This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Archive 40

Many articles are not categorized by year of description. I can't find the relevant information so I presume this is the right place to ask. Is it necessary to do so, and if yes, should all species (in theory) be categorized if they aren't? I'm using HotCat, so it should be relatively easy for me to work quickly. The Average Wikipedian ( talk) 13:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose they should. Have at it! Chrisrus ( talk) 12:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@ Chrisrus: Thank you. Where can I find the relevant guidelines? I see that sometimes they are categorized by "Moths described in...", "Fish described in..." (which only has two categories for some reason) and "Insects described in..." but I can't don't know what needs categorization into which category and how many different kinds of these "described in" categories there are. The Average Wikipedian ( talk) 13:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello WikiProject Tree of Life!

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 421 talk pages tagged by WikiProject Tree of Life, 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 Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life. Please let me know if you have any questions or requests. Harej ( talk) 23:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmm...I like what WikiProject X has done Evolutionary Biology, but I think WP:TOL is pretty different from the other project WikiProject X has tackled so far. WP:TOL is essentially a meta-project; the talk page here serves as a centralized discussion for issues which concern a dozen plus more or less active projects that largely focus on articles about species (and other taxonomic ranks) of organisms. The 421 talk pages tagged for WP:TOL aren't really the focus of TOL. It's the 300,000+ articles with a species microformat that are more relevant. WikiProject X seems to be providing some useful tools that (in my opinion) it would be nice to have available to some of the TOL descendant projects. I'm not convinced it's particularly worthwhile to deploy those tools for the 421 TOL tagged pages (but I'm not opposed to it). Maybe it's worth looking into how the WikiProject X tools can be deployed for descendant projects in both a centralized (TOL) and decentralized (individual descendant project) way? Plantdrew ( talk) 07:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

That is a good point. Are there any particular WikiProjects you recommend? Harej ( talk) 16:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering if we, in addition to validly published junior synonyms and alternate combinations, are also "allowed" to include invalidly published names and pre-Linnean names? For example, the pre-Linnean binomial Cygnus cucullatus for the dodo, and the nomen nudum Munifelis (published in a newspaper) for Smilodon? FunkMonk ( talk) 19:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

What I've seen done is invalid names included, but unitalicised and in quotation marks, which I've at least seen before in the literature (on dinosaurs iirc). Seems sensible enough to me, if the invalid names are of historical importance or have been erroneously treated as valid names. — innotata 19:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Back in December, prototheria was blanked and redirected to yinotheria. A Google search (and a much longer write up of the results - details on prototheria's talk page) makes it clear to this non-expert that reports of prototheria's demise have been exaggerated, so I restored the article. My knowledge of taxonomy is far from perfect, and would appreciate some more knowledgeable editors taking a look. It's probably a good idea to consolidate the discussion on the prototheria talk page. (See also the WP:Paleontology talk page).-- Wikimedes ( talk) 04:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed that the extinction date listed in the taxoboxes of recently extinct animals, such as dodo, do not show anymore, though the text is still there (| extinct = c. 1662). Anyone know what's up? FunkMonk ( talk) 01:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see, {{ Speciesbox}} has never passed the value of |extinct= upwards, merely using the presence of a non-empty value to insert † by the species name. So the date would have disappeared from the dodo taxobox with this edit, which replaced {{ Taxobox}} by {{ Speciesbox}}. I've now fixed {{ Speciesbox}}.

In my view, it's bad practice (or at least bad style) to use a parameter both as a boolean (|extinct=yes meaning "extinct") and as a non-boolean (|extinct=c. 1662 meaning "extinct, c. 1662"). I suspect that this is what caused the creator of {{ Speciesbox}} to forget that the value needed to be passed upwards. Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! FunkMonk ( talk) 13:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Having just found the home for the taxonomy geeks experts of Wikipedia, here at this project, via Talk:List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names, I'd like to invite anyone with views on the question of species abbreviations in disambiguation pages to join the discussion, belatedly, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Species_abbreviations. It boils down to: should a reader be shown the way to the organism they're looking for if they search on species words such as Fenestrata or Japonica, and if so, how? Pam D 13:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello all; I'm writing on behalf of the Wiki Education Foundation, which works with instructors who assign university students to write or edit Wikipedia articles in the United States and Canada. We're developing a print handbook for students who will write or expand articles on a brochure - found here - about editing species articles, including animals, plants and fungi. 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) 23:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I would draw your attention to the proposal at wikidata:Wikidata talk:WikiProject Taxonomy#Distinguishing between names and taxa. Your comments will be welcome there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

These animals are the most commonly found scientific names in Google books which we don't already have articles or redirects for. The list includes synonyms.

Each scientific name is found in at least 147 books or volumes published after 1950, and all are in the top 1% of most common scientific names. [ Notes | previous discussion ]

1. Thalia democratica — a type of salp
2. Phallusia mammillata — White sea-squirt
3. Epinephelus guttatus — Red hind
4. Ammodytes hexapterus — Pacific sand lance
5. Synbranchus marmoratus — Marbled eel (ambiguous) Mottled Swamp Eel
6. Oligocottus maculosus — Tidepool sculpin
7. Dendrodoa grossularia — Baked bean ascidian, baked-bean ascidian. (syn: Ascidia grossularia)
8. Fritillaria borealis — Oikopleura
9. Diplodus annularis — Annular bream
10. Microgadus proximus — Pacific tomcod
11. Sceloporus cyanogenys — Blue Spiny Lizard
12. Diplosoma listerianum — Jelly crust tunicate or Gray Encrusting Compound Tunicate
13. Tribolodon hakonensis — Big-scaled redfin
14. Mormyrus kannume — Bottlenose

These are good candidates if anyone is looking to create new articles. There is also a list just of ants which has been very successful, with all of the top 100 missing articles now created. And a list of missing gastropods. 23:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm reviewing the Life article for GA status, but I was told the nominator was "an editor with very weak English skills and very little Wikipedia experience". I'm asking for someone else to take over the nomination, preferably someone familiar with the article and Wikipedia. Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 19:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

A discussion of interest to this WikiProject is underway at Talk:Holocene extinction/Archive_3#RFC: Article name. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 03:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

A template {{ Taxon bar}} was recently created which pulls IDs for various taxonomic databases from WikiData and provides links to these databases on Wikipedia (similar to {{ TaxonIds}}, except that the database IDs don't need to be manually entered). The template creator is seeking comments at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants#Seeking_critique.2Freview_of_.7B.7BTaxonbar.7D.7D. Plantdrew ( talk) 17:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

NAC: No consensus. This RFC wasn't stated with a question lending itself to closure with a consensus. However, multiple editors have noted that there is no consensus among taxonomists as to which of various taxonomies to use for anthropoids. (In other words, some scientists say that chimps are hominins, and some say that they are not hominins. If a consensus is desired, a new RFC that asks a specific question would be useful. Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)}} [Striking closure of RFC whose originator was planning to close out. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)] [I stand by the conclusion. It just isn't a closure because the RFC was not a well-formed RFC. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)]

I have noticed some contradictions on and across several pages relating to the taxonomic classification of Chimpanzees. In essence some pages use the system where Homininae split into Gorillini and Hominini and then Hominini divides into Hominina and Panina. Other pages use a system where Homininae trifurcates into Gorillini, Hominini and Panini. Several pages use both in different Parts. (Chimpanzee lists Chimpanzees as Hominini in the lede but Panini in the infobox). I can't find sources detailing a controversy or an overturn of the historic system. Which should be used and can I get some help making the pages consistent?

Affected Pages: Hominini, Sahelanthropus, Homininae, Chimpanzee-human last common ancestor, Ape, Hominidae, Homo, Chimpanzee, Primate, Homo Floresiensis#Bone structure, Timeline of human evolution, List of mammals of Burundi, List of primates, Human, Panini, Common Chimpanzee, Bonobo

Also may be affected Hominin and Panini (primates)

Apologies if this is in the wrong place SPACKlick ( talk) 16:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you have a typo, should "system where Hominina trifurcates" read "system where Homininae trifurcates"?

i.e.:

• Homininae
  • Gorillini
  • Hominini
    • Homo
    • Pan

vs.

