User talk:Invertzoo/Archive 21

ARCHIVE PAGE 21: September 2009

I'm glad
I'm always glad to help. There's job to be done, and someone has to do it after all. All articles will be assessed very soon, or so I believe! I'm currently on vacation until september 11th. Best wishes!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Subpages of WikiProject Gastropods
See Wikipedia namespace subpages. You might like to check Wikipedia talk namespace subpages as well in case there are some talk pages which do not have corresponding project pages. There is no way that I know of to incorporate these lists automatically within another page on Wikipedia.- gadfium 20:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep. Welcome back. --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Mysticarion porrectus
Dear Zoo,

Welcome back! I received further information from Michael Shea. He is happy for you & Snek to use it on Wikipedia.

Please adjust the text into paragraphs, edit it as you see fit.

I promised you I would photograph a Gondwana rainforest snail for you! When I make a promise, I try to keep it. However, in this case, I didn't realise I had the snail with me until getting back home, 450 kilometres away.

It's a really cute snail, such a great creature. And Michael Shea shared some interesting information. The Australian Museum are usually very helpful. Both Winston Ponder and Michael Shea have been very generous to me. Two contacts there are :

Winston Ponder, wponder@bigpond.net.au (marine) and Michael Shea, Michael.Shea@austmus.gov.au (land molluscs)

kind regards PETE Poyt448 (talk) 05:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

A note from Jackster about Cittarium pica
Hello, I am Jackie. I thank you for cleaning up the writing I did. Am I not allowed to put a reference to another web site for pictures and more information? I tried to insert a link to another page with photos of wilks, but I failed. I now live in Miami, Florida. I have not seen them here, and most people I have spoken to here have never heard of them. http://www.caymannetnews.com/cgi-script/csArticles/articles/000114/011495.htm Thank you for your interest and responseJackster69 (talk) 22:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Jackie, Yes you can put another external link in, in fact I did it for you.If you get any other good sites let me know and I will add them for you. Wilks do not live in the Florida mainland any more, although they can be found as fossils there. Apparently they can be found (but only rarely) in the Florida Keys. Same thing is true in Bermuda: they used to live there but not any more, although people have tried to reintroduce them. Now they really only live throughout the Bahamas and all of the West Indies and the Caribbean mainland as far south as Venezuela.


 * Best, Invertzoo (talk) 23:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Hopefully I will get the hang of this soon, so that I won't leave so much for you to correct next time. That is sad that they (wilks) are no longer found in so many regions.So many people will grow up never having the fun of searching for them or the opportunity to enjoy eating them. I Absolutely love this site!Jackster69 (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

e-mail from Michael Shea
Hi Peter,

The article looks fine as far as I can see but there will need to be a couple of adjustments and clarifications after reading through the Mysticarion porrectus re description in Isabel Hyman’s recent unpublished doctoral thesis on the Helicarionidae. I just gave you that information off the top of my head.

Isabel placed Helicarion porrectus in the genus Mysticarion for the first time in her unpublished doctoral thesis. I had known it unofficially as ‘Mysticarion’ porrectus for a number of years previously as its shell shape and arboreal habit are more like the type species of the genus Mysticarion (M. insuetus) than the terrestrial (ground dwelling) Helicarion which have more flattened ear shaped shells. In our forthcoming book on the land snails of eastern Australia (hopefully to be published early next year) we have followed Isabel’s generic placement even though her work remains unpublished. I am just assuming that the principal author of our book is recognising the generic placement as valid to use as it represents a different existing genus/species name combination rather than a newly erected but unpublished generic name. We have mentioned Isabel’s unpublished thesis as a reference in the family bibliography. Anyway I will email Winston Ponder and John Stanisic about this to clarify this matter.

Secondly I note that Isabel describes the species range as occurring from Narooma, S. NSW north to Mt Superbus which is on the Queensland side of the Border ranges, so its range north will need to be extended. There is another Mysticarion species found up there and I thought this northern species took over north of the Gibraltar Range but apparently porrectus ranges north of there too.

I have included some references which mention helicarionid semi slugs and porrectus.

Hyman, I.T. 2005. Taxonomy, systematics and evolutionary trends in Helicarionidae (Mollusca, Pulmonata). Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Sydney.

Australian Biological Resources Study (ABRS) website. www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs

Burch, J.B. 1976. Snails without shells. Australian Natural History 18: 310-315.

