Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 31

Conservation status of cd
The black caiman article lists its conservation status as conservation dependant (cd) but the conservation status article doesn't even mention this status. A new reader, or even an old reader such as myself new to the topic, would be justified IMO in deciding that Wikipedia had it wrong in at least one of these places.

The conservation dependant article, to which the taxobox links, explains the situation well, but IMO it's a bit hard to find this explanation currently. The IUCN Red List article, to which the taxobox also links, doesn't even mention that this category has been discontinued, and shows it on all graphics as if it were current, which I suppose in a sense it is.

Could taxoboxes and articles which include this semi-obsolete status perhaps link a bit more prominently to an explanation of the status of the status? Andrewa (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

FAR notice
nominated Homo floresiensis 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 "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 13:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha, being a controversial taxon, I can see where that might turn into an interesting debate! Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 17:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The biggest clades of them all...which ones belong on Wikipedia?
Petter pointed out to me (following my addition of a few parents to Amniota) that we've got a lot of controversial taxa in our automatic taxonomy system's Amniota lineage. Here is the current list:
 * Eukaryota
 * Unikonta
 * Opisthokonta
 * Holozoa
 * Filozoa
 * Animalia
 * Eumetazoa
 * Bilateria
 * Nephrozoa
 * Deuterostomia
 * Chordata
 * Craniata
 * Vertebrata
 * Gnathostomata
 * Eugnathostomata
 * Teleostomi
 * Tetrapoda
 * Amphibia (hidden from Amniota)
 * "Labyrinthodontia" (hidden from Amniota)
 * Reptiliomorpha
 * Anthracosauria
 * Batrachosauria
 * Cotylosauria
 * Amniota

At present, the taxobox on Amniota displays the following:
 * Animalia
 * Chordata
 * Tetrapoda
 * Reptiliomorpha
 * Anthracosauria
 * Batrachosauria
 * Cotylosauria
 * Amniota

Please discuss; it's been suggested some of these taxa not be included on Wikipedia and also that certain taxa not display in the Amniota taxobox. I'm the last person to ask about upper clades, so I'll sit back and listen and adjust the templates as needed. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 17:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * IMO, a taxon should contain at least it's immediate parent clade, and then the next 'major' (traditionally ranked) clade in its lineage. So ideally, Amniota's taxobox taxonomy should look something like


 * Animalia
 * Chordata
 * Tetrapoda
 * Cotylosauria
 * Amniota
 * This allows the reader to identify the immediate parent (good for navigation around the tree of life), and the nearest "familiar" group (to help conceptualize where a taxon is in general. I think the problem here is that for some reason, the taxobox automatically does two things it should not:


 * If the next two or more parents are unranked clades, it automatically displays 3 or more of them before getting to the next ranked (and therefore probably more familiar) group.
 * If the parent is an unranked clade, it automatically skips the parent if the grandparent is ranked!
 * I'm not sure if these are bugs or flaws, but it's a bit confusing and necessitates the use of display_parents for the second example. Using Amniota, if Batrachosauria were ranked family, the box would fail to display Cotylosauria, which is arguably more important because it's the immediate parent. On the other hand, it's not really necessary to list all four intermediate clades between Amniota and its next major parent, Tetrapoda.
 * IMO, the box should do as I suggested above: display the immediate parent, no matter the rank, and then let the next displayed taxon depend upon use of the always_display field (where people can designate 'major' clades). If more intermediate clades are desired, display_parents comes into play. But all this extra coding should be saved for those special circumstances. MMartyniuk (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Right, let's see...


 * I'm not particularly well versed in the intricacies of the Eukaryote tree, so someone else will have to help you out there. My initial reaction is that most of those units are fairly new and are defined phylogenticaly. That should make for less confusion over what the actual names imply. Also, only the major ranks show in the taxobox in this instance, so I see no problem with the long list being there, as long as it is hidden as of now.


 * The problem starts when entering the tetrapod branch of the tree. The various labyrinthodont groups have been known and classified for a long time, leading to a plethora of names, some which through history have seen quite divergent use by different authors, and some which have been abandoned. Ad to that, the amphibian phase of tetrapod evolution is not very well understood. The introduction of phylogenetic nomenclature, which have cleared up nomenclature messes in other parts of the tree have really only added to the confusion here, as not two authors fully agree on which critter goes where:


 * The only thing all authors agree on is that Amniota have evolved from some group of advanced "reptile-like amphibians". The term Reptiliomorpha is unambiguously understood to be more or less the Amniote stem group of total group, so anchoring Amniota there would be correct.


 * Anthracosauria has seen a number of definitions. It was originally used a group of large aquatic labyrinthodonts (possibly an evolutionary grade) of broadly reptiliomorph affinity, but has traditionally (Romer, Carroll, Colbert) been used as synonymous with Reptiliomorpha. Benton again uses it for the basal group (paraphyletic) of reptiliomorphs, while Laurin uses it for (what he sees) as the most advanced reptiliomorphs + amniotes. Adding to this the uncertainty of the phylogenetic tree, the actual content of the name is highly variable. My personal suggestion is to take the unit out of taxon template system and merge the article with Reptiliomorpha, with a section on the nomenclatural mess.


 * Batrachosauria is again an older unit with variable definition. Originally it's meaning was largely "advanced reptiliomorphs", but it has been used as a clade by Gauthier (though largely ignored by Laurin). It is not a commonly used taxon, possibly due to the instability of the tree at that point (If Laurin or Anderson is right, it includes some or all lissamphibians according to Gauthier's definition). My suggestion is dropping it.


 * Finally, Cotylosauria was established for what was then though to be the basal reptiles (Diadectomorpha, sometimes Seymouriamorpha, and the anapsid reptiles). It was later (Romer etc) trimmed down to just the actual reptilian members, and later abandoned. Laurin & co have revived it, this time for a clade consisting of the original members + descendants, though it is not widely used. In non-phylogenetic works it sees limited use as a provisionary taxon for critters that straddle the amphibian-reptilian divide. Under phyleogentic definitions, it's relationship to Batrachosauria and Laurins use of Anthracosauria is anyone's guess and depends on what cladistic analysis you believe in. Two or maybe all three could be synonyms. Again, I suggest dropping it.


 * With the extreme instability of the basal portion of the tetrapod tree, I would prefer going for a simplistic nomenclature, using the single unit all agree on and dropping the uncertain ones. Petter Bøckman (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know much about the highest clades, but I agree with Petter in this case about amniotes. Various names have been used for almost a century or more, and their adoption into current phylogenetic nomenclature isn't always accepted. If clades are included, they should either be widely used in the current literature or just not contested by many other differing phylogenies. If these were a bunch of widely accepted clades, I'd follow MMartyniuk's reasoning in the automatic taxoboxes. Smokeybjb (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a messy situation. If one would like to have it simple, Amniota could always be anchored directly in Tetrapoda (via skip-templates or similar). The Amniote article starts out by telling where the group is anchored among the labyrinthodonts, so it is a question of whether we need Reptiliomorpha in the taxobox at all. It all boils down to what emphasis we want the taxobox to have; phylogeny, overview or classification. Petter Bøckman (talk) 06:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I changed the parent of Amniota to Tetrapoda in the automated taxobox system. The automated taxobox now says Amniota -> Parent: Tetrapoda, but the taxobox in the article still list all the intermediate taxa. Is it just me being stupid here? Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Edit: It's fixed now, it probably was a cache related thing. Sorry for being stupid. Petter Bøckman (talk) 11:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking for full text of...
I'm looking for the full text of

Tucker, J.K. 2004 Catalog of recent and fossil turrids (Mollusca: Gastropoda). Zootaxa 682:1-1295 (large .pdf file)

My email address is on my user page. Thanks in advance. JoJan (talk) 13:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've received the text. JoJan (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Carl Linnaeus – almost GA
The article on Carl Linnaeus is very close to being recognised as a Good Article. Unfortunately, the person who nominated it appears to be absent. The only outstanding issue is that the short section on "Linnean taxonomy" needs to be referenced. This is basically a summary of Linnean taxonomy, but that, too, is unreferenced. If anyone here can help with referencing that section – or even re-writing it – it would be much appreciated, and would be a huge step towards getting this very important article raised to GA level. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The New Guinea Singing Dog
Should the taxobox for the NGSD be replaced with a new Canis lupus dingo dogbox? When you go to replace it, one is confronted with a note with citations I am not qualified to rule on saying not to remove it as the taxonomic status is in dispute. Then opposition is met from Wikipedia Users who cite various more papers saying that the taxon "halstromi" should be valid, again giving reasons that seem persuasive to me, but at the same time maybe not all that persuasive. But according to Wikipedia articles based on MSW3 such as Subspecies of Canis lupus, Canis, and so on, "halstromi" is a taxonomic synonym for Canis lupus dingo, which is no longer restricted to the Australian Dingo. Chrisrus (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I can't say which argument is correct as I haven't read much of the original referenced work, but I would point out that the current taxobox on the article still says the taxon name is Canis lupus dingo and we already have an article for that taxon: Canis lupus dingo. One taxobox per taxon. If the taxobox is to stay on the New Guinea Singing Dog article with its "unresolved" status, then it shouldn't be Canis lupus dingo. Rkitko (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * While it is fairly evident that the NGSD is closest to the dingo, whether it constitutes a separate taxon is, as you say, disputed, although the dispute I remember form my last visit wasn't between halstromi and dingo.  I have found that  the editors of that article are immensely knowledgeable about their subject, and would be inclined to leave them to their own devices, or discuss there. Perhaps though, if there is an ongoing academic dispute, both taxonomies should be presented? Rich Farmbrough, 23:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC).


