Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:34, 28 January 2016

Animals Project‑class

WikiProject Animals is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. WikiProject Animals To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some Open Tasks : Copyedit: Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species. Improve: Photoperiodism, Tool use by non-human animals, Omnivore, Animal suicide, Sphaerium beckmani (a species in family Sphaeriidae), Requests: Mammals: Invertebrates: Campocraspedon Fishes: Zaniolepis frenata Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species. Expand: Junqueira cow, Atka mackerel Nominate and vote: Science collaboration of the month, Article Improvement Drive, WikiProject Animals Collaboration

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used

• WT:ANIMALS

Archives

Archive 1 (September 2007 – May 2008) Archive 2 (June 2008 – September 2009) Archive 3 (September 2009 – November 2009) Archive 4 (December 2009) Archive 5 (January 2010 – July 2010) Archive 6 (August 2010 – December 2010) Archive 7 (December 2010 – July 2011) Archive 8 (July 2011 - August 2014) Archive 9 (September 2014 - )

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Unidentified eggs in Hainan

Does anyone have any idea what this might be? Thank you for any information you can offer. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Were they originally in contact with soil (i.e. the stone is lifted), or were they naturally hanging exposed to air as shown. Not that this would help me, but maybe someone else :) --Animalparty! (talk) 03:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

They are attached to the underside of one of the high, horizontal members of this paifang (more images). Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: It's possible these aren't eggs at all but some type of fungus or slime-mold. See for instance Lycogala epidendrum. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: Could they be pupae or coccoons? Abyssal (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak:They look like Gecko eggs which are often stuck on underneath horizontal surfaces. I am sure (from my comfy chair in Wales) that there must be plenty of Geckos in Hainan.  Velella    19:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking for a Pet WikiProject

Please comment here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#Looking_for_a_Pet_WikiProject. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 13:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Two Pogonodons

We currently have an article about a nimravid (Pogonodon) and a snail (Pogonodon (gastropod)) both named Pogonodon, but this should be impossible due to nomenclatural priority. It would appear the snail is invalidly named (being newer), anyone know about it's current status? FunkMonk (talk) 03:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The second is definitely pre-occupied and thus Pogonodon is unavailable and invalid. Unfortunately, the only reference on the snail is the original taxonomic description in some obscure Italian journal. We should probably leave them as-is until the snail is renamed, but add a note to the page. HCA (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Errors in "First appearance" categorisation

Several editors have noticed errors in User:Abyssal's addition of categories for the first appearances of various taxa in the fossil record. These categories seem to have been added without supporting evidence. The user may have professional or other knowledge of the fossil record, but since the encyclopedia relies on written evidence, we are starting to get a problem. This has been going on since at least July, but so far the user has not replied to inquiries. Have other editors noticed the issue, and what should we do about it? Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Why does everyone keep coming after me about the first appearance stuff? I just add a category for whatever date is already listed in the article. If it's inaccurate just change it. If it's unsourced, find a source. Abyssal (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Looking at Megachilidae and Toothed whale, I see that the infobox had the same first appearance that Abyssal subsequently added the category for (sorry for the akward sentence structure). Based on a sample size of two, it looks like the errors are with the infobox, and that if you find an incorrect "first appearance" added by Abyssal, this is an indication that the infobox was wrong in the first place and also needs correcting.--Wikimedes (talk) 00:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

It is then very likely that many other infoboxes contain similar errors. Since Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source, editors looking to add to articles should take care to check claims made in infoboxes or anywhere else before repeating what is said there in categories, or indeed anywhere else. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

There are literally thousands of articles requiring categorization by first appearance datum. I don't think it's reasonable to expect me to verify each one. Abyssal (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

It isn't reasonable for anyone to add anything that is unverified, and nobody is asking you to do any work if you don't feel like it. If the work of verifying facts for categories does not appeal to you, there are many other tasks you can attempt. See WP:V. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X pilot testing

Hello WikiProject Animals!

Based on the recommendation of Snow Rise, I am happy to announce that WikiProject X has selected this project as part of a round of pilot testing.