Smith, B.J. 1992. Non-marine Mollusca. In Houston, W.W.K. (ed.) Zoological Catalogue of Australia. Australian Government Publishing Service: Canberra. Vol. 8 xii 408 pp.

Iredale, T. 1941. Guide to the land shells of New South Wales. Pt III. Australian Naturalist 11: 1–8 [7].

Iredale, T. 1937. A basic list of the land Mollusca of Australia. Pt II. Australian Zoologist 9: 1–39 [12 Nov. 1937] [9].

Cheers Michael

Monodilepas
Hello, NOW feel free to tweak up and wikify two Monodilepas articles. I have left them for you. (I will focus on non-marine species rather.) THAT means that articles can be easily expanded, if they are started properly. ;) I will add some photos sometimes also, hopefully soon. All these New Zealand and Australian articles have the greatest potential for easy expansion like this than any other articles. --Snek01 (talk) 16:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the original descriptions Michal, that's very useful! They don't need any fixing, but are fine as they are. Anything you can do to help in any way with the many tens of thousands of marine species worldwide is very much welcomed! I am delighted that you have recently been creating quite a lot of marine species articles, even as small stubs. The marine species vastly outnumber the land species, as you know, and are in general more difficult to study. Right now I am touching base on these Australian and New Zealand species only because those articles needed assessing for WikiProject Gastropods, and as I go along assessing, I am also try to fix up the articles a quick little bit, for form's sake. Best wishes to you, Invertzoo (talk) 16:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

A gastropod article
Am I missing something, or did this one slip past the CopyVio cleanup process intact? Trochus tiaratus best, Invertzoo (talk) 00:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like it did get missed. I don't have the copy of Powell any more, and it's probably not worth a trip to the library to get it again, so just use your discretion to reduce the description.- gadfium 00:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gadfium. Do you think I need to place the copyvio message on the talk page when I do that? Actually maybe since it is only one, I can see if I can rewrite the description myself. But if not, I suppose I should put the copyvio message on there. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest you just follow Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods/Subpage for organizing CopyVio Cleanup. If you don't have alternative materials from which to write a new description, check Henry Suter (1913): Manual of the New Zealand Mollusca which is in the public domain, and if that doesn't cover this species, then reduce the description down to a few words.- gadfium 19:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

TAXONOMY - new e-mail from Michael Shea
Dear Peter,

Just back to generic placement of porrectus – until Isabel Hyman’s thesis is published it would be wise to refer to this snail as Helicarion porrectus for the time being until the new name combination becomes official.

Cheers

Michael

When I was a poet, I actually wrote a poem about this snail on my car at Mount Banda Banda. It ended up on the driver's side rear vision mirror. However, I can't seem to find the poem. Should we call this creature "The Tree Dwelling Snail"?

Poyt448 (talk) 01:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate Article - ERROR
Dear Sue,

I received another message from Michael Shea. (See below). He misled us.

There is an article on the snail already: Helicarion porrectus. This means there are two articles on the same creature. One of them needs to be deleted. Could you please fix this up? I'd rather leave this to you and Snek, as it is your area of expertise.

bye PETE Poyt448 (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Peter,

Sorry to mess you around with names but everything has to be thoroughly checked and I was a bit slack there.

The species is known from Mount Banda Banda – that is typical Beech forest habitat for it up there.

You mentioned about releasing the snail into your garden – if you live over approx. 700m altitude then it would have a reasonable chance of survival, particularly if your garden was damp and shady and had lots of local native trees and shrubs, but outside that altitudinal range its chances of survival would not be that good.

There is also the issue of translocating species outside their natural ranges – this has already happened in Sydney with a number of north coast species naturalising in urban bushland and in one particular case, one of the species may have displaced a local native. If you have not as yet released it then it might be a good idea to drown it for 24 hrs in a bottle of water with all the air driven out, then place it in 95% ethanol where it can be stored for as long as you want it for reference.