 * Thank you both for your kind replies and advice.
 * To reply to Rkitko, thank you for your interest in this interesting problem. I have started a new section below that I hope you would reply of one such paper.  I agree with you completely; there should be only one article with the taxobox "Canis lupus dingo", and I think you will agree that this article should be Canis lupus dingo.  The articles about particular varieties of that taxon, such as, but not limited to, Australian Dingo and New Guinea Singing Dog, however, might get either a dogbox maybe not unlike the one below one or, if given a taxobox, it should be Canis lupus digno var.  I'm not sure which.  Below I will provide those under discussion there.
 * But first, to reply to Rich, You are right that it is disputed, but I have yet to find any discussion of higher taxa that seems to list halstromi. Wikipedia's Subspecies of Canis lupus, for example, lists "halstromi" as a taxonomic synonym for "C.l.dingo" in the same way they do with all former subspecies of dog, as for example Canis aegyptius or Canis aquaticus or any of the old dog subspecies that has nowhere to go when they made the dog itself a subspecies it can't have subspecies itself.  The only ones who speak of Canis halstromi or Canis lupus halstromi or Canis dingo halstromi, they can't seem to agree which it should be, are only papers specifically about the New Guinea Singing dog.  I wonder if you are aware of any lists of mammals of the world or the Carnivora or the Canidae it as a valid taxon, but I'm guessing few if any do.  With regard to your "the dispute I remember.....dingo", please do share your recollection, no matter how vague, I'm interested.  And with regard to "I have found....their own devices..." I'm sorry but that's not the way it is.  The dominant expert there, Oldsingerman, knows alot about the dogs because he owns many of them and is trying to save them, but freely admits he knows little about taxonomy and zoology and such.  He favors the taxon "halstromi" be valid, on the grounds that it'd be better for the dogs that way, and he cares about them having a bright future.  He does agree that we should go with such standard WP references as MSW3, and therefore Canis lupus dingo, and then adding "var. halstromi", I suppose.  So please join the discussion we have ongoing there and don't worry about leaving us to our own devices. \
 * Anyway, more to the point, here are the infoboxes under discussion:

Edit war over evolution
On the article Monera, an IP user has just changed the article Monera for the fourth time in favour of a view point were evolution is invalid. What is the bureaucratic protocol to declare that there is an edit war and have the article locked? As it stands, I think, the article is in good shape (before revisions by IP user) so will not be harmed. Thanks --Squidonius (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Talk with the editor at the talk page. Revert the obvious incorrect changes, but retain good contributions. Explain the rules of WP (in this case WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR) and see what the response is. If that does not help, contact me again. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:FRINGE might also be appropriate for this one. I have warned the user, albeit with a cookie-cutter template. A more personal explanation might be better.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   22:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Image copyright
I tend to keep away from copyrighted images due to the bureaucracy, but there is a phylum of bacteria, typified by the genus Thermotoga, with a bizarre shape that deserves a picture. The paper that describes it is this, if I were to copy figure 6 and upload it, what special circumstance should I claim? --Squidonius (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's eligible for Fair Use though. Maybe you can try contacting a microbiologist? I found one with pictures of T. maritima and an email.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   04:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Another idea: if it's just the general shape, you could draw one yourself. Not ideal, but sometimes the only way of getting round copyright. On the other hand, I think that you could try "fair use" with a rationale along the lines of File:Psilophyton_Forbesii_Reconstruction.gif, e.g. "morphology of the bacterium is important to the article; very difficult to correctly reproduce it other than by copying an image". Peter coxhead (talk) 12:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the alternative suggestions. TEM image of that quality are published: I think the image on the site linked is in fact from another paper (possibly also by Carl Woese), so that would be of no use. Following Peter Coxhead's idea of simply sketching it, I did so: Thermotoga. I though it best to put a note in the caption, requesting a better picture, which is probably both futile and against some WP:acronym of some kind, but trying does not harm. --Squidonius (talk) 03:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the note violates Manual_of_Style because it addresses the reader directly; it should really be on the talk page. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Declared extinct but still exists vs. declared extinct and no live specimens found since
We need to distinguish between "Extinct" and "Declared extinct but proven to exist after being declared extinct" in Template:Taxobox.

I recommend making the

extinct = 

field visible in the template and adding a new parameter

possibly_rediscovered = 

that is also visible in the template.

I also recommend changing the word "extinct" that is above "EX" in articles like Israel painted frog to "declared extinct."

davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  01:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We're using IUCN statuses (as well as some other systems), and the IUCN status is "Extinct", not something else, so I'd prefer to keep that. We shouldn't be in the business of making our own statuses. Ucucha (talk) 03:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. If a later reliable source shows that a taxon is not in fact extinct so that the IUCN status is incorrect, that status can be removed from the taxobox and the issue discussed, appropriately sourced, in the text. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This sounds like a good solution for now. I've made the relevant change to Israel painted frog which has been recently re-discovered.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  00:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Taxonomy article
Members of this project may want to comment at Talk:Taxonomy as this appears to be a very important article in terms of ToL issues. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

WP Tree of Life in the Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Tree of Life for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 03:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Authority control
Since this was new to me, I'm spreading the word. If you edit biographical pages on taxonomic authors, there is now a standard template that tracks national and international library data for that author. This idea was developed on the German Wikipedia and is now being implemented here. It makes an excellent way for worldwide users to find our articles.

See Authority control for a full description, and see Gregor Mendel for an example of implementation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Meh. Of the author biographies I've written, one has no entries whatsoever, another only has records for the National Library of Australia which is not supported by the template. :( --  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   18:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * For the English Wikipedia, we'd probably want to support interaction with the National Library of Australia. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Domestic cat
The article Cat presently suggests that the valid scientific name is Felis catus, per Linnaeus, but cited sources, including very recent ones, seem to prefer Felis silvestris catus. I'd appreciate some guidance from people who think about this sort of thing more than I do. I am getting the impression that F. s. catus has been absolutely proven to be genetically accurate, and that there is no basis for elevation of domestic cats to species level at F. catus, but that some prefer that name simply on the basis of tradition. If this change should be made, how should the taxobox appear? I know it's very particular how to cite binomials, and even putting a name in parentheses can get all political. Basically, the article needs some taxonomy expert input, as this and all other domestic cat-related articles are edited almost exclusively by cat fanciers not zoologists. If this should be raised at WT:WikiProject Biology or somewhere more specific, please let me know. I have specifically not "advertised" this discussion at WT:WikiProject Cats or Talk:Cat because I'm looking for taxonomic input not a flamewar. If and when it comes time to change the article in major ways, I'm sure discussion at Talk:Cat will be interesting. Especially if I also propose moving the article to Domestic cat, a less ambiguous name. (Then again, is there an "official common name"? The article should be at that, probably, even if it is the ambiguous, plain "cat"). — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 18:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We normally go by this: http://www.bucknell.edu/msw3/browse.asp?s=y&id=14000029, which says "Felis Catus", at least for the taxobox. Chrisrus (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Wilson and Reeder's Mammal Species of the World includes an explanation in the pages for both Felis catus and Felis silvestris. Basically, the opinion is split, but historically (which really doesn't matter that much) the usage has been Felis catus. This is also mentioned in the taxonomy section in the Cat article. IMO, both should be mentioned (and bolded) in the lead section as subjective synonyms. The taxobox is probably fine as is though. Better to leave that uncluttered.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   18:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought there was some new consensus that we no longer boldface the binomial if the article's title is, and the lead begins with, the common name. If that's the case, any style guidelines about this sort of thing should be updated. I saw that about an hour ago, but I've been reading nomenclatural archived discussions all day, so I have no idea where I saw it. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 00:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is one of those things that slowly changes from considering them species despite not being good species to considering them subspecies theya re. This is happening with the Horse, the Dog and many other domesticated subspecies. So, I say use the subspecies name. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You may wish to consider Infobox cat breed, too. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was. :-) I think the rough consensus is to stick with Felis catus for now in the infoboxes, with the expectation that it's likely to be Felis silvestris catus in 5 or 10 years, and mention both in the lead of the main Cat article. I'm tempted to mention both in the infobox on that page, but not of course on the breed pages. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 21:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If Felis silvestris (published 1777) and Felis catus (published 1758) are considered synonyms, then the species must be called Felis catus, by the Principle of Priority. Thus, "Felis silvestris catus" is a mistake, as far as I understand the situation; as subspecies, the two taxa would be Felis catus catus (domestic) and Felis catus silvestris (wild). Where the wild and domestic forms are considered different, the domestic form is Felis catus; see --Stemonitis (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not true in this case, because of ICZN Opinion 2027 (which, remarkably, we have an article about). Ucucha (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, that's why the literature that already refers to them by the subspecific synonym does so as F. s. catus. That really wasn't at issue here. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 23:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of that opinion. Interesting... --Stemonitis (talk) 07:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So what about the common name? The not terribly exhaustive reading I've done so far is entirely in favor of "domestic cat". "Cat" seems to be a general word for "felid", when context doesn't make it clear that the domestic cat is intended ("I'm a veterinarian specializing in cats" implies domestic unless one works at the zoo. "I'm a zoologist specializing in cats" implies the broader meaning). The gist is, I think that Cat needs to move to Domestic cat, with Cat becoming a disambiguation page. The article text already says "domestic cat", and has for weeks now, because this is the common name according to the cited sources. Anyone else feel strongly either way, before I go to WP:RM? — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 23:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I checked the cat disambiguation page, and it seem ready for that if that's what we want to do, but it seems obvious to me that "c-a-t" searchers are highly likely to thinking of the "domestic cat", the ordinary regular familiar old normal kitty-cat, and then offered a hatnote link to the disambiguation page. Once they get there. Chrisrus (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The domestic cat would clearly be the "primary topic" for WP:DAB purposes of "cat", but the problem is that this isn't the recognized common name, so it shouldn't be at cat to begin with. That is, the primary topic stuff of WP:DAB is triggered when the same page name is being vied for by multiple subjects, which I'm observing isn't really the case, because "cat" is just some ambiguous word, while "domestic cat" is the (so far as I can tell) universally recognized common name of F. catus in English. Because of the primary topic thing, an argument could be made that Cat should redirect to Domestic cat with a "Cat redirects here, for other uses see Cat (disambiguation)" hatnote, but whatever.  It's more about whether WP:COMMONNAME should trump our general practice of putting organisms at article titles that consist of their scientifically recognized common names.  If we actually think WP:COMMONNAME is more important (which would have impact on a lot of other biological articles' titles...), then WP:DAB's primary topic rule  triggered.  If animal common names are an exception to WP:COMMONNAME, then the primary topic stuff is moot. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 00:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Taracus marchingtoni
Does anyone have knwoledge of Taracus marchingtoni, an arachnid, discussed in Talk:Oregon High Desert Grotto? I'm trying to find a reliable citation. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Apparently Oregon Underground is electronic and privately circulated. I do not even know if that satisfies ICZN naming criteria for new species. You might try emailing the Oregon High Desert Grotto and request a copy of the specific issue cited.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   17:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As I wrote on the article talkpage, I haven't been able to find a mention of the species either. However, the dead reference in the article is actually at the Internet Archive. The piece does mention (p. 12) that possibly new invertebrates have been found in the cave, but doesn't say anything about T. marchingtoni specifically. Ucucha (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you; I've removed it. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The Dog Branch of the Tree of Life Now Available for Free at the Click of a Mouse!!!!
I have something to announce that I am very excited about:

Below please find a link to a free .pdf file of a WP:RS paper I had annouced but hitherto had not found free access to. In it, the Dog branch of the tree of life has been mapped in great detail. But now I have found that this, for free, anyone can see it now:

http://www.eeb.ucla.edu/Faculty/Novembre/vonHoldtEtAl2010Nature.pdf

It's on page two. A map of the dog branch of the tree of life. It's really cool to see and seems to have ramafactions (no pun intended) for several articles. I hope post it here not only in the hope that you will enjoy looking at it, but I also in the hopes that you all, as I have, will think of all the uses to which it could be put for this project.