The goal of WikiProject X is to improve the WikiProject experience through research, design, and experimentation. On that basis, we've prepared a new WikiProject design template based around modules. These modules include features you are already familiar with, such as article alerts, but also new features such as automated work lists, a feed of discussions taking place on the 2,005 talk pages tagged by WikiProject Animals, and a new member profile system. To see what this new setup looks like, you can browse the first round of pilot tests: WikiProject Cannabis, WikiProject Evolutionary biology, WikiProject Ghana, WikiProject Hampshire, WikiProject Women's Health.

If there is consensus among the participants of this WikiProject, I will proceed with implementing this interface based on the current contents of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Animals. Please let me know if you have any questions or requests. Harej (talk) 23:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Taxonomic help needed on Rana vs Lithobates

There's a recent dustup on taxonomy on the frog artcle, and I'd like to request anyone with taxonomic experience (regardless of taxa) to weigh in. See here User talk:Ranapipiens#Rana_vs_Lithobates.

The gist is that in 2006, the genus Rana was split up and some members re-assigned to Lithobates. Some amphibian taxonomists were vehemently opposed to this, resulting in a 2009 criticism article, followed by a harsh response to that criticism. The works published since seem to support the 2006 work, but not unambiguously, and are very sensitive to taxon inclusion/exclusion, and none has made a formal taxonomic act of moving Lithobates back to Rana. Secondary sources are a mess, since the two best amphibian taxonomy sites are run by the author of the 2006 paper and the author of the 2009 critique, and the sheer duration and widespread use of Rana has lent it a lot of "inertia". Until a few months ago, WP used Lithobates because the 2006 source was huge and thus a "one-stop shop" for taxonomy, as well as being highly regarded. User:Ranapipiens moved most of the WP articles under Lithobates back to Rana, and the debate ensued here User talk:Ranapipiens#Rana_vs_Lithobates.

Currently, User:Ranapipiens advocates for Rana, contrary to the 2006 paper, mostly following the 2009 criticism, and has an unspecified level of expertise in the group. User:Micromesistius seems unconvinced (I don't want to speak too strongly for them), and appears to have some level of formal training in these matters. I, User:HCA, am unconvinced, but my training is not sufficient to really delve into the details of this group (I've published on this taxon's physiology, but have never published anything taxonomic). User:Faendalimas is an actual taxonomist, though not in this group, and based on the evidence presented, supports Lithobates based on the ICZN code and lack of formal nomenclatural changes against Lithobates. Finally, I asked for feedback from a collaborator who is an expert anuran taxonomist, but whom has COI as an author of one of publications, and he not only reiterated his support for Lithobates, but also alerted me to existence of the 2009 rebuttal to the 2009 criticism on which User:Ranapipiens seems to primarily rely, which User:Ranapipiens had failed to report the existence of.

The discussion is VERY long, and I doubt consensus will ever be reached, given User:Ranapipiens committment to the pre-2006 usage of Rana. However, my own uncertainty so far outside my field makes me think it would be prudent to get the feedback of more editors who have formal taxonomic training and experience before returning to Lithobates over the objections of User:Ranapipiens. HCA (talk) 16:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I have replied again to the discussion at User talk:Ranapipiens#Rana_vs_Lithobates if I may suggest this may need mediation to resolve. Cheers, Faendalimas 23:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there has been formal taxonomic action to use Rana instead of Lithobates as the correct genus for Holarctic true frogs (with Lithobates used as a subgenus for the neotropical true frogs). The use of Rana is completely consistent with all ICZN rules, and follows the most recent taxonomic revision of the group. I supplied the references for these papers on my talk page, should anyone be interested in reading the literature on the group.Ranapipiens (talk) 03:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Do not confuse taxonomic actions with nomenclatural acts, they are not the same thing. A taxonomic action is the presentation of a phylogenetic hypothesis, ie science, a nomenclatural act is the action of declaring clearly a change in name. Taxonomy and Nomenclature are not the same thing. Cheers Faendalimas 03:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

