Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles/Archive 4

Is there a crocodylomorphologist in the house? (re Sebecus)
A post to Darren Naish's IMHO lovely blog Tetrapod Zoology discussing large extinct terrestrial crocs - http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2007/03/move_over_theropoda_sebecosuch.php - mentions Sebecus icaeorhinus. Our article Crocodylomorpha has an photo captioned "Sebecus icaeorhinus skull" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sebecus_icaeorhinus.JPG ). We apparently don't (currently) have an article Sebecus. Sebecus huilensis apparently redirects to Langstonia. Sebecus querejazui apparently redirects to Zulmasuchus. Barinasuchus says "Fossils from Peru previously identified as Sebecus cf. huilensis have been assigned to the type species, B. arveloi." IANAH. Do we want to do anything with anything here, or is everything fine the way it is? As always, thanks. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Lizzard for identification

 * lizzard on flickr - creative commons license and can be uploaded if identified. Snowman (talk) 22:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The tag says Airlie Beach, in Queensland. Considering its size, range, and markings, I'd say it's most likely a Lace monitor (Varanus varius). Most curiously, however, if you look at its back, you can see that it's actually in the process of molting. Interesting...  bibliomaniac 1  5  18:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Definitely a V.varius...in molt as well!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 09:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Uploaded to File:Varanus varius -Airlie Beach, Queensland, Australia -molting-8.jpg on commons and shown on wiki species page. Snowman (talk) 22:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Bog turtle
Bog turtle has requested a peer review: see Peer review/Bog turtle/archive1. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Malpolon monspessulanus
Could someone take a look at and help me with Malpolon monspessulanus? I am a historian by trade, and generally write articles on International affairs, history and literature.SADADS (talk) 05:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've given it a small copyedit. I would encourage you to look at some of our reptile GAs or FAs to get a sense of what to work towards. Cheers,  bibliomaniac 1  5  05:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles needs you!
In case you haven't noticed, the list of participants in this WikiProject was purged on November 11th. If you are going to be contributing to reptiles and amphibian-related articles please add your name to the list! If we can't get any more members this project is going to dissolve into inactivity. There are two members listed at present: Innotata (me), who is currently occupied with House Sparrow and who intends to focus on caecilians as far as herps goes, and ZooPro, who is always occupied with project coordination. innotata (Talk | Contribs) 19:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Photo
Good photo of Sibon sanniola at http://www.flickr.com/photos/maxorz/4132768720/in/photostream/ if someone could verify its determination. --Snek01 (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Cyclura nubila
The Cuban iguana article: Cyclura nubila is at FAC. I'm pretty much just getting beat-up on the prose, if anyone cares to lend a hand, it would be nice to have another herp article reach Featured Status.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Checklist for Turtles and Tortoises
I have added a link to the IUCN Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group, official list of species of turtles of the world. This is updated continuously and can be downloaded as a pdf. It is the list used by the IUCN, WWF and most taxonomists in the field. It will be the best source of official names for these species. It will keep these pages more up to date. Faendalimas (talk) 14:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The 2010 issue has just been released. It can be downloaded http://www.iucn-tftsg.org/wp-content/uploads/file/Accounts/crm_5_000_checklist_v3_2010.pdf

Faendalimas (talk) 06:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

More ID help


A monitor lizard of Indian origin. My guess is the yellow monitor lizard, but I'm not an expert.  bibliomaniac 1  5  01:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That massive head makes it look a bit like a Bengal monitor to me, but I can't tell for sure. Mokele (talk) 01:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree - see File:Varanus.jpg Shyamal (talk) 04:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks that way to my untrained eyes too. Just remember that old taxonomical works can be a bit misleading when it comes to the Varanus. Several of the species have changed name quite a bit. I'll post an article I found when I get back to work after the hollyday. Petter Bøckman (talk) 11:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll be searching for pictures of varanoids that need ID, and I found that one on the Varanus page itself.  bibliomaniac 1  5  18:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Bengal Monitor.  Zoo Pro  04:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's another one that I found simply labeled "Goanna." Taken in Murray-Sunset National Park in Victoria, Australia.  bibliomaniac 1  5  18:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It's either V. gouldii, V. panoptes, or V. falvirufus. All three are very, very similar, and IIRC there's been a fair few taxonomic revisions as to which is a 'real species' and which isn't.  No clue how to reliably distinguish the three. Mokele (talk) 02:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks to me like a young Sand goanna V. gouldii.  Zoo Pro  04:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's the Varanus reference I hinted to earlier. It is a nomenklature history of the genus, and should come in handy when writing articles and consulting older taxonomic work: CHECKLIST OF THE LIVING MONITOR LIZARDS OF THE WORLD, (FAMILY VARANIDAE) Have fun! Petter Bøckman (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

