Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life

WikiProject Tree of Life

Main pageTalkArticle templateTaxonomic resourcesTaxoboxesParticipantsArticle requests

Dinosaurian clades outside bird taxoboxes

More context on the WP:Bird talk page but basically someone recently noticed that 'Dinosauria' and 'Theropoda' are not in the taxoboxes of any crown bird pages, and the reason is that Ornithurae has two templates, one of which was explicitly made to exclude dinosaurian or reptilian clade names. There should be no reason for all crown birds to have those excluded from their taxoboxes. As seen from how all cetacean taxoboxes include 'Artiodactyla' and how all termite taxoboxes have 'Blattodea', even relatively recently-learned relations that the general public are unaware of should be placed into taxoboxes if they are clearly correct, not to mention 'Aves' as a class is poorly defined. It is now clear that birds are dinosaurs (and thus reptiles), so those extra lines most definitely belong in the taxoboxes, and Ornithurae shouldn't have a duplicate template made just to exclude them. Olmagon (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the duplicate that excludes those clades is very obviously an incorrect use of the taxobox. Only the one with the most complete lineage covering should remain. I support the inclusive taxobox 100%. —Snoteleks 🦠 23:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I will comment so as not to let this thread die: Dinosauria and Theropoda must be on the taxoboxes, as they have been deliberately excluded. Linnaeus' classification is dead. Yewtharaptor (talk) 10:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Alright it would appear we are generally in agreement that the duplicate template serves no meaningful purpose and is best off deleted. However that page is protected, does anyone know how to propose for the deletion of such a page? Linking the template for easier discussion: Template:Taxonomy/Aves/skip Olmagon (talk) 10:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject Tree of Life
Scientific classification
Domain:	Eukaryota
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Chordata
Clade:	Reptiliomorpha
Clade:	Amniota
Clade:	Sauropsida
Clade:	Archosauria
Clade:	Avemetatarsalia
Clade:	Ornithodira
Clade:	Dinosauromorpha
Clade:	Dinosauriformes
Clade:	Dracohors
Clade:	Dinosauria
Clade:	Saurischia
Clade:	Theropoda
Clade:	Neotheropoda
Clade:	Averostra
Clade:	Tetanurae
Clade:	Orionides
Clade:	Avetheropoda
Clade:	Coelurosauria
Clade:	Tyrannoraptora
Clade:	Maniraptoromorpha
Clade:	Neocoelurosauria
Clade:	Maniraptoriformes
Clade:	Maniraptora
Clade:	Pennaraptora
Clade:	Paraves
Clade:	Avialae
Clade:	Avebrevicauda
Clade:	Pygostylia
Clade:	Ornithothoraces
Clade:	Euornithes
Clade:	Ornithuromorpha
Clade:	Ornithurae

Have you looked at the non-skipped version of Template:Taxonomy/Ornithurae? There are 24 clades between Ornithurae and Dinosauria, and four more between Dinosauria and Avemetarsalia. Which of those should be displayed? Currently, Dinosauria, Saurischia, Theropoda and Avialae are set to always be displayed for any species/genera included in those groups (that aren't using the the skip template). Should those be changed? Should birds display Saurischia? Should (non-avian) dinosaurs but not birds display Saurischia; should fossil Avialaens display Avialae, but not living Avialaens (if so, that's what skip templates are for)? The 25 clades that aren't set to always be displayed won't show up species/genus articles, but can be navigated to be clicking on successively higher parent taxa in the taxobox.

Should Reptilia (or Sauropsida) be displayed for birds? If so, is Reptilia going to be a class or is Aves going to be a class? Ruggiero's classification does treat Aves as a subclass in Reptilia, but in order to create a monophyletic, rank-based classification system, Ruggiero completely ignores any more inclusive clades that only add fossil organisms (i.e. dinosaurs; there are no ranks between Reptilia and Aves in the Ruggiero classification), and arbitrarily omits some more inclusive clades that include additional living organisms (e.g. Amniota; the next rank up from Reptilia is superclass Tetrapoda).

Are there any sources that show a taxonomic hierarchy for birds that includes Dinosauria (or anything more than a couple ranks between Aves and Chordata)? Wikispcies does, but treats both Aves and Reptilia as classes (and Saurischia as an order in between). Fossilworks does, with 9 clades between Aves and Reptilia (both treated as classes, with order Avetheropoda in between). Both Wikispecies and Fossilworks have ultimately have Reptilia in Osteichthyes.

At least make a concrete proposal regarding what additional taxa bird taxoboxes should (or should not) display. If ranked taxa were treated as clades, that would make some things easier, but it still doesn't solve the question of what clades to display down to the lowest (species) level. Why should bird species display Theropoda and not Osteichthyes? Plantdrew (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Well pretty much every extinct theropod dinosaur's taxobox (see Tyrannosaurus for example) has just Dinosauria, Saurischia and Theropoda between Phylum and Family, so those should be the ones to be displayed in bird taxoboxes accordingly. Those are all the most relevant clades, we don't need all 24 of those omitted clades shoved in every species' taxoboxes. As you said, those can be seen by clicking on the successively higher parent clades. Olmagon (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

From what I understood, the discussion is not whether or not all these clades should be displayed, but whether or not we should use the taxobox template that includes (but not necessarily displays) the complete taxonomy. It's the same as using a taxobox template that does not include Osteichthyes: it's factually wrong, even though Osteichthyes doesn't have to be always displayed. Maybe I understood it wrong, but that's how I interpreted the discussion. —Snoteleks 🦠 12:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

And, for the record, I think Sauropsida should be clade and not class. We already treat taxonomic ranks as clades in some taxobox templates to avoid controversy. Such is the case for tracheophytes and angiosperms: both are clades in taxoboxes, and both have been treated as phyla/divisions simultaneously. —Snoteleks 🦠 13:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Replying to Jts1882: I don't see how you can say Dinosauria "isn't particularly important for bird evolution" when so many of the relevant evolutionary developments happened within that clade. And yes, Archosauria, Avemetatarsalia, and Theropoda are important too—but IMO we should also consider sci-comm and getting ideas across to the layman. "Archosauria" and especially "Avemetatarsalia" tell most people absolutely nothing about what birds are related to. Theropoda is a little better, but it seems odd to include it without Dinosauria, since the former is so intrinsically linked with the latter. And to me, it just doesn't make sense to include Avialae when we already have Ornithurae.

What I would like is Reptilia (or Sauropsida if you must, but I prefer the former), Dinosauria, and Theropoda. I replaced Saurischia because it feels like just one too many dinosaur clades, and Reptilia is far more important and recognizable. But I 101% want Avemetatarsalia gone, and honestly think it's a cop-out and a comical waste of a taxobox line. Zach Varmitech (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

What makes you say Dinosauria, Saurischia and Theropoda are the most relevant taxa? From an evolutionary point of view Tetrapoda, Amniota, Reptilia/Saurischia and Archosauria are more significant steps but these taxa are not put in every taxobox of all descendents. Taxoboxes typically only show a few taxa, immediate parent taxa plus the major Linnean ranks (phyla, classes). The taxobox system allows extra taxa to be shown in several ways, including setting |always_display= in the taxonomy templates. The palaeontology project has decided that they want Dinosauria, Saurischia and Therapoda to appear in every taxobox in their relevant articles, but their choice shouldn't be imposed on other projects. The bird project are decided that Sauropsida, Avemetatarsalia, and Ornithurae should be shown in the bird article. It might be time to review the choices. Personally I see no case for Dinosauria as it's not particularly important for bird evolution. Archosauria would be more informative than Avemetatarsalia and perhaps Therapoda and/or Aviales between it and Ornithurae (the immediate parent). I've put a taxobox with whole hierarchy between Ornithurae and Archosaur to the right to show the choices. —  Jts1882 | talk 

I'm not so sure that there was really an proactive decision by the projects regarding what higher taxa to display. There is a lot of edit-warring in the history of Saurischia and Theropoda templates over whether to treat them clades or order/suborder, and somewhere along the way an editor who favored clades set them to always display (I think that does make some sense if a major rank (order) is changed to a clade with no different major rank to replace it to set that clade as always display). There was a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Dinosaurs/Archive_30#Move extinct birds into dinosaur taxobox taxonomy? with Saurischia/Therepoda include (as order/suborder), but I think that was just going with the status quo at the time (there was a later discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dinosaurs/Archive_33#Edit_request_for_Template:Taxonomy/Theropoda which supported treating Theropoda as a clade). There is a long discussion related to skip templates at Wikipedia talk:Automated taxobox system/Archive 1#Fixing inconsistent ranks in taxonomy templates that may be worth reading.

@Zach Varmitech:, skip templates accomplish two things. One is to display detail (via always displayed taxa) in one area, but not in another. I think this is mostly useful in dealing with the fossils of a group that also has living descendants. Synapsid is useful to display for all non-mammalian synapsids (all of which are extinct), but not necessarily for mammals. The other thing skip templates accomplish is dealing with repeated instances of the same rank (due to paraphyly in rank-based classification), and classes Reptilia/Aves is pretty much the poster child for that. If Aves is a class, Reptilia can not be a class. Neither herpetologists nor ornithologists seem likely to stop treating the organisms they study as classes, although I think it is more likely they may eventually decide to abandon ranks then to adopt Ruggiero's treatment of Aves as a subclass of Reptilia. Plantdrew (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, Linnaean ranks are, in many cases, hopelessly archaic. However, as I've alluded to, I am perfectly alright keeping unranked clade Sauropsida in place of class Reptilia, if that is consensus here. Dinosauria and Theropoda are already unranked clades on Wikipedia, so they shouldn't conflict with holding on to the rank system either.

As for the "extinct except for one descendant clade" point, we have Avemetatarsalia on the Bird page. That clade is in much the same boat as Dinosauria—Aves is the sole living sub-clade of both. Only differences are Avemetatarsalia includes a few more groups of extinct stuff—and is a far more obscure group that does practically nothing to communicate bird evolution and relationships to the reader.

