Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles/Archive 2

Snake confirmation
Speaking of snakes, can anyone confirm by looking whether this is a Dendrelaphis punctulata (green tree snake)? I googled a bit and thought it could also be an Eastern tiger snake. Seen in Baw Baw National Park last week. Its neck was all puffed up (apparently characteristic of green tree snakes) but the eyes seem too small. Not sure what else I can add, it literally crossed our path, stared at us for a bit, then eventually slithered off. Stevage 04:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not that familiar with Australian snakes, but to me this definitely seems more like Notechis scutatus (eastern tiger snake), than Dendrelaphis punctulata. This specimen's neck may looked puffed up, but it may actually be more flattened, which is a typical Notechis threat display. In addition, the geographic range for D. punctulata does not not seem to extend as far south as the state of Victoria, which is where Baw Baw National Park is located. --Jwinius (talk) 14:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, looks like you're right. With a bit more googling, there are certainly references to tiger snakes in the area, but not the green tree snake. Stevage 09:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no way you would get a tree snake in Baw Baw, it is far too cold. I'd say it is a tiger, they can withstand the cold a lot better. --liquidGhoul (talk) 00:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I live in Queensland and see a lot of common tree snakes (Dendrelaphis punctulata -- and most are not green), and this picture is definitely NOT one. It looks a bit like a marsh snake and a bit like a spotted black snake, but I don't know Victorian snakes very well. --Zeno Klinker (talk) 10:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Marginated tortoise
Marginated Tortoise has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

tree frogs
I moved the article on 'tree frogs' to Hylidae. I notice the category:Tree frogs also needs correcting, it seems the Rhacophoridae family, that were complicating the article on Hylidae, have already been moved to their own category:Rhacophoridae. cygnis insignis 15:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Rankin's dragon
Pogona henrylawsoni needs an experts touch. Also, redirects need creating --129.215.49.129 (talk) 05:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've created the necessary redirects, but I'm not really an expert. I'll see what I can do, but I might not get through with it.  bibliomaniac 1  5  20:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I can take a crack at that when I finish up the Agamid Adenovirus page I'm working on. TariStar (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Agamidae
There seems to be a problem with this category:Agamas, which states: This category contains articles about taxa in the Agamidae family - the agamas. It gives a 'see also' for category:Agamidae and is catgorized in that family, and in cat:Lizards. There is a genus Agama and a subfamily Agaminae, but neither of these articles give an indication that the taxa of those ranks are known as 'Agamas'. I noticed this after copying and pasting from existing articles, so the link to the sankrit word Agamas was appropriate: "that which has come down" (i.e., that which has been handed down to the people of the present from the past). I will attempt a summary of this miasma of taxonomy with these questions:
 * 1) Is Agamas a synonym for any rank in the order Squamata? (other than genus Agama)
 * 2) Are there any other cats in this project's scope that use synonymy for categorization?
 * 3) And does anyone have AWB and want to fix it all?
 * Thanks to all at the wikiproject for improvements to this area. cygnis insignis 14:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC) & refactor 17:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't be surprised if some yo-yos show up trying to say agamas are venomous.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In December I did a lot of category work for the snake articles. Somebody had suggested that it would make more sense to follow the taxonomic hierarchy and I couldn't help but agree. I've now also created parallel categories for common names and synonyms. For an example, see (pitvipers).
 * If you want to work along these lines, I would suggest creating a new category, Agaminae, and then moving the contents of to the new category and to  accordingly. After you make sure nothing else links to it, you can delete the empty category. --Jwinius (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ta for the reply. My quick search seems to indicate that Agamas is a pluralised forms of Agama. I was aware that agamid is a term for taxa in the Agamidae family. I don't plan to create categories of synonyms or subdivisions of ranks, although various attempts at groupings of things like sea snakes (Elapidae?) might be worthwhile. cygnis insignis 17:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Parallel categories for synonyms and common names are nice, but I'm not saying that they're as important as the main categories. Regarding the sea snakes, they're a special case because they currently do not form a well-defined taxonomic group. Nevertheless, they are different, so for the time being I see no better solution than to maintain a subcategory for them under . --Jwinius (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Turtle photo
I recently I took photos of a turtle on our pond, some kind of slider, that I think would be good to upload for Wikipedia. Here is an image of the turtle. First, do you know what exact species it is (I live in upstate SC, USA)? I first thought it was a red-eared slider (which are very common in my area), but then realized it didn't have red ears. :) Second, what reptilia article could that photo be best used in (I might have a photo that's a little better than that one; I just grabbed something decent and uploaded it to Flickr). Thanks a lot,  Jamie  S93  14:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like Deirochelys reticularia. Joelito (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that definitely looks like it. Unless there's any opposition, I'm going to add my image (or a photo very similar, if I have one in better quality) to the article as a "secondary image" (not replacing the one in the infobox). Thanks, Joel! -- Jamie  S93  17:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't confirm/deny the ID, but if it is Deirochelys reticularia, then move the current taxobox image to the article body, and use your photo for the taxobox. Your photo shows more features than the current photo (red on carapace, the neck). Crop it a bit though. --liquidGhoul (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I neglected to mention that I was going to crop the image before submitting it. I currently have a section at the Reference desk to confirm the idenfitication, just to be sure. Thanks for the assistance, y'all. :) -- Jamie  S93  12:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Your turtle is Pseudemys nelsoni, the Florida Redbelly Turtle. The only thing strange is you say the photo was taken in South Carolina? If so, this turtle is an escaped pet. P. nelsoni is not native to SC. MFuture (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Amphibian Species of the World, online
I've been using this site quite regularly and found it impressive as a taxonomical reference for amphibian. I therefore considered adding it to Phylogenetic and Paleontological references on the front page of this group, but doing so would clearly not be fair without asking you (especially considering that I'm not even a member of this group...). If some of the more established members feel that it is, I can only recommend that it is added. RN1970 (talk) 03:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC) I've added it to Secondary References. Should someone feel this is inappropriate, feel free to remove/edit it. RN1970 (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * However, I would add that it only deals with extant taxa. RN1970 (talk) 03:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks okay. I don't work a lot with amphibian stuff, though, I'm more of a reptile person.  bibliomaniac 1 5  Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 03:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Name move proposal
I have proposed Stump-tailed skink be moved to Shingleback skink - discussion at the talk page. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * How many more common names are there for this species? Why not move it to something more neutral and systematic, like Tiliqua rugosa? Almost all of the skink articles use scientific names for their titles already. --Jwinius (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm...I hadn't checked that one. Everyone I know calls 'em shinglebacks...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Huh? Do you mean a Bobtail? I'm being bold again. cygnis insignis 00:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I prefer Scientific names, myself. Still, I've only ever heard them reffered to as "Shingleback skinks".--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this discussion belongs on the talk page associated with the article. Some folks over there seem not to be aware of what's been said over here (and possibly vice versa). In these cases, it may also be a good idea to make more use of the Move template. --Jwinius (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

