Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut

Category:Endangered species by reason they are threatened has been nominated for discussion

[edit]

Category:Endangered species by reason they are threatened has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.

About 70 subcategories, the oldest from 2015, are also being proposed for deletion. HLHJ (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

[edit]

Hello,
Please note that Entomology, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team[reply]

Seeking advice on article improvement

[edit]

Will somebody check out the page Komarekiona? I have pretty well exhausted the literature (minus one elusive publication). How can it be improved? Thanks! Sbbarker19 (talk) 10:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Interstitial fauna" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Interstitial fauna has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 15 § Interstitial fauna until a consensus is reached. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Animal history

[edit]

Hi, some sources for anyone interested creating this article:

Kowal2701 (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New elephant stubs

[edit]

Rose-Tu and Tula-Tu ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect taxonomy for Dioctophyme renale, the giant kidney worm

[edit]

The taxonomic position for D. renale as Class:Chromadorea; Order: Ascaridida is incorrect. This species is very distantly related to those groupings and is in a completely different clade. It is in Clade I, not Clade III. It should instead come under Class: Dorylaimia Order: Dorylaimida. The following papers encompass this classification.

DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.08.009

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1055790306003496

https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkad647 Physalaemus (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone planning to improve a “Fauna of …..” article to GA?

[edit]

At some time I hope to improve Fauna of Turkey but it is only start class and I lack animal knowledge. If there was a good article I could look at as an example that would be really helpful. Alternatively if any animal expert would like to collaborate with me on Turkey we might make the example “Fauna of …” GA together with you helping with the biological knowledge and me doing the donkey work (apparently we used to have some https://www.finestresullarte.info/en/archaeology/turkey-11-000-year-old-donkey-figure-discovered-in-karahantepe) Chidgk1 (talk) 07:04, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chidgk1, I wrote Wildlife of North Macedonia a few years ago. A specific Fauna article would probably be similar, albeit without the sections on non-Fauna. See also Fauna of Australia, a former FA with a similar structure. CMD (talk) 13:38, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently trying to improve some of these articles, particularly the lists of mammals articles for regions in Southern Europe and North Africa. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Usage of Reptilia and Sauropsida in Pages' Taxoboxes

[edit]