Chrisrus (talk) 03:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm, the wolves cluster as a single group, as a sister group of dogs. I would like to know what populations they represent. Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Praying Mantis and the group it's in
Mantis says, "The systematics of mantises have long been disputed. Mantises, along with walking sticks, were once placed in the order Orthoptera with the cockroaches (now Blattodea) and rock crawlers (now Grylloblattodea). Kristensen (1991) combined Mantodea with the cockroaches and termites into the order Dictyoptera." Dictyoptera and Blattodea are both still orders, it's just that mantises have moved from one order to the other order? Banaticus (talk) 08:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This seems to be a classic example of the problems which arise when trying to reconcile traditional rank-based classifications with molecular phylogenetic trees. All the recent (post-2006 anyway) sources I can find agree that the groups Mantodea, Blattodea and Isoptera form a monophyletic group termed Dictyoptera. However these papers don't then go on to propose a formal classification. So it seems that you can either keep Mantodea, Blattodea and Isoptera as orders (as is done here – expand Neoptera) and have an informal higher clade Dictyoptera OR submerge all three into a new order Dictyoptera (as Kristensen did). But Dictyoptera and Blattodea shouldn't be orders in the same classification system, because Dictyoptera includes Blattodea. This doesn't seem to be very well explained at Mantis. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Organism capitalization synch
I'm working to make sure that WP:Manual of Style, WP:Naming conventions (capitalization), WP:Naming conventions (fauna) WP:WikiProject Tree of Life, WP:Manual of Style/Capital letters, WP:Naming conventions (flora), etc., are synched with regard to common name capitalization.

Please centralize discussion at WT:Manual of Style

— SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 07:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I had assumed that "synched" meant simply ensuring consistency while maintaining content. This is not what SMcCandlish means; his "synching" is intended to change the meaning of some of these pages. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's why synching means; when the sub-guidelines don't agree with main ones they have to change in order to be in synchrony with them, by definition. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 22:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Free database of zoological author abbreviations
Quick question. Does anyone know a good searchable free database for zoological author abbreviations? I'm trying to find out the identity of a 19th century author with the abbreviation Cànt. or Cant..--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   11:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * List of authors of names published under the ICZN suffers from the lack of such a source.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah! Theodore Edward Cantor. TYVM :) --  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   06:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Amphibian and reptile fun....
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Amphibians_and_Reptiles. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The Strange Case of the Pig
Pity the poor User who should happen to type the letters “p-i-g” in that box over there. Because it turns out that the answer to the question “What is a pig?” is not as cut-and-dried as you might think. It turns out, however, that, like most referents of terms which are not proper nouns, it turns out that there is a vague gray fuzzy area surrounding the concept of “Pig”. The navigation page Pig (disambiguation) lays it out best: a series of concentric circles orbiting the core: the referent of domestic pig, each based on a taxon: First, before you find the answer, which would you send a “p-i-g” searcher? Now, where do we, where does Wikipedia send them? To the article pig. Why? Why Sus and not any of these other taxon-based articles?” Why not just domestic pig? That would seem to be the most obvious thing, but if we want the most inclusive, why not take a bigger bite? Chrisrus (talk) 03:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Domestic pig, Sus scrofa domestica or Sus domestica BULLSEYE
 * Wild Pig, or Eurasian Wild Boar, Sus scrofa, the species from which the domestic pig was bred
 * Sus, a genus within the pig family, including Sus scrofa and closely related southeast Asian species
 * Suinae, the pig subfamily, including Sus and other genera from Africa and southeast Asia
 * Suidae, the pig family, including Suinae and other extinct Old World subfamilies
 * Suina, a suborder of mammals including Suidae, and the Tayssuidae (peccaries or "New World pigs") ‘’Sus scrofa domstica’’ or ‘’Sus domestica’’ (by the way, note this precedent: TWO TAXA ALLOWED FOR CORE REFERENT: one stubspecies, one species)


 * Sus. Greatest common denominator without being too vague. Includes all the most likely targets. Other suids do not get called "pig" other than members of the genus Sus. What would you prefer, and why?-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  05:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I agree with Obsidian, Sus seesm the right place. As long as there is a few "for XXXX, see XXX" at th etop, we should be fine. Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * See above – it's the extact same question, really. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 00:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * @Obsidian and Mr. Brockman: You are right. The general tendency in English is for species outide the Sus orbit to be called "hogs", not "pigs", so for the biggest bite of so-called "pigs" without drifting into "hog" orbits where Red river hogs, and giant forest hogs and so on reside, Sus seems to be a reasonable place to send "p-i-g" searchers.  On the other hand, "Domestic pig" might be the most reasonably assumed intended referent of a likely "p-i-g" searcher.
 * Tangently, where should ''H-o-g" searchers be sent?
 * @SMcCandlish: Yes, it's quite the same, but also different because of how many possible targets we have for "C-A-T" searchers as opposed to "C-A-T" searchers. How many taxonomic orbits around the domestic cat are there?  Should Cat (disambiguation) which only offers the two taxon-based choices, be expanded with more targets, as is done at Pig (disambiguation)?
 * I don't have a strong opinion either way, other than I think the article presently at Cat, on the domestic cat, sh ould be at Domestic cat. Whether cat should redir there or be a DAB page or go to Felidae, or what is kind of an open question. But basically all cats that don't have a special one-word name like leopard and jaguar are named "X cat" (Asian leopard cat, fishing cat, etc., etc., etc.) and are grouped into larger categorizatoin tlike the great cats, New Orld cats, etc. On  people are probably wanting house cats when they put in cat, just like they want farm pigs when they put in pig or hog, but in too many cases they really are looking for something more general. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Closest relatives of the Embryophyta
The articles Charales and Plant both give Charales as the closest relatives of the Embryophyta. However, according to recent phylogenetic analysis, the Zygnematales are "most likely" a closer group. Are these results worth incorporating? I also stumbled on an overview of recent insights in green plant phylogeny. This is all quite remote from my personal areas of expertise and interest, but I thought it might be useful to flag this here. --Lambiam 10:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Another recent (2012) paper (lots of base pairs, not very many taxa) giving similar, but not the same, conclusion. Lavateraguy (talk) 10:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * All the "deep" phylogeny stuff seems very uncertain and constantly changes when new papers come out. I recently edited the Chromalveolata article. Almost all the groups in the classification in the taxobox are disputed by one or other article. Many of the articles in this area, imho, are not sufficiently tentative and do not convey correctly the huge uncertainty which currently exists. What is clear is that phylogenetic trees derived from one set of genetic data repeatedly don't agree with trees from a different set of data, even though both meet all the statistical criteria. So the results are definitely worth incorporating, but with a degree of scepticism about all such information. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've skimmed a few recent papers. It looks as if there has been more replacement, or loss and reacquistion, of plastids among chromalveolates than was at first thought. Gene transfer from lost plastids to the nucleus is a potentially confounding process for phylogenetic analysis. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This is the reason Wikipedia primarily wants secondary sources (i.e. textbooks). It's not because they are necessarily right, but because they represent a fairly well agreed on systematic. It's quite al right to write that we don't really know and that the analysis are conflicting. The important part is that each groups has a reasonable description, for the foreseeable future we'll have to live with the phylogeny being in flux. Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem with "deep phylogeny" is that there are no accurate secondary sources because the subject has been moving so quickly recently. It's arguable that Wikipedia shouldn't have had articles on a lot of this material, but it does, so we have to try to keep them reasonably error-free. However, I do think that some articles would be better merged into others; some "groups" appear to be artefacts of earlier analyses. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Transitional Fossil peer-review

 * Peer_review/Transitional_fossil/archive1
 * Transitional fossil

It is a very important subject, and I wish to take it to GA/FA status in the future. Input from members of this wikiproject would be highly valued. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Protection for Ape
Could some admin please consider some level of protection for Ape? This dif shows that for almost a month there have been constant irrelevant and vandalism additions. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Taxonomic dispute examples needed
I'm looking for examples of:


 * 1) A case where an article on an animal is at the scientific name (genus or bi/trinomial) specifically because the question "what is the most common name" is so unclear/disputed that picking one would be a POV-pushing exercise and no consensus was ever reached to pick one. (I.e., the issue is that we cannot determine what the most common name is.)
 * 2) A case where an article on an animal is at the scientific name because "what is the most common name?" results in an answer that is itself subject to taxonomic dispute. (I.e., the issue is that we know it's most common, but it's accuracy is reliably questioned).

