Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life

WikiProject Tree of Life

Main pageTalkArticle templateTaxonomic resourcesTaxoboxesParticipantsArticle requests

Categorisation of monotypic genus articles?

Just wondering how we should apply "[taxon] described in [year]" and "taxa described by [author]" categories to articles on monotypic genera, ie. articles that cover both a genus and its only species. If the sole species in the genus was described in 1758 by author A, but the genus was described in 1830 by author B, do we add both sets of categories, or only the categories relating to the description of the genus? If I remember correctly I believe WP:MICRO categorises the species redirect with the relevant categories, but I'm not sure if that is an accepted practice in other areas. Currently working on cleaning up several monotypic spider genus articles and just want to make sure I'm doing the right thing. Cheers, Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 01:26, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Having the species redirect and genus articles each with their correct category seems appropriate to me, policy or not. Dyanega (talk) 01:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I think that's current practice. It means you can't use the species category tree to navigate from the articles, but at least it does mean that via redirects you can use the category to navigate to the articles. CMD (talk) 03:48, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Also note that when the genus name needs disambiguating so the article is at the name of the sole species, the same logic applies: the article and redirect are categorized according to their titles. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:21, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

This is what I do. I've had some people get shirty about categories on redirects though. YorkshireExpat (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

WP:INCOMPATIBLE is the shortcut to a section of the guideline that deals with this. There isn't a taxonomic example given there, but there is an example covering a grouping of fictional organisms belonging to two different species. Plantdrew (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks all for the input! WP:INCOMPATIBLE seems to apply well here - should this be mentioned/linked in WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA/WP:MONOTYPICFLORA? Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:35, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Phylogeny posters as resources

Many of you will be aware of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Poster and other plant phylogeny posters. Some may not be aware of the posters for plant orders and families. There is now a hyperlinked summary of all the plant posters, with links to the different language versions: Plant_Phylogeny_Posters_PPP_TOTAL_LIST.

There are also some new animals ones, for birds, mammals, primates, snakes, hexapods and spiders. The hyperlinked list is at Animal_Phylogeny_Posters_AnimalPPs_TOTAL_LIST.

While I don't think they are appropriate for referencing articles, I find them a useful tool for getting a quick reminder of the relationships. Most give the source for the work.  —  Jts1882 | talk  13:19, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

"Ptenothrix species 4"

Is that a validly described species? BugGuide has it as "sp.4 at collembola.org", which is even funkier. There seem to be 21 of these species in the genus (at Collembola.org). Are these placeholder names, or did Janssens & pals run out of ideas for names, or what...? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:42, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

It's a placeholder name. One would need to check the original literature to be sure, but I suspect that the numbering may originate with collembola.org. There are cases where placeholder names are used consistently, unambiguously, and in multiple sources, such as sp. "locality" or sp. "identifying trait" (some plant examples might even have wikipedia pages), but sp. "letter" or sp. "number" are less likely to be consistently used.

The page would need a taxobox. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:38, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I thought we had (though maybe not in this talk) discussed before whether an organism with no scientific name should or should not be given a taxobox, and the consensus was to not do so, if only because it creates the false impression that the taxon name is accepted by the scientific community. Something that is a "placeholder" name can be an article title, but it really shouldn't be placed in italics, or given a taxobox. If it eventually is given a name, then the existing article can be moved and edited accordingly. Dyanega (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

According to collembola.org "Ptenothrix species 1" was described in 1969 and "Ptenothrix species 4" in 2008. That's a long time to keep a placeholder. "Ptenothrix species 3" has six forms. CoL has 80 Ptenothrix species and doesn't list these placeholders. None of the species have Janssens or Moorehead as author.  —  Jts1882 | talk  16:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

There are 207 articles under Category:Undescribed species. 178 have a Taxobox, Speciesbox or an Automatic taxobox (Automatic taxobox should be preferred as it supports |Species text= and |Binomial text=, which allow the "species" to displayed unitalicized).

I would have no problem deleting most of the undescribed species. But it might be useful to distinguish between undescribed species that have a placeholder "designation" (Boswellia sp. A, Gen. nov. 70, sp. 1, Heliotropium aff. wagneri) and those that have a placeholder "name" (Eremophila glabra subsp. South coast (A. Chapman AC 15)). Some Polbot created articles sourced to IUCN have "names", but others have designations. Australian sources for undescribed species often have pretty robust "names", that will usually be cited as synonyms in Australian taxonomic databases once the species is described, and there is often a suggestion of a potential type specimen (e.g. (A. Chapman AC 15)). Plantdrew (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

There is WP:NSPECIES; there was discussion at WT:NSPECIES towards the end of last year. Neither seems to be specific about species that are not formally described, but I would expect that they have to meet WP:GNG. I've invited that article creator to join this discussion. The discussion about taxoboxes may have been elsewhere Lavateraguy (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with this here. I think personally that placeholders should be fine until transfer as well. Additionally I know of a dude that is currently going over the species and attempting to get them described. (he is trying to go after species 6 first and species 3 and 4 later on because they are complicated...)

