Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life

WikiProject Tree of Life

Main page

Talk

Article template

Taxonomic resources

Taxoboxes

Participants

Article requests

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Tree of Life and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcuts

Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69: 45 days

This WikiProject was featured on the WikiProject report at The Signpost on 26 December 2011 and 27 December 2019.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 45 days are automatically archived by .

Ancyromonadida

Right now, the order Ancyromonadida is assigned to the monotypic class Planomonadea in the automated taxobox system. I recently made some changes to assign Ancyromonadida directly to the domain Eukaryota, which @Snoteleks reverted. He's saying that in the Cavalier-Smith, 2022 paper, Cavalier-Smith assigned the order Planomonadida, which is a synonym of Ancyromonadida; to the monotypic class Planomonadea, so, we should do this for Ancyromonadida because this is the name that we use. I said that this was WP:OR, since no source assigned Ancyromonadida to Planomonadea, but he didn't agree with me (see these: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ancyromonadida&action=history, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Taxonomy/Ancyromonadida&action=history, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Taxonomy/Planomonadea&action=history and User talk:Snoteleks#About Ancyromonadida situation).

So, thoughts? Who thinks this is WP:OR and who does not? Should the Ancyromonadida still be assigned to Planomonadea in the wiki? Jako96 (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Peter coxhead since he warned me about mixing classifications earlier, I think this is a similar topic (I "proposed" such a mixing because of the "mixed" classification used in the nowadays English Wikipedia like using Halvaria under Sar). Jako96 (talk) 16:24, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely think that mixing different sources in constructing a classification is at the least WP:SYNTH. The problem is that it seems to be impossible at present to use a fully sourced and consistent classification in this part of the tree of life (see also the discussion below). I would prefer the taxobox to be based on one consistent system, but this may not be realistic given the present muddle in the literature. What is important is that the text explains alternatives with sources. (I would add that in the past following Cavalier-Smith has generally not been a good idea as he seems to have little or no interest in consensus.) Peter coxhead (talk) 07:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that mixing classifications is WP:SYNTH. Aside from that, almost no paper properly mentions Planomonadea, except the Cavalier-Smith's last system, which uses Planomonadida. The Ancyromonadida is just directly under Eukaryota as the clear scientific consensus. Also, Planomonadea is not a clade that contains multiple groups directly under it, it's just a monotypic proposed taxon that no one uses. So you agree with it and I can revert Snoteleks again? And yes, there is no consistent and consensual classification of protists in the literature, you're also right about that. Jako96 (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead I asked if I could revert it again, because, even if you were "not sure", you said you think it was WP:SYNTH, therefore, against the policies. So, should I revert? Jako96 (talk) 15:35, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jako96: based on this discussion, I agree with a revert. I would link to here in the edit summary. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:26, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks! Which other protist classifications are WP:SYNTH in the wiki, you think (at least the ones that we don't need like this one, cuz, you know, it feels like WP:SYNTH is all over the place with protists right now)? Jako96 (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chondrocladia robertballardi sp. nov.

Hi! I've just created an article for Chondrocladia robertballardi sp. nov. reported as being discovered in 2025. However, having dug into the sources some more, I'm now more confused than when I started. This is presented as a new discovery, but at the same time other sources suggest that there is a preexisting Chondrocladia robertballardi, discovered in 2015. Is this the same species in a new location, or a new species? Are they similar, or are they exactly the same?

Can anyone knowledgeable help clear this up, both here and at Wikidata? — The Anome (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those news reports are a bit unclear. My quick interpretation is that the Cristoba at al (2015) article described a new species, Chondrocladia robertballardi sp. nov. The sp. nov. suffix is a convention to indicate a newly described species and means the authors of that paper are authors of that species, which subsequently is referred to as Chondrocladia robertballardi Cristobo, Rios, Pomponi and Xavier, 2015 (link to entry at WoRMS). The new survey has found a new species in genus Chondrocladia, which is dubbed Chondrocladia sp. nov. because it hasn't been formally described and named. We shouldn't have articles until the species is described formally. I think your article should be moved to Chondrocladia robertballardi based on the species described in 2015. The new undescribed species could be mentioned at the genus article, Chondrocladia. — Jts1882 | talk 15:27, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some re-writing here, moving the new species to a section of the main article. I've also done some refactoring of entries in Wikidata, see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q63718802 and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q136684895 . There's a bit of confusion in Wikidata about parent taxa in the merge of the older discovery - can someone please check my work, both here and on Wikidata? — The Anome (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Anome Where was the new species reported as C. robertballardi? The articles you cited in the section only talks about Chondrocladia sp. nov., an undescribed species within the genus, and none of the articles talked about its affinities to C. robertballardi. Anthropophoca (talk) 02:43, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Lepidoptera