Some reptile pages use Reptilia in their taxoboxes while some pages use Sauropsida. This just isn't consistent. We need to fix that. Jako96 (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you seeing Sauropsida? As far as I can tell, there are just two genera with automatic taxoboxes that display Sauropsida, and 15 genera with manual taxoboxes that display Sauropsida. Reptiles were one of the first groups where automatic taxoboxes were adopted for (almost) all taxa, precisely because they were extremely inconsistent in whether the manual taxoboxes displayed Reptilia or Sauropsida.
The remaining reptiles with manual taxoboxes are, as far as I'm aware, all fossil with some question about their status; i.e. there is disagreement about what taxon should be the direct parent, or disagreement about whether or not the taxon should be regarded as as synonym. It's possible that there are resolutions to the questions, but somebody would need to check the literature to see if that is the case. Plantdrew (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of pages use Sauropsida. For example, all archosaur pages use it except the Archosaur page itself. But a lot of pages use Reptilia too. This is the problem. Jako96 (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should either use the monophyletic class Reptilia or the unranked clade Sauropsida in the wiki. I think we should use the monophyletic class Reptilia because it's much more used. Even Campbell Biology 12th edition uses the monophyletic class Reptilia. Jako96 (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not all archosaur articles use Sauropsida. I don't see Sauropsida anywhere in the taxobox for the archosaur Dynamosuchus. I do see it in the hierarchy shown in Template:Taxonomy/Dynamosuchus. Are you talking about Sauropsida showing in taxoboxes in articles or are you talking about it showing in taxonomy templates?
I'm not sure why there is a Template:Taxonomy/Archosauria and a Template:Taxonomy/Archosauria/Reptilia. I suspect the latter was intended to display Reptilia in article taxoboxes and the former was intended to display Sauropsida in article taxoboxes, but both currently display Reptilia and not Sauropsida.
I don't think your edit to Template:Taxonomy/Parareptilia where you changed the parent from Sauropsida to Reptilia was particularly. helpful, although I'm also not sure why we have articles on both Eureptilia and Reptile, with Reptile as the parent of Template:Taxonomy/Eureptilia. Plantdrew (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Look at Tyrannosaurus for example. I talk about articles, not templates. Also, there is Template:Taxonomy/Archosauria/skip which displays Sauropsida in articles. And my edit was helpful because monophyletic Reptilia and Sauropsida are synonyms. But Wikipedia uses both of them because Wikipedia articles sometimes prioritize Reptilia and sometimes Sauropsida. But some articles like Reptile displays both of them because these articles use the paraphyletic Reptilia. And I think we should either use monophyletic Reptilia or Sauropsida (the best option is the monophyletic Reptilia) in the articles for consistency. Jako96 (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Think about it, you don't know much about taxonomy. The Reptile page displays both the Reptilia and Sauropsida. But when you click Dinosauria in the taxobox you can't see the Reptilia as a parent in the taxobox anymore, just the Sauropsida. Wouldn't you be confused? So, we should only use one in the wiki. Jako96 (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Tyrannosaurus article doesn't display Sauropsida nor Reptilia. That isn't ideal. Template:Taxonomy/Archosauria/skip won't display Sauropsida in most articles (Sauropsida does show up in bird due to that having |display_parents= with a value of 6. I am still clueless about where you are finding that "a lot of pages use Sauropsida". You assert Tyrannosaurus does, but it does not. There are some navbox templates and many taxonomy templates that include Sauropsida, but I'm not seeing where it is displayed in the taxoboxes of "a lot of pages". Plantdrew (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ohhh wait I was wrong, sorry. Yeah it does not display Sauropsida but not Reptilia too. This will cause a confusion. And a lot of reptile pages don't display Reptilia too. But normally, taxoboxes do display major 8 ranks. Jako96 (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When you say monophyletic Reptilia, do you mean that birds (all articles on modern birds, down to the species level) should display Reptilia in the taxobox? Plantdrew (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. If we are not gonna use Sauropsida, we should use the monophyletic Reptilia. But we should use only one in the wiki (they are synonyms). Jako96 (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jts1882 take a look at this. Jako96 (talk) 09:26, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)
The problem is there are many definitions of Reptilia. In early phylogenetic classifications, the parareptiles were considered sister to reptiles (sensu Eureptilia) and Sauropsida was the parent of both. PhyloRegnum has Laurin's definition as the crown clade (see Reptilia), which is similar to Gauthier's. This would have included parareptiles when turtles were considered related to them. In other definitions, Reptilia is the total group. And others treat Reptilia and Sauropsida as synonyms. The latter might be more usual now the position of turtles has stabilised (at least with it being a diapsid). However, the taxobox system is designed so it can handle different classifications and some pages may not comply with same taxonomic hypotheses. We shouldn't synonymise the terms without understanding which articles use them and why.  —  Jts1882 | talk  13:52, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but there is another problem. In the Reptile page it says that Aves is included. But when you click Aves, you see that it's a separate class. And if we don't place Aves in Reptilia not just Reptilia would be paraphyletic but also taxa like Archosauria, Dinosauromorpha would be paraphyletic. As taxa like Archosauria and Dinosauromorpha are unranked, they must be monophyletic. Under the PhyloCode, an unranked taxon cannot be non-monophyletic. Jako96 (talk) 14:11, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Taxonomists working on extant birds still tend to use the traditional class Aves.
As for the differences, that's because different templates are used for different archosaur articles:
The Archosauria article uses {{Taxonomy/Archosauria}}, which has direct parent Eucrocopoda and displays clades Archosauriformes and Archosauromorpha (both set for always display) and Class Reptilia
The Pseudosuchia branch uses {{Taxonomy/Archosauria/Reptilia}}, which has direct parent Archelosauria (skipping Eucrocopda, Archosauriformes, Crocopoda and Archosauromorpha) and displays Class Reptilia
The Avemetatarsalia branch uses {{Taxonomy/Archosauria/skip}}, which jumps to parent Sauropsida (missing Reptilia). The skip template has been in use for over ten years. This means all the dinosaur taxa show Sauropsida instead of Reptilia.
The bird article uses {{Taxonomy/Archosauria/skip}} which uses a series of skip templates, which determines the hierarchy to show in the bird article. These taxa are not shown in the the articles on modern birds. If someone is looking up a babbling duck, they don't need all the dinosaur taxa.
The Lepidosauria article uses {{Taxonomy/Lepidosauria}} which has a sequence to Reptilia. All the squamate articles use this and show Class Reptilia.
I think that summarises the current setup.  —  Jts1882 | talk  15:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understood. So we use different classifications in different articles. Jako96 (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I need help improving the list of megafauna discovered in modern times

[edit]

There is a list of megafauna discovered in modern times (Since 1800), and I have been trying to improve it with more examples and clarification. I recently overhauled it to get rid of some of the dubious examples like Burchell's zebra and Przewalski's horse in the megafauna presumed extinct and dismissed as hoaxes section, but I need help finding more examples and sourcing. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life § Competition proposal

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life § Competition proposal. Cremastra talk 00:38, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy/Vertebrata

[edit]

There is an attempt at Template talk:Taxonomy/Vertebrata to garner consensus and make this subphylum "always display". This is to welcome editors to click that link and render your opinion. Thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 10:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on applying WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA

[edit]

Does WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA apply to taxa with only one extant species, but multiple extinct ones described from the fossil record?

Context for this question can be found here, I originally posted this at WP:Teahouse NicheSports (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your reasoning at the Teahouse that it doesn't apply. If it has multiple extinct species then it's no longer monotypic.  —  Jts1882 | talk  08:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will start by improving the Mastotermes_darwiniensis page before converting the Mastotermes page into more of a stub.
Separately, do you think it is worth adding this clarification to the WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA guideline? Something like:
"This guideline only applies to taxa that are monotypic inclusive of both extinct and extant species. In the case that a taxa has only one extant species but does have one or more named extinct species, then it is appropriate for there to be separate pages for the taxa and the species - although care should be taken to minimize duplication of information across the taxa and species pages. For an example, see the pages Orycteropus and Aardvark." NicheSports (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization proposal at WT:PALEO

[edit]

There is a current discussion regarding categorisation of fossil animals going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palaeontology#Categorization proposal. Any opinions/voices are welcome. Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Animals&oldid=1287549502"