project collaboration
Does anybody else here find a project collaboration to be a good idea? If so, I suggest monitor lizard: this page looks like one most contributors can add a bit to, and monitors are fairly well known. Any more suggestions? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 18:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Lizard for identification

 * Lizard probably on the Maldives for identification prior to upload to commons. Snowman (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oriental_garden_lizard, Calotes versicolor. Mokele (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Uploaded to File:Calotes versicolor -Fihalhohi -Maldives -male-8.jpg on commons and shown on species page. Snowman (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Lizard identification
There's a whole mess of unidentified lizard picures in this Commons category. Help would be much appreciated.  bibliomaniac 1  5  23:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * How should I go about labeling them? The discussion page of each?  Or edit the photo info?  I don't usually play around on Wikimedia commons. Mokele (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The priority is to place them in the correct category. Commons has a tool called HotCat on by default which allows you to quickly change the summary. It would be also beneficial to edit the description as well.  bibliomaniac 1  5  03:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Help: photo identification
I have taken this photo of a lizard. Is anyone capable of identifying this lizard? Thanks for your help, --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 03:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Common garden skink, Lampropholis guichenoti  Zoo Pro  04:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Important WikiProject Notice

 * I see you have already done so. Thank you.  bibliomaniac 1  5  04:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Northern Red-legged Frog GA Sweeps: On Hold
I have reviewed Northern Red-legged Frog for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe not in Philadelphia, nor in Pennsylvania
Theses two organizations are in a category indicating they are based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and they both have talk page templates for Pennsylvania, but there is no indication they are actually based in Philadelphia or Pennsylvania, and some links say Missouri.


 * Bobby Witcher Society
 * The Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles

Can someone who knows these organizations please correct the article text and categories?--DThomsen8 (talk) 13:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The SSAR is an International Organisation and its "location" would be largely based on who its current office bearers are. These office bearers are re-voted more or less annually. Hence its not really tied to any one place any more. It was formed in the USA many years ago but the original committee is largely retired now to my knowledge. My suggestion is to not really locate this society and place it as an international society. Faendalimas (talk) 15:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Vipera berus GA review
Hi,

Vipera berus is under GA review. I have addressed most of the points but am stuck on the taxonomy section. This taxonomy has been commented upon by the reviewer as:
 * "Taxonomy" section either needs to be expanded by a few sentences (or more) or incorporated into another section.

For adding the mtrl specific information on the taxonomic differences between the three recognised (sub)species is required. I dont have access to this and cant seem to find anything about it on the net.

Can anyone help?

AshLin (talk) 10:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I know next to nothing about it, but can help with access to scientific papers if required (just e-mail me). Ucucha 13:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Noronha skink
The Noronha skink is now a featured article candidate. Comments from this project are most welcome. Ucucha 13:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Snake scales
This article has recently been reassessed as part of the GA:SWEEPS process. The assessment has found several severe problems with the article, in terms of meeting GA standards. The issues are outlined here. If the problems have not been addressed within 7 days the article will be delisted. If there are any questions or queries please don't hesitate to contact me. ✽ Juniper§ Liege  (TALK)  20:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I might take a stab at this one. Zoo  Pro  00:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Help on this would be really welcome. AshLin (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * GA review is keep. However the article does need further development. AshLin (talk) 01:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