Cheers

Michael

Thomas Frederic Cheeseman
Feel free to summarize texts in Thomas Frederic Cheeseman. After cleaning it can be a "Did you know...". He described few sea slugs ;) and I will focus on them later. --Snek01 (talk) 23:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Green
Hi GreenReaper, Just wanted to let you know that in a thrift store in California (visiting my in-laws) I bought myself a pair of apple-green jeans, and also another hoodie, a green tropical patterned one. I enjoyed my green outfit so much at the conference, and your appreciation of my being in green helped make me realize even more how great it really is. So thanks for the inspiration. Say hello to your avatar for me, Invertzoo (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * *grins* - well, I'll be wearing green myself for the next five days, as I'm flying to RainFurrest in a couple of hours. I'll be sure to let him know once I unpack him from the overhead compartment . . . GreenReaper (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

New article
Hi Susan, May I please ask, if you will be available to correct my English in the article I am going to write today or tomorrow? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC) p.s. Here it is Saint-Savin, Hautes-PyrénéesThank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Susan! I will nominate it for DYK, and I will add you to the nomination. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Susan, Thank you for working on the article. May I please ask you what to you think about following hook: "that a special font was used for cagots in the church of Saint-Savin (pictured)?"? Best wishes --Mbz1 (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

A big favor
Howdy Susan! Have you noticed? Project gastropods is just a few articles (about 44, in this precise moment) from complete assessment! I told you it would be soon, didn't I? Way to go!

Also, would you kindly do me a big favor? Worry not, for it is no extensive task (or so I believe).

Would you check some articles for me? Aside from my personal knowledge, I customarily use this known FAO species guide as a reference in many articles, for it has some useful trustworthy info and good shell descriptions. I always direct my efforts as to avoid any copyvio while writing. Yet sometimes the combination of both my english writing limitations and very succint information present in this book (somewhat hard to rewrite) give me the sensation that the text is not as far from a copyvio as it should be. So I would be very thankful if you could check some articles for any irregularities, and make suggestions/corrections as you see fit. By now, those would be:

Cypraea arabica and Strombus lentiginosus.

The reference is already correctly linked in both articles, so you won't have to search the whole book or anything like that. You'll be just a few clicks away. (The correct page is indicated in the footnote)

Best wishes, always. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 03:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

e-mail from Michael Shea, Winston Ponder and Isabel Hyman
Here's another e-mail from Michael Shea, Winston Ponder and Isabel Hyman from the Australian Museum:

Sorry for being so chatty, I just love to talk on the internet all the time. Don't ever apologise to me, just ignore me if you are too busy!

Today I returned to the head of the Tia River, as I left my camera there last time. 15 days it lay on the top of the Great Dividing Range. This is a most remote place where no-one goes. The camera had the lens open, the batteries removed, wrist strap ripped in two. What happened to it I have no idea. I think a bunyip took it from me! But the camera still works fine.

Didn't see any tree dwelling snails. But I did see the Purple Pepperbush growing further north than ever recorded. This rare plant is not known so far north. So it may be another latitudinal record for me. Also today I found another population of the favourite plant, the Atherosperma, it's such good fun. Couldn't wish to be anywhere else.

I'm terrified of treading on snakes as it's spring. They are out now hunting. Australia has the most remarkably deadly snakes in the world. I saw a highland copperhead this morning, but it was friendly and wriggled away.

Thanks so much to you and Snek. You are both wonderful. Poyt448 (talk) 09:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Peter,

Thought I had better pass this on to you – perhaps it may be best to leave what name you have given it in Wikipedia and just wait till the big Helicarionidae paper comes out for final outcome.

Cheers

Michael

From: Winston Ponder [mailto:wponder@bigpond.net.au] Sent: Friday, 18 September 2009 5:01 PM To: Michael Shea Subject: FW: FW: porrectus

Michael

Here is Isabels reply

Winston

From: Isabel Hyman [mailto:isabelhyman@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, 18 September 2009 4:33 PM To: Winston Ponder Subject: Re: FW: porrectus

Winston,

I suppose that technically it should be Helicarion porrectus - that is what the Australian Faunal Directory still says. But since our big paper will be out very soon, and presumably John's book as well, I would put it on as Mysticarion porrectus - unless Peter Woodward is happy to update it in a few months when the publications finally come out.

I suppose that with Wikipedia, it is up to the person who makes the entry!