• Homininae
  • Gorillini
  • Hominini
  • Panini

Those are the two, correct? IOW, we could rephrase this whole debate as, "is Panini a group of animals, or is it just a sandwich?" Britannica kind of makes it sound like we shouldn't use Panini; see here. Hopefully someone knowledgeable will help us out here. Thanks! ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 17:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Correct I had a typo in the second list. Your first version is not correct, it should be Hominina and Panina rather than Homo and Pan but other than that yes. This is the distinction. You could ask the debate as "Does panini exist as a group of animals" however my primary focus (because the labels are irrelevant) is about the trifurcation of Homininae. It shouldn't happen and I've never seen a source that suggests it does. However I've seen a lot of people using panini recently and I don't have my finger on the pulse enough to know if this is a change in the taxonomy that's generally accepted now. SPACKlick ( talk) 17:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikiblame just pinged that the first insertion it could find dates to this in September 2012. I've notified the use to see if they can explain why the change. SPACKlick ( talk) 17:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Let me start by saying that you're probably not going to like my answer. The more palatable short version is that the taxonomy is not universally decided, with some putting chimps in Hominini and others in Panini. (The bad news: there doesn't appear to be any consensus in the literature and that we have to decide so that we can be consistent across our articles.) I ran into the exact same problem within Strepsirrhini, particularly with handling of its infraorders.

From an outside view, taking in primatology and all of its related fields under one umbrella, the situation becomes a veritable mess, with a host of reasoned arguments scattered across the literature. However, if you look at things more closely, focusing on specific fields (paleoanthropology, primatology, molecular phylogenetics, etc.), you should see a clear trend... or at least I did with Strepsirrhini. Each of these fields is very narrowly focused, where primatologists (who primarily study *living* primates) generally don't care much about (or even know about) fossil primates, whereas paleoanthropologists have to accommodate a much wider diversity of primates. In your case, you are very, very lucky for two reasons: 1) Molecular phylogeneticists delve into the fossil history (or at least the recent stuff), so they're slightly more mindful of that diversity. (With Strepsirrhini, the infraorder split was an order of magnitude older, so molecular phylogeneticists can only sample—and hence focus on—living primates.) 2) There are many more paleoanthropologists studying human evolution than strepsirrhine evolution. This gives them a bigger voice, and the taxonomies they favor will stand out more in a Google search. The downside, of course, is that it prevents one taxonomy from rising to the top of the pile. (With Strepsirrhini, paleoanthropologists are a miniscule minority, yet to write about Eocene primates and not make overgeneralized statements about living strepsirrhines, you need to use the systematics they favor... despite being a minority of Google Scholar and other Google searches.)

In this situation, I advise using the most encompassing taxonomy so that we can be consistent between articles about living *and* extinct species. I'm primarily interested in strepsirrhines, so I don't know what to tell you. Doing some quick searches on Google Scholar, I found the following:

• This article (paleoanthropology) favors the use of Panini as explained on pages 31 & 32 (pages 3 & 4 of the PDF). It refers to the overuse of the term "hominid" as "traditional taxonomy" (possibly a subtle knock against the simplified taxonomy of primatologists) and claims the use of Panini emphasizes current cladistic taxonomy.
• This article (paleoanthropology) lists two taxonomies on page 21 (page 3 of the PDF), uses Panini in (favored) Table 1a, which focuses on phylogenetics. Table 1b, however, is considered a "traditional 'premolecular' taxonomy".
• This book (paleoanthropology) only lists a taxonomy down to Homininae, but does not list tribes. (Search "Homininae" and go to page xii.) It also focuses solely on extinct primates. This is quite typical, as many sources will not distinguish tribes.
• This article (molecular phylogenetics) gives a radically different taxonomy (page 594, or page 10 of the PDF), which it sort of explains on the next page in Table 6. Molecular phylogeneticists will occasionally stress the need to define temporal boundaries for each rank and subrank of the Linnean taxonomic system. So if a genus is defined as having split into species starting ~6 million years ago, then chimpanzees would be placed in genus Homo with us. Of course if this approach takes hold, then the very rich human evolutionary lineage will be constrained to one genus. Although I like this approach at times, I generally view it as proof that science needs to move away from traditional Linnean taxonomy and design a new, more flexible classification system. But I digress...
• This article (molecular phylogenetics) doesn't even bother breaking Homininae down into tribes (see Figure S1), but does for Old World monkeys. Again, a lot of articles will not touch this topic.

Note that my searches did not pull up any traditional "primatology" sources (focused solely on living great apes). This doesn't surprise me since there are very few living species, giving little reason to break things down between family Hominidae and the genera (Pan, Gorilla, and Homo)—see MSW3 for an example. For that reason, you may be luckier than I was. I didn't think about this when I started this long reply.

In summary, my advice is to follow the taxonomy in Table 1a in the article by Wood and Richmond (mentioned above) unless someone can make a stronger case. It seems to be the most flexible and generally accepted taxonomy. Once the matter is settled, I can help clean up the articles since I was slowly making my way through primate articles and switching everything to the {{ Automatic taxobox}}. –  Maky ^{«  talk »} 19:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I don't remember the detailed reasons I had for initially inserting Panini into the article, although I do agree that the Wood & Richmond table mentioned above does summarise what I understood to be the case. But these things aren't always definitive, and, so long as whatever we do is consistent, I have no argument. Anaxial ( talk) 19:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

( edit conflict) I agree that it's complicated and that's why I was seeking consensus rather than just applying BRD. However the table in 1a doesn't include Gorilla's in Homininae and trifurcates Hominidae which is very non-standard from my (admittedly limited) experience. 1b is very out of date listing gorillas and chimps as Pongids. The Jaques link moves all Apes into Homininae making Gibbons a tribe and Great apes a tribe, And has chimps in the genus Homo which clearly won't work when considered in a palaeoanthropological environment. PLOS has the traditional tree butas you say gives no names below homininae. The google book puts Pan in with the Pongids and fails to mention Gorillas at all. The first article gives a good definition of the groups but leaves an issue. All the references you've provided and I've seen break the groups down the same way

• Great Apes

• Orangutans

• Sumatran Orangutans
• Bornean Orangutan

• Black Apes

• Gorillas

• Eastern Gorillas
• Western Gorillas

• Smaller Black Apes

• Chimpanzees

• Common Chimpanzee
• Bonobo

• Humans

• Austrilopiths
• Homo

So I'm not sure how to reflect that cladogram across the various different group names used. SPACKlick ( talk) 19:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I would go with the taxonomy listed at Hominidae#Classification. It seems to be the most accommodating for living and fossil species and represents the phylogenetic history. However, the source it cites doesn't quite cover it, so one will need to be found. Again, finding a set of authoritative sources that all agree and lay down a taxonomy usable by all fields will not happen. The best we can do is find a taxonomy that is acceptable and allows the most encompassing field (paleoanthropology) to operate under our use of taxoboxes and adopted terminology. –  Maky ^{«  talk »} 20:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• I am by no means an expert in this field, nor do I know what reliable sources say, but isn't there a trend towards classifying things much more by clade than by the historical fuzzy groupings? That being the case, there should never be a trifurcation, because that's not something that occurs in evolutionary history (unless there were two rafting events that took place simultaneously, or something equally unlikely!). If you're going to go down the route of classifying humans as hominini and chimps as panini, don't you still need some other term to cover the parent group that includes humans and chimps but does not include gorillas? Or do you stop reasoning about that clade altogether? Thanks  —  Amakuru ( talk) 22:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
• Neither am I an expert, but I believe Robin Dunbar has something to say on this classification, but I would have to look it up. Neither is classification by any means a matter of universal consensus, but as far as I'm aware a whole lot has happened in the past five years, so I would suggest discounting sources older than a few years. -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 15:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Conventionally, taxonomists now refer to the great ape family (including humans) as hominids, while all members of the lineage leading to modern humans that arose after the split with the LCA are referred to as hominins. The older literature used the terms hominoids and hominids respectively ^[1]

This is a very good point, and one I had forgotten about. However, this classification of restricting honinins to everything after the split with chimpanzees will give another taxonomy. Does someone have a source that lists it in detail? I don't have time to look this morning. –  Maky ^{«  talk »} 16:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with CFCF sources should be 5 years or less-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 11:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Just two cents from a randomly summoned editor, but before today I had never even heard of Panini as a grouping, only Panina. The trifurcation scheme is not one that I'd support. //  coldacid ( talk| contrib) 01:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC) //  coldacid ( talk| contrib) 01:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Summoned via WP:FRS; please {{ Ping|coldacid}} if you respond to my comment.