FAR of Frog
nominated Frog for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 12:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Bullsnake?
Hi, can you help me with the identification of this image please? Does this picture from a canyon in eastern Arizona show a Bullsnake (Pituophis catenifer sayi) and should be identified and cataloged as such? TIA --h-stt !?  12:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot
Okip  01:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Crotalus adamanteus taxobox screwed up.
Like the title says, the taxobox for Crotalus_adamanteus is messed up in a very weird way. I tried to see if I could fix it, but this sort of Wiki markup stuff is beyond me. Anyone else want to try? Mokele (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. See Template talk:Taxobox for prior discussion of the problem. Ucucha 20:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Copperhead lookalike?
I'm having a few worries about a species of snake that keeps popping up near our springhouse/smokehouse (the smokehouse has been re-purposed as a playhouse for my daughter). It certainly resembles a copperhead, but the markings are slightly more muted and they don's seem to get quite as large. I shot one of them last year, but another has moved in, and I don't want to kill it if it's not venomous (we have black northern watersnakes and garter snakes living in the same pond, and the garters actually "snuggle" with this snake on warm days). However, if it is venomous, it can't stay!

I didn't see any list of lookalikes on the article, but I've been told that there's a snake called a rat snake or king snake that is similar. Anyone know what they're talking about? I'm in eastern Pennsylvania. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk 09:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Firstly, don't shoot it. Copperheads are pretty inoffensive, and you basically have to step on them or pick them up to get bitten, at which point the person deserves everything they get.  Second, I highly doubt it's actually a copperhead.  Most venomous snakes avoid inhabited areas because morons shoot them on sight.  Here's a list of snakes in your area: http://www.paherps.com/herps/snakes  My guess is that it's probably a Hognose or a large water snake.  Whatever you do, don't try to mess with it anymore - 70% of snakebites occur while someone is trying to catch or kill the snake.  Leave it alone, and it'll leave you alone.  Mokele (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Uy. You're saying a 6 year old girl "deserves everything they get"? We have some big ones in our woods which if fine (well, one killed a goat last year, but he probably did deserve it), but not by the house where little girls are busy at play. Thanks for the link. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk 14:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Pantherophis alleghaniensis looks like it. No article. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk 14:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Most adults who mess with snakes deserve what they get, children are just curious and need protection. Maybe you can come to Austalia and see the most deadly snakes their are. Our copperheads can be nasty if cornered. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 08:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Species ID
Any idea what species this is? It was about 4ft long and found in middle Tennessee. My best guess is an Eastern Black Kingsnake (Lampropeltis getula niger). Kaldari (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Good ID - subspecies are always iffy, but it's definitely getula, probably nigra. Mokele (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * reptile at Rio de Janeiro Zoo, Brazil for identification. Snowman (talk) 13:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like a Broad-snouted_Caiman to me. Mokele (talk) 01:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

My change may have been an error
I split Indigo snake and Cribo from Drymarchon (they had previously been redirects to it) because it looked like the data could stand alone and was a species of that genus, but now I'm not sure. (I'm not sure if those are species or something larger between species and genus that I didn't learn about in high school.) Can soemoen see if the split is good, please? Thank you. RJFJR (talk) 13:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks to me as if the split should not be done as they are based on the one genus. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 06:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