There is certainly no confusion between nomenclatural and taxonomic acts on my part. The numerous papers I cited for the use of Rana as the appropriate genus take clear nomenclatural actions, completely within the ICZN rules in every respect. No one has suggested otherwise anywhere in the literature, and there is no suggestion that the use of Rana in any way violates any ICZN rule. Even the strictest interpreters of the ICZN rules, such as Alain Dubois, have clearly expressed a preference for using Rana as the appropriate genus over Lithobates (Fouquette and Dubois, 2014: A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada, 7th Ed. Volume 1—Amphibians. Xlibris Publ. ISBN 9781493170340). Rana clearly has priority over Lithobates if anyone has a question about that. If anyone thinks otherwise, then they should cite the relevant published reference or give the ICZN Article that they think applies.Ranapipiens (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I've glanced at Pauly et al. 2009, Frost et al. 2009, Hillis & Wilcox 2005 and Hill 2007, which is far from all of the relevant literature, but enough to give me some idea of what's going on. I hadn't realized how much this is a Phylocode thing. From what I understand, everybody agrees that "Lithobates" is a meaningful group within "Rana". However, the circumscriptions of Lithobates differ between Frost and Hillis. Additionally, Frost wants to treat Lithobates as ICZN named-genus, while Hillis wants to treat it as a Phylocode named clade (or possibly an ICZN subgenus?). No nomenclatural act is required by Hillis to reject Frost's genus and retain everything in Rana; the ICZN deals with nomenclature, not taxonomy. Lithobates is an available name, but the ICZN doesn't mandate that it be recognized at all; taxonomists are perfectly free to treat Rana in a broad sense with no subgenera/clades (however, Hillis's camp does want to recognize clades). It doesn't appear to me that all the Phyloclade clades named in Hillis 2005 are available under the ICZN (Article 13.1.1; they lack differentiating descriptions, though Hillis 2007 addresses this argument), but Lithobates is (from what I can tell) available as a subgenus (though not due to Hillis's work).

What does it mean for Misplaced Pages? Well, we follow secondary sources. Amphibian Species of the World (run by Frost's camp) is the current de facto standard on Misplaced Pages for amphibian taxonomy/nomenclature. Amphibiaweb (run by Hillis's camp) is another authoritative secondary on the subject. The major sources disagree about how to treat Lithobates; consistently following one source (i.e. ASW) has some pragmatic value, but we ought to present competing views, and unfortunately we can't give easily give both views equal weight (title, taxobox and running text are set up to support a single view). I slightly lean to following ASW/Frost for pragmatic consistency, but recognize that's not a very strong reason.

However, Pauly et al 2009 and Hillis 2007 lean heavily on an argument with broader implications for Misplaced Pages (and one well at odds with general practice in organism articles elsewhere on Misplaced Pages). Pauly and Hillis emphasis the importance of "stability" in scientific names, and appear to reject Lithobates as a genus largely because it replaces well known, "stable" combinations in Rana (remember, Pauly and Hillis recognize a Lithobates clade). Hillis even runs a WP:GOOGLETEST for Rana/Lithobates combinations (without dwelling on any of the ways Google tests can be misleading). There are numerous cases all across the Tree of Life where phylogenetic research has led to well known species being shuffled out of well known genera into newly recognized segregates (which are unfamiliar to all but a small handful of taxonomists).

Should Misplaced Pages follow Pauly and Hillis's approach and apply a Google test to determine whether new and obscure segregate genera should be recognized on Misplaced Pages, or should Misplaced Pages follow authoritative secondary taxonomic sources, even when this leads to endorsing a (to date) little used scientific name? Plantdrew (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Within the Amphibians and Reptiles Wikiproject, there was sort of a weird compromise: using ITIS.gov, reasoning that it'll be more stable than following every name change everywhere (since some of those prove to be wrong) but also keep reasonably up to date. Currently, there's a plan for some sort of formal WP mediation here , and I think your taxonomic insight would be a great addition if possible, Plantdrew. Thanks! HCA (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree this, @Plantdrew:, is an unfortunate case of Phylocode and ICZN Nomenclature not being compatible. That the two major researchers on the topic are in opposing theoretical camps is a problem. A few points though. First Hillis is misinterpreting the meaning of stability. Stability does not refer to the combination, it only refers to a name, ie the species name or the genus name, not to how they are combined. I recently had to make this point to a group of taxonomists who work with Phylocode. Second clearly both names Rana and Lithobates are available and Rana has priority when they are applied to the same generic concept but when they are not applied to the same concept then both names can be valid it is dependent on circumstances. In particular it depends on what the type species for each are and that they are not in the same generic concept. Lastly, currently Phylocode has not been presented and accepted by zoology. Much has been said about it but "officially" for want of a better word, zoology still uses the ICZN nomenclature. Hence it should be followed until this changes. @HCA: just so you know, depending on the group ITIS is up to 5 years out of date. cheers Faendalimas 16:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