Isabel

On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 7:34 AM, Winston Ponder  wrote:

Isabel

What do you think about this? Winston

The Powelliphanta mess
Yes, I must confess I was confused about what to do with that messy situation myself. In my opinion, those "unnamed" species articles could merge into a single one. I may be wrong, but an article about an unnamed species with no illustrations or any additional relevant information could at best be defined as futile. Anyone could write an article about an "unnamed" species found in his/her own backyard, and yet that would bring nothing new or relevant to anyone whatsoever. Even subspecies articles could be merged, unless there is enough relevant information on the said subspecies as to make it an informative article, e.g. detailed listing of major diagnostic characters used to distinguish it from other subspecies or such (such level of detail would be adequate, as those are subspecies articles. Average readers would never find such information important or amusing, or so I believe). --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 01:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, thats right, but if such species is briefly described and published by Department of Conservation (New Zealand), then it is clear that such taxon really exist and then its possible to start such article, although it have not scientific name, but only provisional name. Category:Undescribed species normally exist, the only task is to choose appropriate article name.


 * More details: User talk:Snek01. --Snek01 (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The Invertzoo mess
If asking something, its good to use wikilink. What would you do if you would ask hundreds of people... --Snek01 (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ...but it does not matter much. The only result is important. Enjoy the Portal:Gastropods and have a nice day. --Snek01 (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Isn't there a bot for this task?
About the articles that need (only) their importance assessed, isn't there a bot to list those for us? It would be nearly impossible to find them one by one entirely by ourselves! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, actually a bot can not only create a list, but can even in theory actually insert these importance assessments based on what level taxon the article is about, but we have to put in a formal request, and we need to show a consensus of editors backing up the request, otherwise our request may be ignored. Snek has tried twice to get various tasks like this one performed by bots, but the requests have been ignored so far, I think because not enough of us project gastropods people left notes on the bot request page saying yes, this is a good idea. If you look back in the archives of the Project Gastropods talk page you will find the messages where Snek described these bot requests. I think in order to get people to back up the request we would need to ask people indiividually if they would do so, rather than leaving a note on the project talk page. Invertzoo (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Cypraea mappa DYK
Well then, why not Susan? =) I believe it would be an interesting thing to do. I don't know much about DYK's though, so I'd need some help with this.


 * Speaking of which, I believe our Bynesian decay article may be as well ready to go. I've tried to edit the pictures to demonstrate the series of transformations ocurring to a single shell over time, but I failed miserably in obtaining good and somewhat didactic photos. Anyway, this can be done later. So if don't have any objections by now, I think I'll move it. I'll wait for your answer on that matter before I do it. Best wishes! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 23:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

OK on both questions! However you may not want to start the two articles on exactly the same day as then they will be competing with one another to be chosen as a Did You Know. So, you are OK with the table of archival and non-archival materials, at least as it is for now? Invertzoo (talk) 00:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I sure am. It's fine enough as it is. So if they would compete, I believe the oldest article should be first. Let us move the Byne's Disease (i believe that would be the title) article. May I?--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 00:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well actually the older article is the map cowry article, which went up today. The Byne's disease one is not an article yet, because it has not been in article space at all yet, it's been on a subpage of a user page. Invertzoo (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Random articles
I don't believe that there is an easy way to do what you want. There is a difficult way: see Template:Random subpage, which requires the pages to select from being explicitly named in the template, or given as numbered pages (perhaps as redirects) within the portal space. This is suitable for having a "selected article" which changes between a small number of articles - perhaps a few dozen - whenever the page is refreshed. See Portal:Brazil for an example of a portal which uses this.

There are also a number of tools which will go to a random page within a category tree. See WP:EIW. This would be ideal for you, I think, except that these tools are not suitable for embedding within a Wikipedia page.- gadfium 20:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a random gastropod page. I've set it arbitrarily to a maximum nesting of 5 categories; if subcategories of Category:Gastropods are more deeply nested than that, then increase that parameter (up to a maximum of 10).- gadfium 21:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Cypraea mappa references
Well, today I tried hard to find articles about Cypraea mappa from my usual sources (Oxford Journal of Molluscan Studies, JSTOR, Science Direct, PubMed, and some others) to no avail. It may just happen that this species is not well studied, not at least recently. We may have to check older literature! Oh, I've corrected the reference link. It should be OK now. Best wishes --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is that it is known as Leporicypraea mappa. There is some info here: and it lists various mentions in popular shell books. It also has a range of nice images. At any rate it would be a good External link.

And if you do a google search for Leporicypraea mappa, there is quite a lot of info out there, admittedly of varying quality.