In general for Ptenothrix in specific- the scientific community has a consensus to use the placeholders until further evidence is presented. if you go to any citizen science site (iNaturalist for example) people will be defining species to genus but at the same time marking them up as said species. I can verifiy that these species do exist- as I personally encounter Ptenothrix species 3 in almost all its variations on a regular basis. It exists and is scientifically used therefore I believe we should at least share the information about its valid existence. I also agree that they shouldn't need speciesboxes- it looks funky. Lark999 (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Up for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ptenothrix species 4 and another AfD about a not formally described species, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bosavi woolly rat. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Cultivar

Cultivar has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

New genera in Sepiidae, splitting Genus Sepia

Modified from Talk:Sepiidae#Reclassification:

A paper by Kubodera et. al. has proposed a new classification schema for this family, which has been accepted by WoRMS, its child project MolluscaBase, SeaLifeBase, and iNat. However i'm not aware if this is accepted as consensus by malacologists and therefore whether the pages and associated taxoboxes should be amended. Does anyone else have a better idea on this? Anthropophoca (talk) 05:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

The Gastropod Project follows WoRMS/MolluscaBase as its guideline taxonomy (i.e. for determining articles and taxobox classification), so I think updating the articles to reflect the new classification would get consensus.  —  Jts1882 | talk  07:19, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I've added the new genera into the Sepiidae article along with their respective taxonomy templates. There are still dozens of unreviewed species though, which are still retained in Sepia as per WoRMS, and i'm pretty sure a number of them are synonyms, but i'm not great with reviewing taxonomic history. Anthropophoca (talk) 08:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

History merge needed

Is there anyone with the ability to merge page histories that can clean up the cut-paste move reversion that Bubblesorg did on Sequoia dakotensis? The first half of the page history is at Sequoites dakotensis but the second half is now at Sequoia dakotensis. The article will preferably to end up at Sequoites dakotensis given that while genus placement is divided in the literature between the two, recent papers/books are in agreement that the taxon actually belongs to Parataxodium and it will eventually need a redescription and genus update. While we wait its better to have the article at the cupressaceous form genus rather than the orthotaxon. Thanks!--Kevmin § 15:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

New elephant stubs

Rose-Tu and Tula-Tu ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:49, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Timely, I wonder if any Wikipedian will be on hand for Tula-Tu's public debut (tomorrow in Oregon's local time). CMD (talk) 03:12, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Requested Move at Talk:Gunnison Grouse

I'm hoping to get some more eyes on the move request here. Thanks! Somatochlora (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Authority of Mandibulata

I've been looking, but I can't find the authority of the major arthropod clade Mandibulata. The origin of the current definition of the concept seems to go back to RE Snodgrass's 1938 work "Evolution of the Annelida, Onychophora and Arthropoda", but the name Mandibulata seems to have been already used for insects in the 19th century. Help would be appreciated. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Do you mean Snodgrass? Seems legit, see here and here (if my Spanish is any good). GBIF also agrees. Seems that he had already used the term himself. Are you referring to other even earlier usages? YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, whoops corrected. On scholar I'm seeing references to "Mandibulata" going back to the 19th century [1], not sure if this those are just spurious results though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Louis Agassiz seems to use it for at least some insects in this 1850 book for example [2]. If a clade gets redefined it still retains it's original authority, for example Elasmobranchii when originally defined by Bonaparte in 1838 was equivalent to modern Chondrichthyes, but was later redefined to represent a subgroup, but still retains Bonaparte as authority. That GBIF is explicitly stated to be drawn from German Wikipedia, which I do not think is an authoritative source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

It is attributed to Clairville by Macleary 1821 [3] so that is probably a good place to start. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:14, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Which would appear to be Joseph Philippe de Clairvilles 1798 book on entomology, page 44. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

According to Kluge's nomina circumscribentia website (which appears to be down currently), Clairville, 1798 is the earliest to use the name Mandibulata, but used only for certain groups of insects (as already mentioned), while Snodgrass's 1935 "Principles of insect morphology" is apparently the first to use the current definition of Crustacea+Myriapoda+Hexapoda. Monster Iestyn (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Did Snodgrass acknowledge the original Clairville authority? Who should I attribute the authority to, Snodgrass or Clairville? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, no, he didn't. (Snodgrass's work is fully available on Internet Archive [4], if you want to check for yourself; Mandibulata's chapter starts at page 8) I don't really know who it should be attributed to, as both Clairville (1798) and Snodgrass (either 1935 or 1938) are credited as the authority by different sources. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology Part Q (Arthropoda 3, Crustacea, Ostracoda) (1961) for instance prefers using Clairville, 1798 with a note saying it was emended, while a number of results on Googles Books appear for "Mandibulata Snodgrass" (annoyingly all of these are snippet view only, at least for me). Monster Iestyn (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Maybe @Dyanega has a better idea, though I know the ICZN rules are much looser above family level names. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:09, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

The ICZN does not regulate names above superfamily at all; for dates or authorships or spellings, it's a proverbial wild west show. ;-) Dyanega (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

If the rules everywhere throughout biology are the same (which I do think they are), Mandibulate Clairville, 1798 is the authority of the name, with Mandibulata Clairville, 1798 sensu Snodgrass, 1935 being a more "complete" attribution for the use as a clade for all insects with mandibles. The ICZN doesn't even try and provide rules for suprafamiliar clades such as this, and I don't think Phylocode has really been alive long enough if it is even applied at all within invertebrates. Clairville, 1798 should be seen as the authority for the name even if some studies incorrectly cite otherwise. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:59, 3 March 2025 (UTC)