These are not the same as the most common name conflicting with other uses, or there being no common name (e.g. because it's a newly described species); we already have all that well-covered at WP:FAUNA. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  03:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Not a helpful response to your request, but the reality is that most problems are caused by the reverse, i.e. the insistence on the use of English names as titles for animal articles when these do not map onto taxa. For example, as the Rat article rightly says, "the common terms rat and mouse are not taxonomically specific"; so why are articles about Rattus and Mus at Rat and Mouse? Peter coxhead (talk) 10:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Noted (I also saw the big list below); will bookmark this and see if something about it can be worked into relevant guidelines. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  11:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, I can think of more examples where instead of using the scientific name for taxa with multiple popular common names, one of the common names is used. Cougar is an example, and though I don't have time to look, I'd be surprised if it weren't debated.  A lot of obscure lemur species also have multiple common names, and personally, I just make sure Wiki follows what I call the "lemur bible", Lemurs of Madagascar, which uses a primary common name and lists alternates in English and other languages.  I also know of cases where projects and/or individual editors use scientific names for taxa of more obscure species, even if a common name is available... usually because the academic literature only uses the scientific name. –  Maky  « talk » 17:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A lemur example might make sense if there's a case of one being at the sci. name here because of too much warring over the common one. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  11:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Commonname and taxon imperfectly overlap
Please understand that this list is simply intended to highlight a phenomenon which is interesting to note, not saying that in my view anything is wrong with any of these articles. Necessarily. Wikipedia may have already arrived at the optimum solution to any "problem" that may arise from these situations. I do think it does prove that there is nothing unusual or necessarily bad about an English animal word not having perfect overlap with a taxon. Chrisrus (talk) 21:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Understood; I'm simply seeking examples I can blue-link to illustrate the above two types of situations I outlined, instead of making one up. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  11:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Animal Articles
The following words refer to existant referents which have no scientific synomym; that is say, English words that do not correspond to any taxon; any Greek or Latin-based Taxonomic word: no catagory such as order, family, genus, or species. Please feel free to edit it or leave me a message about this list and what I do with it. Chrisrus (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Dog Split into two taxa, C.l.dingo and C.l.familiaris
 * Mole If you are a talpid and a mole, you're a True Mole. There are two "moles" that fit the English word, but are as unrelated as mammals can be.
 * Quail Any small roundish ground bird that reminds English-speakers of the British quail.
 * Whale Unless you say a porpoise is a whale, which is true, but English doesn't care.
 * Bullfrog Any bullish frog.
 * Civet Any such basal carnivore.
 * Vulture Evolved twice, but they're really not all that alike.
 * Fish Did you know that there is no taxon that equates to the English word "fish"? Not anymore!
 * Fox New and old world foxes evolved separately.
 * Squirrels English word's referent is rarely inclusive of woodchucks and such. "Squirrel" washes smoothly into "chipmonk" based on the tail.
 * Shrew-mole Neither here nor there.
 * Mistletoe And many other plants evolved more than once.
 * Monkey Defined as what it isn't.
 * Mongoose Many recently moved taxa.
 * Mole-rat Evolved more than once.
 * Mole-shrew Any shrew that has taken to a mole-shrew lifestyle and so evolved.
 * Porcupine Any rodent so evolved. Has happened twice.
 * Anteater Properly refers to the South American anteaters, but applies to any animal that has so evolved, which has happened repeatedly.
 * Ant bear Any large lumbering anteater.
 * Wolf Canis lupis = Wolf + (Dog = Dingo + Dog). Also includes rufus and probably others that are part Canis latrans.
 * Coyote Google "Canis soupus", you'll be glad you did. The Eastern Coyote is a hybrid.
 * Worm Any wormy thing, and some not so wormy things. As simple no-brainer for natural selection, it has evolved again and again.  There will be worms on other planets, too.
 * Bacteria What I said about "worm" applies here. As unrelated to each other as any taxa can be.
 * Pig A central referent orbited by progressivly vaguer orbits. Suina is pretty much all pigs, too, now that the hippos have been removed.  Some of these basal animals might not be pigs.  Evolved twice, unless the common ancestor of the Suids and Tayassuids was also a pig.
 * Jackal Any Canis species or subspecies that doesn't seem big or lupine enough for the word "Wolf"
 * Human, that article defines it as fully modern homo sapeins, but some experts use it for any Homo species, while others insist that the term be restricted to the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens. At the moment both Homo sapiens Homo sapiens sapiens.
 * Tube Worm Collection of taxa dealt with not only with a disambiguation page but also an article called Tube worm (body plan)
 * Skunk This article is not about skunks but rather the wider skunk family of animals, including their closest but still quite distant relatives, the Stink badgers, who, despite being more closely related to skunks, aren't called badgers for no reason. In fact, it took recent DNA research to convince many experts that they weren't badgers and have only been since then been declared a member of the wider skunk family, although they never said they actually were "skunks."
 * Lemur Nowadays, any Malagassy primate, even the unique Aye-aye, although others support the English language's reluctance to apply the word "lemur" to Aye-ayes.


 * I'll chime in on one of them: "monkey" is simply a paraphyletic term because we like to separate out apes and humans. As an article, Monkey could be developed, and that is its only problem.  I haven't tackled it because to do it right, it will probably take as much research and writing time as Lemur did... and that took me many months.  What will probably be the biggest obstacle is dividing and summarizing common information between that article, Simian, New World monkey, and Old World monkey.  However, it can be done.  I feel there are enough issues that pertain to both Old and New World monkeys to merit a full article.  –  Maky  « talk » 17:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Lemur is an excelent article and an excellent example of how to confront, head on, the taxonomy of a common name in a reader-friendly way. In fact, it goes so far as to have a spin-off article called Taxonomy of Lemurs.  All the other "Taxonomy of..."-titled articles I know of only deal with scientific names.  It makes me think that other articles ought to take notice.  I do, however, wish it could say something about why the word was applied to flying lemurs so comfortably.  Seems like it was the skull shape. Chrisrus (talk) 05:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Bacteria is also simply a paraphyletic group, except the status of the excluded group (Eucaryotes) is a bit more complex. We have in fact three rather long and quite good articles, Monera, Bacteria and Procaryote covering different aspects of the same group. All of them being important terms in their own right, I don't thing merging them will make Wikipedia better. Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have read Paraphyly. Many articles send us readers there.  Warm-blooded animals is one example they give there of a paraphyletic group, but it could not be said in another way, "warm-bloodedness seems to have evolved more than once"?  Such wording raises eyebrows and makes a reader say "Please, go on, explain" and makes us want to know more. Don't get me wrong, I appreciated being being sent to that article the first couple of times, but if each of such articles could replace or augment that link with simple words telling us what it means in the particular context, readers might at times be better served.  Chrisrus (talk) 05:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not quite, you're mixing paraphyly with polyphyly. Warm-blooded animals have as you say evolved more than once, making it a polyphyletic group. Reptiles on the other hand is the ancestor of both birds and mammals, so while reptiles have evolved only once, not all descendants of reptiles are reptiles, making it paraphyletic (taxonomically "incomplete"). Petter Bøckman (talk) 10:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Petter beat me to it in an edit conflict: to add to his comment, the salient characteristics of members of a paraphyletic group have not evolved more than once: they are "left-overs" from their ancestor. It just so happens that another group descended from the same ancestor has characteristics which differentiate it from the paraphyletic group. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There's a difference, I think, between two situations: an English name used because of a superficial resemblance between organisms and an English name used for a paraphyletic group which has genuine similarities because of shared ancestry.
 * The difference between a "rat" and a "mouse" in English is basically one of size; the existence of these words depends on the accidental fact that there is a size gap between the species found in England. Other languages which may have developed in places where there are more rat/mouse-like rodent species with no clear size difference don't make this distinction (it's not clearly made in Latin; although different words exist in Modern Greek, my experience is that the distinction is not consistently made; Malay uses tikus for many kinds of rodent although tetikus can be used for small ones, etc.). Having articles on "Rat" and "Mouse" makes no sense scientifically.
 * On the other hand, paraphyletic groups like monkeys do have many characteristics in common. It needs to be explained that excluded groups such as apes share many of the same characteristics, but this doesn't invalidate the shared characteristics of monkeys.
 * All this makes me glad I edit plant articles, where we overwhelmingly use scientific names (and usually move articles at common names to the scientific name when ambiguities arise). Peter coxhead (talk) 10:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

There are many in WP birds too....Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Raven some species in the genus Corvus

Redirection categorization templates
I thought it was worth separating out this thread from the discussion of when to include synonyms in articles.

My understanding is that the currently available templates should be used in redirects to taxon articles like this:


 * 1) The English name → English name cases arise mostly from typography, e.g. fully capitalized English names to sentence case English names.
 * 2) Although their names don't make it clear (although the template documentation does), R to scientific name is only supposed to be used from an English name, and R from scientific name to an English name. (I prefer "English" to "common" here because I include things like "acarid" to "Acaridae".)
 * 3) (I've now provided an alternative name for the English name → Scientific name case so that the "from" style of name can be used consistently if desired. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC))

I think that, picking up Stemonitis' comment above, it would be useful to be able to distinguish the two cells which can at present (if I'm right) only use R from synonym.

Proposal We create and use R from alternative scientific name for the Scientific name → Scientific name case. I thought about "R to correct scientific name" but (a) the correct name can change so the wording might become wrong (b) "correct" has strict meaning in the nomenclature codes so is best avoided here. On the other hand, "R to alternative scientific name" seems a bit weak. Obviously some abbreviations for the new template could be created as redirects, e.g. Raltsci. The only problem I see is that Category:Redirects from synonyms is already largely but not entirely populated by redirects which ought then to use the new categorization. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * One minor point: I think when categorising redirects between two non-scientific names, I would always use something more descriptive (R from alternative capitalisation, R from alternative name, R from title without diacritics and so on). --Stemonitis (talk) 10:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you use that as well as or instead of?
 * I'm also not sure if it would be of value to be able to pick up all four cells above as involving taxa, i.e. separate from any other kind of "synonym". Any views? Peter coxhead (talk) 18:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * As no-one objected, I have created R from alternative scientific name. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Anyone knowledgeable about global ecosystems?
The discussion at Talk:Montane forest could do with some input from someone knowledgeable about global ecosystems, if there is any such editor around. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