ID challenge
Fancy a challenge (or not)? I saw this gecko on the island of 'Eua, Tonga. It was in my hut, but was much larger than the run of the mill house geckos. I estimated that it was the length of my hand (18 cm, 7 inches). I know the island has some interesting endemic species, so is it one of those or an overgrown introduced house gecko? Sabine's Sunbird  talk  02:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Aspidoscelis/Cnemidophorus
The species list and the species articles would seem to need updating; e.g. Cnemidophorus dixoni has the 2002 taxon as a synonym. Why Reptile DB does not use Aspidoscelis I don't know, perhaps they have a reason, perhaps they simply have not been updated yet. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 04:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ITIS also doesn't have Aspidoscelis. I would also think that they weren't updated.  bibliomaniac 1 5  Do I have your trust? 04:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Amphisbaenians
I think it should be noted here that I've set up a new category for the Amphisbaenians (a suborder under Squamata), and linked some pages. Also, I've redone the page for the family Amphisbaenidae, if only in a small way (previously, it gave Rhineura floridana as the only species, despite the genus Rhineura usually being listed as the only species in Family Rhineuridae.! JamesFox (talk) 10:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Reptiles
There is currently an argument at Talk:Tuatara about the use of the word "reptile" to describe the tuatara. Is "reptile" no longer valid? I'm sorry if this topic has already been discussed. Axl (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Australian Lizard photo identification
Hi, just wondering if one of you folks could help me out with identifying this lizard/skink?). I'm in Queensland and took a photo of him in the Botanical Gardens on Mt. Coot-tha. I'd like to know which species he is so I can upload a nice closeup of his head for the relevant article. Please let me know on my talk page. Cheers. SMC (talk) 08:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Eastern water dragon - Physignathus lesueurii Caissaca (talk) 09:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. SMC (talk) 10:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Testudo atlas
See talk there. This critter has been languishing for a while, and I am unable to resolve the issues with the article. Distribution also needs confirmation... hell, basically everything in that article needs the good old fact-check. Unfortunately, there are very few sources on Google Scholar that seem to be really interesting here. They dig up bits and pieces of this beast in India every few years, but that's not very informative really. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 15:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Scientific Names
Hi all. First post! I was looking for a specific policy on when to change the scientific name of a species. For example, Amphibian Species of the World lists now the cane toad as Rhinella marina. They provide the reference (Chaparro, Pramuk, and Gluesenkamp, 2007, Herpetologica, 63: 211.). I guess this would be enough, but I want to check with the group first. --Ljvillanueva (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Since it was first named by Linnaeus in 1758, I'm sure that many different names have been proposed for what is now commonly referred to in the English language as the cane toad. Most of those names are now considered taxonomic synonyms, but the question of which one is now the valid one really depends on the taxonomy you use. This is a concept that I feel has so far been poorly understood here at Wikipedia. Whether you study amphibians or fish or insects, if your chosen zoological field is alive you will always find competing taxonomies, by which I mean collections of scientific names that are used to categorize the different species in different ways. All researchers seem to have their own opinions about how the species should best be grouped, sorted and categorized, often by resurrecting old names (synonyms) or by making up entirely new names for them in order to do so. It may sound confusing, but it's the way this type of science moves forwards. The opinions (names) that ultimately triumph are the ones that are backed by the most convincing arguments and evidence. The consensus among the field's experts is then said to favor one name over another (or one publication over another).
 * So, when I look at your question -- should Bufo marinus be changed to Rhinella marina? -- I ask myself: Who first suggested that we use the latter over the former (which is very well established) and is there a consensus for this among the experts? In other words, should I take this suggestion seriously and argue in favor of changing the valid scientific name in our article to Rhinella marina, or should I not? Then again, remember that this is Wikipedia, so we're supposed to be neutral about all this and not promote any particular names or opinions over any others. On the other hand, we still need a scientific name for the article on this animal -- and preferably the right name! -- so what do we do? How do we settle this? IMHO, the way to do this is to first decide on applying a single, authoritative taxonomy (preferably one that's available on-line) to an entire group of articles. Usually this means following a taxonomy that has been compiled by one or more of the field's leading experts. Of course, this may seem conservative to many people, since its names change only slowly, but isn't this what we should be looking for? What you don't want is to settle on some bleeding-edge taxonomy that receives new changes almost every other day and is thus guaranteed to drive us nuts as we struggle continuously to keep up with it.
 * How does this work in practice? For example, I've worked on many snake articles for the past few years, especially vipers, and am happy that we settled on using ITIS as a taxonomic reference for this project. Every article I've worked on includes a specific link to an ITIS page containing the valid scientific name. At the same time (Sep. 2006), some folks working on frog articles decided that the AMNH taxonomic database would be best suited to their needs, but it looks like they never followed through to apply this idea systematically. I find that a pity, because IMHO it really is the best way to settle all of these arguments. --Jwinius (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Split "Phylogenetic and Paleontological references"
This section contained mostly paleontological references, I left the paleontological references and created a new section on phylogenetic references. This would be related to my question above, maybe here we can list a few online sources of current nomenclature from which to get name changes and the reasons for changes. --Ljvillanueva (talk) 01:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Unidentified frog photo


A friend of mine brought in this frog for me to photograph at school and I was hoping someone could identify it. The frog was found in Ensay, Victoria, Australia in September 2007. I'm not entirely sure but I believe he found it near a small creek --Fir0002 07:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You may wan't to try this website http://frogs.org.au/ good luck with it. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 08:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I got an ID as Striped Marsh Frog which seems a pretty good bet. --Fir0002 23:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I will second you on that, good work. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 05:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm they sent me another email saying the previous ID was incorrect, apparently it's actually the Eastern Common Froglet - thoughts? --Fir0002 07:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's Crinia signifera --liquidGhoul (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
 * The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
 * The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
 * A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot  ( Disable )  22:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

C-Class Assessment request
Please look at Nelson's Milksnake to see if it is C-Class or at least Start. Thanks. WilliamKF (talk) 03:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, please look at Cnemidophorus inornatus to see if it is Start or C-Class. WilliamKF (talk) 03:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * One of the reasons why I opposed C-class inclusion is because the difference between start and B class back then was pretty blurred. Now, there's an extra level of arbitrariness. I'd say that the former is C, and the latter is Start, but that's only based on my view of the ASSESS scale.  bibliomaniac 1  5  04:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * On a closer look, the milksnake is probably Start.  bibliomaniac 1  5  04:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirects on "G. species" disambiguation pages
Please see this discussion so that we can come to a conclusion about redirects used on "G. species" disambiguation pages.

Thank you, Neelix (talk) 00:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Status of poisonius vs non-poisinous species
Hello, Ran into a snake this morning by my kitchen door. As a parent my first concern in researching the species was whether or not it represents a threat to my kids. I was amazed at how difficult it is to find that information. I was able to identify, fairly quickly, the type of snake it is, I'm still unclear of it's potential threat. I suggest to the experts among us, that contribute so much great information, that this be added to every article on snakes. I think it will add a great deal of value. Once I figure out whether our new neighbor is poisonous or not, I want to learn all about her and share that with my kids. Thank you for considering this suggestion. Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guthrys (talk • contribs) 16:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I somewhat agree with your idea, but most poisonous snakes do not have deadly venom, especially in North America. When I was living in Australia, I treated all snakes as venomous, which is a decent idea because snakes are especially hard to identify. Also, this "venomous" tagging (or article section) could be applied to animals other than snakes (dart frog, hornet, platypus). StevePrutz (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it would be problematic. Like Steveprutz says above, right now the best way is to consider all snakes as poisonous depending on the country. When working in the US I'm not that worried, but when in Costa Rica I assumed all were poisonous. In addition, how to classify a mildly poisonous species? The venom may not be enough to kill a healthy adult (human), but may kill a kid or have severe effects on an adult due to an allergic reaction. --Ljvillanueva (talk) 03:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you guys mean Venomous. Venomous, it bites you...poisonous, you bite it. :)  --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

A few comments. First, yes, unless you own a book or two on the snake species in your area, good info is hard to find. That's why we need to work harder on our articles -- it's the first place many people look! Second, I agree with Chris that it's worth mentioning in every snake article whether a species is venomous or not; to some it may look a little weird in a boa or python article, but not to a lot of people. It's a small price to pay. Third, the chances of someone encountering a wild venomous snake vary depending where you are in the world. Only in Australia do venomous species dominate. In the United States, the few venomous species are not too difficult to recognize. In other parts of the world, such as in Africa, the greater diversity makes easy identification of dangerous species much more difficult. Finally, do not take the North American venomous species lightly: more than a few are potentially deadly and suffering a bite is never a pleasant experience. --Jwinius (talk) 01:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This needs to be handled carefully in the case of many colubrids. Virtually all are technically venomous, but the overwhelming majority are also absolutely harmless to people. A fair few are entirely harmless to the general public, but can inflict unpleasant bites in the sorts of circumstances that might apply when people keep them in captivity, e.g., feeding bites with prolonged chewing. Hognose snakes (Heterodon) are a classic example: totally harmless to the general public, hardly ever bite even when picked up, yet several cases of quite substantial swelling, pain, discoloration and even excessive bleeding and nausea have been reported after prolonged bites by captive specimens. The difficulty is reporting the facts and advising against carelessness by herpetophiles without causing unnecessary fear and loathing among the general public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caissaca (talk • contribs) 07:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think just be sure to include a "Danger to humans" section (like I have seen in other herp articles) on any "publicly menacing" herptile. Maybe a better name for the common section? An alternative, like a threat assessment scale/infobox would not be practical, because most of the herp articles are curated by just a handful of people. StevePrutz (talk) 14:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In the articles I've worked on, I've used labels like "venomous" for viperids and elapids, "non-venomous" for large pythons and boids, and "harmless" for others. Barring a few notable exceptions that are dangerously venomous, I recommend "harmless" for most colubrids, even though many have a saliva that is toxic to some degree. Examples:
 * Agkistrodon piscivorus - venomous
 * Heterodon nasicus - harmless (although it has a slightly toxic saliva)
 * Python reticulatus - non-venomous (although it can be dangerous due to its size and strength)
 * Python regius - non-venomous
 * As for colubrids that have for some time been recognized as mildly venomous, but not dangerous, such as Boiga dendrophila, I'm not sure how to describe these. We could label them as "mildly venomous", but as Caissaca points out, this would be somewhat misleading to say if a species is almost never inclined to bite. It's a gray area and decisions may have to be made on a case-by-case basis. --Jwinius (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup
Currently, 7992 articles are assigned to this project, of which 335, or 4.2%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 2008-07-14.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Dwarven
How did dwarf crocodile get moved here? Since when is "crocodile" a proper noun? I'd move it back if it didn't generate a double-redirect, & I'd say it still needs doing. TREKphiler  hit me ♠  13:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I moved it back to Dwarf crocodile.  bibliomaniac 1  5  20:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Oophila amblystomatis
I just started up a small article on Oophila amblystomatis. If anyone has some free images of salamander eggs, or any other additions, feel free to go for it! StevePrutz (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No new images, I'm afraid, but the article looked like it needed some general attention, so I went ahead and fixed it up for you. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 14:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Identification of a lizard
I'm uploading some images from Naturalist on the River Amazons to Commons but I'm having a bit of trouble with identifications. My most recent upload is Image:Naturalist on the River Amazons figure 19.png, a lizard. It is described as "The Jacuarú (Teius teguexim)", but I can't find any such species listed at Teius. I think any more accurate identification of the amphisbaenid is pretty hopeless, but surely the current binomial name for the lizard species can be found (assuming it has changed, rather than that we just don't have a red link for this species). Richard001 (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Found on Encyclopedia of Life: Teius teguexim BATES 1864: synonym of Tupinambis teguixin LINNAEUS 1758. I am updating the Tupin article with the synonym. StevePrutz (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see, thanks for that. I will remove it from the generic article since it is not actually in that genus anymore. Richard001 (talk) 08:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