List of Testudines families
nominated List of Testudines families for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Templates for external links
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life. --Snek01 (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Binomial v. Common name as article title?
Conventional naming policy states to go with the common name, but I see there are a great deal of reptile/amphibian articles using the binomial names. Has there been any sort of consensus to use the binomial names (I wouldn't be surprised, since certain species have multiple common names that might cause arguments over which to use) or have these article just not been moved yet?  Mbinebri  talk &larr; 14:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Conventional naming policy states more fully that article titles should follow usage in reliable sources. In rodents, I've argued (see WT:RODENT) that "common names" are usually book-names that only appear in a couple of lists and that are not in fact the commonly used names for most species—that is the binomial. Therefore, articles ought to be titled with the binomial name. I don't know much about herps, but I suspect the situation is much the same. Ucucha 16:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * A "book-name"? I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by that.  But the situation is not the same with many herps, IMO.  Crotalus atrox, Agkistrodon piscivorus, and Agkistrodon contortrix would probably leave the vast majority of people with blank faces, whereas Western Diamondback Rattlesnake, Water Moccasin, and Copperhead wouldn't.  They're widely-known names, as are King cobra, Black mamba, and Burmese python, the articles for which are named for the common names.  I think, where applicable, common names should be used.    Mbinebri   talk &larr; 22:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Book-names are names only listed in books, not in actual use among people who work with the animals. For the specific articles you mention, the situation is perhaps more analogous to that for some plants: there are many different common names, and some are ambiguous. Perhaps it may be appropriate to rename some to a common name, but we shouldn't want to have every article at a "common name" which someone just made up and which hasn't reached wider acceptance. Ucucha 05:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It turns out there is a specific policy regarding this. Per WP:TREE, In cases where there is a formal common name (e.g. birds), or when common names are well-known and reasonably unique (e.g. "Cuvier's dwarf caiman"), they should be used for article titles. Scientific names should be used otherwise.    Mbinebri   talk &larr; 19:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd like to suggest two additions to that: 1) Use the scientific name when multiple species share the same common name (eg. "Water snake") and 2) Use either a lesser-known common name or scientific name when the widely-used common name is wildly inaccurate ("Suriname toad" for Pipa pipa, "Horny toad" for Phrynosoma, and of course the "Flying Lemur", which cannot fly and is not a lemur). Mokele (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There are issues here either way. Common names have the distinctive issue of being localized and poorly used, eg Australian Shingleback, Sleepy Lizard, Two head Lizard, Pineapple Lizard, all same species depends on the Australian State your in, so common names are not so common. Secondly however is the issue with scientific names, taxonomies change and species will be moved to different genera from time to time. This means renaming pages when taxonomy changes. Lastly though I agree with Ucucha in the workers in a given field, ie among herpetologists for reptiles and amphibians, scientific names are more usually used. My own preference is to use scientific names as it is a name with a demonstrable connection to a population through the scientific literature and the associated type specimens. Common names are anyone's guess or preference. Faendalimas (talk) 08:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Amphibian and reptile articles needing a taxobox
For a while now, I have been slowly but surely chipping away at the articles in need of taxoboxes. There are now only 32 explicitly marked animal articles without taxoboxes. There is, however, a category called Category:Amphibian and reptile articles needing a taxobox, which I have never seen in any state but empty. I can't see a template which would populate it, and any contents it might have would be easily accommodated in the more general animal category. I'm flagging it up here in case there are any objections that I hadn't foreseen, but I propose to delete it fairly soon if there aren't any. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Deleted. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Flectonotus and Gastrotheca placement
Could someone familiar with this area of botany please clear up some confusion. The genera Flectonotus and Gastrotheca are both listed under families Hylidae and Amphignathodontidae. Which is considered the more accurate placement? Please correct the family articles appropriately so that we can properly categorize the various species articles. Dawynn (talk) 13:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Botany? Good grief. Frost et al. (2006) in their extensive review of amphibians ("The amphibian tree of life") place those two genera in the family Amphignathodontidae, but I don't know the area well enough to be sure whether that has been accepted. Ucucha 13:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Amphibian Species of the World (based on, apparently) actually places them in yet another family, Hemiphractidae. Ucucha 13:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, big laugh at my expense. Sorry -- Yes, that should have been "biology" instead of "botany".  Dawynn (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I had earlier seen the Amphibian Species of the World site. Please reference the Hylidae article.  At least in this case, its a matter of whether this grouping should be a separate family (Hemiphractidae), or whether they should just be in a subfamily (Hemiphractinae) under family Hylidae.  Note that, otherwise, the genera listed on the Amphibian Species of the World, are the same as those placed under the subfamily in Hylidae. Dawynn (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * True, and it looks like the recognition of Amphignathodontidae is a result of yet-further splitting of Hemiphracti(n/d)ae. Ucucha 15:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See List of amphibians. This list further complicates the matter by following the separate family route (Hemiphractidae).  So, now there are three distinct groupings being used in Wikipedia for these genera.  Does the amphibian project have a preferred net resource for resolving such disputes?
 * Tree of Life lists these genera under subfamily Hemiphractinae, family Hylidae.
 * Amphibian Species of the World lists them under family Hemiphractidae.
 * ITIS also indicates family Hemiphractidae.
 * Amphibiaweb.org also indicates family Hemiphractidae.
 * Note: The page for Hemiphractidae on the Amphibian Species of the World site provides a history of how these genera have been grouped. If I read it correctly, then at least since Frost, et al (2006), what is currently classified as Hemiphractinae in Wikipedia is generally considered to be separate from the Hylidae.  However, whether this consists of one family (Hemiphractidae), or three (Hemiphractidae, Cryptobatrachidae, and Amphignathodontidae) is still up for discussion.  3 of the 4 sites I just listed use the single family approach.  Unless someone has objections, or unless someone beats me to it, I'll try to clean up the pages and make a separate Hemiphractidae article / category.
 * Dawynn (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Scientific name ?
--Helmoony (talk) 03:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