<>Thank you SPACKlick, and Maky, et al, for fronting this discussion. Robin Dunbar says that "Conventionally, taxonomists now ..." refer to the great ape family as hominids, and to the humans (and closely related) subtribe, after their split from chimpanzees, as hominins. These new meanings are, even now, replacing the older terminology. Dunbar is a reliable (and a very recent) source, and here we have an authoritative start-point to edit/correct the errant Wp articles, to wit:

<>I suggest we proceed as follows.

1) Go to a key article and section---e.g., Hominidae#Taxonomic history---and insert new narrative to (briefly) explain the unsettled state of taxonomy among the professionals re humans and chimps. Explain that taxonomists are now referring to the two primate groups with revised meanings from their historical taxons; cite Dunbar (here> ^[2]); also cite the Australian Museum, which provides an excellent narrative of the changing terminology, including this quote:

This new terminology is being used in many scientific journals already, and it is only a matter of time (but possibly many years) before everyone catches up to using the new term. - See more at: http://australianmuseum.net.au/hominid-and-hominin-whats-the-difference

2) Explain that Wp uses the current 'convention' described by Dunbar---that is, that hominids refer to members of the great ape family Hominidae (which includes all the branches orangutan, gorilla, chimpanzee, and humans, extant or extinct); and that hominins refer only to the subtribe Hominina, humans and their closest relatives after splitting from chimpanzees. 3) Edit/revise Hominidae for consistency with the 'current convention'. 4) Go to the next affected article and edit for consistency; repeat, etc.

<>Seems we have what we need to proceed now with clearing this problem: revise/write consistently with the growing 'convention' until the new 'taxonomy consensus' is published by the professionals. Please respond. Jbeans ( talk) 17:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

What you describe above amounts, it seems to me, to promoting a new and as yet not established terminology. That isn't Wikipedia's role. Of course we should discuss this usage, among all the others currently in use. But we follow, not lead. Peter coxhead ( talk) 18:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, our method is always to report and follow the 'established norm', and to not innovate. But, our obligation is to see that the reader is correctly informed, is not misinformed, or brought to confusion---as is now the case re the taxonomy/terminology of primates, humans, chimpanzees---as currently reported on our article pages.

Presently, the 'established norm' is in disarray---there is no established terminology that most of the players use in agreement or common meaning. Should we not inform the reader of that problem?; Step 1), see my previous, would do that part, even if we do nothing else.//sorry, gotta go; pls respond. Jbeans ( talk) 21:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

When sources disagree on terminology, we do, I agree, have a particular problem, since it's very hard to write clearly and maintain neutrality. Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by revise/write consistently with the growing 'convention' but this suggested to me that we should be adopting one convention rather than another. Peter coxhead ( talk) 21:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I understand and agree with your concern re Wp mustn’t choose sides when sides are competing---we merely report them and inform the reader. But, re this situation---changing terminology of the taxons among humans, chimps, etc.---there appears to be no competing per se still on. Of course when interpreting events, it's a matter of nuance (and each of us brings our own nuance)---so here is my understanding of the current situation: In paleontology/primatology, there is no longer the historical consensus on the 'established terminolgy' that once decided this question; see the at http://australianmuseum.net.au/hominid-and-hominin-whats-the-difference.

I mean by ..growing 'convention'.. the one reported by Dunbar (nb: he did not use the term 'convention', see above). As I understand the current situation, the traditional terminology is being abandoned (in efffect) by the professionals, in favor of that 'convention' that Dunbar reported). Is this a correct interprtation?; if so, our present decision-point is not: "adopting one convention rather than another"---apparently, there is no ‘another’. Jbeans ( talk) 21:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I agree with your interpretation of the situation. It depends which area of Paleontology, primatology and anthropology you read where people are drawing lines because they tend to leave as much room for further specification within the areas of interest. In all cases Panini seems to be an atypical name ^[3] from the reading I do which is why I was surprised by it. I think we need a wider survey of sources across the last 3 or so years to see if there is consensus, consensus by discipline or active controversy. SPACKlick ( talk) 21:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Please let's clarify what we don't agree on. I touched on several points---but we agree on the point you specified; that is, I have not advocated (nor do I favor) the classification of chimpazees as Panini; nor have I advocated the Wood & Richmond table 1a mentioned above. Please be more specific. Jbeans ( talk) 12:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with the following points you made

• the traditional terminology is being abandoned (in efffect) by the professionals - Some professionals have developed more specific terminologies within some fields.
• in favor of that 'convention' that Dunbar reported) Not all those changing preferred style are moving towards Dunbar's style although undoubtedly some are.

Crucially however no amount of editing the referent of hominid and hominin will solve the trifurcating homininae and the currently used but controversial existence of the tribe panini. SPACKlick ( talk) 13:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I shan't argue for the points you object to; actually, my observations were derived from the general tenor of the opening discussion and the citations provided, plus the report by the Australian Museum ^[4]. (Btw, the quote by Dunbar (see above) seems to be more one of observing the scene rather than advocating a style; so now I must get a copy of that ref and read it for myself.) But, re solving the 'trifurcating homininae' or the 'existence of the tribe Panini', it seems we now have a paradox: if no amount of editing will help, then apparently 'we can't get there from here'.(?) Frankly, I admit I don't understand why those Wood and Richmond cites (that posit a trifurcation event without justifying same) are considered credible source(s) for a trichotomy taxonomy---but I'll not argue that either. But, maybe we could fix some plain errors; where are the other sources currently referenced on Wp pages that propose a trifurcation event or a 'tribe Panini'?

Indeed, re the lede on page Hominini, I note that one reference provided for 'the tribe Panini (chimpanzees)' ^{[5] [6]} (see Bradley), seems to report the opposite, i.e., it says, "support for a human–chimpanzee clade is now overwhelming". This would imply a taxonomy (subfamily Homininae, tribe Gorillini, tribe Hominini with subtribes Panina and Hominina) that is like that described in the lede of page Chimpanzee---not the taxobox, see below; and consistent with that detailed at Hominidae#Extant. Thus the Bradley citation seems to refute (rather than support) the hypothesis for an equal trichotomy (for humans, chimps, and gorillas) with a separate 'tribe Panini'. (The second of the two refs is Wood and Richmond.)