New WikiProject proposal: Biota of the UK and Ireland
I've proposed a new WikiProject named WikiProject Biota of the UK and Ireland which would encompass all species and conservation efforts within Britain, an extremely interesting area. The project would include vegetation classification, Category:Lists of British animals, Category:Conservation in the United Kingdom, Category:Ecology of the British Isles, Category:Forests and woodlands of the United Kingdom, Category:Fauna of the British Isles and anything else to do with the flora and fauna of Britain. If anyone is interested just leave your name on the proposal page. Cheers, Jack (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Strawberry Poison-dart Frog
Is no one here watching this article? I just reverted some old vandalism to the page as well as the talk page (from May 2008 and June 2008 respectively -- months!). One of you AAR folks should take it on, if you don't mind. Thanks.  howcheng  {chat} 18:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've watchlisted it. I've never done an amphibian article before; it might be a nice change of scenery from the monitors.  bibliomaniac 1  5  20:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I made a few fixups on the article, but there is lots of work to be done (across the board), and I think the manpower has gotten a little work-shy. StevePrutz (talk) 00:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Common names template?
I've seen a "common names hatnote" at the top of a handful of herp articles. Example -- ":Common names: eastern coral snake, common coral snake, American cobra, more.''"

...Does anyone else think this is a good idea to add to every article? StevePrutz (talk) 19:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * When the reptile/amphibian in question has a lot of common names (≥3), yes, I'd say it would be good to implement some sort of template.  bibliomaniac 1  5  22:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

An example would be Agkistrodon piscivorus. This is a solution I originally came up with in 2006 to solve a number of problems with the snake articles that I work on. First, snake species often have so many common names that listing them all in the usual manner can make an introduction look rather awkward. Second, I remembered a complaint that when a scientific name is used for an article title, it was not possible to find a common name as quickly in the introduction (conversely, if one common name is selected for the title, it can be assumed that readers will have similar trouble finding any of the others). So, inspired by a book that I own, I experimented with a list of a few common names at the very top of some articles, terminated it with a link ("more") to a separate "Common names" section in cases where there were more than could fit on a single line. It seemed to work and soon two such articles even had GA status, the format not being seen as a great departure from MoS guidelines. The current form was even somebody else's idea, so I can no longer even take total credit for the solution, but the result is still that one or more common names can be found more quickly than before, while allowing the introduction to be reserved for a more relevant and descriptive summary of the article. Currently, some 500 snake articles share this format. --Jwinius (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What would be a good name and format for the template?  ? StevePrutz (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The name sounds okay, but how much of the current concept are you planning to duplicate with this template? And, would this still work with the inline references (footnotes)? --Jwinius (talk) 22:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Reference citation ability, check. I have never created a template like this, but I'll start something in User:Steveprutz/Sandbox. Feel free to help out with ideas and code. StevePrutz (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Just butting in to say that I think this is a bad idea. I deplore the trend towards the creation of infoboxes, templates, conventions, etc, whose sole purpose is to allow people to replace quality prose with simplistic dot points. It is possible to write a thorough treatment of common names, you know; e.g. Banksia sessilis. I'd rather see common names left in the prose where there is some prospect of them receiving an in-depth treatment eventually, rather than segregating out into a hatnote, forever condemning them to be a shallow, mediocre list. Hesperian 06:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Banksia sessilis gives excellent explanations for the origins of the various common names used for this species of Banksia. I've done just a little of this myself, such as in Agkistrodon_piscivorus, but so far I've encountered very little background information regarding the common names for snakes. However, I don't see why we can't have the best of both options: a list of common names (with a few at the top of the article where they are easy to find) followed by a more detailed explanation. After all, if a reader knows it only as the prickly dryandra, then they won't find that name very quickly in the Banksia sessilis article. --Jwinius (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think common names have a definite importance to the article (as it is English Wikipedia), and something is lacking with the current norm for reptiles and amphibians. Like Jwinius said the etymology of common names can be hard to source. I think the "shallow list" remark has a valid point, but a template with the words "see article for more..." would rectify that situation and provide room for a prose-rich section. I also want to note that this hatnote idea works also for genera, families, etc. (e.g. Leptotyphlops).
 * I did get a few things out of the current discussions: a) articles need to be mass-renamed to binomial nomenclature, and b) creatures with multiple common names need a section near the top. StevePrutz (talk) 01:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding a), I'm all for it, but from experience I know that this is easier said than done. Unless we can somehow manage to arrange an official and overriding naming policy for articles on reptiles and amphibians (or even just for snakes), then this will be impossible to achieve. If you want to know why I say that, then here is a recent example and here is another one. --Jwinius (talk) 11:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Amphibian and reptile
A collection of Wikipedia articles is being collected together as Wikipedia 0.7. This collection will be released on DVD later this year, and will be available for free download. The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles; a team of copyeditors has agreed to help improve the writing upon request.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 03:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * IMO, most of the articles that have been selected from WP:AAR have major problems, either being incomplete and/or not citing their sources. Some are long and badly organized, and I suspect that more than a few contain a good deal of nonsense. That's unfortunate, because a number of these are on key subjects, but I expect that it will be a few more years before they are properly fixed up. So, aside from the GAs and FAs on this list, I recommend that the rest be omitted. --Jwinius (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Undoes and the Article Discussion Pages
Well, I thought I had found a nice place to become a part of the herp community. But after several unsuccessful attempts at edits, I get the distinct feeling that other editors have staked out claims. I don't really need to waste my time here if someone is going to follow me around to "undo" everything I post. The general rule with wiki articles is, if you disagree with an editor, engage him/her in the discussion page. Don't just go around and click undo on everything. That standard seems to have been missed by one editor in particular. So, you folks enjoy your editing. I won't be back. Gladtohelp (talk) 19:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)gladtohelp


 * Have I become one of those awful Wikipedia ogres that new contributers love to hate? This has to do with me reverting Gladtohelp's edits to a couple of articles. The problem is that he was altering referenced information without citing any alternative sources. He then started up a dialogue (I didn't; my mistake) after which I did my best to explain, but I guess the experience was just to frustrating for him. The sad thing is that he may very well be a knowledgeable "herper" who may eventually have made valuable contributions here, but now I suppose we'll never know. I guess some people just don't have the patience to understand and deal with WP:Cite. --Jwinius (talk) 22:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think he has given up entirely on Wikipedia, just on reptile articles. In any case, I've left him a polite note on his talk page.  bibliomaniac 1  5  22:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Tuatara
There is a debate going on about the lead sentence going on here. Some outside opinion would be useful here.  bibliomaniac 1  5  22:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Is that debate still going on? Now that you mention it, why do so many of our (higher taxon) reptile articles mention the class "Sauropsida" instead of "Reptilia"? Who's taxonomy is that? Benton (2004)? Is there a consensus for using this source as our common roadmap for higher level reptile taxonomy? Why don't we as a WikiProject simply make a decision here to follow one higher level taxonomy for all of our reptile articles and be done with it? --Jwinius (talk) 00:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't have the expertise to decide what is correct: "amniote", "reptile", "higher animal", or "Sauropsida". As a general reader though, I think that reptile is most friendly to the layman.  bibliomaniac 1  5  03:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ditto. All reptiles are amniotes, but not all amniotes are reptiles.  "Higher animal" is no help whatsoever.  Sophomoric Pseudointellectualism is the devil.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