A salamander from Central California
An editor friend of mine just now asked me about this guy. She said she and her husband found dozens of them in all sizes in her back yard under an old fallen tree trunk. She lives in Central California. Can anyone tell me: is it some species of Batrachoseps? Many thanks to all, Invertzoo (talk) 00:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it is a species of Slender salamander however the image does not contain enough detail or angles to make a correct identification. Regards Zoo  Pro  02:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your ID. I will tell Mila if she finds more of the adults to gently rinse one off with water and take an image from the side showing the head and the side of the body. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 16:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Red Tanami Taipan
Oxyuranus carotherensis, is a non existant species and should be deleted. Any objections? Enlil Ninlil (talk) 08:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong support of delete. Zoo  Pro  02:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Has been deleted as a speedy delete as a pure hoax. Zoo  Pro  08:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Woowoo, one for reason. Thanks Enlil Ninlil (talk) 10:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Painted Turtle
Hello fellow project members, several editors and I are beginning serious work on Painted Turtle, so I was wondering if the project banner could be put on its talk page and the article could be given a rating?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Peer reviewed papers
Is there any peer reviewed papers that could be used as references that people have, or links of where they are? Thanks Enlil Ninlil (talk) 08:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This would depend on the exact subject matter you are after. I have a number of peer reviewed papers available on my own website either as pdf's or copied to web or both. The URL to the literature page is: http://www.carettochelys.com/literature.htm. Papers by Thomson. S. are authored by myself. The subject area is turtles, specifically their taxonomy. Faendalimas (talk) 12:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thankyou I have read most material by Scanlon and Shine that they have free, but they deal with extinct mostly and extant Australian Squamata respectively. I will read your papers. Any other papers would be most appreicated. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 08:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Reptilia or Sauropsida?
I'm putting together the templates for the most vital taxa while I test the limits of the new taxonomy system for Wikipedia. Is there a preference for Reptilia or Sauropsida? I prefer Sauropsida myself, but I'm not a member of this WikiProject, so I'll let y'all have your say. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 07:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We have been over this a number of times on various talk-pages, and there seem to be a (weak) consensus for using the more commonly known classic Linnaean units in the taxo-boxes, and reserve phylogenetic taxonomy for the text. The rationale is that while the phylogenetic nomenklature may be more common among vertebrate taxonomists, the taxo-box is a navigational aid for the non-experts. Experts will no doubt know the phylogenetic position of the animals in question anyway. Petter Bøckman (talk) 12:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert in this field, but I would be pretty wary of including any paraphyletic group in a taxobox at all... Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  12:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * They are all over the place. Paraphyletic groups are perfectly acceptable as long as they are commonly used and clearly marked as paraphyletic (see Dinosaurs, Australopithecus or Labyrinthodontia for examples). Petter Bøckman (talk) 13:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hell, even fish is paraphyletic. And lizard.  And agnatha.  Anyhow, the point is that enforcing strict monophyly will make WP *worse*, because WP is an encyclopedia, not a technical reference work.  And FYI, plenty of folks in science use paraphyletic groupings, both in papers and in conversation, because they're *useful*. Mokele (talk) 14:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll change it to reflect the majority's opinion per Petter's comment. Anyone who prefers Sauropsida will just need to use the standard taxobox. Unfortunately, there's not a good way to use both of the taxa in this new system. And, for the record, Pisces is no longer an accepted taxon. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 17:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Assessing Labyrinthodontia
I have edited the article Labyrinthodontia on an off for a couple of years, and it has now come about as far as I'm able to get it. When I started working on it (revision as of June 2008), it was not assessed for importance or quality as an Amphibians and Reptiles article. I now feel it can safely be reassessed (bout for importance and quality), and I would like some input, particularly regarding language (English is not my first language).