On that ( Chimpanzee) page, the Wp editor who supplied the 'tribe Panini' in the taxobox provided no source (see Anaxial's comment above). This edit created the (existing) on-page contradiction between the article's lede and taxobox, which even today presents inconsistent information to the reader. Can you agree to let's fix this---i.e., may I revert this Panini? Jbeans ( talk) 16:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm off the opinion we remove all uses of panini till more solid sourcing can be found because until this is settled consistency is the better part of editorial valour. SPACKlick ( talk) 12:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree; and let me go first to fix the easy one! Jbeans ( talk) 02:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

And here is the updated page 'Hominini'---a bit more involved; pls advise of any glitches. Jbeans ( talk) 18:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

...and updated page ' Homininae'. Jbeans ( talk) 05:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is ' Chimpanzee–human last common ancestor'---updated and revised. Jbeans ( talk) 15:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Incoming redirects to this set of articles may need to be checked and retargeted. Hominin and human clade redirect to CHLCA , but should go to [[Hominini] based on the text of that article. Plantdrew ( talk) 17:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing to it---I've fixed it, after tripping over 'Double-Redirect'. Jbeans ( talk) 11:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is Primate---minor c-e and redirect of 'hominin'. Jbeans ( talk) 18:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is Human evolution, lede through 'Bipedalism'---maintenance of 'hominin', and c-e. Jbeans ( talk) 04:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is Human evolution, through 'Evidence'---maintenance of 'hominin' and c-e. Jbeans ( talk) 20:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is Human evolution; all sections completed re maintaining term 'hominin' (and some c-e). Jbeans ( talk) 08:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is Hominidae ---all sections completed re maintaining term 'hominin', plus c-e). Jbeans ( talk) 21:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Homo floresiensis and Primate ---all sections completed re maintaining term 'hominin', plus c-e). Jbeans ( talk) 21:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Ape, aka Hominoidea ---lede and two+ sections completed re maintaining terms 'hominin' and 'hominid', plus c-e). Jbeans ( talk) 05:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Ape, aka Hominoidea ---+section: re changing taxonomy (and re maintaining terms 'hominin' and 'hominid'; c-e). Jbeans ( talk) 03:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Chimpanzee ---lede and 2 sections: c-e. Jbeans ( talk) 23:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Australopithecine ---lede: c-e. Jbeans ( talk) 19:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Human ---lede + sections: c-e; hominin and hominid. Jbeans ( talk) 05:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Omo remains ---lede + sections: c-e; here is a prospective problem for several articles out there: 'traditional' hominid competing with hominin; pls review this approach (for dealing with the problem)---and advise. Thanks. Jbeans ( talk) 12:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Here is Timeline of human evolution---ie, the final section, Homo: edited to maintain the correct distinctions between 'hominin' and 'hominid'. Note this section, in the first paragraph, acknowledges the existence of the opposing camps re 'the' question: Are chimps hominins? (Wp cannot answer this question). But the issue behind this question is closely connected to, although different than, the problem of consistently using the terms 'hominin' vs 'hominid' across the pages of Wp. Jbeans ( talk) 04:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

While editing the primate-related articles (see above work-list) this editor concentrated on the 'other' question, which, rhetorically, is: Why the confusing mess across the pages of Wp re using 'hominin' and 'hominid'? (Pls don't answer that---the why is indeed rhetorical). Instead, let's discuss fixing those pages so that, at minimum, (1) Wp is internally consistent in using the two words, and (2), the reader won't be confused by these two words when reading Wp. <>So what do editors say now: Are 'hominin' and 'hominid' used consistently across Wp pages now? (For convenience, the meanings used here are):

1) hominin: those species of genus Homo and closely related extinct species that rose after the split from the line of the chimpanzees; and as described here, Hominini (at top-o-th'-lede); and

2) hominid: the taxonomic family of primates known as the "great apes", including the four extant genera---the orangutans (Pongo); gorillas (Gorilla); chimpanzees (Pan); and the humans (Homo); and as described here, Hominidae, the lede---especially beginning at "Several revisions over time ...". (The former, or traditional, use of 'hominid' is essentially the same as that of the modern 'hominin', including that it also excluded chimpanzees from within the larger name for humans and species close-to-humans.)

Please note, the soothing simplicity of fixing (these two separate) terms across multiple Wp articles is complicated by: [1] As a very practical matter, only one meaning at a time can be used on these pages for (the same) word, 'hominin', IMO; ie, the position of one of the opposing camps must, of necessity, be used in order to write Wp articles; and then, only an acknowledgement of the other position, as a practical matter, can be applied---again IMO; what's your opinion? [2] Some instances of the traditional use of 'hominid' must be protected on a page, as when the term using the traditional meaning is noted in a report or quotation---as here, Omo remains (see at bottom of the lede); note that some formatting device on the local page can illuminate the traditional usage---probably italics will do most of the time. Jbeans ( talk) 05:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

• (Back to the work-list indent): Here is article " Homo", the lede and first section; c-e and major rewrite here---this is a key article in the matter of "hominin" v "hominid" usage, and it is critical that it reads plainly and correctly; please advise. Jbeans ( talk) 02:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• And here are (hominin/hominid) corrections to pages " Archaic humans" and " Origin of language". Jbeans ( talk) 04:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• And here is " Laetoli"---which is closely linked to " Homo"---there were at least 15 corrections of hominid to hominin. Pls review and advise me of any glitches---here, or at Talk:Laetoli. Jbeans ( talk) 05:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Here is " Hominini"---edited to correct references to "hominin". Jbeans ( talk) 17:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Here is " Chimpanzee–human last common ancestor"---like Hominini, it is edited to correct references to "hominin". Jbeans ( talk) 06:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Here is " Olduvai Gorge"---c-e and major rewrite; and correcting for "hominin /hominid";---plus these related /linked articles, correcting for "hominin /hominid": Jonathan Leakey, Oldowan, East Africa, Gregory Rift, Serengeti, Wilhelm Kattwinkel./// Jbeans ( talk) 02:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Here is " Homo erectus"---c-e and major rewrite; and correcting for "hominin /hominid";--- related or linked articles, correcting for "hominin /hominid" (plus c-e) are too numerous to list here but may be viewed at my [contribs] page. //// Jbeans ( talk) 18:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Here are: . . Australopithecine; . . D2700; . . Paranthropus robustus; . . KNM WT 17000; . . KNM ER 992. All are corrected for "hominin /hominid" use; plus c-e. Jbeans ( talk) 18:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Here is " Homo ergaster"---c-e, and major rewrite; and maintaining terminology of "hominin /hominid"; this edit was closely coordinated to the recent rewrite of Homo erectus (see above). Jbeans ( talk) 22:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@RES2: Pls familiarize yourself with the above sorting of the Wikipedia problem re> the industry problem over usages of "hominin" v "hominid". Then say your solution. Regards, Jbeans ( talk) 23:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Here is " Middle Awash"---c-e, and major rewrite; and maintaining terminology of "hominin /hominid". Jbeans ( talk) 04:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Here is " Afar Triangle"---c-e, and major rewrite; and maintaining terminology of "hominin /hominid". Jbeans ( talk) 03:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• —plus these related or linked articles, correcting for "hominin /hominid": Selam (Australopithecus), Dikika, Jon Kalb, Donald Johanson. /// Jbeans ( talk) 20:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Here is " Lucy (Australopithecus)"---c-e, and major rewrite; and maintaining terminology of "hominin /hominid". Jbeans ( talk) 06:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Hominidae is edited to connect (by short-link) a comprehensive review of related and 'very similar' terminology re "hominin /hominid"; and to short-link to the classification of related taxons. Jbeans ( talk) 21:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• Here is " Mary Leakey"---c-e, and major rewrite; and maintaining terminology of "hominin /hominid". /// Jbeans ( talk) 21:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Here is " Bouri Formation"---c-e, & major rewrite; & maintaining terminology of "hominin /hominid". /// Jbeans ( talk) 02:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• Here is " Oreopithecus"---c-e & rewrite; & maintaining terminology of "hominin /hominid". /// Jbeans ( talk) 05:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• Here is " Australopithecus africanus"---c-e & major rewrite; & maintaining terminology of "hominin /hominid". /// Jbeans ( talk) 23:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Here is " Australopithecus bahrelghazali"---c-e & rewrite; & maintaining terminology of "hominin /hominid". /// Jbeans ( talk) 19:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• Here is " Lower Paleolithic"---c-e & rewrite; & re> maintaining terminology of "hominin /hominid". /// Jbeans ( talk) 08:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Here are " Caveman", " African archaeology", " List of human evolution fossils"---c-e: re> maintaining terminology of "hominin /hominid". /// Jbeans ( talk) 08:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Here is " Australopithecus afarensis"---c-e: & re> maintaining terminology of "hominin /hominid".// Jbeans ( talk) 03:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Here is " Sahelanthropus"---c-e: & re> maintaining terminology of "hominin / hominid".// Jbeans ( talk) 21:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Summary