Lepidoptera 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) 16:32, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Supergroup as a rank

As Supergroup (biology) notes, the 'rank' supergroup seems to used in a number of areas of the Tree of Life, albeit inconsistently. I've now made it an accepted value for |rank= in a taxonomy template. It's not checked for consistent hierarchical order in view of the differences in usage. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:30, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Anaeromonadea § Requested move 27 November 2025

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Anaeromonadea § Requested move 27 November 2025. Jako96 (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Authority of Rhinocerotidae

For a long time (since the mid-20th century at least) the scholarly literature on rhinoceroses has been divided on the correct authority for Rhinocerotidae (and derivative higher and lower ranks), [1] [2] either John Edward Gray's 1821 work On the natural arrangement of vertebrose animals [3] on page 306, in which he uses the spelling "Rhynocerotidæ", or Richard Owen's 1845 work Odontography, where on page 587 of the first volume he uses the modern spelling "Rhinocerotidae" [4]. I'm inclined to think Gray is the correct authority here, and in a discord discussion @Monster Iestyn concurred, but I wanted to get a third opinion on the matter. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recent taxonomic resources seem to favour Gray 1821 (e.g. MSW3, ITIS, CoL, IRMNG). Of the papers in the Google scholar search for Owen, 1845 above, the one at the top uses Gray 1821 in the article but cites a paper using Owen 1845; another uses both in different parts of the paper, using uses Gray in the systematic palaeontology section (but Owen for Rhinocerotoidea). Wikispecies uses Rafinesque 1815. Simpson's 1945 work on mammals used Rhinocerotidae Owen, 1845 and Rhinocerotoidea Gill, 1872, possibly before rules on family group names were established. I think we should follow recent sources and use Gray 1821 (citing MSW3) unless there is a taxonomic paper specifically addressing the nomenclature issue and favouring an alternative. — Jts1882 | talk 09:23, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Identifying taxon author

Hi there. I have been doing some work to improve List of bumblebee species and I have a question. When I look at the taxon author on ITIS (example) it shows Cresson. Is there a reliable way to identify who Cresson is? In this case, my guess would be Ezra Townsend Cresson but how can I be sure? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:24, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This method often works, but won't necessarily for more obscure species and authors: go to the Biodiversity Heritage Library, look up the basionym, and click the "scientific names" tab. (It looks like this.) Then click on the right name, which will take you to a bibliography page (like this). Sort by date and check the earliest publications. Sometimes the page will just take you to the index and not the actual mention, so you'll have to go hunting through the text – also always search in text for the species epithet (in this case, affinis.) Using that method, I quickly found "List of the North American species of Bombus and Apathus by one E. T. Cresson that first describes the species. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 11:46, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks for your help. I'll give it a try — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:56, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you try your magic on Bombus natvigi? All I can get is Richards 1931. I suspect it might be Owain Richards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:07, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BHL was unhelpful, but this article cites "O. W. Richards, 1931" (see reference 39), so Owain looks like your man. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 18:55, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § Writing all higher taxonomic names in italics

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § Writing all higher taxonomic names in italics. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Camelid#Requested move 6 December 2025

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Camelid#Requested move 6 December 2025. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Is this edit appropriate? Should it now be attached to Halodesulfovibrio aestuarii (Q62894962) rather than Desulfovibrio acrylicus (Q25841851) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:14, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MSGJ:, I think the edit was appropriate. It would have been better if the taxonbar had been changed to have the Wikidata item for H. aestuarii rather than being deleted. However, deleting the taxonbar put the page into a tracking category for missing taxobars. If the taxonbar had been left with the Wikidata item for D. acrylicus, the article wouldn't be in a tracking category. So deleting the taxonbar was a better action than leaving it unchanged, the best action would have been to update the taxonbar.

There is another question about what to do on Wikidata, which I don't think really has a firm answer at this time. Long-standing Wikidata practice was to have taxon articles in different language Wikpedias linked to a single Wikidata item. That practice dates to a time when Wikidata did not allow links to redirects. Most language editions of Wikipedia have a single article covering a monotypic genus and it's only species. But most other languages use the species title for that article, while English Wikipedia uses the genus as the title. Consequentially, Wikidata items for species typically had a link to species in other languages, but a link to a genus article in English (but all language editions were linked to a single item). Homotypic synonyms (where a species has been placed in different genera over time) would also be linked to a single Wikidata itme (typically for whatever genus placement was most common across Wikipedias).