Some notes: I have used traditional paraphyletic taxons without hesitation in the text, partly out of necessity (Labyrinthodont phylogeny is by no means resolved), partly because Labyrinthodontia itself is paraphyletic, though I have made sure to note the paraphyletic groups as such. I have also elected to put emphasis on non-cladistic taxa as means to make the text understandable, and chosen to used the vernacular "reptile-like amphibians" rather than opting for choosing either either of the scientific names (Anthracosauria or Reptiliomorpha) in order to not to force the issue of what to call the group. Help to bring this (in my view) quite important article up to a decent status would be appreciated. Petter Bøckman (talk) 13:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A quick look shows the list of characters—probably not the best way to describe this, and a clade which probably should be converted to Template:Clade. Looks like a nice article mostly; any "reassessment" would mean bringing to WP:GAN, as it is currently considered, fairly, B-class. &mdash;innotata 15:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think B is more or less right. Ecology and basic systematics is covered fairly well, but it could have a bit more on the transition from fish to amphibian (proper texts explaining nostrils and limbs and such, not just a cladogram, and it could perhaps ha a bit more on te origin of amniotes.


 * Edit: It took some hours, but I finally figured out the cladogram template. It looks a bit more professional now. Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Frog for identification

 * File:Pelophylax ridibundus -Rainham Marches, near Purfleet, Essex, England-8.jpg | Marsh Frog to confirm identification. Snowman (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You would be correct.  bibliomaniac 1  5  06:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing
I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Galapagos tortoise
Hello WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles. Galapagos tortoise has recently been promoted to GA, and if somebody has the time it would be nice if it could get a rating on the importance scale. Many thanks, Minglex (talk) 00:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Like most importance scales, the one we use is vague; mid-importance seems right. &mdash;innotata 00:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would agree with mid-importance. Zoo  Pro  11:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur, mid-importance seems right. Petter Bøckman (talk) 12:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree. As it stands, the Galapagos tortoises are a very charismatic animal, a flagship species for the wildlife of the Galapagos. I would say that they are on the level of our other high level reptiles, such as Komodo dragon and Cane toad.  bibliomaniac 1  5  00:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes when you put it that way I would consider it a high importance article in terms of worth. I have always considered importance scales as redundant because they are seldom used. Yes it is a flag ship species and the more I think about it yes it should be updated to reflect that. Zoo  Pro  01:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I would like to comment if I may. This is a species I have been highly involved with in the past. As both a zookeeper and as International Species Coordinator for this species for the IUCN SSC CBSG. This is definitely a high profile species, very charismatic, a favorite with the general public at zoos around the world. Many people who know very little about tortoises not only know this species but are aware of detailed information about it. For example its association with Darwin, that it has different subspecies on different islands, etc. That people unfamiliar with herpetology know information like this is testament to its importance, I think we would be in error to think less of it. It is a flagship species for Chelonology (the study of turtles and tortoises). Faendalimas (talk) 04:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I have updated the article to a "High" importance level. Zoo Pro  07:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Bobtail for identification
Re: File:Tiliqua rugosa -Argadells Homestead, Flinders Ranges, South Australia-8.jpg | Bobtail for identification. I uploaded to commons and then found that there are several types of bobtails. Snowman (talk) 14:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, shinglebacks are still considered a single species. I have added the category "Tiliqua rugosa". Nice picture BTW! Petter Bøckman (talk) 11:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There are a few subs, most likely a Tiliqua rugosa asper given it was found in SA, I have never seen a specimen as light as that before, usually only some parts are light but never the whole thing (believe me I have seen a few in my time, not to mention kept one or two as pets). Zoo  Pro  12:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Query