If I may be so bold, I'm concluding based on this discussion that we are moving forward on not using Panini as a taxon anywhere, and that Pan is a subset of Hominini. I'll try to fix up the taxonomy templates to reflect this change, at least. ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 20:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree, with the caveat that it may need be taken back if we learn that indeed there is a quarter among the specialists who lobby for chimps as a 'separate tribe' status, ie, equivalent to Hominini and Gorillini. AFAIK, the opposing position is that chimps should be grouped as species within the Homo genus---so ok if this is actually the case. (Sorry, but must resume exile from 'wording'---imposed by outsiders---for a few more days). Jbeans ( talk) 13:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

---

The problem with this is, now that things have been re-sorted, there is no article that corresponds to an extremely important referent: the human clade. May we split one off from these articles? Chrisrus ( talk) 15:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• I hate to salt any old wounds, or revive a dead horse for more beating, but a lot of the presumably recent edits seem to unduly make a mess of things: Australopithecine and especially Omo remains have a lot of unnecessary bold terms in the lead, and needless pedantics (e.g. cf. this and that): if the Omo remains are Homo fossils then they are both hominids and hominins. Also, "hominins" are simply members of "Hominini" ^[7], just as "canids" are members of "Canidae", so the statement in Australopithecine "Members of the human clade, that is, the Hominini after the split from the chimpanzees, are now called hominins" is confusing. --Animalparty! ( talk) 18:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Please join the discussion here if you have an opinion. Thanks! Kaldari ( talk) 21:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you. After dealing with doubts specially interacting with itwiki users, I have asked at the village pump of wikidata a question about these genus and species items where basically there is only one species for the genus, and different language versions use different titles but often link to the same item. It is here. I hope it was not confusing for the other users as it was for me, but I link the discussion so I can be sure it is "universally accepted". This way next time a newbie ask me something I know that what I am saying is correct.-- Alexmar983 ( talk) 08:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "universally accepted". In the English Wikipedia, the standard is to have a single article for a monotypic taxon located at the lowest taxonomic rank, but no lower than genus, unless the genus needs disambiguating in which case at the species. This applies regardless of whether the organism is extinct or not. Examples:

• Stipax covers the genus and the sole species Stipax triangulifer: monospecific genus; genus article can be at the genus name
• Euryale ferox covers the sole species and the genus Euryale: monospecific genus; genus article cannot be at the genus name because it needs to be disambiguated
• Amborella covers the order Amborellales, the family Amborellaceae, the genus and the sole species Amborella trichopoda: monotypic order, family and genus; genus article can be at the genus name

If Wikidata can only handle 1:1 links, then there's a problem, but that's for Wikidata editors to solve. Peter coxhead ( talk) 18:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

yes, and if some enWiki editors have an opinion how to solve, they can come and say it. Plus there is a moment when you connect your new item to other languages that happens here locally but affects wikidata. You can simply ignore the situation on data (it is not my field, so I don't have to clean anything :D) but if you have any concern maybe you could be more informed. That's why I left the message.-- Alexmar983 ( talk) 02:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I've commented over there; as I said above, unless Wikidata is changed to handle 1:N, N:1 and N:N links as well as 1:1, it will continue to link monotypic taxa incorrectly between wikis. There's nothing we here can do. Peter coxhead ( talk) 13:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

As you probably know, the dog is Canis lupus familiaris. We used to say this was Latin for "family dog", because all Wikipedia knows about that word, Familiaris says so.

However, the article dog used to say that it meant "familiar", or "ordinary" dog, because certain Wikipedians that seemed to know what they were talking about said that's how the word is used in taxonomy.

Is this true? Are there any other species called familiaris? Do you know? I tried but can't find another.

Is it a thing to use familiaris in taxonomy to refer to "familiar" or "common" species of a genus apart from simply the dog?

Thanks! Chrisrus ( talk) 23:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Interesting question. Of the 12 "familiaris" plants listed at IPNI, 4 were described since 1970, and 6 of the 7 marine species listed at WoRMS were described since 1960. If these species are "familiar" it seem they would've been described long ago. While the broader sample of species names at GBIF isn't as biased towards recently described species, it's also not particularly biased towards species described at the dawn of taxonomy (when the most "familiar" species were described).

However, I can easily imagine a scenario where "familiaris" is an obvious choice for the name of a newly described species. A familiar species albus is split into two species, one common and widespread, the other with a narrow range. The type specimen associated with albus is in the species with the narrow range. Enter familiaris for the new widespread species.

I wouldn't presume that "familiaris" necessarily means familiar in the sense that dogs are familiar. It might be intended as "reminds me of something else" or indeed "family" (perhaps in the case of organism that is more colonial/pair bonded/social than other members of its genus).

But familiaris certainly can mean familiar in the dog sense. It's a thing in taxonomy, but not a sure thing. The Certhia familiaris article says it was named for being "familiar or common" (which makes a lot of sense, it was described by Linnaeus and is the only species in its family that occurs in Sweden). Plantdrew ( talk) 02:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The Wiktionary definition of the word in Latin is helpful. See familiaris, which can mean "of or pertaining to a household or family" or "customary, habitual" among other things. Thanks,   SchreiberBike | ⌨  02:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this is the problem. Did Canis familiaris mean "family dog" or "familiar dog, you already have seen them, you see them all the time type of dog".

Right now, based on the above example of the common treecreeper, it looks like the latter, not what the article dog currently says, which is the former. Chrisrus ( talk) 16:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The page Sooglossus sechellensis links to the common-name article Seychelles treefrog. So does Tachycnemis seychellensis. It's common for synonyms to link to the same article, but these are two different species. They even belong to different families of frog—Sooglossidae and Hyperoliidae respectively. The article they both link to only refers to one of these.

I've found 235 candidate "false synonyms", similar to this pair, listed here:

• User:Beastie Bot/Redirects to same title

I generated the list based on data from the IUCN Red List. Some are true errors, like the frogs above, while others may highlight other issues, such as where the IUCN identifies a taxon as a species but Wikipedia considers it a subspecies. These cases are less problematic, but might highlight subspecies which could be considered for their own separate subspecies articles, or which may have outdated taxonomic information.

Is there anyone who can see value in this interested in joining the project to either help go through these individual entries or to help coordinate the effort? It's a relatively small list, but it's too much for me to go through individually.

The list is from February, but I didn't get it much attention at the time and most issues are probably still there. I had planned to split the list at least into plants and animals to make it easier to digest, but first I'd like to see if there's any interest in checking and fixing the items on the list. —— Pengo 05:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I will look through your list and see what I can do. Do remember when using the IUCN for information to check the "date last updated" on the redlist, sometimes these are a decade old and it may be that Wikipedia is more up to date. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 13:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Nice catch! Chrisrus ( talk) 02:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I've fixed the example issue now. Tachycnemis seychellensis was redirecting to Seychelles treefrog instead of Seychelles frog. — Pengo 08:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

One down, 234 to go. — Pengo 23:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 35 Temporal range: Late Cretaceous, 76.6–75.1  Ma PreꞒ Ꞓ O S D C P T J K Pg N ↓
Scientific classification
Domain:	Eukaryota
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Chordata
Clade:	Dinosauria
Clade:	Saurischia
Clade:	Theropoda
Family:	† Tyrannosauridae
Genus:	† Gorgosaurus Lambe, 1914
Species:	†G. libratus
Binomial name
†Gorgosaurus libratus Lambe, 1914

I tried bringing this up several times at the relevant template pages, but there is only one other active user who suggested I bring this up at here. See previous discussions here. [1] In short, the current taxobox formats (both for the manual taxobox, speciesbox, and automatic taxobox templates) contain multiple redundancies which need to be rectified. Currently, the "bottom segment" of these boxes ends with Species: x followed by no authority. There is then a header bar reading "Binomial name", an original coinage which is redundant and makes no grammatical sense (this should be changed to Scientific name, or simply Binomial, though the latter is more technical). Below that is the species name, listed a second time,with its authority. For some reason, this second instance of the binomial lacks the dagger for extinct species, but the first includes it. (See example). My suggestion is to either drop the first instance of Species and fix "Binomial name" to "Scientific name" or "Species" OR drop the "Binomial name" section and add an authority to the Species line. Any input? Dinoguy2 ( talk) 17:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I've advertised this discussion at many of the descendant WikiProjects. Peter coxhead ( talk) 07:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

There are three issues raised above, which I suggest we separate, since the answer to two of them depends on the other.