To clarify what changes I'm currently shooting for, I'd like:

-Dinosauria and Theropoda on the main Bird page instead of Avemetatarsalia

-these two, plus Sauropsida, added to bird species pages; bird taxoboxes are small compared to many other animals, and I think more clades here would be fitting. Zach Varmitech (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi all, I'm new to Wikipedia editing so just want to briefly introduce myself. I'm a vertebrate paleontologist, and did my PhD research on the evolution and interrelationships of near-bird theropod dinosaurs. My perspective on this is that Linnean rank-based taxon names are an artifact of pre-evolutionary thinking, and shouldn't interfere with communicating our understanding of the evolutionary relationships of any group in the clearest possible terms. Most evolutionary biologists and paleontologists I know use only genera and species (which are unavoidable and mostly compatible with phylogenetic systematics), and some use "Family" in some discussions. I occasionally hear references to Phyla in terms of extremely high-level classification. Simply put, I don't think there's a scientific reason to worry about the fact that under Linnaeus, Reptilia and Aves were both "classes". Virtually all workers I know would simply treat Reptilia as a clade that includes Aves. As a side note, I was unaware of Ruggiero's classification until now, so it does not appear to be widely used.

That said, I understand that to some degree Linnaean rankings are integral to how taxoboxes work (though I may be mistaken), so I'm not advocating for abandoning them altogether. They also help with public understanding. So as for the first question, I would advocate for including "Sauropsida" as a clade in the bird taxobox, or "Reptilia" as a clade (rather than a class) if that is technically feasible.

Much more important, however, is including Dinosauria and Theropoda in the bird taxobox. The recognition that birds are living theropod dinosaurs was one of the major achievements in the last century of vertebrate paleontology, and is now backed by an unassailable degree of evidence and is entrenched in popular media like Jurassic Park, science documentaries, and museum exhibits. I think omitting Dinosauria in favor of Avemetatarsalia is only confusing for the public, as the latter clade name is only used by specialists and has little name recognition. I would say that including "Dinosauria" in the bird taxobox is the most important single change that could be made. Theropoda, Coelurosauria, and Maniraptora are (in that order) the other most important clade names for understanding the position of birds. These are the clades in which we see the origin of flight feathers, pneumatic skeletons, a trend towards cranial paedomorphosis, and the stepwise acquisition of almost all traits we consider avian.

In sum, from my perspective, it is critical to not just say that birds are within Avemtatarsalia, but instead that they are dinosaurs. And from there, it is important to specify, to some degree or another, what kinds of dinosaurs they are, because that is critical in understanding their evolution. I don't feel quite as strongly about labeling them as sauropsids/reptiles, but I think it would also be good to do so. JGN Paleo (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

That was perfectly put. Thanks for your input and I wholeheartedly agree, Sauropsida as a clade is a great solution. We already have the same clade-based taxonomy with angiosperms here in Wikipedia. —Snoteleks 🦠 13:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I second Snoteleks, your input is greatly appreciated and this is a very professional argument. And yes, I agree Dinosauria is more crucial than Avemetatarsalia for conveying steps in bird evolution.

(tagging @Plantdrew, since they were curious about why we think dinosaur clades are particularly important) Zach Varmitech (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Your answer sumarizes very well the topic to be discussed, I also support the greater importance of Dinosauria than Avemetarsalia. Yewtharaptor (talk) 10:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

As JGN did I'll briefly present myself I am a vertebrate paleontologist, though I am in an earlier career stage and study the other side of the tree, dinosaur origins and early diversification. I am not necessarily new to Wiki-editing but it is not something I usually do. Though recently I was invited to offer further perspective on the discussion of the bird taxonomic text-box.

JGN comment targets the main problem I see in the bird page, not having Dinosauria there listed. It is an universal agreement among biologists/paleontologists that birds are dinosaurs, so I support having that clade listed in the box. I also agree on the Avemetatarsalia part, it is not necessary as that basically a technical term and clade only referenced by specialists and would not help clarify the average page user of the origins and relations of birds. It substitution for Dinosauria is a much better choice as that is a term and clade almost everyone is able to recognize doing a much better job of contextualizing the ancestry of birds. And as a final note I so support including another dinosaur group/clade in the text box, either the most comprehensive Theropods showing which major dinosaur radiation birds are part of; or Coelurosauria as a clade agreed to be ancestrally feathered, which would be an easy connection for the reader and a good mid point from the classic idea of the "huge predatory dinosaurs" and the overall image we have of birds. André O Fonseca (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Seconding what JGN said. The fact of birds being dinosaurs is much more significant from a scicomm perspective than them being avemetatarsalians. I avoid major edits on theropod pages to avoid conflict of interest (or the appearance thereof) as I also work on theropods, but I agree with the others here that it would be useful to list at least Dinosauria in Cenozoic bird taxoboxes. Linnaean classes are outdated and, in my opinion, should be abandoned, but I know there would be a lot of resistance to such a change, so I would be ok with listing 'class' Aves as a subset of unranked clade Dinosauria. Skye McDavid (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Dinosaurian clades in ALL bird taxoboxes?

I just visited the secretarybird article (today's featured article), and it immediately became clear this proposal was poorly thought out. Apparently, the clades Dinosauria, Saurischia, Theropoda and Avialae are now displayed in all bird taxoboxes, while Aves for some reason isn't??? Of course birds are dinosaurs, but I don't see how this is helpful to readers. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 01:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Aves is displaying again. It was changed from a class (which always displays), to a clade, which needed to be set to always display. I don't see any consensus here to change Aves from class to clade. I don't see any consensus here to display Avialae on all bird species. I don't see any consensus here to eliminate all skip templates between Aves and Dinosauria, which results in 4 more clades (which have long been set to always display, but were absent from Aves due to skip templates) being displayed on all bird species. There is (maybe) consensus to display Dinosauria, and some expressed desire to display Sauropsida/Reptilia. Articles for non-avian theropods usually describe them as theropods in the first sentence. Given that, it makes some sense to always display theropod for the non-avians, but aside from bird itself, I don't think any lower avian taxa mention theropods. A typical bird species had 8 lines in the taxobox previously, now it has twelve. That's pretty heavy on the evolution of dinosaurs into birds, pretty light on any major unranked clades within Aves, or any evolutionarily important lineages between Chordata and Dinosauria. What clades to display in bird species articles needs to be discussed further, and that should probably happen at WikiProject Birds, not here. Some kind of variant template taxonomy templates will be needed to reconcile what is always displayed for non-avian dinosaurs and what should not be always displayed for birds. Plantdrew (talk)

I suggest setting the parent of Template:Taxonomy/Palaeognathae and Template:Taxonomy/Neognathae back to Template:Taxonomy/Aves/skip, which is how it was until yesterday. Since all living birds are members of one of these groups, this would remove the dinosaur clades from most bird taxoboxes. It would still keep these clades on the bird page, where they IMO are still useful. The dinosaur clades are relevant to birds as a whole, but not to individual bird species. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 22:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted this change. There is an ongoing discussion on the topic, which is getting some dishonest input, either new editors coincidentally finding the discussion or recruitment. Either way there is no consensus. —  Jts1882 | talk  06:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

So just put that the Birds are Theropods on the main page, because each separate Bird is no longer a theropod...

Then, why is it that if I go to the Mastotermes page, for example, a table with Blattodea appears? Following that logic only should appear on the Isoptera page...or Artiodactyla on Blue Whale?

All Birds are Coelurosaurian Theropod Dinosaurs like all Termites are Blattoids or Cetaceans are Artiodactyla, and as in those last ones have Blattodea and Artiodactyla, all should display Theropoda and/or Dinosauria Yewtharaptor (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@Yewtharaptor: Termites are not the only living blattoids, and whales are not the only living artiodactyls. However, birds are the only living dinosaurs and theropods. Displaying Dinosauria or Theropoda on all bird taxoboxes is like displaying Synapsida or Cynodontia on all mammal taxoboxes, it just isn't useful in a neontological context. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 16:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Is not, Synapsida is a way major rank than Dinosauria, it´s equivalent should be Archosauria at least. And the fact that Birds are the only living theropods argue more in favour of put it, also doesn´t invalidate what I said up Yewtharaptor (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Actually, if you go to a page about a modern crocodilian species, like the false gharial, it doesn't display Pseudosuchia or Crocodylomorpha. Only the page Crocodilia displays these clades. This system works fine there, and it would work fine on bird taxoboxes too. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 17:01, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey there, I was the one who sent in the edit requests which led to the mentioned changes occurring. Having Aves removed from the taxoboxes of each bird species was a mistake on my part: I was linked a sandbox version of the taxobox template to demonstrate the changes I wanted, which automatically had Aves ranked as "clade" (which do not always display whereas "class" does), and without noticing this, it led to the admin changing the taxobox to have Aves unranked. I later made another edit request for Aves to be set as always displayed, though even in this I had not noticed the problem was that it wasn't ranked as Class, so it then appeared as an unranked class to always be displayed. While Linnean ranks are mostly falling out of use in academia as mentioned in the main thread above, it is indeed true we hadn't reached a consensus for leaving Aves unranked in said discussion, and apologize for this mistake. Olmagon (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Can we try and achieve a consensus?

There seems little support for showing dozens of dinosaur tax in bird taxoboxes and that isn't coming from the bird project. There does seem general agreement that the current selection could be improved. I think two or three taxa is sufficient and I'll reiterate my suggestion above to show the following:

• Therapoda. This is the important dinosaur clade for bird evolution
• Archosauria. This is the most inclusive clade for birds and crocodiles, their closest living relatives. This seems be better choice than the more obscure Avemetatarsalia that excludes crocodiles. (omit if only two taxa preferred)
• Sauropsida. This reflects the reptile affiliation without using the confusing Reptilia. Reptilia can be used two ways, the newly defined monophyletic clade or the traditional paraphyletic class, and the vernacular reptile is usually understood to exclude birds. People shouldn't be surprised when they come to the page and the taxobox is prominent and doesn't provide context. The dinosaur and reptilian affinity is described in the lede with appropriate context.