montane forest
Is there any special reason that montane forest redirects to cloud forest? A Web search suggests that it can also refer to dryish, Temperate Zone high-altitude forests such as our ponderosa pine forests here in New Mexico. Is there any reason to have "montane forest" take the reader anywhere, or should any links be to "montane" and "forest"? &mdash;JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've noted when writing articles on species and genera that the coverage of habitats and habitat classifications in Wikipedia is not good. My reading of the literature suggests that whereas "cloud forest" is a specific term for a habitat whose ecology is determined by regular envelopment in cloud and mist, a "montane forest" is just a high-altitude forest.
 * However, there's a more serious problem which needed fixing. Montane Forest redirected to Forest whereas Montane forest redirected to Cloud forest. This is quite contrary to all WP policies on article names and redirects. So for the present I've made both capitalizations of "montane forest" redirect to Forest. Ideally there should be a separate article on this subject. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I started a stub. It contains everything I know about mountain forests in general.  Unfortunately, I started it at Montane Forest.  I've requested admin help.  Anyway, I hope you or anyone else who's interested will take a look to see whether it's worth keeping or expanding. &mdash;JerryFriedman  (Talk) 05:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * While we're at it, should we have a general article (or set index or something) on stunted forest, pygmy forest (mostly about California), dwarf forest, elfin forest, krummholz, shola, tuckamore, and whatever else?  If so, what should it be called? I realize this is just one of the many problems about habitat articles. &mdash;JerryFriedman  (Talk) 04:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As you note, habitats are not well-covered in Wikipedia; I guess part of the problem is that they fall between/across different Wikiprojects. Thus Montane forest has been expanded largely from a botanical point of view so far; more should be added about animal life in such a habitat (or more precisely in such habitats, since montane forests in different latitudes are very different). "Habitat classifications by altitude" (I'm not suggesting this title for an article!) is another general topic which should be covered, i.e. the lowland – submontane – montane – subalpine – alpine – nival sequence, how the boundaries are defined, how the plants and animals differ, etc. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Altitudinal zonation? --Stemonitis (talk) 11:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This actually originated as a parsing error by whatever bot made us articles for all IUCN Red List taxa. It interpreted "Forest, montane" as "Forest" + a fictional category "montane". You will occasionally find "It lives in montanes, forests..." or similar.
 * I usually quick-fixed it to "montane forest"; some otherts did the same, yet others did something slightly different. Thanks Jerry for finally tackling this. It is coming along nicely, montane is a good redirect that can be made into a sort of index for all these articles.
 * Possibly, anyone could run a script/bot across Special:WhatLinksHere/Montane and pick out/fix all the species. There's literally hundreds, if not 1000s of articles that got messed up... Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Synonym redirects
How important is it to make redirects for the synonyms listed in species articles? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's a matter of judgement whether anyone is likely to search using the synonym. American Black-bellied Plover to European Grey Plover is a no brainer, but I wouldn't redirect from Scots dialect "tarrock" to Common Tern. Similarly, Common House Martin should have a redirect from Delichon urbica as well as Delichon urbicum, since the former was the accepted binomial until 2004, but not from the long-obsolete Hirundo urbica  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  11:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree rather strongly. Any synonym listed in the taxobox should be redirected to current valid combination, with more complicated stipulations for subjective synonyms. A user reading an 18th century paper and coming across Hirundo urbica will be looking for exactly the same taxon if he/she comes to Wikipedia, regardless of the length of the time the name has been considered invalid.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  11:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Obsidian. Reading older litterature with outdated names can be very confusing, and a redirect in Wikipedia would certainly help! Petter Bøckman (talk) 11:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's that important to have redirects; searches (via Google if not Wikipedia) will always bring up the old synonym if it's mentioned in the article. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That adds an unnecessary step to searching and creates misleading red links when synonyms are used in articles; which ultimately can give rise to duplicate articles if an editor happens to be unaware of the synonymy as Melburnian notes. Especially in the more obscure but nevertheless unambiguous objective synonyms. Clicking a red link, after all, does not take you to the search pages, but to a new blank page.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  12:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree that it's not a priority to add redirects from synonyms except those that are widely used (for whatever reason), but it certainly does no harm. What's perhaps more important is that the redirects that are put in place are correctly marked. They should all have R from synonym, R to scientific name or R from scientific name, as appropriate. (Actually, R from synonym is used for all sorts of things; it would be better to have a more specialised R from taxonomic synonym that could be used solely for synonyms of formal taxa; it could even be extended to R from alternative combination, R from junior synonym and so on.) Marking the redirects enables users and robots to understand how the title of the redirect relates to the main article title; linking the text "Delichon urbicum" is not wrong, whereas redirects from misspellings and so on would indicate something that needs to be altered. I consider creating redirects to be a routine part of article creation, but I recognise it's a desirable outcome, not the top priority. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * R from taxonomic synonym is a good idea. The others run into the problem of differences between the main codes of nomenclature (and the heated dispute among some zoologists as to whether an alternative combination is or is not a synonym). Peter coxhead (talk) 11:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The shorter the better I'd say, is it possible to create shortcuts for those templates? I routinely create a lot of redirects every time I create articles, with all the possible combinations (ucase, lcase, with or without dashes, compound or separate words etc.) I'm aware of them but have never used them simply because of the sheer tediousness of remembering the exact templates to be used and the number of redirects I go through.--  O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  13:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I created Rsci awhile ago. Dunno if folks still use it... - UtherSRG (talk) 13:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure we can come up with abbreviated versions. I was just trying to convey the concept, rather than to specify the eventual solution. (I wasn't trying to distinguish between "taxonomic synonyms" and "nomenclatural synonyms", for instance; there may well be a better phrase.) Is R taxsym short/memorable enough? --Stemonitis (talk) 13:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * looks good. Shouldn't it be to match with the previous though? I'm not too sure about having to distinguish between different types of synonyms (would add considerably to the work required), but I agree we should have a different template specifically for taxonomic synonyms.--  O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  13:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What R taxsyn or whatever it gets called should really mean is something like "redirect from an alternative scientific name" so that we don't get into disputes (as has happened at some animal articles) over what is a synonym, what is an illegitimate name, what is a name which has not been validly published (often the case with plant names used in horticulture for example), etc. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I usually create redirects from well-known synonyms straight after creating an article to prevent duplicate articles being created. Also they pick up synonym links used in existing and future articles, for example mentions of rare plants species in a national park where the source uses older names.Melburnian (talk) 12:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Picking up this point (and Obsidian Soul's reply to me above), the tricky issue is what counts as a "well-known" synonym. For example, I've been using Anderson's massive work to write about cacti recently. He seems to aim for taxonomically complete lists of synonyms. The same is true of the main source I used for Schlumbergera and its species.
 * Should all known synonyms (in the broad sense of the word) be mentioned in an article? So far I haven't taken this view. I can't see that Wikipedia readers need this information. Specialists who would want it can use the many online databases.
 * Should all synonyms mentioned in an article be set up as redirects? Generally I would say yes, given that I think that only the "well-known" ones should be in the article, but there are exceptions where this doesn't work (e.g. the synonym is now the correct name of something else).
 * Is there any evidence that people create duplicate articles under very old synonyms which wouldn't be classed as "well-known"? Peter coxhead (talk) 13:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that's been the case for duplicates I've encountered, though I can't remember what those articles were. Plus, take the example of lists of genera/species where synonyms often exist alongside valid/correct names undetected simply because they were not redirected to their correct articles when they should have. I come across the latter very often, especially where editors simply add all the names that look like they belong there without bothering to verify validity. Redirecting synonyms aren't a requirement of course, but AFAIK there is no argument against adding them, other than additional work for the editor. They're synonyms, they're the very things redirects were made for - alternative names for the same subject. If we create redirects for all the possible common names, why not scientific names? And again, subjective synonyms are a completely different thing.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  14:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It isn't all that simple. The number of synonyms can sometimes be huge. Speaking for WP:GAST, we mention all known synonyms in the taxobox. Furthermore we mention a list of the synonyms, as we go along, in the articles about genera and families : see Pyrgulina. Any search under the name of the synonym in Wikipedia (or in Google) will then turn up the synonym, if we have already treated the accepted name with an article. There about 80,000 to 100,000 species in Mollusca and the synonyms number somewhere between 300,000 and 500,000 (no one really knows). If we have to make a redirect for every synonym we encounter, then wikipedia will be flooded with redirects. Just imagine the number of redirects that would have to be created for this subspecies Conus ventricosus mediterraneus. On the other hand, we make a redirect each time the name of a species becomes a synonym and we have to make a move to the accepted name, such as was done with  Conus mediterraneus. Each project in WP:TOL should make such a consideration for its own project, but certainly not make it a general rule for all. JoJan (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirects are cheap. And again, it doesn't really matter how "well-known" they are (a completely subjective judgement in itself which brings a whole plethora of other problems) or how old. What matters is that these are referring to the same subject. -- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  14:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * [ec: Great minds think alike!] Redirects are cheap. The problem is not with Wikipedia being "flooded" with them, but the time taken (by us) to create them. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (another ec) What is the problem with "flooding" Wikipedia with redirects? We already have almost 4 million articles and more than 26 million pages in this Wikipedia; a few hundred thousand extra redirects won't kill the servers. It shouldn't even be difficult to write a bot that automatically redirects all synonyms listed in the taxobox (though such a bot can run into problems with homonyms). Ucucha (talk) 14:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Some Taxonomic synonyms have articles of their own. Dasycyon hagenbecki, for example, is an interesting little story about a terrible mistake or hoax, but is now listed as a synonym for C.l.familiaris because any specimen with that label is filed under "domestic dog". Any invalid taxa with an interesting story like that should get it's own article. Not only embarassing hoaxes or errors, but also just any interesting or important explanations for how the an invalid taxon came to be used in the first place and/or why it came to be invalid now, there are many reasons. Look where Homo sapiens asiaticus luridus, etc. redirect, for example. Very interesting. Other invalid taxa such as Canis antarcticus have disambiguation pages of their own. New Rule: No reverting with edit summaries saying words to the effect of "these don't need redirecting or articles because they are invalid taxa." Because he-who-shall-remain-nameless has done that to me. Find some other grounds if you must, but there is no principle that invalid taxa shall be black-font, not left as red or blue links. Chrisrus (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Those are relatively uncommon though (I've only encountered one of those in my editing: Shillingsworthia shillingsworthii). While there are many reasons for synonyms, most of them are quite boring and straightforward. These are best explained in the article of the taxon itself, that's the main purpose of the Taxonomy (or Systematics) section after all.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  15:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Shillinsworthia shillingsworthi should get a section redirect. Although a simple article redirect is good, I had to dig around to find the section in which it's mentioned, so a section redirect would be even better.
 * The "boring" majority you describe should redirect to the "Taxonomy" section of the articles if that's the only place they are mentioned.
 * Having said that, however, I'd like to state that the story behind an invalid taxon may be boring to one person but interesting to another. Isn't there always a citation where they explain the grounds that it's invalid?  A short article might say "Examplia exampli" is an invalid taxon which has been used for The Norwegian blue parrot (Parrotus montypythoni).  It was declared invalid on the grounds that it had already been described and given another name earlier by someone else.(Cite Book taxonomic decisions of The Society of Respected Authorities Who Decide Such Things.)"  And then stop, that's all such an article might ever need to say.  It might be interesting or important to know whether it was a mistake that calls into question the reputation of those who proposed and used it, or whether it was just because of some other reason that would not do so, such as the fact that someone thought they discovered something new but could not have known that another had already met and named that species, and so had done nothing wrong.  This seems at least potentially important to know, at least to some people.  Chrisrus (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That's quite unrealistic and would effectively increase the workload many times over. We don't even have articles for all the accepted taxa yet, much less start writing articles on invalid ones. The example you gave is one of the most common reasons for a name being declared invalid. When such synonyms are notable they are ideally discussed in the Taxonomy section. But aside from a very few exceptions, they really do not deserve separate articles. They would be so short with so limited a context that there's no reason why it could not be discussed in the article of the accepted name in the first place. The author citations included with each name also already provide a limited overview of the history of the name. Sometimes explicitly, e.g. names marked with "nom nud." (nomen nudum) already give you a pretty good idea of why it's not accepted. So aside from instances of weird namings, I would actually agree with whoever he-who-shall-remain-nameless is. I can't imagine any instances where linking a name you know is invalid would be justifiable. They should be changed to the accepted name lest a reader misinterprets it to be acceptable; or redirected/piped if the name needs to be displayed as is (as in the case of type species in the taxoboxes). -- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  18:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You say you can't imagine why an invalid taxon should link, but each has a story, as in the example Dasycyon hagenbecki I referred to above, or Canis hallstromi which is more notable than many valid taxa. We won't have to worry about people misunderstanding things as you describe if we are careful and do it properly.  Chrisrus (talk) 15:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think we have to worry about what invalid taxa should have their own articles, and what should have a redirect: If an invalid taxon is interesting enough for an editor to make an article, well, then it is clearly interesting enough. Wikipedia is full of articles on the critters in the Mos Eisley cantina, so there's clearly room for articles on Brontosaurus, Trachodon and Homo troglodytes (a redirect, article and section redirect respectively). Every now and then I see well meaning editors argue that this and that article should not be written, because there are other articles that are more important. This is not a valid reason for stopping editors from making articles. We can not force editors to make certain articles over others as long as Wikipedia is a voluntary project. The articles that are made are made, if someone wants other articles, then he need to make them him/her self. Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I usually interpret MOS:BOLDTITLE insofar as that anything bolded in an article should redirect to this article (or disambiguate there).
 * As regards Category:Obsolete taxonomic groups, the articles there should be our guideline. If quality wortk, such as here, can be delivered, it is a welcome addition. Bare-bones taxo stubs, rather not. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 20:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Taxonomy vs Classification vs Systematics vs.....
Dear all, since I've been writing biology articles, I and many (other editors) have had a section (generally first or second after the lead) which combines discussion of common names, scientific names, classification, subspecies, and sometimes hybridisation and evolution. To me combining these in one section is often prudent as (a) they are often all quite intertwined, especially with more cladistics around, and (b) splitting into separate subsections often results in very small sections. I'll sometimes split off etymology as a subsection if a word has a lengthy evolution which is notable and germane to the article.