Should there continue to be a separate "bottom segment" for taxoboxes for species and ranks below species?

• No I see no reason to treat ranks at species and below differently from those above. Peter coxhead ( talk) 07:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• No I have always thought it was a bit redundant to have binomial name and species as separate items. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 08:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• No I agree it is redundant.... Pvmoutside ( talk) 15:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• No I also agree this is redundant. I honestly do not think the taxobox should even be concerned with ranks below species. Faendalimas ^talk 15:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• No but... I don't really see the point in formatting species (and lower) differently from higher taxa. It would make more sense if all taxoboxes had a bottom segment; i.e., if genera pages had a bottom segment with the heading "Genus", family pages with the heading "Family", etc. But there would still be difficulties with articles covering multiple ranks at once (i.e., monotypic taxa). To me, there's a fourth issue here; aside from whether to have a bottom segment with a header, should the abbreviation and full binomial both be listed? Plantdrew ( talk) 16:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  • One reason for a special treatment of species name is that it is, as binomial, often so long that it would split over two lines, plus authority possibly to the third line. This staggering might not look so nice. Micromesistius ( talk) 20:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• No I agree that it is not necessary, and should be eliminated to reduce clutter. Tdslk ( talk) 17:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• No, I also agree this is redundant. Micromesistius ( talk) 20:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• No, I can't really see the point of listing this twice. Although we clearly need to put the species authority in there somewhere, so if this does result in entries being overly long (per Micromesistius above) it might be better to keep the bottom section (with the header "species", or somesuch) and remove the last line above it. What we don't need is both. Anaxial ( talk) 21:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• No, but I wonder why the binomial name field was added in the first place? FunkMonk ( talk) 22:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• No. I share Anaxial's concern about long names overrunning the narrow margins, though. +1 for keeping the scientific authority as well M. A. Broussard ( talk) 11:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
• No: See OP. Dinoguy2 ( talk) 12:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

If the answer to (1) is "yes", should the headings "Binomial name" and "Trinomial name" be changed to something else?

• Probably not The problem has always been that there isn't a good alternative that is correct under the different nomenclature codes. If the "bottom segment" remains, I don't think "Scientific name" is appropriate, since all the names above are scientific names. "Binomen" and "trinomen" are zoological, not botanical. Removing the bottom segment would solve this problem. Peter coxhead ( talk) 07:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• Probably not Peter sums it up well Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 08:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• No also agree with Peter. Faendalimas ^talk 15:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• Yes. I dislike binomial name, as it is very rarely used outside Wikipedia, probably because it's redundant (nomial=name). Since the taxobox assigns colors based on the kingdom field, presumably it would be possible to apply the term from the appropriate nomenclatural code based on what's in the kingdom field. We don't need to have a rarely used compromise term (though it might not be feasible to change at this point without bot assistance). Plantdrew ( talk) 16:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I get that the words binomial name is pretty much a tautology once you translate the word binomial, however I would disagree that its hardly used. It is frequently used in teaching taxonomy where the word binomial, rather than its literal translation, has come to be a term defining a two part scientific name, the name then states it is a name. I get the redundancy, but most are not taught latin these days and to many its just a term defining the scientific name. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 00:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
• Yes: See OP, I would suggest changing "Binomial Name" to "Species" or "Species name" if the bottom section is retained and if "Scientific name" is deemed too general. Dinoguy2 ( talk) 12:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

If the answer to (1) is "yes", should the extinction dagger be added to the name in the "bottom segment"?

• Yes I think this is just an oversight. Peter coxhead ( talk) 07:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• Yes Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 08:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• Yes I think the dagger is useful for clearly identifying extinct species and should be used appropriately. Faendalimas ^talk 15:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• Yes Plantdrew ( talk) 16:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• Yes: If it is to be used, it should be used consistently. Dinoguy2 ( talk) 12:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Should the taxobox include both an abbreviation and the full name of a species?

• Maybe? I think this is not the same question as whether to have a bottom segment with a header. There's obviously redundancy with listing both an abbreviation and an un-abbreviated form. The un-abbreviated form absolutely should be listed. There is some slight utility in listing the abbreviation. Many of our articles don't use the abbreviation in the article body (because they are very short stubs, or they use the common name, or various other reasons). If a string such as "C. discolor" isn't found anywhere in the article body or taxobox, search engines won't find the Wikipedia article if anybody searches for the abbreviation. But I doubt very many people would be searching for the abbreviated form. Plantdrew ( talk) 16:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• Yes. Plantdrew raises a good point above. I have no strong opinions on the other issues. Neil916 ( Talk) 16:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Maybe the taxobox could generate this as an invisible tag for search engines? Micromesistius ( talk) 20:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I think the abbreviation could go for several reasons. First up it should be obvious if you have any inkling of what a binomial is that any shortening is G. species (= Genus species) second point on this is that if your using it what we show is only a suggested abbreviation. If I have a sentence discussing first Cuora pani then Chelodina mccordi (just random examples) my abbreviations in this sentence would be C. pani and Ch. mccordi. Hence I do not see that much value in doing the abbreviation. If it is insisted upon then its not that big a deal, but if you want to shorten it I think getting rid of the abbreviated form of the name is a good step and just list the whole name. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 00:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
• No: Standard scientific style dictates that an abbreviation is only to be used following the full statement of the species name. Listing the full genus name followed by an abbreviated species name is a violation of this style. Some articles, but not all, list the full species name in the taxobox header where no common name is available, but since this is not universal it should not be considered a full statement of the species name. Searching for the abbreviated form is rare (only a few species are popularly known by their abbreviation, and this is more akin to a common name) and could be actively misleading (numerous species share the same abbreviation). I agree with Faendalimas that the abbreviations are non-standard anyway and are entirely context dependent (Even T. rex for Tyrannosaurus rex should become Ty. rex in certain contexts, for example when discussing it along with Tarbosaurus). Dinoguy2 ( talk) 12:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
• No - seems redundant. But as above, I'm wondering why this was included in the first place. FunkMonk ( talk) 12:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

See #Alternatives below. Peter coxhead ( talk) 13:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Alternatives

I wasn't around here when the taxobox format was developed, but a possible line of development is as follows. Suppose that species had one-part names like higher ranks. Then the classification could look something like this:

Version 1
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Plantae
...	...
Family:	Zingiberaceae
Genus:	Roscoea
Species:	alpina

However, this isn't how Linnaean names work (especially for plants where the second part of a species name is just an epithet, not a name, and the botanical code requires the genus name or abbreviation). So how about:

Version 2
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Plantae
...	...
Family:	Zingiberaceae
Genus:	Roscoea
Species:	Roscoea alpina

But to a non-expert, the repetition of "Roscoea" might look odd. So then we try:

Version 3
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Plantae
...	...
Family:	Zingiberaceae
Genus:	Roscoea
Species:	R. alpina

But although now correct under the codes, this doesn't show the full name of the species. So finally we repeat it, but now in a special location to show the repetition isn't part of the hierarchy:

Version 4
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Plantae
...	...
Family:	Zingiberaceae
Genus:	Roscoea
Species:	R. alpina
Binomial name
Roscoea alpina

So if we don't want the extra section, basically we have to use the pattern of Version 2 above, or, as has been suggested in the discussion, use a separate section for the last rank in every box, like:

Version 5
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Plantae
...	...
Family:	Zingiberaceae
Genus
Roscoea

Version 5
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Plantae
...	...
Family:	Zingiberaceae
Genus:	Roscoea
Species
Roscoea alpina

