Template talk:Hybridbox

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Template talk:Automatic taxobox which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hybrid x3
Hello, currently the hybrid box caters for a hybrid of two species within a genus. Is someone with the technical ability able to create a three-way hybrid box to cater for the odd world of genus Canis, please? William Harris •  (talk) •  05:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you give an example? Usually a three way hybrid can be represented as hybrid × species3, where hybrid = species1 × species2, i.e. as (species1 × species2) × species1. So I'm wondering if this is the way to represent such a hybrid. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:48, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Brilliant Peter - it works! The Eastern coyote: C. latrans x lupus x rufus. With latrans x lupus - the coywolf hybrid - I only needed to add the red wolf (rufus). Many thanks! William Harris •   (talk) •  09:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I found a few actual three-way hybrids, and upgraded them to hybridboxes: Tiliger, Liliger, and Litigon.--Nessie (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I created to track these --Nessie (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Hybrid of two subspecies?
How would one use Hybridbox for a hybrid between two subspecies in the same species? Looking at the article for Red-eared slider × yellow-bellied slider which is about Trachemys scripta elegans × Trachemys scripta scripta. Not sure how many other infraspecific hybrids are out there with their own articles. --Nessie (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, I made it work. --Nessie (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Intergeneric hybrids?
Ok, ran across a few ones I can't make work. These are hybrids between species in separate genera. Philippen's striped turtle is Mauremys sinensis♂ × Cuora trifasciata♀. Here's the best I could manage.

A quick search to see how other pages did it found Caraval (Caracal caracal × Leptailurus serval) and Pumapard (Puma concolor × Panthera pardus), which are lacking taxoboxes. These aren't plants, so nothogenera are not an option, I don't think. I also started Category:Intergeneric hybrids to see how many pages are affected. --Nessie (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I see you tried something on Blood parrot cichlid, do you think that's what should be best practice here? or should we amp up this template? --Nessie (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it best to handle it in one place and avoid proliferation of templates. I only put that one in as there was no other obvious way. In this case, the two species are not certain. The Flowerhorn cichlid is even less certain. So perhaps a taxobox is the wrong solution. An aquarium fish template (is there one?) might be more appropriate, similar to those for cat and dog breeds.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 15:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * For instance, this is how the Bengal cat and Savannah_cat are handled. Are there any naturally occurring intragenic hybrids? All the examples I can think of are domesticated or pet animals.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 15:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that some intergeneric hybrids are breeds more than anything and need a breed/cultivar infobox instead, and that's why I skipped over the two cat breeds you mention. Also those are not a clear A×B relationship, more of a percentage at this point.  However, check out .  Some are human created hybrids but many are found in the wild.  A number of the articles in the category have existing awkward manual taxoboxes, and others have missing taxoboxes. In any event, I don't see why Philippen's striped turtle or Wilhelmina's bird-of-paradise should be left out but Leoger is all set. --Nessie (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I've started a modified version of the template in Hybridbox/sandbox2. The species name uses a genus2 and uses full genera name when it is present. The precedence for parent parameter is changed to taxon > genus > page (instead of genus > taxon> page), which I don't think should change things. At present it requires name to be set manually.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 16:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So the changes would not affect hybridboxes for interspecific or infraspecific hybrids? And are there parameters like mother_genus and father_genus  --Nessie (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think it changes existing options (at least I don't see why it would), but that needs testing. What it doesn't support is the father/mother options for intergeneric hybrids. This can be added, but it gets so difficult in the template language.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 20:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * re the template language, I gave up trying to programme complex selections, etc. in the template language when extending Virusbox, and rewrote it in Lua. It's so, so much easier, both to write and maintain. I recommend following this approach – I now regret not having converted the front-end taxobox templates to Lua when converting the back-end ones. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't have to tell me. This partial attempt just emphasised the advantages, but does help me understand the system. I'll have a look at a Lua solution. These taxoboxes with lower usage are far better test examples than the main taxobox and automatic taxobox templates.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 20:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was my feeling. When we understand fully how to do it, I think there will be no need for as many Lua versions as there are currently automated taxobox templates, because it will be practical to select the right logic within the Lua code. (As a very partial example, a two-word value for taxon implies a species is the target – I think that as a minimum Automatic taxobox and Speciesbox can be handled by the same code, for now driving Taxobox/core.) I've giving up trying to fix the automatic italicization of automated taxobox names until I can code it in Lua; my drafts required ridiculously complex template code or multiple auxiliary templates. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Prototype lua hybridbox handling intergeneric hybrids
I've put together a lua version of hybridbox that handles intergeneric hybrids. The parameters for the should be self apparent. Use (genus1, species1, genus2 and species2 with parent. To specify father and mother use father_genus, mother_species, etc. The genus names get shortened for intrageneric crosses as in the current template. Handling genus disambiguation is on the TODO list, but I thought I'd get some feedback at this stage. Does it do what is required, are there more intuitive parameters, are there addition options that would be useful.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 10:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)