Now to date, I've used the section title taxonomy (sometimes with and naming or and evolution) but this is not particularly accessible to lay readers I suspect. Anyway, I am not fussed which word we do use, but in the interests of conformity I reckon we should all use the same word if we can. So time to vote then as there are alot of us....personally I could go with any of the three, but just think we should all use the same heading if we can. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

PS: If someone can find the best biological definitions and add, that would be immensely helpful I think. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * One of the best discussions on this subject remains the one by Ernst Mayr in "The Growth of Biological Thought" (1982):


 * "The terms "taxonomy" and "systematics" were generally considered as synonymous during the first half of this century. If asked what the tasks of systematics are, the taxonomist would have answered, "To describe the diversity of nature (meaning: to describe the species of which diversity exists) and to classify it." And yet as far back as the days of Leeuwenhoek and Swammerdam in the seventeenth century it has become evident that the study of organic diversity comprised more than the description and classification of species. Already then (and as a matter of fact as far back as Aristotle) it was apparent that the study of diversity included the analysis of stages of the life cycle and of sexual dimorphism. When living animals were studied in nature, it was also found that different species occurred in different habitats, preferred different foods, and had different behaviors. But it was not until the middle of this century that the great importance of the study of diversity was fully realized, in the wake of the new systematics and the evolutionary synthesis. It then became apparent that the traditional definition of the definition of systematics was far too limited.


 * As a consequence Simpson (1961) made a clear terminological distinction between taxonomy and systematics. He retained the term "taxonomy" in its traditional meaning, but gave to "systematics" a much broader scope, defining it as "the scientific study of the kinds and diversity of organisms, and of any and all relationships among them." Systematics thus was conceived as the science of diversity and this new broadened concept of systematics has been widely adopted." Ernst Mayr


 * Alternatively, I've listed a few of the better more recent definitions from botanical texts below (but the addition of more would be great, especially from animal/fungal works).


 * BC Myles (talk) 12:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's the definitions from the "Fungal Bible" (Dictionary of the Fungi, 10th edition, 2008) (all are just the first sentence or two from larger entries):
 * Classification: "The assigning of objects to defined categories; taxonomy. The application of scientific names to the categories into which the fungi may be placed and the relative order of those categories is governed by an internationally agreed code (see Nomenclature)."
 * Nomenclature: "The allocation of scientific names to units which a systematist considers merit formal recognition."
 * Systematics: "Also Biosystematics (q.v.) The study of the relationships and classification of organisms and the processes by which they have evolved and are maintained (includes the subdisciplines of nomenclature and taxonomy)".
 * Taxonomy: The science of classification, in biology the arrangement of organisms into a classification". Sasata (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Classification
Possibly most accessible name. If supporting this option, indicate whether need to add and naming in title.

Support

 * 1) Classification IMO isd the "most accessible name" for general readers. --Philcha (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, but only as a guideline. This is the accessible name, and I think it implies phylogenetics and nomenclature just fine. However, I agree with Sabine's Sunbird below, that there should be no concrete rule around headings. —Pengo 01:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Support if we have all major subcategories. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Does not include phylogenetics and nomenclature, which are frequently discussed in these sections.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Yeah, I am thinking this is too narrow. Its only benefit is ease of understanding, but systematics is pretty self explanatory as well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Far too narrow, pretty clear from the discussions here that using exclusively either "taxonomy" or "systematics" would be better in terms of what these sections cover. &mdash;innotata 15:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Too narrow, and perhaps most importantly: Often used in other fields beside biology. Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
In general, I would suggest we use the 3 terms as defined: whenever we have only 1 or 2 done. Articles usually grow by bits and pieces.
 * 1) taxonomy, chopping up the perceived tree of life into parts (taxa)
 * 2) nomenclature, assigning names to the taxa
 * 3) systematics, arranging them in space/time back to get closer to resolving the "true" tree of life.

As soon as we have all 3 together (nomenclature would likely often be the last to be written, but may just as well be first), we use "Classification" instead. Then, use the above 3 as subsections of "Classification" as needed. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Tried it out. Looks weird. Might be it's unusual, I don't think it will still look weird in one year if we adopt it more commonly. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Taxonomy
Less accessible name, but used to date in most bio articles with headers.
 * Definition 1: Judd et al., 2007 (Plant Systematics - A Phylogenetic Approach textbook) - Theory and practice of grouping individuals into species, arranging species into larger groups, and giving those groups names, thus producing a classification.
 * Definition 2: Simpson, 2010 (Plant Systematics textbook) - A field of science (and major component of systematics) that encompasses description, identification, nomenclature, and classification.

Support

 * 1) The section aims to answer the questions "What is it called? and why? What is it related to?". The normal word for this is "taxonomy". "Classification" is just about what it is related to, not what it is called. And "systematics" will mean nothing to most general readers. Maproom (talk) 14:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Does not include phylogenetics and nomenclature, which are frequently discussed in these sections.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh? Taxonomy does not include nomenclature? Surely you don't mean that! Peter coxhead (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Taxonomy sensu strictu does not include nomenclature; it is simply the "philosophical" circumscribing of nested sets from a bunch of individual organisms in space/time. Taxonomy sensu lato, as the practical work of biological classification, includes nomenclature. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Systematics
If taken broadly, the most accurate (?) - again if supporting, should we add and naming in title.
 * Definition 1: Judd et al., 2007 (Plant Systematics - A Phylogenetic Approach textbook) - The science of organismal diversity; frequently used in a sense roughly equivalent to taxonomy.
 * Definition 2: Simpson, 2010 (Plant Systematics textbook) - A science that includes and emcompasses traditional taxonomy and that has as its primary goal the reconstruction of phylogeny.