How about, instead of thinking about this problem too deeply, we ask around and see what the professionals consider to be the most conservative and authoritative higher level reptile taxonomy around? We don't want anything bleeding-edge; just something that most of those guys tend to agree with. If we find out that most of them agree with Benton (2004), then so be it, but at least we won't be making the decision based on the arguments in that publication, or on what most of us think should be the case. After all, as Wikipedians, we're not supposed to be the experts in these matters and we're expected to remain neutral as well, right? --Jwinius (talk) 11:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Today I wrote ITIS to ask about their view on higher level reptile taxonomy, mentioning how their system is vastly simplified compared to Benton (2004) and the like. They replied, saying "ITIS is not trying to 'chase' the latest and greatest in higher level classifications, but is rather trying to offer a view (sometimes a bit simplified) that is (1) broadly acceptable and (2) reasonably stable, so that more time is available to focus on the bulk of the names at the finer taxonomic levels." Isn't this what we should be doing?
 * The reply continued, saying "Some workers will use much more complex classifications, sometimes to accommodate fossils too (which ITIS generally doesn't... e.g., Anapsida/Diapsida), sometimes to reflect detailed branchings/clades that may be proposed (i.e., the full extent of their 'knowledge' of relationships), and so on." In other words, it sounds like we should not be using that kind of classification for our articles on extant species. I say we keep things simple, stick to ITIS' simple classification for (higher) reptile taxa, and let the dinosaur people use a different classification for their articles. We should adopt ITIS' approach on this issue to avoid the bleeding edge and all the endless heated debates that come with it. If nobody else has any suggestions, how about we settle this now in a vote? --Jwinius (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That was my suggestion and what I did to the article, it was deleted and reverted as if I linked to a myspace page about breeding leopard geckoes:. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm starting to believe that the ITIS solution is best course of action.  bibliomaniac 1  5  00:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm generally in favor of conservative taxonomy and the recognition of paraphyletic taxa when such taxa have enough commonalities (whether plesomorphic or apomorphic) to make such a grouping informative. More to the point, "reptile" is currently widely used in the scientific literature as well as offering superior readability. Given this, I see no reason for a change.Mokele (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Mokele, can we take that as a "yes" from you for using ITIS for our higher level classification of extant reptiles? --Jwinius (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the ITIS is the best for consistency. Mokele (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus to use Sauropsida was established at Talk:Reptile and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/Archive16. It might be courteous to at least let Dinoguy2 know that this discussion is taking place. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've dropped him a line on his talk page. Also, the use of the classification system and offical terms doesn't necessarily lead to particular vernacular names for taxa: we still use "shark" rather than "selachimorph", and "lizard" instead of "saurian".Mokele (talk) 11:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Since he's also been involved, I've asked Pschemp to join in too. --Jwinius (talk) 13:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

To what extent is this still about tuatara?
There seems to be confusion exactly what is being debated here. I take it that since the discussion was moved here, and it was explained to Pschemp as being about the use of reptile taxa, we are now discussing the merits of "reptile", "sauropsid", "saurian", etc. I'll just point out that matters at tuatara have moved on to a version where we are introducing tuatara in terms of their nearest surviving relatives. This solution is preferable for several reasons:
 * 1) We're avoiding any mention of paraphyletic taxa, both the concept and any actual examples of it, in the lede of the article.
 * 2) We're using less technical language than previously; easier to understand.
 * 3) We're being more accurate by referring to the closest living relatives.

Hence, I believe we are avoiding a lot of potential pitfalls in the tuatara article. Tuatara should not be the battleground for a content debate that belongs on reptile and possible related articles. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is no longer just about the tutatara article. We've zoomed out and are trying to form a consensus on whether to use ITIS for higher level reptile classification for all of our articles on extant reptile taxa. This will then settle the tuatara debate and nip any other such debates in the bud. See above for the arguments in favor of using this strategy. --Jwinius (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * In that case I'd certainly like to see the TOL people in general, not just Dinoguy invited to contribute input. Its best if everyone who deals with Taxonomy is involved in the debate. pschemp | talk 16:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Whether we like it or not, dinosaurs are currently part of WP:AAR. However, we're not here to make any decisions about higher level dinosaur classification. This decision is only about whether or not to use ITIS for higher level classification of extant reptiles, so WP:TOL need not get involved. We have our own WikiProject for this kind of thing and WP:TOL know that, so they no longer expect us to bother them unless we want to go higher than reptiles.
 * So, pschemp, are you in favor us of using ITIS for higher level classification of our articles on extant reptile taxa, or are you against it? --Jwinius (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that we need a general solution, but not just about which phylogeny and taxonomy are used - we also need to agree about 'common names' for various groups. For instance, "reptile" and "lizard" are both non-monophyletic (in the case of "lizard", polyphyletic due to the exclusion of both snakes and amphisbaenians), but very useful terms.Mokele (talk) 17:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Which is why it's being used in the phrase "snakes and lizards", which makes the whole thing monophyletic. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 17:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is currently not a discussion about common names or monophyly. --Jwinius (talk) 17:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * But isn't that what precipitated this whole chain of events? That some think we should refer to the tuatara as a "reptile" while others don't?  Nobody here, AFAIK, disputes the phylogenetic position of the tuatara or what taxa it belongs to, but rather whether the term "reptile" applies or not, and whether it should be used or not.  IMHO, if we don't consider this issue, it will come back up and bite us in the rear, making this all for naught. Mokele (talk) 17:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, Mokele. If we settle on using ITIS as suggested, then we will be referring to the tuatara as a reptile, because it will be classified as such. --Jwinius (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Jwinius, this sure looks like a blatant attempt to railroad the Tuatara editors into using your favorite Taxonomic system. Unless you solicit the input of the tree of life people, who have jsut as much to do with this as the people on this project, any decision made here is invalid and not representative of the consensus of the people on this site who are writing science articles. Benton's taxonomy has been in use and stable for a long time in articles and I see no reason to change it. It is neither confusing nor unscientific in any way. Plus I only support systems that at least take a stab at being monophyletic. ANything else does not reflect current thinking about evolutionary relationships. pschemp | talk 19:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Honestly, what's done on wikipedia, while important from the standpoint of consistency, should be secondary to what is done in the scientific community as a whole. Benton's taxonomy does not seem to have caught on, as most papers still use Reptilia, often in the traditional sense.  Furthermore, I actually have Benton's Vertebrate Paleontology text right here, and he uses the vernacular term "reptile" many, many times in the text.Mokele (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Pschemp, the only thing I'm attempting is to resolve a heated debate with some much needed policy. We should be able to make our own decisions about this because reptiles fall completely within the scope of this WikiProject. As far as I can tell, Benton's taxonomy was meant primarily for paleontology, for which it may well be the best choice around, but I would be very surprised if most herpetologists also considered it the best choice for extant reptile taxa. And no, we don't need to take a stab at being monophyletic -- we first need to take a stab at being neutral, after which any cladistic issues can be explained as needed. --Jwinius (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The debate in the particular case of tuatara has actually faded out of sight. I don't think reintroducing it is going to resolve this situation at all. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 22:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If tuatara aren't reptiles, neither are lizards, crocs, etc. It would be confusing and a big pain if we had to have the same discussion for each reptile taxon, and ended up with different classification schemes for each! Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would support using the ITIS system for *high* level taxonomy (class, order) if that's the decision here. I do think lower level taxonomy (suborder,s families) should be flexible to reflect more current research. That way the reptile pages will be broadly stable (as you can see here, high-level taxonomy is largely a question of semantics rather than relationships anyway) and able to reflect current thought at more detailed levels. I don't think this will impact the dinosaur project at all except in switching from Sauropsida to Reptilia. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly! A few years ago we had a relatively short debate about taxonomy in which it was decided to use ITIS for snakes and the AMNH for amphibians. Personally, I would also recommend ITIS to the folks who work on our lizard, turtle and crocodile articles as well, but that will remain up to them, just as the dinosaur people should be allowed to make up their own minds about the systematics of their articles. With ITIS for higher taxa, at least we'll have something in common to tie all of our reptile articles together. --Jwinius (talk) 00:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Who said that tuatara aren't reptiles? Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 00:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You did, right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tuatara&diff=prev&oldid=237909233 Mokele (talk) 00:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Mokele, there's no need for that anymore... --Jwinius (talk) 00:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I hope that everybody else can read what I actually wrote in that edit summary. Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not yet have a policy against lies, although in legal terms, Mokele's actions would fall under libel. The plain truth is that I would never dispute tuatara's placement among the Reptilia, but I take strong objection with using the term in articles because it does not unambiguously represent the evolutionary reality of birds sitting on a branch of the croc-squamate-spheno-tree; in terms of an evolutionarily based taxonomy, the Reptilia are antiquated and pander to mediaeval ideas of a ladder of life (scala naturae), and are highly compatible with most views of creationism. To top it off, "reptile" is exactly the term used in the Latin version of the Book of Genesis. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 08:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes in the definition of "things that creep", and so what, it has no bearing at all on this discussion; other than being yet another book that uses the term. I'm surprised you're not going to the human article and trying to rename it "Featherless bipedal amniote" because Genesis says "Let us make man in our own image".--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That article actually does its duty and classifies us as "bipedal primates in the family Hominidae". No class mentioned there at all. It seems to be a case of systemic bias that you guys are insisting on a classis-level taxon being mentioned in the first sentence. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 14:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * primate? Religious nuts.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Papa Lima Whiskey posted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Evolutionary_biology a request for "some evolutionary perspective". I think Evolutionary_history_of_life might help. The cladogram there illustrates the problem with using the term "reptile" - birds are a sub-group of "reptiles". Paleontologists and biologists are at fault, as they use the Linnean classification system, of which "reptile" is part, in published papers. Biologists have some excuse, as they are often not concerned with previous evolutionary stages. I don't understand why paleontologists still use the Linnean system. The Linnean term "mammal" is OK, because no significant distinctive group has emerged from the mammals. "Reptile" is a mess, because it conventionally includes crocs, turtles, lizards, snakes and Tuatara - but their "family tree" shows that birds would then have to be considered "reptiles". That paradox destroys the "ease of intelligibility" advantages claimed for the term "reptile". - Philcha (talk) 09:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, yes, blah blah blah monophyly blah blah birds blah blah blah. Nobody here doesn't know the reptilian phylogeny and that Reptilia is paraphyletic.
 * Sorry, guys, but your opinions are irrelevant unless you can find a published, officially recognized taxonomy to support it. Wikipedia is not the place to air your grievances about paraphyly or invent new taxonomic systems to conform to your ideas.  We must use what is already out there in the scientific literature, and so far, that's ITIS or Benton.  Bitching about problems with those will solve nothing unless you can present a 3rd alternative that's already out there, published and in use.  If there is none, and if you still aren't satisfied with either choice, then go publish an article in a peer-review journal suggesting your ideas.  But until then, if it's not published, it doesn't come into this discussion.  Any attempt to use a taxonomic system that is not already recognized and in use in the scientific community is "Original research", and thus forbidden. Mokele (talk) 12:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If you think that "blah blah blah" is a good enough response to discount the advantages of monophyly, you're gravely mistaken. In fact, it would be a fairly mediochre response in any debate on Wikipedia. ITIS have basically admitted that their view does not reflect the current state of our knowledge, so I'm not sure why you keep bashing it around. You're still failing to come up with any peer reviewed criticism of the Sauropsida. Maybe you should actually do some work to support your point. You have also failed to come up with any criticism of the concept of monophyly at the class level - I suspect that this is because you do understand its benefits and cannot come up with any strong argument against its principles. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 13:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Papa Lima Whiskey, it's nice that you went out of your way to make sure we were all up to speed on the latest thinking in evolutionary history. It's been less than five years since I first heard that "birds were actually reptiles" and since then they've never been the same to me. Wonderful! However, I think it's clear that it will still be some time before most evolutionary biologists will agree on how we got from Amniotes to Aves and which labels to use for the stuff in between. Until then, we need something simple that is "(1) broadly acceptable and (2) reasonably stable" even though it may be further from the truth than some of the latest and greatest theories out there. What we don't need, at this point, is to base our article collections on a "possible family tree of dinosaurs, birds and mammals." --Jwinius (talk) 13:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry Jwinius, it's not a "possible tree". The tree in which birds are contained among crocs, squamates and sphenodontians is *the* tree. Show me a single piece of peer-reviewed molecular evidence that contradicts this notion. For supporting evidence, feel free to take a look at what the TOL project has compiled (this is a good starting point). Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 13:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Mokele, I can cite plenty of cladistics-based taxonomies from peer-reviewed publications. Cladistics is the standard approach in paleontology because: (a) it is based on evolutionary relationships, which is what paleontologists are interested in; it's a relatively objective way of handling the difficulties of classifying newly-discovered organisms, which are sometimes very different from any living ones. Neontologists don't generally have to deal with such problems. Even so they don't agree on the number of animal phyla. However while cladistics works well enough for living organisms as well - in fact its objectives is to construct a "tree of life", the Linnean system often gets tied in knots when it touches evolutionary relationships - the article Reptile gives an example. The fact that cladistic analyses sometimes disagree and sometimes change is not a significant objection, as the same is true of Linnean taxonomies.
 * BTW, which "Benton" are you referring to? The one I'm familiar with is Michael J. Benton, he's a confirmed use f cladistics, and the source of the cladogram at Evolutionary_history_of_life, whih I mentioned earlier.
 * Jwinius, I'm sorry to hear that "birds were actually reptiles" has spoiled your enjoyment of birds. I find it fascinating that there are living dinosaurs in my garden and that one living dinosaur, Alex, proved intelligent enough to learn basic English and show the capacity for abstract thought ("How are these different?" "Colour").
 * Evolutionary biologists agree pretty well on the main points of "how we got from Amniotes to Aves and which labels to use for the stuff in between". But they don't often publish peer-reviewed papaers abut what's already agreed, as resolving the areas of uncertainty is what they're paid for. --