Invertzoo (talk) 22:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Poutiers (1998) cites Leporicypraea mappa as a synonym for Cypraea mappa (which I believe is the valid taxon nowadays). But some info may be found if you search for that name, you're correct. I'll give it a try. I've also found some other (rather old) references I'll be adding right now. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 22:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Unrated articles
Ok then, I'll start from Z, and proceed upward. This will take quite a while! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 22:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Oh, one question before I forget about it: How do we rate the endangered species articles importance? Would a IUCN vulnerable species article be high importance? Are there standards to follow? --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a very good question! We could ask a few people in the project (on the project talk page or on their individual talk pages) what they think about that, and try to see if we can get a consensus, which is the Wikipedia way to do things. To be honest though it might be easier to just stick to the simple rule which we have already been using and that is: if it's a species or subspecies it's a "low", if it's a genus it's a "mid", if it's a family or above it's a "high" and if it's a massive group like "snail" then it's of "top" importance. It's a crude system but it's easy. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 22:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Italictitle
Your name at the top of this page was in italics because someone used the template italictitle at. I have disabled it for you.- gadfium 09:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Phyllodesmium
Could you expand Phyllodesmium to 1500 characters of text for a "Did you know..." ? (I will focus on photos for them.) --Snek01 (talk) 11:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Prehistoric Marine Gastropods
NO!!! Actually, I'm fine with it. Abyssal (talk) 22:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was screwin' witcha. Abyssal (talk) 22:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Random parts in portal
There is random chosen (by computer) of "Selected image" and random chosen of "Selected article". There are two (right now) of such random items and you can see them ALL clicking to "More articles..." or to "More articles...". You can compare this with "Selected biography", where is only one selected bibliography right now. You can reload page of the portal with clicking to "Purge server cache" (left bottom) to see the portal newly with new randomly chosen parts or you can click to "portal" (next to discussion link) to reload the page in the same way. --Snek01 (talk) 17:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but where is the section (was it a "to do" section?) that used to have a picture of first Cypraea mappa and then after that it had Voluta musica and it asked you to make a new article? Or go through the new article and put a new image in the box?? Invertzoo (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh! OK, I purged the cache and now it is back. I did not realize that it was the selected picture box --I thought it was another box altogether. You could make two separate boxes I guess, one with a really great images in just for show, and the other one with a nice image that needs an article... Invertzoo (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Lists of genera in the fossil record
Thanks for your help so far. Since several different parties are involved in the discussion, I have centralized discussion to: User_talk:ContentCreationBOT. If you could direct further comments there, that would be helpful. Thank you. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

inuse
Do your changes in Kerry slug again if you like if you do not respect inuse template. --Snek01 (talk) 23:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course I immediately checked the edit history when I saw that banner, because I expected you to be busy editing the article. The tag says "is actively undergoing a major edit for a short while". However, I saw that the page had been completely inactive for more than half an hour, and before that you had made one edit, a revert, and that was all on that day. I made five very short fast edits in 3 minutes, came back after about 10 minutes, still no activity going on, so I made two more very quick ones. At no time when I was doing that did an "edit conflict" show up, so it appeared that you were indeed inactive, despite the banner. The banner is designed to prevent edit conflicts. None occurred, so it appeared everything was OK. If this is not the case then I apologize. Invertzoo (talk) 20:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Most beautiful pictures of Voluta ebraea in its natural habitat
Susan, I have a doubt here. I'm sure you have seen the article about Voluta ebraea that I've recently created, haven't you? I happen to know a Brazilian researcher (or should I say The Brazilian researcher) who is currently studying this species. Thelma Lucia Pereira Dias is her name (her article is among the other ones in the references), and she is a good friend of mine, very dear to me. She's also an underwater photographer of great skill, as you can see on her Flickr gallery. I told her about the article, and she readily handed me some strikingly beautiful photographs of V. ebraea in its natural habitat, and gave me her permission to upload them. So here is my doubt:

In case I do upload one of those photographs, then I should obviously give her credit, considering she took those pictures. So how can I prove that I was given permission to upload them under creative commons licence? Would a simple forwarded e-mail be sufficient? I'm really not sure about how to proceed. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 22:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Chiming in here; you can forward her e-mail to the Contact us/Photo submission system. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)