ITIS is a stable compromise for Amphibian and Reptile taxonomy???; please point me to thread where this was discussed?!? I'll grant that ITIS isn't up totally to date (and full disclosure, I worked for ITIS around 2005, albeit mostly on fish, nothing on herps), but since McDiarmid is in the Frost camp, works at NMNH and is/was an ITIS data steward, going to ITIS doesn't provide a more neutral/independent resolution than ASW to the Rana/Lithobates issue. Using ITIS is a very weird compromise as the sources have developed over the last 10 years (as I see it now, ITIS follows ASW with some lag that is more attributable to low staffing levels than any taxonomic conservatism about major changes endorsed by ASW). Bring it to mediation and I'll weigh in further. Plantdrew (talk) 08:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I have submitted the request for mediation Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_mediation/Rana_vs_Lithobates I did not add you @Plantdrew: as you have not been directly involved in the page though I would welcome your assistance. Everyone else, @HCA: @Ranapipiens: @Micromesistius: should read through it and sign off add extra points as you deem fit. Follow the procedure, best way at this point.

@Plantdrew: I believe ITIS is a kind of default goto for names, it seems to pervade many groups. The exact point where it was decided to use it as a compromise here I am not sure of. In any case in an effort to get some more up to date information on this I am going to e-mail Darrel Frost. Get a first hand look at some of the research here. Cheers Faendalimas 10:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, ITIS and ASW, as seen here: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Amphibians_and_Reptiles#Taxonomy. Please note that I'm not endorsing this, just making folks aware if it comes up; whatever decision led to that arrangement predated my involvement with Misplaced Pages. HCA (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes @HCA: the only one I have much say in is the turtles and I removed ITIS from that one years ago, I replaced it with the IUCN Checklist, which is updated semi annually and is peer reviewed. Unfortunately not all groups have the benefit of that type of list in which case they have been left with ITIS and a website. Cheers Faendalimas 16:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok @HCA, Micromesistius, Ranapipiens, and Plantdrew: I have received a response from Darrel Frost, it is very interesting. I do not share emails publicly but there is some important information in it so anyone who wishes to discuss what he had to say please go to my user page user:Faendalimas and click on email user, my settings permit emails. I will discuss it with you all. I will give it a little time and try to do it as a joint email to all. I will have to make this available to the Mediation Panel also. Cheers Faendalimas 17:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion Continuing

Ok one thing I do take issue with @Ranapipiens: is you have started using wikispecies as a validation here. I am an admin over there and there are no where near the number of editors as there are on WP, that said I consider the Rana pages over there out of date, however I am not updating them, or more likely finding someone to do it, until I see the outcome here. Hence it is a circular argument to use them as support. Apart from the addition of a species and some references those pages have not been updated since 2009.

Next point Linneaus certainly did not set type species since the type concept came into being over a century after his death. However, yes types have been set for both genera, what I meant was that to move species around needs the type species named because it is the type species that forms the definition of the genus.

