Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main project pageTalkParticipantsReferences and templatesTree of Life Newsletter


WikiProject iconAmphibians and Reptiles Project‑class
WikiProject iconWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

GANs for two gecko pages[edit]

I have nominated Mocquard's Madagascar ground gecko and Paroedura maingoka for good article assessment, please join the discussion if any of you are interested. Olmagon (talk) 19:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Caudata as the order for salamanders[edit]

Amphibian Species of the World is Darrel Frost's website. So it follows Darrel Frost's opinion on matters that he has decided to be personally invested in. The lengthy argument against Urodela includes a personally signed note: " This does not correspond to what is generally referred to as logic (DRF)".
Dubois favors Urodela. Seeing this makes me consider him to be somewhat a crank.
But Dubois (as far as I can tell) and Frost aren't concerned with fossil salamanders. The problem is that palaeontologists want a clade name for just crown salamanders and one for crown+stem salamanders, and palaeontologists have disagreed on what clade Urodela should refer to and what Caudata should refer to. I'm not sure if there is a more recent palaeontological consensus than what is described in the Wikipedia articles. Frost's argument against recognizing Urodela as an order doesn't mean it can't be treated as a name for a clade. Plantdrew (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both have strong views. As noted, Dubois has has his own particular take on classification, see also doi:10.11646/megataxa.5.1.1 and his case for Urodela (p273) is based on his Criteria (but see earlier article (Dubois 2004; p8-10). Both Dubois and Frost are all-or-nothing on their preferences, with no room for a total/crown compromise. Looking at older classification it does appear Urodela was most used until Frost's intervention.
For our purposes, I think we should follow ASW6 and AmphibiaWeb and use Order Caudata as they are the two sources followed by the project for most of the overall taxonomy and choices for articles. The current Wikipedia arrangement is Order Urodela (on the Salamander article) with clade Caudata as parent. Is there a suitable source for this? If we are to deviate from ASW6 it should be properly sourced. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Trueb & Cloutier (1991) use Superorder Urodela and Order Caudata (p233 & p296, in book here). Cannatella & Hillis (2004) use Urodela for the total group and Caudata for the crown (e.g. Fig 1 and "the node based name for living salamanders is Caudata"). Sigurdsen & Green (2011) seem to use it in reverse (Urodela as crown group) but cite Cannatella & Hillis. Schoch (2018) refers to the "the urodele (stem-caudate) Karaurus" but doesn't use either taxon name. Using Caudata as crown is also consistent with AmphibiaWeb and ASW6 treatment of extant taxa. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The salamander article uses Frost/ASW6 as source for Order Urodela contained in group Caudata (both in the lede, taxonomy section and taxobox). This is not what the source says. Frost considers Caudata the name for the order and Urodela invalid for any suprafamiliar rank. One thing Dubois and Frost agree on is there is correct name for the order and the other is a synonym that shouldn't be used. Dubois (2004, p10) explicitly rules out a stem/crown usage either way, citing Milner (1988) and Cannatella & Hillis (2004). The latter uses Urodela > Order Caudata. I can't access Milner (1988), but Evans and Milner (1996) say they "follow Milner (1988) in restricting the term Urodela to the crown-group salamanders and using the term Caudata for the stem+crown salamanders"; they also explain the background to the competing versions. —  Jts1882 | talk  12:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Amphibians have always been problematic, in part because its such an ancient lineage. Allain Duboit has his own nomenclatural system that most do not agree with, Frost despite his grievances does tend to get followed by the majority of workers. I would argur that in the absence of good reasons to do so, and I see none, we should follow ASW for the time being. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So following Frost and ASW6 seems the way to go. AmphibiaWeb and Blackburn & Wake's Animal Biodiversity use Order Caudata. However, does this mean we treat Urodela as a synonym (ASW6, B&W) or do we use Urodela as a higher taxon. The current set up of the taxonomy templates is:


This has clear problems. For instance, I assume Prosirenidae is closer to Sirenidae than some of the taxa currently placed in Urodela. If we synonymise Caudata/Urodela, what about the pairs Gymnophiona/Apoda and Salienta/Anura? —  Jts1882 | talk  08:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to deep dive the lit to know what to do with some of these. They are a tough group to unravel. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 02:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to look into this a bit more and I think there is a fundamental problem that makes it difficult for us to make general decision on how to handle these taxa. Difference scientists use the terms in different ways and there may be a divide between those working fossil forms and those dealing only with living forms.
  1. Order Caudata (with Urodela as synonym). This is Frost's position in ASW6, based on Frost et al (2006) which used it for the crown group. This has been followed in the Animal Biodiversity classification (Blackburn & Wake, 2011). AmphibiaWeb also use Order Caudata.
  2. Order Urodela (with Caudata as synonym). The position taken by Dubois (2004, 2005, 2021). Like Frost, he considers the other name invalid. He explicitly opposes it's use as a more inclusive or exclusive group.
  3. Order Urodela for crown group, with Caudata as total group. This was the usage proposed by Milner 1988 to resolve the inconsistent use of the two names, explained in detail in Evans & Milner 1996. This is used in some palaeontological studied (e.g. Jones et al, 2022), but I don’t know how general this is.
  4. Order Caudata for crown group and Urodela as total group. This was the arrangement used by Trueb & Cloutier (1991, with Urodela as a superorder), addressing the problematic use of the two names but deciding on the inverse arrangement to that of Milner (1988). This was followed by Trueb (1993) and Cannatella & Hillis (1993, 2004). Frost et al (2006) seemed open to this arrangement (p356-7). This arrangement is used in Schoch (2014)’s Amphibian Evolution, who claims to be following Frost (2006).
The taxonomy templates are currently set up with order Urodela aand unranked Caudata as parent taxa. Some of the taxa are correctly placed for treating them as crown and total groups (e.g. Karauridae) but others may have been placed under the name used by the source without it using the crown/total group distinction. For instance, Evan & McGowan (2002) place Apricosiren in Caudata while saying it may have an affinty with Proteidae (part of crown group). If the crown/total group use of Urodela/Caudata is widely used in palaeontological studies, then it's hard reconcile with the use of order Caudata for extant salamanders (ASW6, AmphibiaWeb). A fudge might be keeping the Caudata > Urodela heirarchy but using order rank for Caudata. This would retain the heirarchy used in palaeontological studies and make Caudata appear in extant frog articles. —  Jts1882 | talk  17:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any thoughts on this proposal to move the order rank to Caudata so consistent with ASW6 and Amphiibiaweb? —  Jts1882 | talk  09:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for paired improvements of Pit Viper and Loreal pit[edit]

I'm not an expert, or even particularly interested in snakes/reptiles (I _am_ interested, but just as a general topic). I noticed that the article for Loreal pit is woefully short, with few details. Clicking on the WL in the first sentence of the article, going to Pit Viper, I find that that article goes into minute, exacting detail regarding the Loreal pit...and all of it in the lede, rather than in the body of the article; almost no mention in the body at all.

I think the two articles could use some tender loving care by a subject matter expert or even merely an enthusiast, in order to improve this imbalance in coverage and the stylistic defect in the lede of Pit Viper. I'm not equipped to do it justice. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Mosasaur#Requested move 5 February 2024[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mosasaur#Requested move 5 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Reptile Database release[edit]

There was a new release of the Reptile database yesterday (March 28, 2024). The announcement says "102 new entries have been added to the release, as well as a total of 123 species-level changes, with 79 new species and 2 new genera (Dravidoseps, and Pseudoindotyphlops)". There are now 12,060 recognised reptile species. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Amphibians_and_Reptiles&oldid=1216369022"