With Wikidata now supporting links to redirects, I don't think the "all taxon articles on one item" approach is still justified, and I regularly link Wikidata to English Wikipedia pages (redirects or articles) for the exact taxon. That may end up making it more difficult to get from the English page for a taxon to a non-English page, but does make it potentially easier to get from a non-English page to an English page (getting the English to non links fixed would require editing Wikidata items to link to non-English redirects, which might not even exist in other Wikipedias).

I edited the Wikidata item for Desulfovibrio acrylicus to link to the now-redirect in English, and added the English article Halodesulfovibrio aestuarii to the Wikidata item for that species. There is an Arabic article for D. acrylicus, and it is possible to get from there to English, but not easy to get to the Arabic article from the English D. acrylicus redirect. Plantdrew (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too familiar with how taxa are organised. Are these two different names for the same species? In which case, should Halodesulfovibrio aestuarii (Q62894962) not be merged into Desulfovibrio acrylicus (Q25841851)? I agree with the other parts of your comment, r.e. redirects — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:30, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata supposedly models taxa, but actually models names of taxa. A taxon can have multiple names. Apples are Pyrus malus if they are classified in the same genus as pears, and Malus domestica if placed in their own genus. Which name is used doesn't really impact what we would consider to be an apple as a taxon (although it does imply a difference in the concepts of the genera Pyrus and Malus).

The taxonomic databases that have identifiers on Wikidata's "taxon" items have records of other names for the taxon, and most taxonomic databases indicate that one of the names is the "correct" one. What makes Wikidata's items really names rather than taxa is that Wikidata does NOT indicate which name is correct. This is an application of NPOV; one can argue that apples belong in the same genus as pears, or that they don't. Neither view is necessarily right or wrong, but there are implications for how other species are classified depending on which view one goes with.

Since taxonomic databases have separate records for Pyrus malus and Malus domestica, with database identifers in Wikidata attached to those names, they can not be merged even though they are different names for the same species (taxon). 21:40, 15 December 2025 (UTC) Plantdrew (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Polytypic taxon" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Polytypic taxon 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 December 14 § Polytypic taxon until a consensus is reached. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:12, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guidance needed for etymology of taxon names

It would be very helpful to have some concrete guidance on this matter since it comes up frequently.

I see that this topic has come up in multiple past discussions already ([5], [6], [7]), but—partially because there's a lot of non-linear discussion to read through—I wasn't able to determine if a clear consensus was reached or if any guidance had actually come about after those discussions.

Would anyone be able to point me in the right direction? Or, does this issue still need to be addressed? MossOnALog^Talk 01:03, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MossOnALog Earlier this year, a group of editors of this project (after the first discussion that you linked) got together to start drafting this essay. It's gone inactive, but it touches on several issues that we gathered consensus around, so it will probably be helpful to you. It might be a good idea to ask for feedback on the specific issues you have in mind, and also to get us active on the draft again. Speaking of, @Yummifruitbat @MtBotany @Plantdrew (non-exhaustive list of pings) are there plans to continue development of the essay/publish it? — Snoteleks (talk) 04:17, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Snoteleks thank you! And thanks to all the editors who've contributed to that essay. MossOnALog^Talk 05:00, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me like Yummifruitbat's essay is ready to publish (i.e., remove Category:User essays in development, add a different category, and link to it from somewhere in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Organisms (which also isn't "published", I guess)). Plantdrew (talk) 08:19, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been away from Wikipedia for a bit due to IRL pressures so this is among the things I've neglected. I can't recall whether all the feedback from people had been folded in, so I'll take a look at that over the next week and aim to get it published shortly. Thanks for the ping. YFB ¿ 11:11, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I have not thoroughly reviewed these two resources (i.e., User:Yummifruitbat/Biological etymology and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Organisms), I think they are great resources that look ready to be published, or just about ready if not. Even if they still need polishing or if some things still need some discussion, at least discussions on these matters could be condensed into the talk pages of these pages rather than spread out across various articles where things are less visible. Having these to reference—and therefore keep edit summaries and other discussions concise—would be very helpful and make striving for consistency across articles much more efficient. If I can help contribute in a specific way, please let me know (though my time may be limited over the next couple weeks with holidays). Thank you again for everyone's efforts on this. MossOnALog^Talk 15:56, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for addition to {{Automatic taxobox}} and {{Speciesbox}} templates

I propose a slight modification to the {{Automatic taxobox}} and {{Speciesbox}} templates which introduces a parameter similar in function to '|synonyms=', called '|organ_taxa=' which would be used to list the form taxa that comprise a whole-plant taxon.

For those who don't know, in Palaeobotany: leaves, stems, roots, fruits, etc. all get different names when found disarticulated, but when found in association, either a new name is given to what's called the whole-plant taxon (viz. Ohaniella), or it's named after one of the form taxa (usually the female reproductive organ, viz. Wielandiella; sometimes the first form taxon named, viz. Lepidodendron).