So is there any support for this proposal? Or is there a better selection of two or three taxa? —  Jts1882 | talk  06:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree with all of that, speaking as an information-architecture-and-presentation person and an interested reader (not an ornithologist or herpetologist or paleontologist). Having a long line of dinosaur and reptile taxa on random bird-species articles is apt to be confusing for readers, though I think most of them by now will already know that birds are now classified as an offshoot of winged dinosaurs. This has been common knowledge even among school children for a couple of decades. PS: I would lean toward Therapoda, as the most familiar.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

First, thank you for your work here building consensus. Like SMcCandlish I'm just an interested reader, and I tend toward one or two of the above. Definitely Theropoda. Also Sauropsida if consensus deems it so. Again, thanks very much, editor Jts1882, for your help here and at the taxonomy pages! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 08:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The above three should work nicely, while keeping the amount of extra clades added to a minimum. If a smaller selection is required, I believe that including either Theropoda + Archosauria or Theropoda + Sauropsida would also work for the purpose outlined above. This will not add unneccesary bloat to the bird taxoboxes while still showcasing their evolutionary heritage more clearly. Per extension, the listed change above or either of the changes I've suggested would have my support. The Morrison Man (talk) 13:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Dinosauria and Theropoda are important, yet as Morrison Man has posted up, either Theropoda + Archosauria or Theropoda + Sauropsida would also work Yewtharaptor (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I am an early dinosaur paleontologist and I've provided commentary when we discussed this on the bird category so doing it here now. I agree that bird taxoboxes got bloated and we could reduce it to two clades, though my two suggesting are different Archosauria + Dinosauria. Archosauria to join birds with their closes crown (living) relatives the crocodilians; this would show their reptilian nature without breaking the taxoboxes system. I think Dinosauria is a must on their taxoboxes, the general public may not recognize what are sauropsids, archosaurs or theropods, but everyone knows what a dinosaur is. Having it there will help the average viewer recognize something which is an unambiguous scientific consensus among serious researchers, and despite these days people knowing the dinosaur bird relations many do not yet realize birds are true dinosaurs (members of Dinosauria) and having it clearly shown on the taxoboxes the biggest encyclopedia would be of extreme importance in help sharing this scientific consensus to the most diverse number of people/viewers. André O Fonseca (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree especially on the latter point for this, since Dinosauria is the clade that would be most recognized as mentioned, and can convey that birds are reptiles to laymen readers as it is generally known that dinosaurs are reptiles. In all honesty, if only one extra line can be added to the taxoboxes I would go with that one. Since we are currently deciding on two or three, my other picks would be Archosauria and Sauropsida for the listed reasons above. Olmagon (talk) 18:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, as a non-scientist in these matters I must say that I've never understood this either from scientists or laymen. With no intent to be discursive nor confrontational, I refer to the part where you say, "...many do not yet realize birds are true dinosaurs...". Taken aback like most people by the discovered connections between birds and dinosaurs, I finally came on board with the fact that birds evolved from their dinosaur ancestors; however, I still cannot wrap myself around referring to birds as dinosaurs, true or otherwise, anymore than I would be able to digest saying that human beings are anything pre-hominid, such as, say australopithecines or even Proconsuls. Birds evolved from dinosaurs, but I don't see how that actually makes them dinosaurs. They're not dinosaurs, they are descendents of dinosaurs, they're birds. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 18:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi there! Birds are dinosaurs in the same sense that humans, rats or whales are mammals and that ostriches and woodpeckers are both birds. If an animal evolves from a group, its technically always going to be a part of that group. Digging into the examples you gave, Australopithecina is actually a subgrouping of Hominidae, so it would be weird to have an issue with calling them one but not the other. Proconsul is in an entirely different subgroup of Hominoidea, so aside from the fact that that is a genus and not a clade, calling humans Proconsuls or members of Proconsulidae would be incorrect, because they do not descend from them. It would however be correct to call humans members of Primata, Mammalia, Synapsida, Amniota, etc.

Similarly, it would be incorrect to call birds members of Tyrannosauridae, but it would be correct to call them members of Theropoda, Dinosauria, Archosauria, Sauropsida, etc. (yes, per extension of this birds are reptiles, as Dinosauria is also included under Reptilia)

Hope this helps! The Morrison Man (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I would love to tell you, editor The Morrison Man, that it helps, but no, it doesn't. You are equating the group of reptiles known as "dinosaurs" with the group mammals? I'm familiar with these types of arguments and they are sadly unconvincing. Dinosaurs, to include avian dinosaurs, are extinct just as are the little rodent mammals that skittered around their feet. The dinosaur groups do not rise to the level of the mammal class. Reptiles do, of course, rise to that level, but birds are no more reptiles than they are dinosaurs. I think scientists go too far when they say that birds are avian dinosaurs, which haven't been extant for many millions of years. Again, birds have evolved from dinosaurs, but that does not make them dinosaurs. And the story of Proconsul is not yet over either, because humans either evolved from that genus or from some other very similar type of primate. Hard to say which. In any case I must remain unconvinced regarding the identification of birds with a relatively small group of reptiles that didn't survive an asteroid/Earth collision. Humans are not the little mammalian rodents from which we evolved, we are not the sea-dwelling fish from which we evolved, and birds are not the dinosaurs from which they evolved. Thank you, though, for your response! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:30, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Dinosauria is defined as a clade, therefore all of its descendants can and '''should''' be considered dinosaurs. —Snoteleks (Talk) 20:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, I can see that sort of reasoning for a class, but not necessarily for a clade. Why do you think that's true? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:30, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

JGN Paleo and others did make comments more on this in the initial thread above. I'm gonna link the clade page here where a clade is defined as "a grouping of organisms that are monophyletic – that is, composed of a common ancestor and all its lineal descendants – on a phylogenetic tree". Following this definition, cetaceans are descended from an ungulate and thus are ungulates themselves even if they do not have hooves and look very different to their land-living ancestors such as Indohyus. Similarly, the descendants of any dinosaurs are themselves dinosaurs. Olmagon (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Because that is the accepted phylogenetic definition. Linnaean taxonomy, which includes the likes of ranks, classes and orders is all but dead, so both mammalia and dinosauria are clades. You state that birds cannot be dinosaurs because the last avian dinosaurs "haven't been extant for many millions of years", which is factually untrue because birds are the definition of the word avian dinosaur. As for the rest of dinosauria having been extinct for 66 million years, why is that a problem, exactly? We see birds originate during the mesozoic, when their non-avian dinosaur relatives were still alive, and then continue to thrive and diversify throughout both the K/Pg extinction event and the cenozoic, right up untill the modern day. To say that modern birds cannot be dinosaurs because non-avian dinosaurs went extinct a long time ago would be like saying that whales cannot be mammals because archaeocetes went extinct a long time ago. It just does not make any sense to exclude them from the group. And besides, if birds are not only not dinosaurs, but also not reptiles, then what are they, and where do they come from? The Morrison Man (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to tell you @Paine Ellsworth this is not an opinion that I share, this is something that just is. That's what a clade means. It's not up to questioning, it's basic knowledge in systematics, taxonomy, phylogeny, whatever. Birds are theropods, theropods are dinosaurs, dinosaurs are reptiles, reptiles and mammals are amniotes, amniotes are tetrapods and tetrapods are vertebrates just as much as vertebrates are animals and animals are eukaryotes and eukaryotes are living beings. You not being able to understand how clades work (which became evident from your sentence "I can see that sort of reasoning for a class, but not necessarily a clade") doesn't make the entire science of evolution and systematics suddenly incorrect. —Snoteleks (Talk) 21:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with André in that Dinosauria is by far the most recognizable clade between Amniota and Aves. If the point here is to emphasize the phylogenetic position of birds, Dinosauria would most immediately convey that to the average non-specialist.

On a slight tangent: the page for Bird itself lists Sauropsida, Avemetatarsalia, and Ornithurae. Any particular reasoning behind these three? Shuvuuia (talk) 22:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Replying to Jts: I whole-heartedly agree that Sauropsida should be included (to stand in for Reptilia, since the latter seems too fraught with conflicting terminology currently). I would like Theropoda too; however, Dinosauria is more important IMO (as in, if we could only have one dino clade it should be Dinosauria). While Theropoda isn't exactly obscure, Dinosauria is still far more recognizable and better for communicating relationships—and it just feels weird to me to have Theropoda without Dinosauria, theropods are virtually always talked about within the context of dinosaurs. Also, I think it's possible to overstate the importance of Theropoda specifically to bird evolution: bipedalism, endothermy, and feathers all definitely or probably originated before theropods. (True, some may predate dinosaurs too, but Dinosauria indisputably gets the point across better than Ornithodira or (shudder) Avemetatarsalia.) I am not certain how I feel about Archosauria; it does have the benefit of tying birds to their extant sister group, but it feels sort of "extra" to me, and certainly not as crucial as Sauropsida and Dinosauria. Overall I think I lean toward "nay" for Archosauria; however, I wouldn't be totally opposed to its inclusion if it turns out to be popular—perhaps replacing Theropoda.

To once again sum up my opinions: Sauropsida and Dinosauria essential, Theropoda good but negotiable, Archosauria not preferred but a potential replacement for Theropoda in the event consensus demands. — Zach Varmitech (talk) 02:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe Sauropsida+Therapoda+Aves is the best for a combination of representing important clades and brevity. AryKun (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

More like Archosauria+Dinosauria+Aves, as pointed up, ppl is going to know more Dinosauria than theropoda Yewtharaptor (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Gang up much? Thank you for once again going over the arguments with me. It seems to me that there is still much in taxonomy, as well as other disciplines, that amounts to arbitrary classification. I don't consider you to be fish, I don't consider birds to be dinosaurs, and we'll just have to leave it at that. It will all iron itself out someday, hopefully soon. Meanwhile I'll just have to live with the prevailing, arbitrary and incorrect situation. Won't be the first time. Thank you all for your editorial input! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 22:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

This is the key point. The vernacular names are determined by common usage in language. Birds are not dinosaurs or reptiles in this sense. Scientific papers defining clades do not change the meanings of vernacular names. The extinction of dinosaurs is one of the best known evolutionary events in the popular mind and unlikely to change soon as their mass extinction is one of the reasons they fascinate us. On the other hand, the taxon names Reptilia and Dinosauria can be recircumscribed to include birds. But Reptilia ≠ retiles and Dinosauria ≠ dinosaurs. This leads to potential confusion when using these taxa in the taxobox where there is no context. We shouldn't surprise readers. The origin within dinosaurs is described prominently in the lede of the article with appropriate context. For this reason, I prefer Sauropsida to Reptilia and Theropoda to Dinosauria. Theropoda represents the clade of dinosaurs with the bird like features, even if some of these features evolved earlier. There is a case for Saurischia, but Theropoda is a more recognisable name. —  Jts1882 | talk  06:43, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean with "We shouldn't surprise readers."? The Morrison Man (talk) 06:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Dinosaura equals dinosaurs, and Reptilia equals reptiles. This is as pointless of a discussion as arguing over 2+2 being 4. It would be an insult to all readers to try to hide the fact that birds are dinosaurs. Readers are not stupid, many of them are perfectly aware that the K/Pg extinction was the extinction of non-avian dinosaurs. —Snoteleks (Talk) 10:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Look, regardless of the technicalities, you're suggesting that we should downplay scientific information for some imaginary collective called "readers" which you assume they would be somehow scared by this revelation known as "clade Dinosauria" (but for some reason would not be scared by things like Theropoda or Reptilia). I will not take part in it, it's wrong. I am not going to hinder showing that birds are dinosaurs as if we wrote for people from the 18th century. It's not a surprise to anyone who cares. —Snoteleks (Talk) 10:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

if you had been making this argument in 1996 as I did for academia I would agree as I found out the hard way then people were not ready to appreciate that birds are dinosaurs. It had a huge backlash at the time. However, times have changed people have grown accustomed to it and most already know this bit of information. They may not know it to the detail of a paleontologist or taxonomist, but they get it at some level. So its not a shock anymore.