 * Hey, that was no sarcasm -- I was being perfectly honest! I love thinking of birds as little dinosaurs; you don't have to convince me of anything there (preaching to the choir). However, as long as organizations like ITIS do not feel it is completely safe to reflect that point of view (sauropsids, the monophyly of birds and reptiles, etc.), then I don't think we should either. So, the dinosaur people are welcome to use Benton (2004) right now (and it sounds like they probably should), but what I've suggested here is that, until it's considered safe, we hold off doing the same for our articles on extant reptile species. --Jwinius (talk) 15:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * So you're saying that the classification that applies to fossil species does not apply to current species? Are you denying evolution? In your opinion, did dinosaurs evolve in a universe somehow separate from that in which extant species evolved? Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Not at all. I just think that, in order for us to get along with each other, and in order to remain neutral in the eyes of our readers, it is best for us to be conservative. It's too soon for us to apply Benton (2004) to everything, because that is still considered too much of a point of view -- something we're not supposed to have. I'm sure that Benton's view (or some version of it) will eventually win the day, at which point ITIS will reflect this, but until then we should be patient. --Jwinius (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is supposed to not contradict itself, and what you've just proposed does exactly that - contradict itself. It's simply not possible to say that a particular classification is POV for extant species but not for fossils - where is the intellectual integrity in that? Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with Benton, but he does use the word reptile.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Not in his classification. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not in his taxonomic schema but in his title and description. So the taxobox mirroring his classification would be fine and it would also be perfectly acceptable to refer to it in the text, primarily, the Lead as this is how a normal rational human being would relate to the material.  Could this be our compromise or do we need a paragraph or two in the lead sentence/tap-dance session describing the physical characteristics of the tuatara without using the word reptile?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not a compromise, that's the status quo which started this whole debate. So it's clearly not acceptable. Please refrain from making the same suggestion over and over. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's only "unacceptable" because you refuse to accept it. Why shouldn't the status quo be an option on the table?  Just because you don't like it?  Whatever happens, somebody isn't going to be happy, and if we erase any option simply because someone doesn't like it, we're left with no options. Mokele (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't be ridiculous. You've rejected several of my proposals. You're the stubborn one here, not to mention your 3RR violation and general incivility. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't like any of your prior versions, and you didn't like mine. Frankly, we're each as stubborn as the other (logically, otherwise the less-stubborn one would have stopped reverting). However, I'm not saying your choice should be off the table when we vote on this.  It's clear that no compromise will happen, so you can vote for "Sauropsid", and I'll vote for "reptile".  Simple as that.Mokele (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You only ever reverted to one version. There were five that I would have basically been happy with. I think there is a difference. Voting will achieve nothing. Only consensus will, and the only potential for stability in this article that I see, is one that avoids the controversy. As I said, it's neither necessary nor, if this dispute continues, helpful, for individual articles such as tuatara to be turned into a battleground by forcing them to contain this information, when a more accurate and equally explanatory image can be conveyed by an alternate phrasing (referring to the current version of the lede). Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I reverted to "reptile" because it is far and away the best choice, especially considering that in order to remain consistent, EVERY page of EVERY "reptile" would have to be modified to something equally inane. So far, you have failed to show any reputable taxonomy in the published literature which does not use the vernacular term "reptile" (regardless of class name, as both Benton and ITIS refer to individuals of Sauropsida and Reptilia, respectively, as "reptiles").  If the paraphyly really is a problem, then it will be fixed by real taxonomists, not WP editors. The principle of "no original research" means that if you want a taxonomic change, you need to cite a paper.  So far, both you and pschemp have failed to cite a peer-review paper in support of your view, while I can spend 30 seconds on any search engine and show you 100 papers which use the term "reptile".  No matter what you think it should be, no matter whether it conflicts with monophyly or not, you cannot enforce a taxonomic distinction on WP without citing a peer-reviewed article which specifically supports the change you want (as opposed to simply supporting monophyly in general) Mokele (talk) 21:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It's becoming rapidly apparent that this is going nowhere. Everything that can be said has been said, and now we're just spinning our wheels. I say we take a vote and settle this, because it's plainly obvious that no unanimous consensus will ever be reached. Mokele (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's because we're pretty much done now and everybody has had their say. In favor we have five people: myself, Bibliomaniac15, Mike Searson, Dinoguy2 and Mokele. Against we have two people: Papa Lima Whiskey and pschemp, and possibly a third, Philcha, if he's regarded as more than just an outside opinion. The majority opinion here is therefore in favor of using ITIS for our higher level classification of extant reptile species. I will modify our WikiProject page accordingly. --Jwinius (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Jwinius, you know perfectly well that you have no basis at all for discounting Philcha's opinion, or anybody else's. Wikipedia is not a two-tier society. Your attempt to close this debate suggests to me that you're concerned that if more people get involved, your preferred version will not carry the day. You've still not given any justification for your opinion, So, the dinosaur people are welcome to use Benton (2004) right now (and it sounds like they probably should), but what I've suggested here is that, until it's considered safe, we hold off doing the same for our articles on extant reptile species. Something is apparently unsafe about Benton for extant species that isn't unsafe for dinosaurs. You've not explained what this is. Maybe you would like to do so now.  Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't discount his opinion, even though Philcha only came here after you requested a comment from WikiProject Evolutionary biology: "Evolutionary perspective needed." Well, you got it. We could let this debate go on forever, but to most people here that would be pointless. In case you haven't read it yet, my own justification was given very early on in this section, here, here and perhaps here, but I suppose that will never be good enough for you. Right now you're just being argumentative, which is not helping your case. --Jwinius (talk) 22:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll remind you that you chose to take the debate here, which is the equivalent of soliciting help from this wikiproject. There is also consensus with Pschemp that a wider range of biology editors should be involved in the decision, particularly from the parent project. So in terms of canvassing, we're even. You're refusing to answer the question that I asked you earlier, which is, what is unsafe about Benton? You know you weren't being coherent when you said that the dinosaur project could keep using Benton, but extant species should be dealt with according to ITIS. Since Mokele has been complaining about the confusion that Sauropsida would cause, how can you justify using two different classification schemes for one lineage (fossil and extant)? Your diplomatic attempt to placate Philcha as a paleontology person are just going to create grief in the long term. When Dinoguy2 originally suggested using Benton, there was no opposition; in fact, there was unanimous support. What has changed? Why is Benton less safe now than he was back then? Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 23:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Woah woah woah. Nowhere in Benton does he say "reptile" should be abandoned. He splits "Reptiles" into Sauropsida and Synapsida, but still calls them reptiles. The HEADING in his classification online that links down to the relevant sections is called Classification of Reptiles. This takes you to Amniota. He's using reptile as a synonym for a paraphyletic group of basal amniotes excluding birds and mammals. This is MORE inclusive than the way we use it in Wikipedia currently, as the Synapsid article and Reptile go out of their way to say synapsids are not reptiles. Citing Benton for abandonment of reptile, a perfectly good term, is wrong. Being pro-Benton means pro-Synapsida/Sauropsida as ranked classes, not anti-reptile as a general term. Note also that Benton's use of Sauropsida and Synapsida are also paraphyletic, which would seem to be in direct violation of your strict monophyly-only standard for Wikipedia. Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Enlighten me if you know anything I've missed, but my understanding is that Benton's paraphyly is restricted to a finer level - family level, to be exact (Camarasauridae is the example I'm familiar with - which would be ironic since you all seem to be fine with using it for dinosaurs). Nobody is saying that there is a classification that is immune to subsequent paraphyly in the light of new evidence. So in terms of paraphyly, can you show me that Benton is worse than ITIS? Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 10:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The use of the two schemes is simple: Benton is recent, and therefore there hasn't been enough time for a substantial consensus to be reached, but it's really the only game in town for extinct taxa that isn't just a self-contradictory patchwork of prior work. ITIS, however, is older, more agreed upon, and much more widely used in papers, but only applies to extant taxa.  So basically, we're using Benton for extinct taxa simply because there's no option like ITIS available.  Check on google scholar - every reptile is referred to as "Reptilia" in many, many current citations, while far fewer (by two orders of magnitude) use "sauropsida", and the majority of those are quite ancient (often pre-1950's).  Until a single, unified taxonomy is determined and adopted, this mix is the best option. Mokele (talk) 23:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Papa Lima Whiskey: not really. It was Bibliomaniac15 who decided to alert the WikiProject to the tuatara debate, which drew my attention to it. I decided that it would better to settle the matter with some much needed policy that will tie all of our articles on extant reptiles together. If you look closely, you'll see that the only new people in this discussion have been myself and Philcha. If you and Pschemp want to get a "wider range of biology editors should be involved in the decision", that will definitely be considered an attempt to solicit help from outside. --Jwinius (talk) 00:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Since you're counting Bibliomaniac on your side, I don't see what point you're trying to make here. You took the debate to a new location, so as you point out (by your own addition to the debate), there was canvassing implicit in that, absolutely. And we don't need to argue about whether there is a reason for templates such as Contradict-other to exist. Contradiction between articles is absolutely not acceptable for a work of reference. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 01:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Jwinus, cut the crap. Papa Lima Whiskey did the job you should have done when he posted about this other places. The only reason I can think of that you haven't is that you and Mokele want to keep this quiet and off everyone else's radar. The fact remains that you are proposing a change to what has been a STABLE system for years here, and that requires extraordinary reasons. Of those you have provided none. pschemp | talk 09:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Everybody (almost), I think you should cool it. I agree that this issue is so far-reaching that it ought to be discussed by editors from a wide range of subjects. But remember WP:AGF. In addition emotive language is not going to help. Biological classification is a difficult topic that makes some very bright academics think extremely hard.
 * Re the initial subject of this debate, which I think was the use of "reptile", that term is broken for several reasons, e.g. because birds are and dinosaurs possibly were warm-blooded, there's an ongoing debate about the original metabolisms of crocs and other non-dino archosaurs, while the common perception of "reptiles" is cold-blooded. Linnean taxonomy gets into worse trouble the deeper you look into evolution, e.g. from the evolutionary point of view all participants in this discussion are members of a specialised group of fish.
 * However Linnean taxonomy is the best-known outside paleontology, and taxoboxes are too small to accommodate an evolutionary classification, which in principle has an indefinite number of levels as it's recursive. Hence I suggest that for now at least taxoboxes should use Linnean taxonomy but the text of articles should refer to the phylogeny of the animals. Philcha (talk) 11:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