I believe this change will give clarity to the many people confused about how Palaeobotany uses form taxa and will create a more intuative separation between form taxa and whole-plant taxa, the extra parameter will also make creating taxoboxes about plants which utilise this method of taxonomy easier.Sauriazoicillus (talk) 20:06, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hunting down an old(ish) paper

If anyone has tips for getting access to oldish papers published in obscure journals, I'd heartily appreciate it. I'm looking for:

Fleming, C.A. & Ordish, R.G. 1966: Type specimens of G.V. Hudson's taxa of New Zealand cicadas (Genus Melampsalta: Hemiptera Homoptera). Records of the Dominion Museum, 5(20): 195–200.

It used to be on BUGZ, but the link Wikispecies has is link rotted and I can't find any good archives of it. I've searched on the new BUGZ site but they don't have it. It's available here for a cost and HathiTrust has the volume, but I don't have access to it. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 03:13, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:RX might be a better place for this. Chess enjoyer (talk) 03:43, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's link-rotted try (if you haven't already tried) archive.org. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:15, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried every archive service I know of. :/ I'll post this to RX as well. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 15:59, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a 2002 Russian book on heliozoa

There is a book that is central to heliozoan taxonomy, cited by almost every centrohelid-related paper, that, to my knowledge, has never been published or uploaded online:

Кирилл Андреевич Микрюков [Kirill Andreevich Mikrjukov] (2002). Центрохелидные солнечники [Centrohelid heliozoa]. Moscow: KMK Scientific Press Ltd.

There is a google books link but of course it's only a small preview. If anyone knows where I could get my hands on the complete work, I'd really appreciate it. Even moreso if someone within reach could e-mail me scans of it. — Snoteleks (talk) 13:57, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Snoteleks: It's on Anna's Archive ([8]), if you're willing to risk exciting malware. I haven't checked the PDF, but there's also a DJVU version I downloaded that didn't anything horrible to my computer instantly. (In truth, I've never gotten any malware from Anna's Archive that I know of so far. It just seems more than a little dodgy.) Cremastra (talk · contribs) 16:07, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cremastra Thank you so much! I downloaded it without issues — Snoteleks (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A new, fully monophyletic classification of diatoms

I'm happy to report that a new, fully monophyletic classification of diatoms is in press (Kociolek et al., 2025). This classification is generally based on the published Alverson et al., 2025 phylogeny. The three authors of this article are some of the authors from the Alverson et al., 2025 article. The problem about this article is that it wasn't published in any journal, it's just in press, so not sure if we would use it now. I always thought a classification based on the published Alverson et al., 2025 phylogeny would make sense, and I also thought a classification would get published sometime. Pinging @Snoteleks and @Plantdrew per our past discussions. Jako96 (talk) 10:45, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

YES!!! This is amazing news, I hope it gets peer-reviewed soon so we can use it. But how did you even find this? — Snoteleks (talk) 13:34, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I was busy, so I couldn't reply you here. I found it when I searched "Biddulphiophyceae" in Google Scholar. Jako96 (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Partula turgida

Would someone more familiar with the subject be able to look at Partula turgida? As an outsider who has been spending a bit of time with species articles recently, what I gather is that P. turgida and P. clarkei were messed up historically. That is, people thought they had P. turgica, but they really had P. clarkei, both of which are now extinct. As such, a lot of the information we have about P. turgica is incorrect. 0x16w thus moved the P. turgida article to P. clarkei, then seems to have copied the information back over to P. turgida for review as some of the information may be accurate. (0x16w, correct me if I'm wrong on your rationale) This should be reviewed fairly quickly, though, to aid with confusion. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sepiida/Sepiina

In August last year, the article Sepiida was renamed to Sepiina based on WoRMS and citing WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA. On the face of it, I can see how this makes sense because WoRMS lists Sepiina as the one and only suborder of Sepiida in its taxonomy presently. However, I believe this should actually be reverted, because I think WoRMS is in error continuing to give Sepiina as a valid suborder now that the former Sepiolina is its own order Sepiolida, and so I started a discussion at Talk:Sepiina about this. But since I never got a response there, I bring this here instead to get more attention.

Also, happy new year everyone! Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor who (re)created the page, i think we should indeed stick to the "main" taxonomic ranks. Anthropophoca (talk) 02:48, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Weird template

Hi, I came across {{Txw}} today. What does it stand for, and what does it do? Primefac (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's outputting a list of taxonomic synonyms, with the first item as the accepted name. William Avery (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks. Primefac (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]