I will give a warning to the paleos. As a nomenclatural taxonomist I have met very few paleos that understand biological nomenclature. Particularly if they are adhering to PhyloCode. I roasted a bunch of them at a conference a few years back. Whether you like PhyloCode or not, it is not a legitimate nomenclature systerm for animals. It is not recognised by the IUCN, CITES, any Government agency or the IUBS. To chenge the nomenclature of a CITES species takes between 2 and 10 years why because all 163 signatory countries have the right to exclude a species from CITES if its nomenclature is changed. So every time someone tries to inflict elephants and rhinos with PhyloCode there is a panic over the ivory trade.

I told them in the past if and when PhyloCode is deemed the prefered system of nomenclature by the IUBS, the governing body of research biological science I will use it. Till then I cannot, becuae the implications are too big for species. For info every taxon I add to wikispecies is de-phylocoded and corrected to a standard nomenclature. Keep it simple and follow the consensus of biology, not just paleontology. For the record I am a Paleontologist and a Taxonomist I have described both living and fossil taxa. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 11:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, laws aren't written by cladists. My state has a list of specified "game fishes" that can be caught by hook-and-line, but it is illegal to fish for these species with a spear or a crossbow. There's a list of endangered fish species that may not be caught at all. Every fish that isn't endangered or a game fish is a "non-game fish" that may be fished for with a spear or a crossbow (or several other methods). A fishing license and an inclusive cladistic definition of fish isn't going to let you get away with assaulting a human with a crossbow. Plantdrew (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Thing is, Reptilia and Dinosauria totally DO = reptiles and dinosaurs respectively. It wouldn't even be THAT confusing to a layman reader just because there's a 'ia' on the end. And even if they don't immediately realize this, they can click on the links and find out about it quickly. "We shouldn't surprise readers", what, with information they didn't know? That's called learning and it's what an encyclopedia is for. Olmagon (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Forgive me if I've set a monster in motion. Thing is, Wikipedia does not invent things, Wikipedia goes with the reliable sources. If sources are in conflict about whether birds are this or birds are not that, then Wikipedia shows that conflict to its readers. "This source says that, and that source says this," kind of stuff. So the bottom line in any discussion on WP is, "What exactly do the reliable sources tell us?" P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 15:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

as everyone says here, the reliable sources basically say birds are dinosurs. Some may use more detail about it, ie they are avian-dinosurs or something, but there are no sources saying the opposite, there is no conflict. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 16:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

We should use dictionaries for the meaning of vernacular terms and most dictionaries refer to dinosaurs as a group of extinct reptiles, with some adding the alternative more inclusive definition. Dinosaur entered the English lexicon a century before cladism was a thing and excluded birds. The circumscription of the taxon has changed, but common language changes slower than scientific language. People can insist dinosaur = Dinosauria because they want it to be and it makes scientific sense, but that doesn't make it true in the wider world. —  Jts1882 | talk  15:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

If you REALLY want to get into the English language and words for this, the terms Dinosauria and Dinosaur were both erected in the same publication by Richard Owen and they DO mean the same thing. This is also stated on wiki's own dinosaur page in the first sentence. And I'm gonna be honest here, there's not really that much of a debate here, almost everyone here agrees on putting Dinosauria in the taxoboxes with the exception of the guy who straight up started by stating he is a non-scientist that doesn't fully understand the matter. All the other people here, including actual academics, are all for making Dinosauria appear in the taxoboxes. While I do not mean to be rude, I must say I don't think you're engaging in this discussion in good faith, as it does not seem that you have listened to the evidence given nor want to do so. Olmagon (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you Olmagon, it looks as if there's an active rejection of both evidence and scientific consensus in this discussion. This argument quite literally started with someone questioning that a clade means what it means. That and saying "Wikipedia doesn't invent things" as if we're making stuff up instead of being encyclopedic. It all seems very much not good faith. —Snoteleks (Talk) 16:22, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Ask for your forgiveness, editor Snoteleks, and am sorry if I appear to you to be acting in "not good faith", because that certainly was not my intent. I am a member of that "imaginary collective" of readers, and I read WP to learn while being honored by the fact that I can actually make (careful) edits to an encyclopedia. I've learned much from you and others here, and I sincerely hope that you continue your efforts to improve WP and thank you much for that! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 09:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

For my part as another non-expert, I'm happy to go along with the forming (pre-existing?) consensus; my only real concern was a thick "forest" of taxa at every bird species article when a compressed taxonomic tree will suffice.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

In Owen's work they did mean the same thing and excluded birds and that was the vernacular term that entered the English language. The scientific use of the taxon name Dinosauria has changed but the vernacular use hasn't caught up.

As an aside I'd like to comment on the first of the vertebrate palaeontolists to enter this discussion to provide their expert advice. The August 8 post was the first Wikipedia edit made by User:JGN Paleo. I was suspicious that someone would find this talk page to made their first edit with a very strange argument from authority. I checked back to see if the editor had made more edits since and find the account is globally locked (see Global account information) for being a spam account. Of course, this doesn't invalidate the arguments made, but makes one wonder who the editor is. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The editor under the name JGN Paleo is Dr. James G. Napoli, as confirmed himself on Twitter (https://twitter.com/JGN_Paleo/status/1707804212485099924), and truly is a Vertebrate Paleontologist. Also I agree it looks as if there's an active rejection of both evidence and scientific consensus in this discussion Yewtharaptor (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't really change my point. If anything it enhances my view that there is an agenda to change taxoboxes on Wikipedia that is not open or without conflict of interest. An explanation for the site-wide Wikimedia ban would provide some credibility, but wouldn't change the failed logic of the post (I'm an expert, but ignorant something, which proves the point). —  Jts1882 | talk  19:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no conflict of interest when the topic been discussed is a consensus among researchers, it is not one researcher trying to force their hypothesis on Wiki over other hypotheses under academic discussion. An argument from someone that actually is a specialist on the topic and used their time to break down though scientific jargon into a more digestible from so the non-specialist which make the bulk the Wikipedia's editorial crew should not be seen as something problematic but an opportunity to show what is begin requested is the consensus among all people working evolutionary biology. I repeat it isn't one researcher pushing their personal hypothesis over a debated topic, only someone explaining something which is known and unambiguously accepted.

I also use the opportunity to say we are pushing for a change on the taxo-boxes which are meant to reflect the evolutionary history of living beings, therefore what rules taxo-boxes should be evolutionary biology and not the vernacular names associated with those clades. The discussion should not be tied to the semantic and subjective discussion if you think birds can be reptiles or dinosaurs under their vernacular uses, just which clades should be show in order to batter inform the evolutionary history of a group. Furthermore, if we want to have a discussion on calling bird dinosaurs and how that affects the vernacular name of those terms, Wikipedia already does favor birds can be called dinosaurs as that is the clearly stated in the second paragraphs of the bird page. So if we were to chose a place to address the fact birds are part of Dinosauria the first place this change should be seen is in the taxo-boxes as it has a better argument than the main text, and yet the main text is in line with that and the boxes are not. The proposal here pushed is in line with both scientific consensus and what is already addressed in the bird page, it is being done as we think bird taxo-boxes, in special the main Aves box, can be improved as the grouping "Avemetatarsalia" isn't the best to convey bird evolutionary history to an average reader. The reasons why used Dinosauria or the other clades was discussed previously and there is no need to repeat here.

On one last note I'd like to mention calling it an Agenda, I can only see it as a low-blow and disrespectful to what we are doing. It is so clearly not an agenda as what is being proposed is both scientific consensus and in line with what is already addressed on the bird page, with all discussion being done respectfully and supported by argumentation. The same claim could have been made on our part that the Wiki editorial board is biased against showing it and is pushing an agenda to deny the public what is a scientific fact ... such argumentation would be ludicrous on our part and dismissed by the board as an attempt to personally attack you. We have not done it against you, and yet used that argument against us, despite what we are defending is perfectly reasonable and not even something disputed. I hope such was a mistake and should not be repeated, and we can keep this discussion focused on the arguments for it, over starting to go on accusing each other of agendas/conspiracies. André O Fonseca (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

André O Fonseca I will point out a couple of things regarding Wikimedia. As noted above I am a professional taxonomist and Paleontologist for 30 odd years, so I get your perspective. However your not in Academia here your on Wikimedia and it has its own rules and definitions. So sorry you and I do have a Conflict of Interests (COI) here and also run foul of Neutral Point of View (NPoV) policies we can even be called out on Original Research (OR). As with all public platforms, their site, their rules, their policies, their definitions. Please trust me I understand policy here I am an Ombud, Beurocrat, CheckUser none of which is relevant in this topic but my point is be wary of policies here, and as with all online platforms you agreed to the rules when you signed up. As an academic you need to work with the system here. It is not always easy. I know that from experience. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 21:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I do agree we should play within the rules set by Wiki. If my/our presence in here does inflict in a COI, I agree we should not be here. I only joined the discussion to explain to others the reasons for doing such changes, as it is unambiguous scientific consensus for at least 25 years, so in view POV it would not be defending a particular party. If it still qualifies as COI, I'll step out of the discussion. My intentions here were to help making the info easier to understand, as for some for some reason it was particularly hard to have this specific point be addressed here at wiki. I do appreciate your concealing and will take in consideration, more so given how I learned it goes, with people going round with semantic arguments and opting for the low-blow agenda arguments when we are all being civil here and offering arguments.