When you include the authority, there is some merit in Version 5 over Version 3. Peter coxhead ( talk) 13:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment Version 2 is the one which is most correct and least repetitious. The only downside seems to be that the average Joe will think it's repetitious, but it's not, and we shouldn't accommodate ignorance. The species name is two parts, not just the epithet. Blame Linnaeus if it looks redundant ;) I agree that version 5 might be better for including the authority as it has more room, so for me it's a tossup between 2 and 5. I'd be happy with either. Dinoguy2 ( talk) 13:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• Just a couple of thoughts from a non-expert... May also want to note that the |type_species= parameter results in a "bottom segment" that is sometimes redundant by having both the |genus_authority= and |species_authority= parameters in the taxobox. Also, when the dagger (†) is used, I consider it okay to use the [[Extinction|†]] link for the first instance, and then use the {{ Extinct}} template or just the dagger alone for later instances.   Stick to sources!  Paine  11:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The box for the type species is reasonable, since this is just extra information, and not part of the taxonomic hierarchy. I'm not quite sure what Paine means by "redundant" above; it may happen that the authorities for the genus, species and type species are all the same, but as they don't have to be, it's not actually redundant information that they are. Peter coxhead ( talk) 12:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Just sayin, Peter, that when the ga and the sa are the same, then the info is redundant; however, only youse who know what yer doin' should say whether or not this is desirable. I just thought that it might be pertinent to the above.   Stick to sources!  Paine  12:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that it is redundant; redundant information is information that can be determined from other given information, but you can't determine that the sa is the same as the ga unless you are told this. It's like the name " Troglodytes troglodytes": the species name is the same as the genus name, but it's not redundant. On the other hand, "T. troglodytes" is redundant given "Troglodytes troglodytes". Peter coxhead ( talk) 13:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it is not apparent that both genus and species are by the same person unless you are told this, it may also not be from the same publication, even if from the same author. You either have to be told this, or read the papers. Type species is useful and is actually a difficult piece of information to readily find in many databases. Another useful piece of information is the authority for the current combination, eg. the type species of the Mata mata is Testudo fimbriata Schweigger, 1812, the genus Chelys Duméril & Bibron 1835, the current combination and genus spelling (Chelus as Chelus fimbriatus) is Mertens 1930 and the current spelling of the species Chelus fimbriata is Iverson 1992. Not suggesting all this be put in, but maybe a reference for the current combination may be useful. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 18:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Dyanega points on my talk page that User:Caftaric's moves of articles like redirects Epistrophe (genus) to Epistrophe (fly) and earlier usages like Ferdinandea (hoverfly) may need discussion. It does not look like the earlier discussions on this topic have produced any consensus guideline on the project page. Shyamal ( talk) 02:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• There are two problems with the use of "(genus)" to disambiguate. Firstly, there can legitimately be a genus under the botanical code with the same name. Secondly, some names under the zoological code came into use before it was discovered that they had already been used for a different animal and a replacement name was needed. In some cases these names were used sufficiently widely to be worth creating a redirect. For these reasons, I favour the consistent use of something other than "(genus)", as for spiders, where "(spider)" is pretty much always used. Peter coxhead ( talk) 06:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the point you make @ Peter coxhead: and you are right there can be cross kingdom issues with names where the principal of homonymy does not apply. However I think @ Dyanega: also raises another legitimate point in that this being done by some sort of bot and affecting many pages without consultation could be problematic as it could create broken links and even potentially orphans. It should also be done in a way that has been through some sort of consensus and standardization. To ensure it is applied across all affected taxa in a non confusing way. I do not have a major issue with genus not being used but that its been done without consultation is a concern. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 12:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@ Faendalimas: I agree absolutely that the choice of disambiguator needs to be agreed through consensus. I guess that where agreement has been reached, some sort of automated process would be possible, but definitely only after there is agreement. Peter coxhead ( talk) 17:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The editor in question has a history (based on their talk page) of category proliferation, which is also part of the present wave of edits. There have been something like 1200 edits between May 27th and June 1, which is a LOT of edits in 5 days, and a very large proportion involve the creation of new categories, renaming of old categories, and classification of existing articles INTO those categories. The article title changes seem to be a small part of that overall plan, but this editor's actions are quite extensive, and taking place with no review or consensus whatsoever. Dyanega ( talk) 21:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@ Peter coxhead, Dyanega, Shyamal, and Caftaric: I also note from the talk page that getting a response out of this editor has been almost non-existent, and the only time they have responded to a request it was not particularly helpful. To me this is even more reason to be concerned if he is running a bot to do this as one of the issues with bots is the capacity to stop them and respond to issues when they occur. I also think that if this is a part of some grand plan for those pages it would be good to know what that is and for other editors to be aware of it, 1200 in 5 days is a lot of edits to have to deal with if it all goes awry. My suggestion at this point is for these edits to stop, be explained, and to look into developing a consensus on how to name these disambiguation pages. I do wonder at the necessity of all these categories also, I note on the talk page they have been previously warned about making redirects of abbreviated names which I hope the user followed, abbreviations of scientific names are always context specific and by virtue create even more problems as pointed out on the talk page. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 23:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain that Caftaric has previously edited Wikipedia with at least two other accounts. There's 10 years worth of category proliferation, redirects from abbreviated names, and talk page unresponsiveness across 3 accounts with a very similar pattern of edits. As extensive criticism seems likely to make them jump to a new account (with no change in the behavior prompting criticism), I'm not sure how to best approach Caftaric's output. Plantdrew ( talk) 02:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I had to deal with a similar situation where an editor made thousands of prolific changes that had to be undone with more than just a revert using AWB. I had a bit of a system set up to go through the editor's contribution pages, so it might be possible to do something similar here. Depending on what's agreed upon, I'd be willing to look into how feasible this would be. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 02:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@ Plantdrew: is there a case for a checkuser do you believe? I am not requesting one I am asking you because I have no idea if this would be the case or not. With the number of edits involved, this could become very problematic so if there is a long history with multiple accounts it is a concern. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 03:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@ Faendalimas: I don't know, are Caftaric's edits "disrupting any Wikimedia projects"? If not, I don't think checkuser is justified. Some of their edits are useful. Many are poorly thought out and entail more maintenance work from other editors, but I wouldn't call them "disruptive" per se. Not disclosing prior accounts might be bad form, but isn't grounds for a checkuser as far as I'm aware. The redirects from abbreviations are what bother me the most (they almost always require disambiguation). Caftaric seems to have stepped back from creating abbreviation redirects for the moment. If they start on these again, I'd start considering that "disruption". Plantdrew ( talk) 05:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Apart from the user-specific issue - do we have any guidelines for the genus name disambiguators choices being

• Name (genus) - use when there is no homonym?
• Name (Kingdom|Phylum|Class|Order|Family)? when homonymy exists
  • Use English or Latin group name?

Shyamal ( talk) 03:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@ Shyamal: as far as I am aware the usual has been to use namespace(genus) for this, however there is I concede a case for this being different. I guess in the past the issue was whether the name of a genus also happened to be the name for something else, non biological, eg a place or book or something. In this case (genus) works fine. However as pointed out it could be a plant-genus versus an animal-genus and hence using genus is problematic. I am not sure I like the idea of using (fly) or something either though, maybe for ambiguations it could be namespace(family-name) ie for a turtle you would end up with something like Chelonia(Cheloniidae), this is a made up example, though maybe that is getting too technical. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 11:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes after your clarification my preference would be Name (Family) when its a genus disambiguation, as this gives the name of the genus and the name of the family it belongs to, should be clear enough. But given the WP preference for not using Scientific Names, others may see this as too technical. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 12:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe this is overly simple, but instead of just a blanket namespace(genus) approach, would it make sense to just specify namespace(animal genus) namespace(plant genus) in the relatively few cases where there are conflicting genera with the same name? That would spare any large-scale changes without needing to figure out other specifics like adding fly, family, etc. in the partnetheses. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 16:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