Darrel Frost is a highly experienced and highly respected taxonomist who produces phylogenetic hypotheses using hierarchical classification from which to develop a nomenclature using the ICZN system and he did so and many other publications follow it. Alain Dubois does the same but is extremely conservative in his views and what he sees as a subgenus is usually a genus by anyone elses standards. Dave Hillis uses PhyloCode, which is fine that's his choice, but it does not produce hierarchical classifications that can be easily ported to the ICZN system, it produces PhyloCodes which means he is naming ever enclosing clades. But one thing you need to realise is that Hillis and his close nit group of supporters, which do not number that many, have been extremely vocal about their work and this has created an unbalanced view of this situation. I get the impression you may have fallen for that. Look I have 20 years experience as a professional taxonomist, not saying that to impress, from that I can tell you we can be a pack of rats. The fights between taxonomists get very loud and can be really quite stupid. But fights we have. (Cope and Marsh for an historical one) It often gets people caught up in them. Now with turtles I will stand my ground for certain names, but here I am neutral. I do not work with these species so in a way I could not care what you call them. Like I said on Wikispecies I am just going to follow what happens here, so speaking as a taxonomist who is neutral about this, Lithobates is the correct name currently for the American Bull Frog and close relatives. That is how it is appearing in the next volume of Petersons Guide by the way. Cheers Faendalimas 20:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok at the request of @TransporterMan: and out of respect for @Sunray: I am making this comment here. The intention of my last comment, here, was to ask Sunray where we were at, nothing more, it was not meant to start yet another debate. @Ranapipiens: during that I lost my temper with you, that I should not have done and apologize for that. From a purely Wikipedian Editor perspective this problem stems from the fact that in July 2015 you moved all the pages from Lithobates to Rana. You were questioned on this by @Dger, Plantdrew, HCA, and Micromesistius: however your edits were not reverted at the time. In part I suspect because it would have been impossible as you apparently used page blanking and overwriting to accomplish moves which should have been done by WP:RM you destroyed the edit history. You were also over this time accused of having a Conflict of Interest, and that your arguments lacked Verifiability by referring to (although you did not cite) primary sources not yet published. It was pointed out to you that Misplaced Pages has rules on publication types and that we follow secondary publications not primary (WP:PRIMARY) you have never adequately addressed these issues. The WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles has set out and agreed sources by its members, of which you are not one, which you have ignored. The thing is you are satisfied because the pages are set the way you want right now, by your doing in July, and if any of the users above, or me try to put them back the way they were it will possibly start an edit war, or something. Which none of us want, and has not occurred so far, thankfully. The consensus on Misplaced Pages up till July was that they belonged in Lithobates, it was requested of you once you moved them all that they should all go back. That was also the consensus. You have ignored all of this stating you have "personal experience" and primary literature to back you up. So my recommendation for this is that all those pages be returned to how they were prior to you mass moving them all and if and when it is deemed necessary to move them that be done the appropriate way, in consultation with other editors and the members of WikiProject: Amphibians and Reptiles. I would also recommend that when you reply to someone it is wise to actually read what has been said, since you have also been accused on several occasions by several editors of not doing this and missing the point of discussions. Cheers Faendalimas 15:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

{{Species abbreviation}}

Since 2010 there has been a template {{Species abbreviation}} which has been added to many disambiguation pages to provide links to the various species names or disambiguation pages which use the word in question (examples include Vanzolinii and Sylvestre).

In a Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_27#Template:Species_abbreviation deletion discussion in April 2015 the consensus appeared to be that it should be replaced by something better, but the close was as "delete". Some instances have already been deleted, but there is now a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Species_abbreviations. If you have opinions on the best way forward, please join that discussion. Thanks. PamD 21:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Seeking help with a Misplaced Pages editing brochure for biology students

Hello all; I'm writing on behalf of the Wiki Education Foundation, which works with instructors who assign university students to write or edit Misplaced Pages articles in the United States and Canada. We're developing a print handbook for students who will write or expand articles on living species, including species articles. I'd appreciate any feedback on the draft! It is open for comment until November 5th; after that we will set it to print. Thanks so much! Eryk (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

{{Animal-disease-stub}}

template:Animal-disease-stub has been nominated for deletion -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

A luminous talk that should be transcribed and enshrined on Misplaced Pages

Some editors on animal topics are still smarting from attacks by WP:MED editors that were the subject of a recent arbcom case. The following superb 42 minute presentation, "Are the Obstacles Academic?", from Stuart C. Ray, aka soupvector, goes a long way towards providing a redeeming perspective and balance. The talk starts at 4 hours and 36 minutes. It was given six weeks ago at WikiConference USA 2015. --Epipelagic (talk) 13:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

What an excellent insight to Academic editing! Thanks Epi. (The video is the one from Oct 10 (Day 2 of 3) of the conference).DrChrissy 16:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

"Animal research"

The usage and topic of "animal research" is under discussion, see Talk:Animal testing -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Climate change denial

There is a RfC at Talk:Climate change denial. Please contribute if you are interested. Biscuittin (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Project-Class animal pages
• NA-importance animal pages
• WikiProject Animals articles