 * This all looks amazing. I can't think of any weak spots.  Thanks for the hard work!  Should we use Biota infobox instead of Hybridbox? --Nessie (talk) 15:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've put it in template Hybridbox/lua. As Hybridbox was written with fairly strict parameter requirements, it should be compatible with existing usage, but I want to check this further. I've also added genus3 and species3. My examples are at User:Jts1882/sandbox/test/taxobox/hybrid.
 * What should the rank be? Is the hybrid a species or is hybrid species a better term?  Jts1882 &#124; talk 15:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think "species" is probably not accurate. but maybe I'm wrong. I don't know, maybe just "hybrid?"
 * As far as the 3× hybrids, I think Eastern coyote is the only article where the three species are weighed equally, and also the only one where the sexes do not matter. It's also the only one that I am not tempted to AfD for notability. --Nessie (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Update and summary of usage. The version in Hybridbox/lua should handle most options that would be required, as well as some improbable ones. The following summarises the recommended usage, although there is some leeway in the parameters: I think this handles most likely scenarios and quite a few unlikely ones. The parameter names are largely self explanatory. Perhaps the parent taxon for the intergeneric hybrid should use parent_taxon for clarity.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 10:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Interspecific/intrageneric: use genus, species1, species2, link1 and link2 (as current Hybridbox).
 * Specific parentage can be set with father_species and mother_species. The links can use either father_link and mother_link or link1 and link2.
 * A third species can be added with species3 and link3.
 * Intraspecific: use genus, species, subspecies1, subspecies2. The species name will be shortened in the taxonomy listing.
 * Specific parents can be set with father_subspecies and mother_subspecies.
 * A third subspecies can be added using subspecies3.
 * Subspecies from different species can be set by using species1, species2 and species3.
 * Intergeneric : use genus1, species1, genus2 and species2, along with parent to set the parent taxon (e.g. family, subfamily or tribe).
 * To specify parentage use father_genus, mother_genus, father_species, and mother_species.
 * A third element of the cross can be added with genus3 and species3
 * Subspecies can be specified with subspecies1, subspecies2, and subspecies3. I doubt this would ever be used, but the logic should handle it.
 * If the links are not given by link1, link2 and link3, the link will be generated from the binomial or trinomial.
 * Looks great. I tested it by clearing out all the ones in  and the only thing I noticed was on Humanzee where it does not display the subspecies epithet for one parent, but I'm not sure if this really is a big deal.  It probably is fine how it is.  Now I'll work on upgrading all the ones in  that are using taxobox or infobox.  BTW- I created  but only found a couple articles to put in it. --Nessie (talk) 18:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Subspecies epithet is now displayed. There is a question of whether a taxobox with formal scientific classification gives more credibility to these hypothetical hybrids, especially the more far-fetched ones, but I suppose the existence of the articles does that. I've added a subheader to Humanzee to make it immediately clear this is a hypothetical cross.
 * One thing I wondered about was whether the hybrid name should be given in the taxonomy list or in a seperate section like the binomial and trinomials. Species and subspecies get both.   Jts1882 &#124; talk 08:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

ICZN standards
Greetings for 2021. My understanding (which is far from complete) is that the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature Exclusions s1.3.3 does not recognise hybrid taxa - nothing below binomial (and their subspecies) - however the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants Article H.3 does recognise hybrids and the arrangements illustrated in the template. If this is the case, then the examples used in illustrating this template should be the appropriate plant species. Perhaps someone might advise me? William Harris (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * no, we don't use this template for plant hybrids; there's no need because they will have a nothospecies name and the normal Speciesbox is used. Thus the hybrid Erica carnea × Erica erigena has been given the name Erica × darleyensis and if you look at the article, it uses the normal Speciesbox template.
 * It's precisely because the ICZN doesn't include such names that we need this template. It doesn't display a name for the hybrid, but a formula . Thus the tigon is the hybrid Panthera tigris × Panthera leo. There's no species name for this hybrid, so we have to use the formula. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, thanks for your explanation. So such "entities" as Panthera tigris × Panthera leo only exist here on Wikipedia? William Harris (talk)</b> 01:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * no, the tigon and liger definitely exist in real life! The point is that under the ICZN they don't have hybrid species names . The code only regulates names, not what are or are not species. So to refer to them you can either use the English names or use hybrid formulae. I guess that if the hybrid occurred naturally and there were enough of them, it might be given a normal binomial. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello Peter, I am not concerned with common names given to hybrids; that is something the media loves to do. I am trying to ascertain if there is any scientific basis for the "hybrid formula" or if it only exists here on Wikipedia? <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 20:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I understand your question. The formula "Panthera tigris × Panthera leo" is merely a shorthand way of writing "Panthera tigris crossed with Panthera leo". Google ignores the "×" character in searches, so you can't find the exact string "Panthera tigris × Panthera leo", but there are certainly occurrences of the string "Panthera tigris x Panthera leo" and its reverse. See, e.g., here and here. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Peter. The first reference zooinstitute is a zoo employee's pet website and is not a reliable source for this purpose. The NCBI classifies the entry as a species - which it is not - and states at the bottom of its page: Disclaimer: The NCBI taxonomy database is not an authoritative source for nomenclature or classification - please consult the relevant scientific literature for the most reliable information.
 * My issue is as follows: the average reader on Wikipedia may visit the lion article and note from the information box under "species" that its taxonomic classification is Panthera leo, which is correct. They may then visit the tigon article and may note that under "species" it is "badged" Panthera tigris × Panthera leo and they will assume that this is its taxonomic classification, but they will not understand that this is a "formula" placed there by Wikipedia editors that has no basis in taxonomic nomenclature (under the ICZN standards). Other websites will pick up the Wikipedia "formula" and quote it, and in their reader's minds it will now be regarded as a proper classification rather than something Wikipedia editors have invented. I will leave this matter now, thanks. <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 19:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * of course this is not something Wikipedia editors have invented. It's a perfectly normal way of describing the origin of a hybrid. It precisely is its taxonomic classification, namely as a hybrid between the two species. What it's not is its taxonomic name , because the ICZN doesn't have the ICNafp's concept of a nothospecies name.
 * There are lots of examples in this paper. As I pointed out above, they are tedious to find because Google doesn't index the hybrid symbol, which is why I offered you two using the letter x. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)