New WikiProject section: Taxonomy
It seems that we have no section on our WikiProject page regarding choices for specific taxonomies. Nothing was ever added following this discussion back in 2006 either, so perhaps we can fix that now. I don't know that any other such discussions have taken place since. Here's a first draft for a new section that I suggest we place under the section "Structure":


 * Taxonomy
 * Certain choices have been made to follow specific taxonomies for the different groups of articles that fall under this WikiProject. Excluding our three descendant WikiProjects, the following sources are used as our primary taxonomic references:
 * Amphibia - The AMNH database together with Frost et al. (2006).
 * Reptilia - ITIS, Reptilia (higher level classification)
 * Crocodilia - (none)
 * Rhynchocephalia - (none)
 * Squamata - ITIS, Squamata (higher level classification)
 * Amphisbaenia - (none)
 * Autarchoglossa - (none)
 * Gekkota - (none)
 * Iguania - (none)
 * Serpentes - ITIS, Serpentes together with McDiarmid et al. (1999).
 * Testudines - (none)
 * In cases where a taxonomy has been selected, articles for newly described taxa that are not (yet) included in these taxonomies may still be added, but those articles describing the parent taxon should not be changed to suggest their inclusion. This rule does not apply if no taxonomy has been selected.
 * In cases where a taxonomy has been selected, articles for newly described taxa that are not (yet) included in these taxonomies may still be added, but those articles describing the parent taxon should not be changed to suggest their inclusion. This rule does not apply if no taxonomy has been selected.

Comments? The debate referred to above may have taken place over two years ago, but as far as I know everyone involved has kept themselves to it ever since. --Jwinius (talk) 00:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I like it, but I would note two things. First, sphenodontia has some different text in it regarding the validity of 'Rynchocephalia', but I'm not sure how reliable that is (I'm definitely more of a biologist than paleontologist).  Second, and more important, I'd strongly suggest a formal description of what to do about conflicts (such as whether Tomistoma is in Crocodylidae).  Should whatever system is prevalent in the literature be accepted?  Should there be a "cool-off" period before accepting new changes, to be sure they don't fall through (as genus Pantherophis did)? Etc. Mokele (talk) 01:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A note on Rynchocephalia in Sphenodontia; where? You must mean another article. Regarding the conflicts, if one has been selected, simply consult the taxonomy/synonymy. If there's still a problem, mention it in the Taxonomy section of the article. With the snake articles and ITIS/McDiarmid, this solution has worked like a charm. On the other hand, if you're working on Crocodilia, where no taxonomy has yet been selected, and you run into a conflict, then you're in trouble. Endless heated debates. In my opinion it's better to select a taxonomy first and then use that to settle all the conflicts (or better still: avoid them). A cool-off period? Perhaps that would depend on how current an individual online taxonomy attempts to be. ITIS, for example, is too conservative and moves too slowly for a cool-off period to be necessary. --Jwinius (talk) 03:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I support an approved resource list. Some of this stuff is bleeding-edge and can change rapidly (e.g. new genera Anaxyrus and Plestiodon), but I would prefer to maintain consistency within the project. StevePrutz (talk) 03:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's the problem with science: it can be very confusing to the uninitiated. Scientific papers with all kinds of proposals are published all the time. Some that describe new species and genera are pure bunk, others are serious but are not researched well enough (convincing enough) and are therefore never accepted, and then there are the ones that quietly make an impression on all the experts even though they may seem weird to everyone else. So, how are we supposed to know the difference? My position is that we should not even try. All we need to do is to identify and select the most authoritative taxonomic reference(s) available for each of the groups mentioned above, preferably ones that are online and updated every once in a while to reflect the current consensus among the experts, and then stick to it. Then, no more debates. Let us hope that those among us who have not yet figured this out eventually do. --Jwinius (talk) 09:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You've just given an exact description of the tree of life project. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 10:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The system in use now has been stable and working for years. A change like this (especially without getting the opinions of the TOL project and such) needs extraordinary reasons and so far none have been given. Reptilia as the class name is misleading and confusing and doesn't even come close to representing current evolutionary relationships. The whole bird thing confuses the heck out of people who come along and read Reptile as it is (see plenty of evidence on its talk page). ITIS is more than conservative, it is downright backwards. Proposing to use one classification scheme for extinct things and another for living things is even sillier.