Shouldn't Clemmys be deleted as it comprises only one species? It couldn't (and doesn't) discuss much of anything that wouldn't work in the spotted turtle article. Chrysemys is a monotypic genus (painted turtle is the only species) and it hasn't been awarded it's own article.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The genus history can't go in spotted turtle can it? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should obviously be merged and redirected to spotted turtle (not deleted!). &mdash;innotata 01:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why that is obvious? It seems to me redirecting Spotted turtle to Clemmys would be confusing for the reader as the topic would be 95% about the spotted turtle yet not be the name of the article. While redirecting Clemmys to Spotted turtle would lose the history of Clemmys. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was a mess-up in my comment. &mdash;innotata 02:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm really on the fence...I don't know if it makes more sense to have two separate articles or one. I would have to look it up, but I believe Clemmys as a genus was created only like 9 years ago because the spotted turtle was found to be sufficiently different than the western pond, bog, and wood.  I really don't know.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It says Clemmys was split into separate genera, and now only includes the spotted turtle. If that is so, it is essentially the same as the spotted turtle, and the article on Clemmys should be merged to spotted turtle. &mdash;innotata 15:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * just for info Clemmys was described in 1828 a little more than 9 years ago.Faendalimas (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite right...my mistake. It was nine years ago that Clemmys became monotypic (bog and wood were moved out).  Sorry!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I reckon merge any useful information from Clemmys then re-direct, no need for both in my opinion. Zoo  Pro  00:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I recently came across a similar situation with Pseudocheirus (a formerly diverse but now monotypic living genus, like Clemmys, but which happens to have a second, fossil species). I think it may be reasonable to keep an article on Clemmys, even though the genus is now monotypic, since there is a good chance that people looking for the genus name are not aware that the other species have been split off. No problem with redirecting to spotted turtle either, though. Ucucha 00:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Popular pages
I would like to make a request to create WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles popular pages using http://toolserver.org/~alexz/pop/. The current list includes many other WikiProjects such as Animals (here), Dinosaurs (here) and Birds (here). I believe obtaining a list would be of benefit in establishing and monitoring highly viewed pages. No action is required by anyone - just to agree it's okay to do it. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't even see why you need to ask, really. Maybe there could be problems with what is done with the info and suchlike, but I can't imagine why there'd be problems with just creating a list. &mdash;innotata 01:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! It's just part of the process to let people know and see if there is any objections. The process requires evidence from 'Link to discussion on project talk page discussing/annoucing this request' and this is likely because an automated bot is involved in created the page so there is an element of caution. Anyway, will submit the request now and it will most likely start in a month or two from now. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Now submitted. The request key is in the edit summary, required in unlikely event that the request requires changing. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Request upgrade in the importance level of Painted turtle
Hello Wikiherps. I'm a copyeditor who helped out on Painted turtle. Request someone (not editing on that article) give us a reassessment of the importance and hopefully raise it to mid or high. Looking at the definitions and examples, Painted turtle just does not seem like a topic of "extreme triviality". Species is the most numerous turtle of North America. Has a huge amount of interest as shown by all the writing on the web on it. The four subspecies are all captured in the article as well. It's an important turtle for catalogers like Ernst. I think NYM did a huge boon to the Project by working up an article on something that will get a lot of "hits". TCO (talk) 05:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks TCO, I agree it's more important than low. Daily views number 500 or so.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ per importance guidelines, I at first considered rating it a "Mid" and after consulting the project rating it would generally fall into a "Mid" range, however after further consultation with the guidelines and considering the number of views it does get I have given it a "High" rating, if anyone objects then it can go down to being a "Mid" but is not a "Low". Cheers Zoo  Pro  09:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I agree with 'High' importance. :-)  --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

List of U.S. state reptiles
This list looks like it needs our template on its talkpage (perhaps an assessment of quality [list quality] and importance as well).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. Zoo  Pro  07:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Chelidae
Could someone rate the Chelidae page for me at least on importance. As it is the portal to all the Austro-South American side neck turtles, some 60 species I feel this is an important page. I have added a lot too it last few months, it was a stub when I started. Cheers Faendalimas (talk) 15:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Zoo  Pro  11:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC)