Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 7

What does eo- mean?
I have Google News email each day with a digest containing all news stories about whales. Today it informed of a discovery of a new (extinct) species - Eobalaenoptera harrisoni - I will add a spot of information about this work at the appropriate place. However I am a little unsure about where that place is - there is a genus Balaenoptera and families Neobalaenidae and Balaenopteridae (the latter contains Balaenoptera genus). Can anyone tell me what the prefix eo- means in this context? Is it possible for me to say where this animal, which died out millions of year ago, fits into the modern taxonomy. (At minimum it was a baleen whale, but that only takes us down to suborder level). Pcb21| Pete 22:10, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Took me a bit of Googling to get the right combo: Good answer at The Student Nurse Forum: eo- is 'dawn, early (eobacterium)'. - UtherSRG 22:18, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * A follow up: Eos is the Titan Goddess of dawn in Greek mythology. When in doubt, ask the Greeks or Romans. *grins* - UtherSRG 02:20, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * All animals, no matter when they died out fit into the "modern" taxonomy.--Oldak Quill 08:34, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry I am able to more clear now, armed with Uther's helpful responses. Should I treat Eobaleaenoptera as the same genus as Balaenoptera (with eo merely meaning old or extinct) as the popular press appears to do "The whale is like today's Blue Whale". Or is it more strict - different word, different genus. Thanks. Pcb21| Pete 09:54, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * New word, new genus. I'd place it close to Balaenoptera for now with a note that it was recently discovered and named (as I'm sure you would do anyway) so that its placement can be considered in flux. - UtherSRG 11:11, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * It may only be placeable to the suborder. If it has been extinct for a long time, the modern families may only have evolved their separation subsequent to its extinction. If so, then it would normally be ascribed to a fossil family within the suborder. Presumably the fossil family, if applicable, hasn't been named yet? - MPF 17:51, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Good point. - UtherSRG 18:01, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Quite possible. It died out 14 million years ago (cetaceans are about 50 million years old). Unfortunately I can't be sure because there are only press release sources (see e.g. http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/virginia/dp-va--newwhale0614jun14,0,1047694.story?coll=dp-headlines-virginia) - the science is in latest issue of the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, to which I do not have access. Pcb21| Pete 20:36, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Check your other cetacean info... they may say when the various speciations happened, which would give you a possible placement for the newbie. - UtherSRG 20:41, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Good point, I have a book that might well help. Secondly I just re-checked - I do have access to that journal but that issue is not online yet - not surprising given the press release has just gone out... should be available in a week or so. Pcb21| Pete 20:45, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Fruits of labour now available at Eobalaenoptera harrisoni. Pcb21| Pete 09:54, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Creationism in Tree of Life articles
As I have no shame, I self-nominated Humpback Whale as a featured article candidate. The nomination was proceeding unremarkably, lots of reasonable objections and little article improvements. Just recently though there has been an interesting objection. I quote:


 * Object. The "Taxonomy and evolution" section needs tweaking for creation-vs-evolution NPOV; I guess it only needs a few careful changes of things like "it is known" to "evolutionary biologists believe" and the like.

Now I've never previously thought much about "npoving for creationism" in articles about specific species. Mentioning it general articles such as evolution or natural selection sure, but I really don't know about species-specific articles. If we do it for Humpback Whale, then we should do it for all ToL articles. This would be way out-of-line with scientific practice and could cause to get caught to get caught up all in sorts of knots (virtually everything we say might have to be prefixed by "According to scientists"). I am have to tempted to flatly object to the objection, but am interested in what others think. Pcb21| Pete 16:11, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree completely with Pcb21. Our articles should remain scientific. Creationism is mainly an American "thing", discarded by the rest of the world. But I grant Creationism its own page, where they can explain their beliefs. Anyway "the neutrality of this article is disputed" figures prominently on top of their article. JoJan 17:15, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree, too, on general principle. However, I do think the "it is known" sentance could be rephrased to maintain scientificism without yeilding greatly to Creationist propaganda. "Fossil evidence shows that..." etc. - UtherSRG 17:59, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Don't touch creationism with a bargepole - it has no credibility at all outside the US, which in itself eliminates the need for any concessions to irrationality. jimfbleak 19:21, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It should be noted that when NPOV was agreed to, it was precisely on the condition that we wouldn't have to worry about this, or at least that was my understanding. Creationism doesn't warrant mention on biological group pages, because it has exactly the same thing to say about each one. We shouldn't have to pad our talk to deal with it any more than we should for solipsism. Josh


 * I wholeheartedly disagree with the assements above. Saying that we accept those from scientists simply because we agree with scientists has a terrible POV.  First of all, there is not one generally accepted notion of science, as there are many philosophies of it.  Granted that in certain areas (say, the U.S.) certain forms are predominate, but that is a non-issue in this case.  To oversimplify, we have naturalism/evolution on one hand, and creationism on another.  *BOTH* are supported by evidence and the things commonly associated with "science".  Now each argument has its strengths and weaknesses, and as this is an encyclopedia, I have no desire to try and argue for either.  But both have underlying philosophical viewpoints.  The statement above that creationism has no credibility at all outside the US is blatently false (as a literal statement), and an opinion at best which should be used to decide on this issue.  There are many well respected scientists who express sincere concerns about the accuracy of evolution. -- Ram-Man 21:06, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm sure one or two could be found, but there are virtually no serious modern biological scientists - the relevant category - who do not accept and use Darwinian evolutionary theory as a matter of course. As Josh says, it's appropriate, in general articles about biology, evolution, etc - the Tree of Life itself - to give space to the full range of extant views.  It's not appropriate in an article way out on the distant branches of the tree to bother with an opinion that is held only by a tiny minority of those with relevant knowledge, and that has no special connection with the species under discussion.  (On the other hand, if creationism had made a cause celebre of a particular species or of facts about a particular species, that would deserve a mention in the article on that species.)  Similarly, in an article about, let's say, the history of a particular Christian denomination, you shouldn't have to debate the arguments for or against Christianity itself - whereas in main articles about Christianity, or the concept of religion, you'd expect to find that kind of discussion.  It's all about the appropriate level for parading a particular range of POVs.  Having said that, UtherSRG is clearly right - for reasons that have nothing to do with giving houseroom to creationism - that we should try to state propositions in terms that indicate the supporting evidence, rather than as bald "facts"; the beauty of science is that our confident assertions are always liable to be overturned by new evidence. seglea 21:43, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Hello folks, I raised the "creationism" NPOV objection mentioned above (now resolved with very little alteration). Executive summary of the objection: It's a wording thing, not a "let's give creationists a disproportionate platform" thing. The problem is that writing in a style which affirms evolution to be correct (e.g. "it is known that X evolved like this") is POV; the number of creationists in the world is sufficiently large that we cannot write quite like this and maintain NPOV. Whether or not creationism has credibility with scientists and researchers of Humpback Whales is irrelevant, as far as writing style goes. However, the  choice of facts that we include should roughly reflect mainstream opinion. It's perfectly fine to (only) put things like "fossil evidence indicates" and so forth. (Indeed, it's better to say things like that regardless of NPOV). NOTE: I certainly don't think we need make explicit mention of creationism (or anything else) every time the discussion of the provenance of animal Foo comes up. I don't think we should fall into the inanity of "Evolutionary biologists think that Foo evolved from Bar, while fundamentalist Christians believe that they were created on the Fifth Day." (By the way, I don't think creationism is only a US thing; maybe it's rejected by Europeans and educated people in other parts of the world, but given that a large proportion of the planet hold Christian (and, more generally, theistic) beliefs of one sort or another, it's safe to assume there's going to be many creationists worldwide. &mdash; Matt 22:04, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The idea of scientific creationism is a mainly American thing. The problem with the wording you suggest is it strongly demotes models, since it isn't done for any other subjects. You don't see historians always saying yes, there is evidence for this - even for theories as or more controversial! What would you point to to show people evolved from other primates? Comparative anatomy, genetic studies, fossils, all of the above? Should we have to list the entire range of biology every time a relationship is certain? This is not worth it, to solve a problem that almost doesn't exist. After all, for all this worrying, has there been any real indication that pro-creationists aren't content with simply summarizing their position on relevant pages and ignoring evolution on the others? Josh

The idea of scientific creationism is a mainly American thing. The problem with the wording you suggest is it strongly demotes models, since it isn't done for any other subjects. You don't see historians always saying yes, there is evidence for this - even for theories as or more controversial! What would you point to to show people evolved from other primates? Comparative anatomy, genetic studies, fossils, all of the above? Should we have to list the entire range of biology every time a relationship is certain? This is not worth it, to solve a problem that almost doesn't exist. After all, for all this worrying, has there been any real indication that pro-creationists aren't content with simply summarizing their position on relevant pages and ignoring evolution on the others? Josh


 * When you talk about creationists "ignoring evolution on the other pages", you seem to be suggesting that NPOV might be selectively applied across the Wikipedia, and that in some domains we should assume a certain foundational bias. I strongly disagree with this. Just as it would be inappropriate to assert as undisputed fact in a Book of Genesis article that the world was created in seven days, it would equally be inappropriate to assert that evolution is an undisputed fact in a biology article. I appreciate that it can sometimes take creativity to write in a neutral fashion without filling it up with awkward "in mainstream science"- and "evolutionary biologists believe"-style cruft. (I agree about scientific creationism being a mainly US thing.) &mdash; Matt 00:43, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I am not saying NPOV should be selectively applied, I am disagreeing about what it entails. Stanard chronology prevails within historical articles and big bang cosmology prevails within astronomical articles, the same should apply here, not because it is the correct point of view but because it is the best way of organizing information.  Padding is fine, I agree it can be done well with some creativity, but it shouldn't ever be considered mandatory.  As stated, when NPOV came in it was with the promise that this wouldn't be a problem. Josh


 * It's mandatory that things should be expressed from the NPOV; "padding" may be a way of doing that, there may be other ways. So yes, I agree that padding is not mandatory. But I don't think we should abandon NPOV just to achieve a neat wording. You say "Big bang cosmology prevails within astronomical articles". I don't know what you mean by "prevails", so I'll guess (please correct me if I'm wrong!) If you mean that, for example, an author of a biology article can write that the theory of evolution is correct, then I disagree; evolution shouldn't "prevail" in the sense of Wikipedia adopting a foundational bias for some articles. On the other hand, If all you mean by "prevails" is that the content should include only appropriate information on the subject (as pointed out by User:Maveric149 below), then I agree. &mdash; Matt 04:34, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I mean prevails in the sense that it needs discussion on pages like evolution and creationism but that most taxon pages should be able to completely ignore the issue. The way it works now, the way other things work.  For instance, Cambrian simply assumes the world is millions of years old.  Nobody has objected, nobody has objected here either.  This is how NPOV was supposed to work: being fair to controversy, but not forcing everyone to constantly concern themselves with it.  At least, this was how it was billed, and why we accepted it. Josh

If saying things like "molecular studies indicate" or "John Doe theorized in his 15 October 1985 Science article" fixes the problem, then I have nothing against that. That does, in fact, add more information to the article while at the same time giving the willfully anti-science Biblical absolutists no valid reason to complain.

But in general, blanket objections like creationism should not noticeably affect non-general articles (such as an article about a single species). NPOV deals with differing POVs about a single topic. So if creationists in general have a certain specific viewpoint about how a certain specific animal came into being, then we should include that information in the article. If they don't, then we needn't do anything more than be specific where it is appropriate (but not so much that it becomes distracting) - such as what was done at Humpback Whale. --mav 00:15, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Anyone can "believe" whatever they want. The correct terminology for the article being questioned is: "it is known" if the stated "facts" are based upon scientific evidence. The problem with the objection is that it comes from a person unaware of how evidence works, and therefore constitutes inappropriate POV. Without rules and understanding of how evidence is applied, modern society would not exist. Liberal societies allow for all manner of beliefs, so the objecting person essentially enjoys a free-ride on the benefits of modern society without ever really understanding the efforts made by others to provide those benefits. Such ignorance is bliss - Marshman 18:29, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * *cough* &mdash; what evidence do you have that I am "unaware of how evidence works"? ;-) (I objected to the "Humpback Whale" wording earlier...) &mdash; Matt 14:38, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

List of New Zealand birds
This seems to contravene several principles of ToL articles
 * it is alaphabetical, not taxonomic
 * listing is a mixture of Maori and English, this is English wikipedia, so listing should give English name with Maori alternative (or without -see history of list of Korean birds)
 * many links are incorrect

Any views - I'm reluctant to run amok on this page myself since I don't know the region. jimfbleak 17:54, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've a couple suggestions. In order: - UtherSRG 01:36, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Leave it for a little bit. You've listed it on ToLCleanup. Give that a chance to catch someone's eye.
 * Find the authors of some of the birds on the list and see if they can take a whack at it.
 * Run amok. :)

Hmmm .... my 2c worth.


 * Order: yes, taxonomic is probably best, though I'm not too fussed about it.
 * Maori names. I don't think we should force the people of a region to use English names where there is a substantial tradition of using local names. I think the standard names need to be listed as alternatives, but I'm perfectly comfortable with the use of local (in this case Maori) names as well. The actual linked-to articles, of course, must use the proper names, and common sense dictates that we create appropriate redirects from Maori (and other) names. Also, we should remember that many of the proper names are Maori names: kiwi, Kea, Kapapoo, and so on. English has already taken on a substantial number of Maori words, and wil take more on as time goes by. Our overall aim should be to create an article that is usable by all: New Zealanders first, but all other English speakers as well.
 * Wrong links? Err .. I can't find them. I went through List of NZB maybe 6 or 12 months back and sorted out the links, but it's grown a bit since then. Still, a half dozen random clicks didn't thrw up any obvious errors. Can you list the problem ones, Uther? (Or just go ahead and fix them.)

Tannin 02:10, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Not me. I was just giving my input to Jim's query. - UtherSRG


 * Yeah, I realised that just after I pressed "Save page". For "Uther", read "Jim". Tannin


 * Takapu (Gannet) Sula serrator - I'll go back to this and fix
 * Taranui (Caspian Tern) - I've fixed this
 * Tarapiroe (Black-fronted Tern)

Richard's Pipit although linked correctly, is not shown by the name by which it is known everywhere except presumably NZ. I'm not going to make a big thing of this, it's not even my hemisphere, but I thought I should flag it up. I did think of replacing it with the ITIS listing, but the editing is too difficult for a European. Jim

OK Jim. I started sorting the list. I've left it in worse state than it was when I started, but I think I've made enough of a start that if we chip away at it, we can finish the job before too long. BTW, in working on it, I started to see more examles of the things that you were taking about above. I fixed a few of them, lots more to go. Cheers, Tannin 11:02, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi Tannin - looking at this makes me wonder, is your photo at Richard's Pipit (Anthus richardi, recently split from A. novaeseelandiae) this, or an Australasian Pipit (A. novaeseelandiae sensu stricto)? - MPF 16:51, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Damn it, MPF, I was flat out deciding it was a pipit, never mind the finer points. :) Those brownish grassland birds - there are about half a dozen of them - are hard! It would be A. novaeseelandiae, no doubt, as it was taken ony a few miles from Ballarat. Until now, I wasn't aware there was a difference. My field guides say "Australian(Richard's) Pipit" and I never thought to wonder why. Tannin 07:56, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi Tannin - thanks; I fear it may not be quite so simple, as although A. richardi breeds in Asia, it winters in Australia. So if your pic was taken between October-March, the possibility of A. richardi remains. Could you check HANZAB please, to see if richardi gets as far south as Ballarat? - if yes, we'll have to get someone familiar with both species to identify it on plumage :-) I had a go myself comparing it with pics on the net, and couldn't decide . . . - MPF 13:31, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Note that this section has today been copied to specific talk page Talk:List of New Zealand birds, where there seemed to have been no talk since 2003. Robin Patterson 03:36, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Animal homosexuality, intersexuality, and transexuality
I just picked up a copy of "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" by Bruce Bagemihl (ISBN 1-86197-182-6). It's totally fascinating! I plan to add tidbits from it to the various articles we already have. There are some significant sections on primates (hence my particular interest) but also on other mammals (including cetaceans, Pete) and tons of info on birds. - UtherSRG 02:21, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * That does sound very interesting. Dolphins have been recorded with all sorts of "human" behaviour... sex for fun, murder, gay behaviour. Looking forward to your additions. Pcb21| Pete 09:07, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I'll probably start reading this book today. The first half is less interesting from the Wikipedia standpoint, but I want to see where he's coming from. The second half is organized by species, documenting which behaviors are typically seen, etc. It'll probably take me most ofthe week to get through the first half. I've scanned through the species pages and they are fascinating... he's got one bit for river dolphins, describing how they perform penile-blowhole intercourse. - UtherSRG 14:11, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)97o, h yiuyj8ny nrtymv; ojorjmntvjooemtvgg mcm j hj g t gn ealjefjrjfepn jepnvi huiivn;g nuithbo8v76030358376vb0wt67bn4v7yk0-m8yj04m7vertnh v8uhjn fg78km4578yu63rgfmsvj8ugf7689yuihunf cf7r67676767676dheihfrcu

Taxonomist reference - brackets or not
I just read that the taxonomist reference is enclosed in brackets in case the group was later renamed or changed its parenthood, it is written without in case the taxonomist who first described it already "placed it correctly". As it was an astronomy magazine (sic!) I'd like to find confirmation on this, and of course the question arises whether we already follow this standard or should follow it. I saw taxoboxes with and without brackets already, but never noticed a system behind it. andy 11:47, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. The Sand Lizard would be Lacerta agilis Linnaeus, 1758 because Linnaeus named it so. However, the Fire Salamander is Salamandra salamandra (Linnaeus, 1758) because Linnaeus originally named it Lacerta salamandra and not Salamandra salamandra. -- Baldhur 12:13, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Agreed with the above for animals; conventions are slightly different for plants; e.g. Scots Pine is: Pinus sylvestris L. as Linnaeus so named it, whereas Norway Spruce is: Picea abies (L.) H. Karst. as Linnaeus originally named it Pinus abies but Karsten transferred it from Pinus to Picea. Note that (unlike with animals) the revising author is cited; that authors are commonly abbreviated (to a set of standard abbreviations); and dates are not given, unless giving a full citation with place of publication: Picea abies (L.) H. Karst., Deutsche Fl. 324 (1881). MPF 13:31, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Pinophyta, Conifer
There are two pages Pinophyta (scientific name) and Conifer (vernacular name) covering the same taxon. I'd like to combine them; my preference is to make Conifer a redirect to Pinophyta, but would not object to the reverse if that is preferred by a majority of others. Anyone any thoughts? - MPF 09:32, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Redirect Conifer to Pinophyta, but make 'Conifers' the title of the taxobox JoJan 12:39, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Woot! Looks like the right thing to me! - UtherSRG 13:20, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will wait a bit longer in case anyone else has views. Jo, agreed on the title (it is already!). PS - anyone know what's happened to wiki? . . why has it reverted to the old style (search box top right, not left, etc)? - MPF 18:18, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Short answer: I don't know. The chart at Pinophyta indicates that it is a subgroup of Cycadophyta. My garden book says Cycas revoluta "is a primitive, cone-bearing plant related to conifers." It's apparently a bit mixed up on what "cone-bearing" means. Mackerm 18:36, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * BTW, are all the taxo-boxes going to have to be adjusted so that Cycadophyta is inserted above Pinophyta? Mackerm 19:59, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * You are misreading the chart. It says that Cycadophyta broke off the "main path" first, then Ginkgophyta. All three are equal in taxonomic rank as Divisions. - UtherSRG 20:14, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Hi Mackerm - Uther's right, it doesn't, it shows that Pinophyta and Cycadophyta share a common ancestor (together with Ginkgophyta as well). Although cycads have cones or cone-like seed-bearing structures, they are not considered conifers within normal english usage of that term - MPF 20:16, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Then I agree with everybody else that the article should be on the Pinophyta page. Mackerm 20:42, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK thanks all, I'm proceeding with amalgamation - MPF 12:21, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)