It is true I do not think there would be many cases where there is a plant and an animal genus with same name, it could be just restricted to those rare cases and otherwise keep what we have been doing. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 17:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep what we have been doing – but what we have been doing? Practice has varied in different WikiProjects. Unfortunately, as far as I know, it's impossible to search for the exact occurrence of "(WORD)" in titles, because the search algorithm ignores the parentheses. However, if you search for insource:/\(WORD\)/, where you replace WORD by whatever is appropriate, you can find all occurrences in the source wikitext, most of which are likely to be disambiguated titles, although not always genus names. Here are some results I found:

• (genus) – 13,247 occurrences
• (plant) – 7,856
• (moth) – 6,236
• (bird) – 3,746 (although a lot seem to be common names not genera)
• (fish) – 3,341

So "(plant)" and "(moth)" alone outnumber "(genus)". Others with smaller counts include "(insect)", "(snail)", "(spider)", "(crab)", "(mammal)", etc. In total, the use of a single English word as a disambiguator far outnumbers the use of "genus". So I think we can say with confidence that this is the commonest method of disambiguating genus articles. Peter coxhead ( talk) 10:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Those are also a lot of edits if we were to change anything. My gut feeling is to let it continue as needed, maybe come towards a preference but not put it in black and white, in the end as long as the disambiguation works. However, my fear is I just know someone will eventually get all bureaucratic about it and want it standardized requiring some 20K edits, like I said I have a preference for family, but in a way that's what the English words are doing, though usually Order or something. I do not want this to cause 20k edits as I think the reasons behind it are unnecessary. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 11:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

There don't have to be a lot of edits if we change anything. As long as "genus" isn't ambiguous, there are no further edits required if an article is moved from "genus" to another disambiguator; the redirect from "genus" will still exist. If "genus" is ambiguous, well, further edits are necessary anyway.

I'm seeing two misconceptions in support of "genus" as a default dab term for genera:

1st misconception) That "genus" actually is the default dab term. It's not. It is the single most commonly used dab term, but the most common way to disambiguate is with one of several common name terms for a larger group of organisms, as Peter's metrics show. I did a different search the last time this came up, and came up with a rough count of 929 articles using "genus" in the title and 2459 using another term. The are currently 874 articles with "moth" as the dab term alone, almost as many as use "genus (the difference between my count and Peter's is that Peter has occurrence of terms on pages (possibly needing edits) while I've got article title (possibly needing page moves and then edits).

2nd misconception) That "genus" will rarely require further disambiguation. We have 604 pages in Category:Genus disambiguation pages where "genus" has already proved to be inadequate to disambiguate. Most of the genus disambiguations cover two genus names falling under different nomenclatural codes, but there are some cases where we have articles on 2+ homonyms under a single code. Making some rough assumptions, let's say all of the 604 current genus dabs only cover two names under different codes. That's 1208 articles linked from the dab page where "genus" isn't sufficient to disambiguate. Another rough assumption, let's say the 929 articles with "genus" are indeed fully disambiguated, and the (2459-1208=)1251 articles using another dab term could be moved to "genus". Best case scenario for "genus" as a sufficient dab term is 2180 (1251+929) vs 1208 where "genus" isn't sufficient. 2180 vs. 1208 isn't exactly rare.

Alright, so the numbers I'm throwing around came from some searches I did a year and a half ago, and I haven't updated them, but here they are:

Ultimately, current practice for genus dab terms is correlated with WikiProjects. Dinosaurs, Fungi, Spiders, and Gastropods consistently the project name as a dab term (and WikiProject Gastropods explicitly suggests "gastropod" for their articles). Amphibians and Reptiles, Mammals and Arthropods usually use "genus". Insects and Lepidoptera usually use common names for orders ("fly", "moth", "butterfly", "beetle", etc.). WikiProject Arthropods is the strongest user of "genus". I looked into arthropods further in December 2014. At that time, they had 106 genera that needed disambiguation. For 75 of 106, "genus" was sufficient, but more than 25% needed further disambiguation. "animal" was sufficient for 99/106, and "arthropod" for 101/106.

Long story short, while "genus" might possibly be sufficient disambiguation more than 50% of the time, it's not sufficient at least 20% of them time, and "genus" is not currently the status quo for all cases where it's sufficient to disambiguate. In spite of repeated discussions, we've never had consensus that "genus" should always be used where it's sufficient, nor agreed at all on what to do in the frequent cases where "genus" is insufficient. Using the family as a dab term is reasonable when "genus" is insufficient, but essentially no articles are using family dab terms, so this route would be a massive upheaval in the status quo. The status quo is largely that dab terms are common names for vertebrate classes, or orders of insects, or the major groups under the botanical code. Plantdrew ( talk) 04:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Plantdrew and the analysis above. The advice we should give is not to use "(genus)", and certainly not the scientific name of the family, but to use an English name, ideally as agreed by the relevant WikiProject. Peter coxhead ( talk) 08:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, and good analysis, I can run with that. My view on using family scientific name is a personal preference which I tried to acknowledge, and I also realised it probably would not be popular because of the naming conventions on WP. Call it a combination of my being a taxonomist and editing and admining on Wikispecies. But for Wikipedia your proposal makes sense. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 08:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Using the family name as the disambiguation would help in the relatively rare cases where there are articles for homonyms under a single code, but it is not user friendly to anyone not familiar with the taxonomy of the relevant class/order, and could still break down in the homonyms relate to taxa in the same family. I'd suggest (homonym) for the illegitimate name/junior homonym, and eschewing the use of family names for disambiguation. Lavateraguy ( talk) 06:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@ Lavateraguy: This is not referring to junior homonyms and hence invalid names (using ICZN definitions) but valid names because they are cross kingdom and hence the Principal of Homonymy does not apply. In all honesty I do not see why any junior homonym would have its own page, assuming the nomenclature is up to date which I guess is a big ask. Hence I agree with @ Peter coxhead and Plantdrew: Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 12:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

We do have articles on junior homonyms under one code. Obviously the junior names need to have a replacement published, but there are cases where replacement names have yet to be published. I've been keeping track of homonyms under the botanical code as I find them. I'm aware of 11 at the moment; they're all pairs of alga/plant, fungus/plant or alga/fungus (and 4 of them also include an animal). I haven't been tracking zoological homonyms, but they are out there too. I came across Perinetia recently; the senior homonym is a moth, but we also have an article on a eulophid hymenopteran Perinetia, and there's a red link from Gelinae for an ichneumonid hymenopteran Perinetia. Clearly "homonym" doesn't work to disambiguate the eulophid, and in this particular case, I don't see any good way to escape using the family as the dab term for the hymenopteran genera (the authorship perhaps could be used to disambiguate, but I don't think that's very user friendly). Admittedly, I haven't looked into this in any great detail; perhaps replacement names have been published for the hymenoptera genera. Suarezia was another case where we had three animal genera, but found replacement names for the junior homonyms. Riedelia has two plants and two animals (one a red link) at present.

Regarding Perinetia, this one is a complete mess. There are FIVE widely-recognized junior homonyms, all animals, with the moth name having precedence [2] - the eulophid name does not appear in either this publication, nor in the Nomenclator Zoologicus, so it is quite problematic - but also, assuming it really exists - yet another homonym needing replacement. Dyanega ( talk) 18:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I do want to note that there are some cases where "genus" may be the best disambiguation choice. Trochoidea is both a superfamily and a genus of gastropods, so "gastropod" doesn't work. Columella (disambiguation) lists a gastropod anatomical feature and a genus. Taxonomic affinities of Bellerophon (genus) are uncertain, so it's not clear whether "gastropod" is appropriate (although I suppose "animal" or "mollusc" could work, I prefer "genus" here as it's a more common dab term than the other two). Stevia, Asparagus and Vanilla are all about plant products largely derived from a single species in the eponymous genus; "Stevia (plant)" could be confused with either the genus or the economically important species, so Stevia (genus) seems most clear to me. And going back to the impetus for this discussion, Caftaric just moved Occidens (genus) to Occidens (tetrapod), which I don't see as an improvement ("tetrapod" being a very rare dab term; "animal" would've been a better choice, but I think "genus" was fine as it was). Plantdrew ( talk) 16:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)