Support

 * 1) This is a non issue. Systematics includes all aspects, and what we need is a broad header. For example, many taxonomy headers also contain substantial phylogenetics discussions, which is neither taxonomy nor classification. Systematics already includes naming and nomenclature. So, easy catch all term that covers what we actually put in the sections. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Okay, you've won me. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)bc
 * 3) Excellent. Great to see this getting support. I don't think there's any doubt that it's the most accurate heading for the type of content that goes in this section-- the issue is if the lay reader will understand it. I would think it's at least as familiar to people as "taxonomy", and as it gets used more here it will only become more familiar. Some level of biological literacy needs to be expected of readers looking at biological articles, and I would say the average reader would be more than capable of quickly working it out. Perhaps some effort should be directed towards the Systematics page though. Also, I think adding "and naming" to the title would be redundant. BC Myles (talk)
 * 4) I will support this one, its what I have been doing on the turtle pages I created as its a more accurate title. Please note though that despite Simpsons view, taxonomy is not really part of systematics. These are separate sciences. A look at journal papers studying the genomes of species should show this. Geneticists are usually not taxonomists, and hence they rarely describe new species in their main papers. Systematics is about identifying the relationships of organisms, ie tree building. Taxonomy is about description, identification, classification and naming. Cheers,  Faendalimas  talk 16:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So, the Society for Systematic Biology should be renamed? See http://systbio.org/?q=node/204 -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm for it. Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
Arguably, "Systematics" does not cover some of the more obscure aspects of nomenclature, such as pre-Linnean terms and folk names. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Other ideas
Add other proposals below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The section heading will depend on the contents, and will vary quite widely between taxa (at least for some groups of organisms). Some taxa need a lot of discussion of nomenclature, while others were named once and nothing has changed since. Some taxa need a lot of discussion of taxonomic placement, while others need very little. For some taxa, there is a lot of phylogenetic background to be given, and other times there isn't. The section heading should fit the contents, and should be allowed to fit them. Likewise, editors should not be forced to adopt particular structures where that isn't appropriate. If the nomenclature is best dealt with in a section on subspecies, say (I can't see why it would be, but this is merely for the sake of argument), then that should be allowed. I don't think any one name will be sufficiently generally applicable to be given special status here as our preferred section heading. A section chiefly about nomenclature (with some material on phylogenetics) should be called "Nomenclature"; a section chiefly on phylogenetics (with some material on taxonomic circumscription) should be called "Phylogenetics"; and so on. Standardising headings is an issue for featured topics, but not for the whole Tree of Life project. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree there will be some variance, but all species will have discussion on what genus (or family) they're in, why they are named and subspecies if there are any, and systematics covers this. Stemonitis can you see any reason why we'd use taxonomy any more then? Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Taxonomy fits when there's discussion of taxonomic circumscription (and nomenclature if included), but no description of evolution or ecology (parts "e" and "f" of the definition at systematics). This happens to be how I tend to write, and "Taxonomy" tends to be the heading I use, although I accept it's not ideal for the lay reader. (I'm not sure "Systematics" is any better in that regard.) --Stemonitis (talk) 14:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're quite right that forcing authors to use a title that doesn't best fit what they're written would be undesirable-- but I'm not sure that's what's happening here. At the moment hundreds (thousands?) of taxon articles use the "catch-all" title "Taxonomy" for a variety of phylogenetic/classification/nomenclatural information. For an example see the Asteraceae page, which has a phylogenetic tree in the "Taxonomy" section. This is not correct use of the heading "Taxonomy", as this discipline does not include investigating relationships. This vote is meant to bring attention to this trend on Wikipedia, and potentially offer a solution by encouraging the use of "Systematics" (or whatever is decided upon) instead. If there was lots of information available, "Systematics", being the broad discipline that it is, could easily accommodate multiple sub-headings (like "Nomenclature" and "Phylogenetics" that you've listed above). This would be left up to the author. In the end I think encouraging the use of a more accurate header solves more issues than it creates. BC Myles (talk) 14:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have lent my support above to systematics, however, I do have a concern. The trend of trying to force, actively encourage, whatever you want to call it, editors into set titles, headers etc, is not a good thing. Someone mentioned that a basic understanding of biology should be expected of readers looking at these articles. Well conversely I think the same can be said of editors. I think our editors should have not only the option but the capacity to utilise those titles that best fit. If I am writing out a complicated nomenclatural issue I want to place that under the taxonomy, or nomenclature title, not be forced to call this systematics which it is not. Having seen how these proposals go, once in place, mindless editors who are probably after edit counts do go through these pages changing things to be inline with their concept of WP: whatever policy.. wether it really applies or fits or not. Remember in biology there is one rule, there is always an exception to any rule. Yes thats a little tongue in cheek but its the point I am after here. Cheers, Faendalimas  talk 16:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm with Faendalimas on this one. First of all, I dispute the contention that the term "taxonomy" is less accessible than "systematics"; in my own personal experience (yes, I know, anecdotal evidence is weak argumentative evidence) I learned what taxonomy was in grade 10 science (Canada), and hadn't heard of "systematics" until I started hanging around here. I'm perfectly fine with naming these sections as "Taxonomy", or "Taxonomy and classification", or "Taxonomy and phylogeny", or even "Systematics", etc. as the subject material in the section dictates. If there's a problem with some current articles that have these sections named inappropriately (because they cover material broader than traditionally covered by the term taxonomy), then these can be resolved on a case-by-case basis with a suggestion for section renaming on article talk. Sasata (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? The word "system" is commonly used in English, "taxon" is not. Even as a lad I knew what "systematics" was, I don't even think I heard the world "Taxonomy" until my 2nd year in biology at the university. Granted, I am not a native English speaker, but that is true for a lot our readers too. Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but knowing "system" does not explain "systematics". It could just as well be systems biology or systemics, for instance. The word "taxon" is not well known, but I think "taxonomy" is surprisingly widespread. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Systematics' sounds like it could be the title of a Janet Jackson song..... ;) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose any binding rule for whole project. I'm still pissed off that we have enforced non-bolding of scientific names. Enough with the rule creep already. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  19:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I wouldn't call it "rule creep" really, as it's not that a "rule" (suggestion) is trying to be newly created here. This all started because at the WikiProject_Plants/Template page, the current suggestion is to have the heading "Taxonomy", and then include evolutionary history information within that-- which is incorrect. Your issue seems to be more with having templates at all, and that's perhaps a different thread. Although keep in mind that having a free and open article structure to every taxon page sounds great, the end result is that there's little consistency between pages. For the reader that occasionally looks at one page and moves on this has no effect at all. For readers that regularly use Wikipedia to learn about taxa, this could get frustrating, as with every different page they'd encounter a new structure. BC Myles (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Do we really impose that? Un-bolding the scientific name (which redirects there after all) is just ridiculous. We should overturn any such recommendation. I put scientific names (where the title is a common name) in boldface, and I would resist any attempts to change that. I thought it odd when looking at the bird articles; now monotypic genera (sorry to bring it up again) have the genus name in boldface, but not the binomen. That can't be right. If you wanted to pursue this (in a separate thread), I would support you all the way. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. As per my MOS:BOLD rule-of-thumb below, it is a main redirect, if not THE redirect - it should be bolded of course! Even unrelated articles like 57 mm anti-tank gun M1943 (ZiS-2) bold the equivalent terms throughout at their first appearance. It is in line with the general boldface MoS.Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Writing as someone who's a bit of an outsider (i.e. as someone who's never been academically involved in any of the biological sciences), I'm inclined to favour the approach of editors simply being more circumspect about what they write about under different headings, and using only those headings which are most apposite to what they are writing about. This would not only be inherently more accurate, but would also minimise confusion for readers (like myself) who are not already intimately acquainted with all the different terms. Having any kind of 'catch-all' term, whatever it is, is surely putting neatness of presentation ahead of truth. If editors write about something of purely taxonomic delineation under the heading 'systematics', or conversely something about systematic relationships under a heading 'taxonomy', this is actually a kind of misinformation, and not furthering the cause of wider education. I appreciate that there is (a great deal of) overlap between the subjects covered by the different headings, but surely this is reason to be very careful about making differences clear, rather than fudging them together? I have looked at the articles (and sections) on systematics, phylogenetics and biological taxonomy, and their presentation to the layperson is rather dense and (in terms of precisely how they delineate from each other) unclear. If as a result, an educated person such as myself is inclined to feel, "I can't be bothered", I wonder who exactly these articles are aimed at - people who are already familiar with their content? I think that having catch-all headings - of any description - might be a similar scenario. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Same here. I also prefer it be kept to the discretion of the editor. With a Systematics heading, we are now obligated to include possibly very long cladograms and whatnot in what used to be the Taxonomy section (which is usually high up on the article). This can clutter the layout a bit and the reader will first encounter confusing cladograms before the reader can even read other sections. That is actually one of the reasons why I separate Taxonomy from Phylogeny - Taxonomy is at least reasonably understandable, and is required for other more laymen-oriented sections. Phylogeny is highly specialized and pushing it early to the reader can lose his interest. P.S. I still bold scientific names as in my understanding, it was only for certain layouts of the lead (" Common name (Scientific name) is... " rather than the " Scientific name, commonly known as Common name, is... " that I usually prefer. :P --  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   23:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Systematics includes taxonomy. Have a look at the definitions above and the quote from Ernst Mayr. Just because you don't discuss every possible subfield of systematics under that heading does not mean that you can't still call it systematics. In no way would you now be obligated to show phylogenetic trees. I can also think of no situation where having systematic information coming before descriptive information would be desirable. BC Myles (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Exactly the point. Since it includes both phylogeny and taxonomy, you now have to discuss phylogeny (including cladograms) under the same heading. Unless... you propose to have a section called Systematics and a separate one called Phylogeny or you remove Phylogeny altogether. Taxonomy is usually the second (or first) section in an article on taxa. This is necessary because in some articles the Description also discusses relationships with other organisms, e.g. "Like all members of the family, X has this and that.", or "Unlike other genera of the family, X lacks this and that". If you haven't described its taxonomic relationships yet (in the Taxonomy section), it would be jarring and wouldn't make sense.


 * And by having cladograms that early, you needlessly complicate the article for a layman reader who's probably not interested in it at all. I put cladograms at the end of the articles for this reason.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   01:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * These really are not the same thing. Systematics is not inclusive of taxonomy but dependant on it. Mayr's comments from the 1980's stemmed from a series of essays he did. His "synthesis of diverse disciplines" he was trying to bring systematics and taxonomy back together. Concurrent suggestions by geneticists that all morphological and statistical data be relegated to being placed on a genetic tree kind of destroyed this option. The paleo's who have no genetic data and need living species to have valid morphological data were unimpressed by this. So the reality is that systematics relies on taxonomy as do most biological sciences.


