I think something got mixed up or moved in the lead section: "... particularly visible in snakes, which are able to open their mouths very wide to accommodate comparatively large prey. They are the most variably-sized order of reptiles, ranging from the 16 mm (0.63 in) Jaragua Sphaero, Sphaerodactylus ariasae to the 8 m (26 ft) green anaconda, Eunectes murinus."
 * If someone wants to fix that. cygnis insignis 11:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Paraphyletic relationships
The "Classification" section needs to tell us why the lizards are paraphyletic and what other group(s) are misclassified (from a cladistic POV) within the lizards, as the article linked is a general "Lizard" article. Wayne Hardman (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Fixed, albeit badly phrased. Mokele (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Mosasaurs
The page intro mentions mosasaurs, but that's the last we hear about them for the whole article. Shouldn't extinct members of squamata also be included in the classification? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.58.46 (talk) 12:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Lizards and snakes and not amphisbaenia?
Is there a reason the first sentence mentions lizards and snakes and not amphisbaenia? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Sexual Selection
I seriously doubt that there has been enough study of the > 3,000 snake species to conclude that each species uses different tactics! While I haven't been able to access the cited study, I suspect that it does not support this - after all, according to its own title, it deals with 'garter snakes', which account for c. 30 species, so < 1% of all snake species.Glevum (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Fixed HCA (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Heading
The heading "List of extant families" seems to be wrong, somehow.
 * This is under "Classification and phylogeny". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.21.214 (talk) 09:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Saurischia, an Order?
The lede makes reference to the clade Saurischia as an "Order". However, nowadays most palaeontologists consider Saurischia an unranked clade, and that is how it is generally treated here on Wikipedia (check the Saurichia article and its taxobox). The Ornithoscelida hypothesis also casts doubt on whether birds actually belong to Saurischia. Should the references therefore be removed? Zigongosaurus1138 (talk) 01:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That would make sense, it's not the most important part of that sentence. CMD (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to merge with lizard
These articles so heavily overlap in scope that its redundant to have both of them. We don't have separate articles for "frog" and the order Anura, just because some anurans are called toads rather than frogs in English (discussed in Frog), we just have a single article entitled Frog, covering the entirety of Anura, including those called toads. I think the same should apply here. (I don't care about which title is preferred/which way round the merge goes). Lizard is like "frog", in the sense that it covers most squamates, with the arbitrary exclusion of snakes, and to a much lesser extent amphisbaenians, despite "lizard" also including legless lizards. I really cannot concieve of how the content of the two articles, if fully developed, would not be heavily redundant to each other, as the discussion of their anatomy, ecology, evolution, etc. would basically be same, only slightly expanded in Squamata to also cover snakes and amphisbaenians. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What about snakes? those aren't really lizards 98.118.103.87 (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Snakes are a distinctive subgroup of squamates that clearly deserve their own article, just as we have articles on all the different groups of lizards like geckos, chameleons or iguanas. I was never suggesting merging snake. My point is that the exclusion of snakes from the definition of "lizard" in English is semantic and arbitrary when legless lizards are considered lizards, and that the topic of lizard and squamate heavily overlap to the point there's a lot of needless duplication by having two articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm for the merger. It really makes no sense the distinction between legless lizards and snakes. There's nothing more "lizard" about legless lizards than snakes. I think that either the pages should be merged, or the lizard page should be consistent and exclude anything that doesn't have legs (including legless lizards). Digital542 (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I personally disagree, I feel that “lizards” are enough of their own thing both taxonomically and culturally to warrant their own article.
 * Snakes and legless lizards have several different anatomical differences such as snakes and amphisbaenians have one functional lung while legless lizards have two, organs in snakes being one behind the other in snakes while being normally distributed in legless lizards, and legless lizards being mostly tail while snakes are mostly body (hence the need for the internal anatomy needing to be stretched out over the whole body) Why can&#39;t i get a cow (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The squamate article should also include mosasaurs and amphisbainids. I think that lizards merit their own article. There will always be some of this kind of duplication. Keep. Drsruli (talk) 21:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Not a user but I just got linked here from Mosasaurus so absolutely not. They do not seem to be defined as just lizards. 72.16.69.192 (talk) 03:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC) Oppose per Why can't i get a cow X (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)