We have a situation where right now the Taxoboxes are stable and useful and backed up by literature. Changing them after YEARS on the whim of a few people to a more out of date system is a step in the wrong direction. The argument that "more people use Reptilia than Suaropsida" proves nothing more than Sauropsida is newer, and therefore hasn't had the time to be used as much. Wikipedia is here to give the most correct current information, not the most used through the ages. Thus things should be judged on how well they reflect current scientific views, not how well they reflect past and inertial thinking. pschemp | talk 09:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There's a limit to how much info can fix in a taxobox, and the Linnean system is still widely used, so that should go in the taxobox - this is a very NPOV suggestion, as I actually prefer cladistics since my main interest is paleontology!. But cladograms should also be added, in order to: inform readers that there's another classification system; show them the evolutionary history - see for example Opabinia, where the modern phylum Tardigrada is in the middle of a lot of extinct taxa. There's a template for drawing cladograms, and it accommodates wikilinks and other fancy stuff - see for example Paleontology. -- Philcha (talk) 10:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That sounds fine to me. Right now though, our articles on crocodilians and testudines seem awfully confused. Looking at testudines, the taxoboxes for many of the higher taxa include "Class: Sauropsida" (example: Geochelone), while lower taxa often state "Class: Reptilia" (example: Brazilian Giant Tortoise). On the other hand, Testudines also lists "Class: Reptilia." In many cases, it seems that User:Jerkov, who has not been that active recently, was responsible for editing many turtle taxoboxes back in july 2006, changing "Class: Reptilia" to "Class: Sauropsida." Finally, "Sauropsida" is stilll a redirect for the Reptile article, so one can hardly conclude that the Reptile/Reptilia/Sauopsida situation is a shining example of consistency. Our articles on crocodilians are similarly inconsistent.
 * Finally, it looks like Dinoguy2 was actually responsible for making the edit to Reptile on 9 January 2006 that changed "Class: Reptilia" to "Class: Sauropsida." This may actually have kicked off the entire Sauropsida trend within our articles for extant reptile taxa. It's therefore ironic (and perhaps telling) that he is now in favor of changing this back to reptilia. --Jwinius (talk) 11:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, keep it above the belt, will you? There can be no doubt that Dinoguy2's motives were good. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 12:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no reason to doubt that his motives were ever anything other than good. So far, he has sounded perfectly reasonable to me. I merely pointed out that, although he may have started this trend, it now appears that he has changed his mind. Can you? --Jwinius (talk) 12:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * For clarification's sake, I don't really have a dog in this (Reptilia vs Sauropsida) fight. I'm an advocate for the idea that paraphyly can be ok in classification systems, and both names reflect that--whatever the outcome, the article on pigeons is going to stay with Aves. If Reptilia is preferred, I'd get behind it, but Sauropsida is also a perfctly good (if possibly less well-known and less widely accepted) name for the same taxon. I got involved in this discussion because it looked like PLW was lobbying to have "reptile" removed from articles even as a vernacular term, which I am dead set against. Just because a taxon belongs to Class Sauropsida instead of Class Reptilia (or clade even) does not mean it is not a "reptile", any more than the fact a taxon belongs to Class Sarcopterygii means it is not a "fish". Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Good job spotting the redirect from Sauropsida to Reptilia! The situation is volatile both on WP and in academia, see for example the cladogram at Evolutionary_history_of_life, where there's a comment about the debated placement of turtles; consensus only goes as far as "they're sauropsids", after that there may be as many proposals as there are active researchers on the history of Testudines.
 * I'm beginning to think it would be sensible to place the taxobox classification of sauropsids / reptiles in a template so that it can be updated centrally, i.e. once, in case the earth moves. -- Philcha (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The thought had occurred to me. We'd need a separate reptile taxobox for use in articles on extant reptiles species. The advantage would be less work for our contributors, ease of administration and above all: consistency. However, it sounds like this would require a fork of the taxobox template, which does not seem like a good idea to me. Hopefully, there's another way to tackle this problem. --Jwinius (talk) 12:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A taxobox fork is not at all required. As all tl2 users know, templates can be nested. Just put classis= in the taxobox on each article, and create that template accordingly.  Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 14:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Aha! You know, I almost suggested that, but I was unsure and too lazy to check. And I call myself a tl2 user. Doh! So, as far as potential solutions are concerned, it looks like we may have ourselves another winner. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Those redirects are only from May this year. However, the first section of the reptile article after the lede does explain the difference and history. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 12:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If you look at the edit history for Sauropsida, you'll see that the first time it was a redirect for the Reptile article was in January 2007. The edit was made by Dinoguy2. At the time, he also made many changes to Reptile, especially to the section "Classification of reptiles" that you refer to. His first edit summary for that includes "merged in contents of Sauropsid". The changes were discussed in advanced here. --Jwinius (talk) 13:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Video category
I have created a Reptile videos category at Commons. There aren't really enough for an amphibians category right now, but I don't really like paraphyletic groupings so I have avoiding combining them with reptiles (let's not speak of fishes or birds). Richard001 (talk) 03:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Prospective GA and FA?
I know this is a tad random, but are there any herp articles that I/we could help bump up to GA or Featured? StevePrutz (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you mind helping me with Heloderma, Mexican Beaded Lizard, and Gila Monster? I have a goal to make a featured topic out of them.  bibliomaniac 1  5  02:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind pitching in on those, myself. I was also going to dust-off Green Iguana to get it from GA to Featured.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Will look at and add to all 4 articles tomorrow. StevePrutz (talk) 03:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've requested peer review for Gila monster (which I think is ready for FA). I will touch-up Green Iguana soon. StevePrutz (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Green Iguana appears to need more work, notably the bloated Captivity section. I also noticed the turtle articles (Testudines, Tortoise, Terrapin) needed cleanup. StevePrutz (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ctenosaura bakeri is a rated GA, but I think it needs more work. Moving to that next. StevePrutz (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyone want to help with the Poison dart frog article? I think it is close to GA. StevePrutz (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Chameleon, horned lizard and sea turtle are really close to GA, but need some TLC. StevePrutz (talk) 00:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong photograph "Japanese Rat Snake " was deleted.
I'm not good discussion in Englis, Sorry.

I deleted Wrong photograph in Japanese Rat sanke". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Rat_Snake

Deleted file is "Image:アオダイショウS-P8305010.jpg" which is Japanese four-lined ratsnake.

The grounds that I judged this photograph to be wrong are as follows.

> Belly scales have not keel. > Eyes color is very vivid red. (JRS is not vivid.)

> I observed Japanese 4-lined snake of this type. Reference: This site's 8th photo. 

I think that my judgment is not the mistake, but please identify everyone.