 * Further to other points here, it is sensible of course to cover description first which is pretty much taxonomy, then an article may go into other areas, eg ecology, distribution etc, then come back to systematics for looking at relationships. Do you really want to have the Systematics header appear twice in an article? Also it has been hinted at here that these be adopted by everyone, that means policy and that means loss of freedom of choice by the editor. I don't think that any suggestion has been made that because you use the term systematics you must include its phylogeny. But I do not want to see the phylogeny put to the front of the article, too much detail too quick for many readers. I definitely oppose any increases to policy, which I will also call "rule-creep" as we have enough of them already. Cheers, Faendalimas  talk 02:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Impossible to decide as the terms involved do not have sufficiently clear definitions and usages. Both the discussion above and the articles which cover various aspects of Systematics, Taxonomy, Classification and Nomenclature all make it quite clear that there simply aren't sharp consensus definitions of these terms which we can all agree on. Without them, we are often just arguing at cross-purposes. For example, the Judd (2007) definition of Systematics ("The science of organismal diversity; frequently used in a sense roughly equivalent to taxonomy") is used above to support Systematics as a title, but could equally be read the other way round (i.e. that Taxonomy is roughly equivalent to Systematics) to support Taxonomy. The correct advice is surely that given by User:Stemonitis: the section heading should fit the content. I suspect that "Taxonomy" is being used too often, and other headings would often be better, but there's no one-size-fits-all replacement. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Lets close this then as the discussion seems to me to be at a stalemate on this issue. I think Peter Coxhead has made a good point here. The title taxonomy is probably overused. That can be fixed with careful discussion on a case by case basis. I think the discussion here has been good and useful but we are not going to make a decision here. There are too many variable definitions and to much variability in the species articles to put such restrictions as hinted at above in place. Therefore I propose that any thought of a recommendation on headers here be set aside and we close this discussion. If anything comes of this we editors need to be diligent on the usage of these terms and that the relevant pages on taxonomy, sytematics etc be made clear on what these terms mean so that editors can make good decisions on the header of these sections in species articles. Cheers, Faendalimas  talk 14:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Aren't taxonomy and systematics nearly equivalent? This would be as conventionally defined, not as defined by Simpson and Mayr intentionally to make a distinction; and even according to Judd, as Peter Coxhead points out, systematics after Simpson and Mayr is "frequently used in a sense roughly equivalent to taxonomy". Though systematics appears to be more appropriate for what field of knowledge is discussed under "taxonomy" sections, isn't "taxonomy" more accessible? (I don't know how we would find which one is more accessible, but like Sasata, I would expect "taxonomy" is from personal experience.) I don't think this makes "systematics" improper for section headings, but isn't part of the distinction between "systematics" and "taxonomy" that "systematics" is more the field of inquiry than what is known about relations and the resulting classification? Lastly, I don't see the benefit of making a blanket suggestion or rule, and as much as a problem exists in article headings, it may be better to solve case by case. &mdash;innotata 16:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No they are not, taxonomy is about identification and classification. Systematics is about relationships. That is the conventional definitions. As for accessability, if you mean by this who would know what they mean without having to look them up, I think most probably hear of taxonomy first but systematics soon follows. Both words appear in dictionaries with their biological meanings. Scientists who work in the field tend to call themselves taxonomists, not systematists (I refer to myself as a taxonomist/palaeontologist to my peers) so I think they are relatively equal, maybe slightly favoring taxonomy. That one is also considered a career path probably gives it more familiarity. In descriptions of new species there will usually be 2 sections separately called taxonomy and systematics, or a header listing both. Cheer, Faendalimas  talk 17:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The impression that I've had, and that the definitions mentioned in this discussion give, is that the terms are used variously, and are definitely not clearly two separate matters. I'm still not convinced there is a problem with "taxonomy", or of any name for the sections in question though. Does "systematics" cover subjects that "taxonomy" does not enough to matter? &mdash;innotata 17:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The above discussions remind me of physical geography lectures I attended in the 1980s, and reinforces in my mind the feeling which prompted a comment I made at the WikiProject Plants talk page, concerning this aspect of botany being in a state of flux and possibly undergoing a slow paradigm shift (away from pure classification and instead more towards evolution/phylogenetics/cladistics etc.)(well, this is the impression I have gained from Wikipedia pages and discussions - please correct me if I'm wrong!). Often academic disciplines move forward from one general set of beliefs and priorities to another, not solely as a result of inevitable general momentum in a certain direction, but because a few individuals are active proponents and push their own view (rightly or wrongly). Faendalimas' mention of Mayr trying to bring systematics and taxonomy back together seems (on the face of it) typical of this kind of behaviour (on the part of Mayr). The evolution of academic disciplines cannot be divorced from the personalities involved - it is wise to remember this. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure. But as a heavy reader of these articles, I prefer whichever option encourages less talk about what something should be called and more about how it attaches to the tree of life; i.e.: claddistics explained in terms of branches on a family tree. Chrisrus (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Great discussion. A few things have become clear. (1) My purpose for attempting to standardize with "systematics" because I was becoming frustrated with so many taxa pages containing such obviously different structures. As a systematist, I like order. Wikipedia holds a lot of power for informing people about biodiversity, because its so visible. But, as I've learned, this is an open encyclopedia and turning the ToL related pages into a cohesive and standardized whole is not really feasible (and probably not even desirable from the opinions here). (2) It's not that the terms "Taxonomy" and "Systematics" don't have sharp definitions. Taxonomy does. All the taxonomic definitions mainly say the same thing. Nowhere will you find one that says it includes investigating evolutionary history (phylogeny). I've rewritten the page Taxonomy to that effect (though it still needs more work as I didn't have a lot of time-- feel free to contribute/correct anything I've missed/messed up). Taxonomy as sharply defined field, is fine. (3) The issue is with the newer term "systematics". It's been said a few times that taxonomy and systematics each have clearly defined differences, and one is about identification and classification, the other about relationships. There have been no definitions supporting this, but I see where it comes from. A few others (including me), have said that "systematics" includes "taxonomy" (based on the definitions, Ernst Mayr, etc.). But realistically, both views are wrong (and right). The term "systematics" is a gray area. Some of literature uses it as its own field distinct from taxonomy (if you search "taxonomy and systematics" on Web of Science or Google Scholar quite a few hits come up-- so clearly some authors see them as separate), and some of the literature treats systematics as if it includes taxonomy (shown in the definitions, and the content of "systematics" sections in many journal articles). This makes the term more versatile, because it has essentially two correct definitions, but also a bit "messy" if you like. Still, this resolves the issue for me.


 * I'm totally fine with the issue being closed, and authors selecting whatever headers, order, content, etc. they chose for every page. Readers are smart and will sort it out. BC Myles (talk) 08:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "Nowhere will you find [a definition of taxonomy] that says it includes investigating evolutionary history"
 * This may be true if you concentrate on the word "investigating"; those who construct cladograms based on molecular evidence don't generally regard themselves as doing taxonomy. But the reverse is clearly not true: those who do taxonomy have to study, describe and/or summarize research on evolutionary history; consider all the papers which have been produced by the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group, whose concern is with both the phylogeny and the classification (at the level of orders and families) of the angiosperms. Hence one part of explaining the taxonomy of a group in a Wikipedia article is often explaining the research on its phylogeny.
 * This statement also seems not to express a NPOV regarding phylogenetic nomenclature and the PhyloCode, which is "designed to name clades by explicit reference to phylogeny" (Cantino et al. 2007). I hold no brief for the PhyloCode per se but the view that taxa should be monophyletic is now mainstream. It's impossible to explain the modern classification of Hominoidea, for example, without explaining the current view of their phylogeny.
 * My point is – at the risk of being repetitiously boring – that all these topics are fuzzily related to one another. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "Hence one part of explaining the taxonomy of a group in a Wikipedia article is often explaining the research on its phylogeny."
 * Exactly. And once you do that you are now discussing Systematics. Calling a section that includes both taxonomic and phylogenetic content Taxonomy is incorrect. The APG name their text book "Plant Systematics - A Phylogenetic Approach", and not "Plant Taxonomy...". This is why I suggested changing the name of the "recommended" header from taxonomy to systematics in the first place, to be more accurate given how much reliance classification now has on phylogenetics (or even a header like "Taxonomy and systematics" apparently would be accurate, although it still looks a bit odd to me). As you mentioned, it is often difficult these days to strictly talk about "taxonomy" without discussing relationships (unless, for example, we're discussing a manuscript on a newly discovered species, placed in a classification purely on morphological grounds), and so we see the term systematics being used more often. But regardless, if you'd prefer to continue placing phylogenetic content within a Taxonomy section, more power to you. I think realistically, being totally accurate with respect to what goes under a header on a website like Wikipedia is not necessary. The main objective is that the contained information gets across.
 * Re the PhyloCode, as they've said many times, this is a code of nomenclature and not taxonomy as a whole. So I don't know that your NPOV point is relevant. As the PhyloCode is still unimplemented (currently on version 4c), I don't think we need to worry about revisiting all the textbook definitions to make sure they fall in line just yet. If it starts to be widely followed, then we'll do that. BC Myles (talk) 06:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Faendalimas on not forcing the issue. We might just agree on guidelines, like using an overarching term like "Classification" or "systematics" whenever such a section is fairly comprehensive, and turn to "taxonomy", "nomenclature" etc when the article still contains just that.
 * "Systematics" is OK by me but not ideal as an overall term. Strictly speaking, systematics is not concerned with drawing boundaries, but with arranging puzzle pieces into a tree shape. How and where they connect is not its main concern. (In a nutshell: "taxonomy was revolutionized by Linnaeus, systematics by Darwin; each would technically have been possible without the other".) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Re-invention?
I have just discovered this discussion. I started a proposal for seriously and systematically constructing a structure of articles on such topics. It seems to me that by relying on such a structure for cross-reference, we could short-circuit such problems. Anyone with comments for the discussion page of Taxonomy would be welcome, I am sure. JonRichfield (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest the sections be called "Taxonomy and Relationships" and they be called upon to clarify not only what things are called per se exactly but more importantly how they fit onto the Tree of Life. This is the best way to serve the reader, I think. Chrisrus (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel each article should be handled as a separate case and the term (or terms) that seems most applicable to that article's section should be used. If there's a disagreement about it, carry on at that article's talk page. No consensus is needed for literary style. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 22:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's certainly a possibility, but in that case there ought to be some guidance provided as to which header is most appropriate for certain kinds of content. That is, if the article is entirely about the history of nomenclature and circumscription, prefer section title X, but if the focus is on a cladogram and molecular analysis of relationships, prefer section title Y.  Right now, there are situations where the header in use is a mismatch for the included content.  --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This seems to me the most sensible outcome from this discussion. There's clearly no consensus for rigidly fixed section titles, but there are some commonly used titles which editors have tried to use, not always appropriately. However, this leave the "who's going to bell the cat?" question: who is going to provide this guidance? Peter coxhead (talk) 21:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it's really true that someone has to provide guidance. If you're writing only about taxonomy, call it Taxonomy; if it's about systematics, call it Systematics; if it's about evolution, call it Evolution. I don't think we need explicit guidance for such common-sense decisions. The heading should reflect the title, and I'm sure that's already stated in the guidelines (unless it's so obvious that no-one has mentioned it yet). --Stemonitis (talk) 23:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * While you would think that would be the case, but it hasn't been. This is why the whole issue arose in the first place. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. "Taxonomy", for example, is regularly used for content which is quite wide in scope, where perhaps "Systematics" would be more appropriate. I think it would be useful to add some guidance to the template page. Peter coxhead (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)