--Baikada (talk) 08:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Toad article
I was working on the article for "toad", which is basically a pretty-looking disambiguation page that links to Bufonidae and other families. Should it just be axed and forwarded to the disambiguation page? Two years ago there was some related discussion on its talk page. StevePrutz (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's useful to have something more than a disambiguation in order to explain why "toad" has no meaning, etc., but I think the current version is excessive. I'd axe the taxobox, the contents box, the sections of "description" that refer only to Bufonids, and all but one picture.  I'd also suggest fusing "description" with intro, so the article would just have a section on "what's wrong with toads and why they get called that" and "actual families whose species are sometimes called toads".  I suggest the mythology sections me moved into the corresponding section of Anura.  Sound good? Mokele (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Will look at it in the coming days. StevePrutz (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Article modified to be more streamlined. StevePrutz (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Participants
Can anybody tell me what this section of our WikiProject page is supposed to be for? I would like to think that it was intended to be informational: a way to let people know which users regularly work on the articles associated with this project. Unfortunately, it's out of date at best, while at worst it seems to be regarded as a place where passers-by can declare their interest in the subject. For instance, of the 55 users who have so far added their names, many have made few contributions to speak of (e.g. Yunis79, LizBros., Jacky62, Shervo, Herpchris), and/or have not made any contributions in more than a year (e.g. Pstevendactylus, Froggydarb, Pedroalexandrade, X1ph4ct1nu5), have been blocked indefinitely (Green Owl), or have sadly announced their departure (e.g. Samsara). I suggest that we define a few criteria for a periodic cleanup of the list. Also, perhaps we can add some subsections or tags so that it will be easier to see who's working on (or at least interested in) what. --Jwinius (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Take a look at WikiProject_Infoboxes. There is a short paragraph intro, and everyone leaves a quick note. I think the purpose of a participants list (read: member roster) is to provide contacts for the project. I would say reset the list, and put a "last updated" date on it. Maybe even put "list was purged on 1/1/08, list expires on 1/1/09" to give it an upkeep nudge. StevePrutz (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like an good idea. But, we'll wait a few days first to see if anybody else has anything to add. --Jwinius (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. I almost announced the purge time to be six months, instead of a year as you suggested, but decided at the last moment that that might be perceived as a bit too radical. --Jwinius (talk) 23:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you spam the talk pages of the users to inform them?  bibliomaniac 1  5  00:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Never mind, I did it myself. Many of the participants are indeed gone.  bibliomaniac 1  5  23:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Soon after WP:AAR was started I began using this list to look for people who also worked systematically on snakes. I found a few light contributors, but I did notice that many had contributed so little in general that they had probably added their names only to declare their interest. Therefore, I think that a shorter purge time of 6, 4 or even 3 months might help to give us a better idea of which users are consistently active here. In addition, I suspect that writing personal notifications to previous participants may prove counter-productive, causing many non-contributors to sigh up again. Besides, if a person is both active and interested, such reminders should not be necessary. --Jwinius (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Husbandry
I don't add them, myself. However, I do see them in alot of articles. I may add a captivity section when discussing Ex situ programs, but take a dim view of "The care and feeding of..." type articles. At the same time...I keep reptiles (and birds, and amphibians, and fish, and a dog) and have for many years and probably will till I'm dead. Do we want a guideline on this? I remember one joker wanting to include one in the squamate article. I routinely pull it out of the snake article and have to trim it down in Green Iguana on a monthly basis. Should we leave them if sourced or delete them? Maybe this is where some people come for information when their kid brings home a leopard gecko and we should leave something in that's at least accurate. Anyone else's thoughts?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I was very close to posting about this exact thing. I think these have a purpose for the general public, but maybe not an encyclopedia. I've seen these sections inconsistently titled "As a pet", "captive care" and "herpetoculture", and there are tons of websites (although more unreliable than edited content) that do this. Most of the time, the section can be integrated into other sections, but I would say have a section on "general captive care" and keep it to no more than one paragraph. StevePrutz (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Given WP's prominence in search engine results, coupled with the primacy of stupid owners as a cause of reptile death, I'm inclined to think captive care information should be retained in some capacity. One thing which crossed my mind was a single article about keeping herps, linked to from each article, with specific tips/guidelines for each species at the end.  After all, a LOT of herp care is fairly standard (heat gradient, clean out shit, dechlorinate water for amphibians, etc.) and can be handled in one fell swoop. Mokele (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A dim view indeed. Have you seen Corn Snake? Typically, these contributions give the impression that the writers keep the animals themselves, are very happy with them, and speak from their own experience. They are unreferenced almost by definition. Much of it is like advertising, informing people of important traits to keep in mind when considering a particular species as a pet. Even worse is when attempts are made to list all of the color morphs being offered by the commercial breeding industry -- even closer to advertising. As for pure husbandry info, even if it's referenced, if this material does not give the reader any particular insights into the nature of the species in question, it should be regarded as HOWTO information and removed. Not that all captivity info is bad: I sometimes add it myself, but only to include facts on subjects such as longevity, observed feeding habits, sizes, reproduction, unforeseen dangers and zoo exhibits. Mentioning that a species is popular and/or bred often captivity, and including a few reasonable and related external links (there are lots of specific husbandry sites and fora out there), is about as far as I would go. On the other hand, perhaps Mokele has a point in that a few general articles on husbandry might be in order, e.g. on snakes, frogs, etc. In general, though, I would be in favor of deleting most captivity information, especially if not referenced, and creating a new and specific policy on this subject. --Jwinius (talk) 01:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe the best place for such information is in Wikibooks.  bibliomaniac 1  5  02:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Pet care is such a major, rampant topic across all biota. I don't know how we could regulate the edits. Plus, I found this after a quick look:

StevePrutz (talk) 03:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that the Green Iguana article would be perfect on Wikibooks.  bibliomaniac 1  5  03:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That article used to be a giant caresheet, check out its history from a year ago, someone else made that suggestion, but I think there's enough good information out there.   Some of the worst I've seen were one of the anole articles, maybe green...and bearded dragon, a few others slip my mind right now.  Alot are thick with linkspam, too.  I kill most external links and have the owners of the webpage call me out on my talk page over it.  I did give Allen Repashy(Crested Gecko pioneer) a pass, because he's on here, himself (or was) and because he is really knowledgeable.  So as a project do we want to discourage that as we come across it (like they do to trivia sections in other articles)?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A quick idea to deter cruft from seeping into these pet sections it to put a little disclaimer like: The following section discusses items on animal husbandry that are notable for an encyclopedia. Consult a professional for proper care techniques. A template could be made to maintain consistency. StevePrutz (talk) 14:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Lizard taxonomy
While we're on the subject, it's been a long-running problem that our lizard articles do not conform on the suborder level. On varying articles, we have Lacertilia, Autarchoglossa, and Scleroglossa. It remains unclear to me which one should be used.  bibliomaniac 1  5  03:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * More inconsistency as a result of not selecting a single taxonomy on day one. There are at least two competing online sources for this: ITIS (which for me is offline at the moment) and the TIGR Reptile Database. I have no doubt that others exist also that may or may not be online. Older publications will often include descriptions of taxa using names that are now considered synonyms.
 * Any cleanup of the existing mess will require a taxonomic source that is preferably authoritative and as complete as possible, along with a synonymy. The TIGR Reptile Database includes its own synonymy, but is not considered authoritative and therefore unreliable (not to mention inconsistent). The ITIS pages do not include the synonymy they are based on, but I assume the ones for lizards and the like mention where that can be found (for Serpentes, the pages mention McDiarmid et al., 1999, which is a checklist available in book form).
 * So, what will it be? ITIS, TIGR, or something else? Are there any "lizard people" around to care? If not, we might as well make the decision ourselves. I would be inclined to go for either ITIS or TIGR, simply because they are online. Based on what I know of both of these organizations, I would be inclined to select ITIS. However, if ITIS is selected, that will require the purchase of one or more books (the checklist). --Jwinius (talk) 12:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, ITIS is available again, but I don't like what I see: parts of it are obviously incomplete and there are no references to any checklists, which would be the source for the necessary synonymy. So, TIGR may be the only choice -- or at least that I know of, but to be honest I really have no idea (I'm just glad that I know something about snakes). --Jwinius (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Honestly, from what I've seen, lizard taxonomy quite contentious, and we're going to run into lots of poorly-resolved polytomies, uncertain relationships, and dubious families. Does anyone else have Pough's Herpetology text?  I like the phylogeny it presents, but it's a composite of dozens of sources. Mokele (talk) 00:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Aha! Well, then the TIGR taxonomy for lizards will also be contentious. How available is Pough's Herpetology text? You're supposed to be a herpetologist, so if you say that's a good option, then we should strongly consider adopting it. However, if it's a static text then I think there will eventually be problems with it. --Jwinius (talk) 02:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * IMHO, the advantages of Pough are that it's a reasonable best-fit composite of numerous disparate studies, it's reasonably up-to-date, and, since it's print, it's stable. The disadvantages are that it's not searchable online (such as through amazon), it's fixed and so can't take advantage of a really kickass new study if someone does one, and as a composite, we can't be 100% on all of the relationships.  IMHO, the problem with TIGR is that there's no phylogeny of the families, just within, unless I'm missing some link. Mokele (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There have been similar situations in a variety of other taxa and it helps to keep out full taxonomic structure from lower level taxa (species) articles and having only key ranks like family and order that are hopefully stable. The higher level taxa in taxoboxes are of interest only in the the family or order level articles. Keeping them out also reduces maintenance during changes. Higher level taxonomy is always a big discussion and one can be sure that not everything can be captured satisfactorily in the taxobox. Shyamal (talk) 03:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate photo request categories need to be merged
Perhaps someone from this project could merge what appear to be duplicate categories serving the same function: Category:Amphibian and reptile articles needing photos and Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of amphibians and reptiles. Richard001 (talk) 09:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of amphibians and reptiles is now empty and has been nominated for speedydelete. --Jwinius (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Legless lizard disambig
I just created a disambiguation page for legless lizard. Previously, it was redirecting to Pygopodidae (a family which I didn't even know existed), which had no ties to the glass lizard (my learned definition of a "legless lizard") article. Please take a look if you know more about this subject, and can make the page(s) better. StevePrutz (talk) 14:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There we go, much more complete. I'll expand the limbless vertebrate article soon too. Mokele (talk) 15:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It is no longer a Disambiguation, if it becomes an article it needs references. I think it would be more useful to return it to a 'dab', adding which genera and species are referred to as Legless lizards - like Pygopodidae and Glass lizard - when the refs for that are added to the articles. cygnis insignis 16:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Pough ought to be a sufficient reference.  A simple list of genera is undesirable for three reasons: 1) this is a very frequent evolutionary occurence, which deserves more commentary (and frankly has been vastly under-researched), 2) a list of limbless genera would be about 3 pages long, especially if you include near-limbless skinks (which you probably would in order to keep pygopodis, since they're technically only near-limbless), and most importantly 3) the single most often-asked question by people who learn that legless lizards exist is "how can you tell them from snakes?", which the current page answers. Mokele (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it definitely needs some comparative photos, but not a full-blown article. I think a simple disambig list is good enough, and limbless vertebrates may be a better place for some of this info. StevePrutz (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with leaving it as is? As it stands, it's got 3 bits of information - what legless lizards are (fairly simple), how to tell them from snakes (the most common question), and a list of taxa.  Short and simple, but informative. Mokele (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The characteristics do not describe pygopodids. cygnis insignis 22:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, the sentences was specifically constructed with them in mind - while they lack eyelids, the other 3 characteristics describe them. Mokele (talk) 23:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)