I thank you for your advice and for your efforts in here, it is not simple, and I appreciate your dedication to improving the quality of information on Wiki. Best wishes André O Fonseca (talk) 22:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Irrespective of the vernacular use of the word “dinosaur”, birds are within the clade Dinosauria: that is the scientific consensus, and on that we all agree. Like how humans are ultimately members of Osteichthyes regardless of whether you want to call us “bony fish”. Listing Dinosauria in the taxobox is saying “birds are members of the clade Dinosauria”; I fail to see why that should be objected to. Shuvuuia (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Every reliable scientific source for the last 3 decades or so has quite clearly stated birds are dinosaurs, it is an unambiguous fact now. Here's just a small selection of them (You could also just type "avian dinosaur" into Google scholar for far more.):[1]https://academic.oup.com/evolut/article/70/3/543/6852212

[2]https://www.nature.com/articles/srep09840

[3]https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11692-015-9334-7

[4]https://academic.oup.com/auk/article/132/2/467/5148991 Olmagon (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I would like to point out the WP:DUE policy. Reference materials (like Avian Evolution (Mayr 2017), Mesozoic Birds (Chiappe and Whitmer 2002), Living Dinosaurs (Dyke and Kaiser 2011)) overwhelmingly support birds as nested within Theropoda. This review states: By the 1990s the vast majority of paleontologists accepted the dinosaur–bird link, but many ornithologists remained skeptical. The discovery in the late 1990s in China of fossils from thousands of bona fide dinosaurs covered in feathers provided the most definitive visual evidence for the dinosaur–bird link, convincing most of the remaining skeptics. It is now widely accepted, even by ornithologists, that birds evolved from dinosaurs, with the two groups linked by hundreds of shared features of the skeleton, soft tissues, growth, reproduction, and behavior.

Giving equal weight to a a position against the scientific consensus, such as that held by such as Feduccia (example work: The Origin and Evolution of Birds, from 1999) is not demanded by Wikipedia NPOV. Indeed, there ought to be given weight proportional to its representation in reliable sources - which is as a discredited theory no longer widely held. Sub31k (talk) 05:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy with the status quo in terms of what is displayed in taxoboxes for bird species (i.e. Eukaryota, Animalia, Chordata, Aves). If more ranks/clades really must be added, I'd go with 1) Sauropsida 2) Dinosauria 3) Theropoda, and would balk at more than three in the reptile/dinosaur area (again, why is it so so important to include dinosaur, but not vertebrate or amniote, or the entire hierarchy encoded in the taxonomy templates?). The bird article itself ought to display Dinosauria and Theropoda (and Saurischia? why is that missing from the major groups in the dinosaur taxobox?), but that could be accomplished by omitting skip templates from Template:Taxonomy/Aves, and connecting Template:Taxonomy/Palaeognathae and Template:Taxonomy/Neognathae to Template:Taxonomy/Aves/skip, and then modifying Template:Taxonomy/Aves/skip to have the skips currently in the Aves template. Plantdrew (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

As I said keep it simple, Clades do not need to be named everywhere, they are not formal names after all. People can say what they wish, or can get consensus on, in an article. But remember that the Taxobox also has the function of being an index to the classification as such it needs to be self explanitory and useful. I support adding some of these as its sensible, however it must be across the board as Plantdrew is pointing out above. They need to be the names that link to genuinely useful articles. I also cannot see why Vertebrata or Amniota is not there as an aside. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 20:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

As explained, I believe Dinosauria to be important because dinosaur is a term recognized by the general public, conveying the evolutionary history most clearly to them. I honestly wouldn't be too opposed to Amniota (but that's not the issue at hand), though I feel Chordates and Vertebrata are not both needed together. Olmagon (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed that Dinosauria and Theropoda (possibly Coelurosauria or Avialae as well) should be included on at least the Bird article. Avemetatarsalia and Ornithurae are far less familiar terms and not as informative alone. Shuvuuia (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I support this, I don't see a need of displaying all those clades in all bird taxo-boxes. The main changes should be made to the Aves page, as its taxo-boxes can be improved due to the reasons discussed in the thread (summarized as Avemetatarsalia is a really niche an unrecognizable name and at minimum should be swapped out for Dinosauria). What is too be shown at the individual bird species taxo-boxes is an entire other discussion which could be addressed posterior to the changes at Aves. André O Fonseca (talk) 22:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I would agree that it is not needed to display all these clades on individual bird pages. Having them on the Aves page should suffice, and seems to be an uncontroversial change. The Morrison Man (talk) 05:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a practical side to this also. On Wikispecies we list all of these and that requires template nesting. There is a limit to this before it breaks the code. It used to be 60 and hence we had to delete ranks from several vertebrate groups just to make them display however we put in a request to Phabricator and had that enlarged. However there is still a limit to how many ranks you can have display on a page. This is a code issue has nothing to do with the science. The display properties have limits. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 03:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

As for why the dinosaur taxobox doesn't list Saurischia, that's presumably an attempt to acknowledge the Ornithoscelida hypothesis. Personally I don't believe a hypothesis as far in the minority as Ornithoscelida should be given equal footing in the taxobox, but that's a separate discussion to be had. Shuvuuia (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• I think this discussion should have been started at the bird project's talk page instead of here, and that talk page should definitely have been notified. FunkMonk (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  Just sent a post there regarding the poll below. Olmagon (talk) 23:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  It was previously advised that the discussion be taken here instead. Though I do agree that WP:BIRDS should be notified The Morrison Man (talk) 07:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Strawpoll

The discussion of which clades to include, above, is getting not a little lengthy. In the interest of making clear what is actually favourable and unfavourable about each clade's inclusion, I hope you'll put forward thoughts and comments under each clade's section below. Hopefully this makes it easier to keep track of things and come to a decision. Sub31k (talk) 20:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@Sub31k: is this about what to display in the bird article itself, or what to display in all articles on birds going down to (sub)species? Plantdrew (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of that. I'm sure there's no issue with discussing both. Sub31k (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

My votes for Sauropsida and Dinosauria go for all articles on birds. Shuvuuia (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree similarly that Sauropsida and Dinosauria should go on all the bird articles like Artiodactyla goes on all cetacean pages. I wouldn't mind if some of the other clades also got in them all, but these are the two I believe hold greatest importance and I'm fine for the rest to simply be on the Bird page itself. Olmagon (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

My votes for both aforementioned groups also apply for all bird articles. The Morrison Man (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

In the event you want some consistency, here is the Aves page on Wikispecies. Expand the Taxonavigation to see what we ended up with which took over 120 edits to get there. Summary is Superclassis - Tetrapoda, Classis: Reptilia, Subclassis: Diapsida, Infraclassis: Archosauromorpha, Cladus: Dinosauria, Ordo: Saurischia, Subordo: Theropoda, Cladus: Avialae, Infraclassis: Aves. I list here those that have been mentioned in this discussion we have many others though mostly as clades. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 03:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

What's the definition for Aves being used here? Usually when you see a non-crown definition it's synonymous with Avialae. Sub31k (talk) 03:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

agreed and that is in all liklihood the the IOC or Birdlife International insisting that the word Aves stay in there somewhere. In all honesty the two names are redundant, you can easily do away with one of them. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 03:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think any of these clades should be displayed on all bird articles, except maybe Sauropsida/Reptilia. But they should be displayed on the bird article obviously. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 13:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

• Ornithurae

Support. This is the immediate parent clade of Aves, and should therefore be included, just as Mammaliaformes is included on the mammal page, and Eusuchia is included on the Crocodilia page. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 13:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Support. Taxoboxes nearly always show the immediate parent, although I'm open to an alterantive embracing some extinct bird like forms.—  Jts1882 | talk  14:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• Avialae

Neutral. Aves would fit more Yewtharaptor (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Support inclusion. Jumping straight from Dinosauria to crown-birds is a pretty big phylogenetic gap; I feel there's room for a clade in between. Avialae is decently recognizable as "the bird line" in dinosaur/theropod evolution (it shows up in textbooks as such), so that's where my vote goes. Shuvuuia (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Support inclusion. As stated above by Shuvuuia, jumping straight from Aves to either Theropoda or Dinosauria is quite a gap. Avialae is recognisable enough to be put inbetween without much issue. The Morrison Man (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I have to disagree on it being recognizable—to most it probably just looks like Aves again. I very rarely see Avialae talked about outside of us paleontology-initiated. Zach Varmitech (talk) 21:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion. It feels very redundant when Aves is right there, and if we need an "in-between" for Dinosauria/Aves, Theropoda works much better in terms of inclusiveness and communicating relationships to non-birds. Non-Aves Avialae are usually just called "birds" colloquially anyway. Zach Varmitech (talk) 21:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion. Avialae is often treated as a junior synonym of Aves (either it or Neornithes), wouldn't be informative. Eriorguez (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion. Avialae is too taxonomically unresolved, and requiring its inclusion on all bird pages would be equivalent to requiring Cynodontia or Mammaliaformes for mammals. In fact, I would support reinstatement of Aves as a clade under Theropoda, as it is a good taxonomic grouping in that it includes the two groups of birds alive today.Geekgecko (talk) 00:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion. Avialae feels like a redundant inclusion and does not necessarily add as much relevant information to the article at hand in comparison to the other clades. There are better in-betweens if we want to include a clade between Dinosauria and Aves. CryolophosaurusEllioti (talk) 01:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion: Does not highlight connection to other living groups of animals, so layperson will not recieve any real information when seeing it in taxobox. Additionally many non Neornithes Avialans can be collequilially be referred to as "birds" making the distinction between Aves and Avialae ambiguous and slightly redundant. If there has to be a clade in between Theropoda and Aves, Maniraptorans might be a better pick, though it does not seem necessary. VoidpunkXenon (talk) 02:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - this name adds nothing that cannot be achieved with current and other proposed ranks it is therefore supurfulous. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 03:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. Avialae is not a very important clade in the grand scheme of things. The earliest avialans possessed very few traits that weren't found in other basal paravians like Anchiornis and Microraptor. With that in mind, Paraves might be a better option for the taxobox, but I don't strongly support that one either tbh. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 13:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Re: Anchiornis I'd like to mention that a number of recent analyses place anchiornothines as basal Avialae. In any case a lot of near-bird taxa grade into each other, and it's hard to make a decisive 'break'.

IMO Avialae has the advantage (over Ornithurae) of containing the very prolific enantiornithes, confuciusornithes and jeholornithes. But I'm not that enthusiastic about Avialae or Ornithurae. Sub31k (talk) 13:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

• Theropoda

Support inclusion—albeit not as strongly as for Sauropsida and Dinosauria. It does seem good to have an "intermediate" between Dinosauria and Aves, and Theropoda is more recognizable and just feels like more of a "fundamental" clade than the alternatives. Zach Varmitech (talk) 21:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Support, shows Aves as ingrained within Dinosauria, rather than dinosaurs being split between avian and non-avian ones. Eriorguez (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Support per arguments listed by Eriorguez. The Morrison Man (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Support - this clade alone gets the point across without seeming like it's hammering in a point. FunkMonk (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Support - I'm dicey on how many clades to include since I don't want every bird's taxobox to become unnecessarily long, but if I could choose only one it would be Theropoda; it's widely recognized as a subdivision of the dinosaurs by the general public.Geekgecko (talk) 00:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Support inclusion. Theropoda is one of the most recognizable clades within Dinosauria, and as such it serves as a great intermediate between Dinosauria and Aves. CryolophosaurusEllioti (talk) 01:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Support inclusion. A recognisable clade by laypeople, communicates the Dinosaurian connection without being bogged down in too many clades. VoidpunkXenon (talk) 02:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Support. This is one of the most necessary clades, honest from a taxonomic or nomenclatural point of view its more important than Dinosauria, however name recognition also matters. But this one is needed. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 03:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Support inclusion. I have nothing to add which hasn't already been said. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 06:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Support. It's important to show which major dinosaur group birds are members of. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 13:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Support. As said up by Trilletrollet, It's important to show which major dinosaur group birds are members of Yewtharaptor (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Support. This seem the major group of dinosaurs with beginnings of bird-like features and is the best "dinosaur" clade to display. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• Dinosauria

Support Inclusion. It is the level non versed on science ppl will recognize the most Yewtharaptor (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Support inclusion. Highly recognisable taxon; scientific consensus is overwhelming for Aves nested within Dinosauria. Sub31k (talk) 20:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I am personally most in favor of this option out of the three because it includes Dinosauria, which as mentioned is the clade that laymen readers will most recognize and thus make the reptilian nature of birds most immediately apparent. Olmagon (talk) 20:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Support inclusion. To imply even by omission that birds do not belong to Dinosauria is gravely misleading. Shuvuuia (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Support inclusion. Seeing as the relationship between birds and dinosaurs is already mentioned in the article and has been the scientific consensus for numerous years, the inclusion of Dinosauria should be uncontroversial. The clade is easily recognisable even for the layman reader. The Morrison Man (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Support inclusion. Most of what can be said in favor has been said above, and I basically agree with all of it. Zach Varmitech (talk) 21:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Support the inclusion. It is an unambiguous fact and among all clades in between Reptilia and Aves, Dinosauria is the most recognizable and is IMO a "mandatory" inclusion at the Aves taxobox. André O Fonseca (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Support inclusion; unambiguous fact, highly informative. Eriorguez (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Support inclusion. Very clearly gets across the well established fact that birds are a subset of dinosaurs. CamelKhan (talk) 22:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Support for the reasons listed above, but not opposed to only listing Theropoda instead. Geekgecko (talk) 00:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

If we also wanted to fit this into Linnean taxonomy somehow, it's worth noting that recognition of Dinosauria as its own class containing the birds was proposed as far back as 1974 by none other than Bob Bakker. However, this would also necessitate recognizing Pseudosuchia/Suchia, Testudines and Lepidosauria as their own classes, and I'm not sure if we have any sources that can be used to support those. Geekgecko (talk) 01:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

If we wanted to strictly follow Linnean taxonomy there, Aves has priority, thus making all dinosaurs birds :P

In all seriousness, extreme minority proposals like that should not be adopted here. And IMO, as biologists/paleontologists move away from Linnean taxonomy in favor of unranked clades, Wikipedia should follow. Shuvuuia (talk) 02:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

there is no move away from Linnean nomenclature, it is not the same thing as taxonomy, seriously wish people would realise that Taxonomy and Nomenclature are not the same thing. This was most recently discussed on the GSLWG of the IUBS and the call to follow PhylloCode is a minority and very small subset of Taxonomists. Mostly only Paleos of some vertebrate groups. No one else. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 02:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Also ther Principal of Priority does not apply to groups above Family Group as such Aves and Reptilia have no Priority with respect to each other, hence through Typification the better name if they were seen as synopnymous is Reptilia as the type of Reptilia includes all birds but the type of Aves does not include all reptiles. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 03:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

For info our latest paper (Global Species List) on the wishes of the taxonomic community is currently in press which is the survey of over 1500 taxonomists and the results of the survey. There was no support for PhylloCode in it. Its under embargo till release I will link it for people when it comes out. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 04:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Support inclusion for the reasons listed above. CryolophosaurusEllioti (talk) 01:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Support inclusion, especially if we decide not to include Archosauria, most recognisable clade to members of the public, though would be happy with just theropoda and archosauria included. VoidpunkXenon (talk) 02:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Neutral. If Therapoda is supported this is redundant. Unless one is going for the name recognition which I cencede is a good argument. This is a clade not a named group governed by the code whereas Therapoda is an Order Group name and hence has Code Recognition. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 03:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Both Theropoda and Dinosauria have been used as ranked taxa (Dinosauria usually as a superorder; also Theropoda was named as a suborder) and both have been defined as clades. By this standard, either both are governed by the ICZN, or neither are. Shuvuuia (talk) 04:32, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

understood I was meaing in currently published arrangements. Therapoda is still used as an Order Group name, Dinosauria only appears as a Clade these days. BUt I meant what I said I concede this has name recognition and that in itself is a good argument to use it. More I was trying to point out that Therapoda is a more important name than Dinosauria for relationship defining. I said neutral not oppose. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 04:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm gonna have to ask for a citation; from what I see dinosaur paleontologists overwhelmingly use both as clades in recent literature. Shuvuuia (talk) 04:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

unfortunately many recent papers exclusively use non ranked classification for some vertebrate fossil groups. So when a group is comprised largely of fossil taxa you end up with a problematic uissue of recent lit using PhylloCode. Carrol 1988 I believe was the last to use a fully Linnean classification of Therapoda. Whereas more recent classifications listed on the Wikispecies page, make no effort to reconcile the systems making it impossible to use either. The thing is if you are dealing only with fossils fine do it how you want, but living taxa use linnean code and are required to do so legally as their names for endangered species are accepted as acts of parliament under the scheduling systems of each country so if you wish to combine the two you have to reconcile them. I did not do the Aves groupings on Wikispecies, I worked on the Turtle lineages. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 05:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

When you mention parliamentary acts, I would like to mention that there is no conflict, generally, between Linnaeus and cladistics for binomial names (the relevant part). I think it's not very useful to base decisions off of the presence of Linnean rank in a taxon, especially if the last taxonomy predates almost all of the discoveries that shape our understanding of bird evolution between Avialae and crown Aves today. Sub31k (talk) 05:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

no there is not if the paper sticks to the above family group taxonomy. However its the failure to reconcile that causes the problem, its not that there is a conflict there should not be, it is actually very simple to reconcile phyllocode and linnean nomenclature. But they do not present it in the papers as such they cannot be utilised. However, this is a digression cause all I was trying to emphasise in the vote here was that to me Therapoda is a more useful rank than Dinosauria, I am fine with both though. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 06:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

There is only one taxonomic system ever published (to my knowledge) that treated Dinosauria as an unranked clade and Theropoda as an order (or in this case, an explicitly paraphyletic "paraorder"): a self-published volume by George Olshevsky from 1991. To say that Olshevsky's system has not been widely accepted among dinosaur paleontologists is an understatement; the overwhelming majority of dinosaur classifications, before and after, have either both Dinosauria and Theropoda ranked, or both of them as clades. I don't see why so much weight should be given to a classification that 30 years of research have demonstrated isn't an accurate reflection of dinosaur phylogeny. Shuvuuia (talk) 06:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Levin, H. L., & King Jr, D. T. (2016). The Earth through time. John Wiley & Sons. has it as an Order;

Pough et al. (2006) has it as suborder I believe;

Carrol 1988 has it as Order

Bakker, Robert T. (1986), The Dinosaur Heresies, William Morrow. has it as InfraClass

Bakker & Galton (1974) has it as Order

Dubois (2006) has it as a Hypoorder.

Take your pick. But seriously I was just trying to differentiate the importance of Therapoda and Dinosauria, I supported both and do not care that they are clades. My comment on the nomenclatural validity is just a justification for diffentiation and is based on usage. But its not important. The last one is a research journal paper. The rest are books, not self-published. As I said on Wikispecies we have all these papers listed many have pdf's if you want. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 06:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

oh and Wikispecies is following Baron et al 2017 for Dinosauria and Cau et al 2018 for Therapoda. We built our listings based on multiple sources based on review of experts in the fields of each group. We are not wikipedia and are not subject to several of the policies here. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 06:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I stand corrected! Thank you for the additional citations; I now see your point here and concede. Shuvuuia (talk) 07:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Support inclusion. I have nothing to add which hasn't already been said. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 06:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Support. While not as important to bird evolution as Avemetatarsalia, Dinosauria is still a widely known taxon that would be strange to leave out. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 13:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. There is no feature of this node that marks it out as important. It is just one of many incremental stepes from general archosaur to bird. The only arguement given for its inclusion is that people have heard of dinosaurs, but this is a flawed argument. People have heard of the vernacular term dinosaur, not the clade Dinosauria. The vernacular common name excludes birds, as a check of major dictionaries reveals. The status of birds as descendants of dinosours is explain in the lede with proper context.—  Jts1882 | talk  14:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• Avemetatarsalia

Support Inclusion. While is less know, is also a key element Yewtharaptor (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Support. While it may not be as familiar to the average reader as Dinosauria, Avemetatarsalia is a very important clade in the context of bird evolution. This group contains all animals more closely related to birds than to any other living animals, giving it roughly the same role that Synapsida has in mammal evolution. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 13:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Avemetatarsalia is already featured in the taxobox on the Aves page, so I'd think voting on its inclusion would be arbitrary. The Morrison Man (talk) 16:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

From the discussion above, it looks like some people want it removed; I was just stating my case for why it should remain. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 16:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah do not think it was suggested to remove this, but if I misread that I agree it should stay. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 18:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I was referring mostly to the August discussion, see this comment for example. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 18:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

• Archosauria

Support inclusion. The major group and the 2nd most important one to be featured on the taxobox Yewtharaptor (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Support inclusion. Important to clarify the relatedness of crocodilians and birds. Sub31k (talk) 20:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion. I don't hate it, but it feels like just one too many clades for all the bird boxes. I think Theropoda barely edges it out as a third clade option, mostly because it feels slightly worse to have Dinosauria without Theropoda than Reptilia without Archosauria. However, I may be willing to support Archosauria for the Bird page if a vote on that were to be held. Zach Varmitech (talk) 21:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Seconded. the relationships between living reptile clades should be prioritized. CamelKhan (talk) 22:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Which of the two above comments do you second, exactly? For sake of clarity The Morrison Man (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I mean Support Inclusion of Archosauria. CamelKhan (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Support inclusion; crocodylians and birds are each other's closest living relatives, the taxoboxes as they are paint a different, misleading picture. Eriorguez (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Support inclusion, at least on the bird page itself (I wouldn't mind if it also appears in the pages for individual bird taxa but I don't think it's as important as having Sauropsida or Dinosauria do so). Olmagon (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Support inclusion only on the bird page; it's too broad a group to list on the taxobox of every bird species and will make them too long. However, it's worth noting that Archosauria is considered a subclass of Reptilia by other resources. If we were somehow able, we could go from that placement and upgrade Archosauria or Archelosauria to a class of Vertebrata its own, allowing it to show up on every relevant taxobox and balancing Linnean taxonomic terms with scientific accuracy. Geekgecko (talk) 00:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Support inclusion, at least on the main bird page, since it hammers home the relationship between crocodilians and birds. CryolophosaurusEllioti (talk) 01:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Support inclusion so as to draw a connection to the relationship with crocodiles. (Would also support this clade being included on crocodillian taxoboxes.) VoidpunkXenon (talk) 02:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Support. This is the other of what I would see as the two most important named groups. Because of the relationships defined which is part of the purpose of it all. Again with this and Therapoda you do not need Dinosauria unless for name recognition. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 03:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Support inclusion. I have nothing to add which hasn't already been said. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 06:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Support. Archosauria is a major clade with many synapomorphies. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 13:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Support. Represents a major step in evolution of reptiles, the split of lizards and snakees from crocodiles, dinosaurs and birds. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• Sauropsida

Support inclusion - clarifies reptilian affinities of birds without messing with Linnean rank. Sub31k (talk) 20:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Support inclusion. Sauropsida is undeniably a major clade; listing it properly conveys the phylogenetic position of birds within the clade of modern reptiles. Shuvuuia (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Support inclusion. Already listed in Aves taxobox, so inclusion in other avian taxoboxes should be uncontroversial.The Morrison Man (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Support inclusion, gets the idea across that birds do fall within the reptile clade (I honest slightly prefer Reptilia since that makes it more immediately apparent, but if the current system of that and Aves both being Classes causes a clash then I'll settle for Sauropsida). Olmagon (talk) 20:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

If "classes" cannot nest, the use of a paraphyletic Reptilia in taxoboxes is worth another discussion entirely. Shuvuuia (talk) 20:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I honestly think it's better to normalize birds as a type of reptile than have Reptilia be made paraphyletic (Sauropsida and Reptilia are essentially the same thing anyways) but as said, that's a discussion for another time. Olmagon (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Support inclusion. In fact, upon thinking about it, I would say it's the #1 most needed clade for the taxoboxes. It is a crucial step toward resolving the conflict between birds being reptiles cladistically and birds not being "reptiles" colloquially. Like Olmagon, I would like Reptilia, but it may clash with the current system. Aves arguably shouldn't still be considered a Class, but it remains so by most. Therefore, Sauropsida, being an unranked clade, is a good work-around to finally recognize birds' reptilian heritage and relationships. Zach Varmitech (talk) 21:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Support inclusion, but there are unresolved issues with Sauropsida/Reptilia, mostly related to taxonomical ranks, which is a different issue. Eriorguez (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Support inclusion. Including Reptilia in the taxobox would likely cause confusion, so Sauropsida seems to be a more fitting choice to convey birds being reptiles. CryolophosaurusEllioti (talk) 01:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Support Inclusion. While I would personally regard birds as reptiles, the precise clade the word Reptilia represents is somewhat ambiguous, Sauropsida, (being broadly synonymous) removes ambguity on that front while also hightlighting the reptilian nature of birds. Additionally, it moves away from Linnean taxonomy as science seems to be doing. VoidpunkXenon (talk)

Oppose. If your not going to have the Reptilia / Sauropsida discussion then change for the sake of change without discussion is not in the interests of education. Just use Reptilia. As I said above if Aves and Reptilia are considered synonymous the correct name is Reptilia not Aves as Priority does not apply above Family. So if you want to call birds Reptiles stand by your guns and do it. Rather than copout using a synonym to make people happy. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 03:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Support inclusion. I have nothing to add which hasn't already been said. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 06:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Support. I'm fine with either Sauropsida or Reptilia, but one of them must be included. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 13:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Support. Represents the major split between mammals and reptilian forms. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Further discussion

I believe that if birds come from dinosaurs and the only thing that differences them to not be called reptiles and a different genus - birds, which dinosaurs had then it's only logical to include them in Dinosauria. 2A02:A316:4047:9280:6411:7E5:EB7:AACB (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

It has now been 10 days since this poll started and no one has made a new post on it in a few days so I'm going to list the results below:

• Ornithurae: 1 supporting
• Avialae: 2 supporting, 7 opposing
• Theropoda: 11 supporting
• Dinosauria: 14 supporting
• Avemetatarsalia: 2 supporting
• Archosauria: 11 supporting, 1 opposing
• Sauropsida: 10 supporting, 1 opposing

In addition, 3 votes support Dinosauria and Sauropsida being on every bird page while 1 opposes (but states "maybe Sauropsida" can do so).

It would therefore seem that Dinosauria, Theropoda, Archosauria and Sauropsida shall be displayed on the Bird page itself, while Dinosauria and Sauropsida should appear on every bird page. Olmagon (talk) 13:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to make the edit that will have Sauropsida appear on every bird page? I've managed to do all the rest of it already but can't work out this last part. Olmagon (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Even if 3 people want Dinosauria to be displayed on all bird pages, that is just a tiny portion of the 14 people who voted in the rest of the poll. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 14:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Admittedly this poll has been slightly ambiguous over whether it was for displaying clades in all bird pages or just the Bird page. I got the "3 support" number from the smaller section at the top where there were 4 votes in total, but if we want further clarity we can ping the people who voted "support" for Dinosauria and ask them to state whether they want it in every bird page. Olmagon (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I've added the further discussion section. Consensus on Wikipedia is based on arguments, not voting, and the results of the strawpoll need discussion to gain some sort of consensus. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

The whole process with this straw poll has been corrupted by the recruitment of people from off wikipedia and failure to notify the bird project, apart from an inadequate notice very late on when most people had already voted. None of the people voting for displaying multiple dinosaur taxa (one is sufficient) seems to have edited the bird article or are regular editors of extant bird articles. Some voters signed up specifically to vote in this poll and their arguments for including Dinosauria show they haven't read the discussion. —  Jts1882 | talk 

I do think it's at least a little bit odd that you have brought this up over a month after discussion here died down. Especially the revert on the template seems weird, because untill your edits today there were no opposing arguments present in the "strawpoll" section, while others have been thoroughly discussed above, and I do not think most of them held significant ground. I would also like to ask which arguments for including Dinosauria show that "they haven't read the discussion". Hopefully this can be resolved properly The Morrison Man (talk) 15:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I took a break from the discussion because I was annoyed at the dishonesty. I only noticed today that the discussion had been "closed" as it wasn't indicated clearly in the edit summaries and was just added at the end of the straw poll as if another vote. As I said, Wikipedia is based on arguments not numbers, especially when there is recruitment from off wikipedia and no proper notification of the bird project. Strawpolls can be a basis for further discussion, but that discussion needs to be had before changes are made. A few specific points:

• Specifically a general article like bird doesn't need a lot of taxa in the taxobox hierarchy. My proposal suggested three between the immediate parent and Chordata. My three were Theropoda, Archosauria and Sauropsida. I still feel these are the most appropriate.
• I see no consensus for multiple dinosaur clades. Several people have commented on this and some preferred Theropoda to Dinosauria (e.g. FunkMonk, Scott Thomson, as do I. Others asked why are these more important than Tetrapod, Amniote or Vertebrate?
• The discussion started off as changes for the bird article only, not for all the articles on living birds. The changes made put Dinosauria into 10,000 bird articles without consulting the bird project. I don't think the Palaeontology project would be happy if another project imposed a change on all their articles.

—  Jts1882 | talk  15:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't really have much to say about the intermediate clades (to be honest I'm not sure what point I was trying to make last month) but I will comment that I think Euornithes would be a more useful clade to display than Ornithurae. Sub31k (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

About "not notifying" the bird project, this discussion actually started there and only moved here later when it was recommended to do so, as can be seen here. When the straw poll started, the bird project was once again notified on their talk page, as can be seen at [[5]]. Olmagon (talk) 20:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• Fixed the issue with the links. The Morrison Man (talk) 06:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

well this seems to have gone off the rails a bit. As noted above by Jts1882 I felt that the use of Therapoda was justifiable if that could reach consensus. However I did not stipulate as to where so will state this probably is only pertinent on the Bird page. If the editors of the bird pages wish to use it further in the various other bird related accounts thats their choice and I have little to say on it. I do recall that the bird project did receive several pointers to this but to take this full circle I think they have to be engaged fully as its most relevant to what they are presenting. People need to appreciate I think that modern bird research is not paleontology and they may have little interest in a fossil group that is only barely relevent to the majority of their pages. So to back up what JTS1882 is getting at yeah do not dump the paleo views on them the idea is consensus not anything else. I have had the same issue arise in turtles where paleos try to enforce the viewpoint af about 25 scientists over the 800 odd working on living species. I am sympathetic to the paleo view I am a professional paleontologist I also work on living species. I am the opnly living person to describe both living and fossil taxa of turtles. It is a fine line you have to walk. Tred it with respect. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 10:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Scott, you have failed to present any evidence that your grievance with the taxonomy used by paleontologists use to discuss stem-turtles is widespread among modern turtle researchers. Neontologists are naturally going to largely ignore stem-turtles and their taxonomy which are outside the scope of their work. Those modern researchers that do discuss stem turtles in my experience tend to follow the taxonomy of paleontologists. Whether or not these clades are defined by phylocode is also irrelevant. What matters is that they are widely used. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

all I said was they are all turtles from a vernacular point of view you even use the word turtle in it when you call them stem turtles. Stem-turtle??? That makes them turtles. I have no issue with that being separated out. They all belong to the Tesudinata if you must use that name, its actually unavailable but such is life, Testudinata comes from Testus which means Turtle basically as its the Roman name of the shield defence in the Roman military where turtles got their name so Testudinata means turtle. Your saying its a turtle but we cannot say it is, based on your say so. I prefer publications, yes that includes my own, and many of my colleagues who also reviewed mine whom you cite out of context. Your splitting to the nth degree which is one of the big issues the general sciences has with taxonomy. Its not a grievence I am following the literature, this is off topic here, you were proposing to base all the information related to the vernacular name of turtles to align with the paleontology. You gave no reason for that to be done yet expect others and multiple people spoke against you, to provide evidence that goes against changes you made based on your preference. A few weeks ago I had to defend Wikimedia in a meeting with TaxonWorks, no end of complaints about how academics are treated. There is a reason I use my real name on here as well as a pseudonym. It prevents a lot of this. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 20:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

What? Stem turtles are turtles, yes. The phrase is meant to narrow down to turtles outside the crown group Testudines.

It's not very clear to me what you're trying to say, also. Sub31k (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Let it go this is off topic here. Bring it up on the turtle page. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 21:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry.... I mean to retract the first sentence of my last post.

However, I'm confused about what even is being argued here. Sub31k (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Sub31k, I'm not really sure what argument is being made here The Morrison Man (talk) 06:03, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Scott, I´m sorry, but you basically wrote a statement that sounded like "I am the master of the argument and with my great power I have annihilated the opinion of others", yet, as posted up, you have failed to present any evidence that your grievance with the taxonomy used by paleontologists is widespread among modern researchers.

This, with the overall almost informal return of this topic gives a clear perspective of how this civil discussion is being teared up. Yewtharaptor (talk) 15:50, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Here is an idea. Why not just have class Tetrapoda, subclass Sauropsida, unranked clade Dinosauria and family Avidae (aves)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:58c:c500:e750:463:34b8:38ff:427f (talk) 01:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

It's honestly quite embarrassing that this discussion has gone on as long as it has. Every possible argument has been brought up and the results are that 14 editors are in favor of using Dinosauria in the bird taxobox, 1 is neutral, and 1 is opposed. Even if we were to disregard votes "corrupted by the recruitment of people from off wikipedia" (as stated without much diplomacy by Jts1882), the consensus among people who know what they're talking about is strongly in one direction. That is not intended as a dig at anyone, all 3 sides have at least one person who "knows what they're talking about", at least in terms of taxonomic nomenclature and the mechanisms of evolution. If I were to vote (which I will not, since I am a biased party "corrupted" by being a paleontology-oriented editor annoyed by the fact that this is even a debate), I would be the fifteenth "support" vote.

The only reason this debate happens in the first-place is because "bird" and "dinosaur" are two words with strong connotations. As a person who grew up versed in semi-modern paleontology, I am inherently biased in favor of comparing the two categories favorably, because the gradual and fascinating context of bird evolution (from the dinosaurian perspective) was engrained into my worldview from a young age. That's probably the case for every paleontologist or paleontology fanatic on the planet, including the 14 support votes here.

I assume Jts1882 wouldn't bother to complain about Teleostomi or Reptiliomorpha being in the taxonomy template, despite the decidedly non-avian connotations of those groups. They're simply more obscure than Dinosauria, and thus less likely to inflame personal biases about whether the dinosaur-bird relationship should or should not be emphasized. We all have personal biases, the purpose of a vote is to try to dilute those biases by sampling a broader perspective (though still among people-who-know-what-they're-talking-about). Pleading for more discussion is just buying time and beating a dead horse from my perspective. If this were any other argument on the site, it would be marked as resolved. And until just a few days ago, it was. NGPezz (talk) 03:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I’m not sure what you find embarrassing about this discussion. The argument is not about whether birds are phylogenetically dinosaurs (which no one has questioned in the above discussion) but about the appropriateness of putting dinosaur taxa in the taxobox of a general article like birds (there is a separate article on evolution of birds), let alone in all the bird species articles. Most of the votes for including Dinosauria are because birds are part of the clade, which is not in dispute, but don’t say why it is important to include this particlular taxon (out of the >50 parent taxa in the full hierarchy,including the two unimportant ones you mention) in general articles about birds, other than that lots of people have heard of dinosaurs. A flaw in this argument is that the concept of dinosaurs they have heard of is different from the clade Dinosauria and potentially confusing without proper context. The vernacular dinosaur is used in two senses, both to refer to the clade by specialists and the broader common language use to refer to the extinct or prehistoric reptile group to the exclusion of bird. English language use is determined by usage, not by the Phylocode, and dictionary definitions of dinosaur reflect this usage,referring to the extinct reptiles (e.g. Cambridge, Collins, Oxford, Merriam Webster). As the affinity between birds and dinosaurs has been known for 150 years, the common English usage is unlikely to change in the near future. It is not job of an encyclopedia is to try and change this usage.

If you read the lede of bird article you will see that the dinosaur affinity is explained in the second paragraph with the context that would be lacking in the taxobox. The wording of the lede and the choices for the taxobox has been discussed many times in various places, e.g. on the talk pages of the bird article (Talk:Bird/Archive 9, (2019-2021), bird project page and various taxobox templates). My position is that the job of an encyclopedia is accurately and unambigously explain the state of knowledge, which is not best achieved by placing Dinosauria in the taxobox of a general article on birds without proper context and allow on the text to explain it more fully. It was never an attempt to deny the phylogenetic relationship between birds and dinosaurs (which no one did).

Anyway, I’ll bow to the weight of numbers and drop my objection. Dinosauria is now in the taxobox of the bird article. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

From another perspective, there isn't any push to exclude Hominoidea (apes) or Hominidae (great apes) from the taxobox for humans, even though "humans are apes" and "birds are dinosaurs" are equally contentious statements in pop culture. It's the same situation: two words with overlapping scientific definitions and yet very divergent connotations within most languages and broader history. From my personal perspective, biased by my upbringing engrossed in paleontology media, I would see a push to scrub the human taxobox of ape references as similarly embarrassing to the push to scrub Dinosauria out of the bird taxobox. NGPezz (talk) 03:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Before I comment on this discussion, I'll add that a month ago I really strongly supported certain opinions, and I'm not sure why anymore. My apologies for brusqueness then.

• We should all take care to remember that weight of numbers in !votes is not determining... just a reminder to stay aware.
• On the subject of dinosaurs in the taxobox on Bird, I will add that Theropoda diverged from other Dinosauria in a remarkably short (2 million years?) timeframe, and that basal dinosaurs of all types are all kind of bird-like in the same way as basal theropods are. Synapomorphies of Theropoda are things like elongated prezygapophyses of distal caudals, <0.6 humerus/femur ratio, a slender metacarpal IV, and the absence of phalanges on manual digit V. (Of course this needn't be relevant if we resolve to approach this from the standpoint of evolutionary taxonomy, but given the preference for phylogenetics here, I don't think that'd go over well.) If, in cladistic faction, one looks at the base of the clades, as is standard for a primarily palaeontological group, the reasons to use Theropoda over Dinosauria weaken.
• For extant bird taxoboxes, where does relevance end? If we are concerned (as far as interrelationships) solely about the crown (as are most professional volumes on the various birds of the world) then it seems fine to take that great jump from order to class and from class to phylum, though it may be useful to include molecular-based clades between order and class. It might be fine to altogether disregard those purely paleontological taxa of the stem. But it doesn't necessarily have to be this way, and indeed there might be much to be gained from more integration between these traditionally disparate subjects.
• For a month, Clade: Dinosauria was conspicuously present in ten thousand bird articles, and seemed to garner no comment. Maybe it's hard to notice (I hardly did) or arer there instead simply few misgivings?
• I disagree strongly with the removal of Avemetatarsalia from the bird taxobox. It's the total group of birds, even if that group's diversity is a little absurd... and is of importance.
• I get that Ornithurae is important as the immediate named parent of Aves, but its usage is inconsistent - a lot of writing uses Chiappe's node-based definition, many still use Gauthier's. Wikispecies and enwiki use Chiappe's definition. It's a restrictive clade, but the other definitions also are used. I don't know if this is an issue or not, but please do comment.

Sub31k (talk) 05:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@Sub31k: I wouldn't say it’s accurate to say insertion of Dinosauria in all the bird taxobox wasn’t noticed. It was noticed several times and kept getting restored. Edits to put Dinosauria in all the bird taxoboxes were made several times and reverted by at least three different editors (I was the third). Objections were raised in the discussion at the bird project before the discussion was forked here. One of the early sections in this discussion (see [[6]] starts with pointing out the inappropriateness of putting dinosaur taxa in every bird taxobox, something that has been discussed on a number of previous occasions. As a technical note, the way Wikimedia handles caching means changes to the taxonomy templates sometimes take time to propogate to the taxoboxes in all articles, so the series of changes and reverts would have left an unpredictable output.

I've added Dinosauria to the taxobox for the bird article. Given your comment on the closeness of the Dinosauria and Theropoda splits, including both seems redundant. Do you think Theropoda is necessary? I've also left Avemetatarsalia in the skip taxonomy template sequence. The discussion started over at the bird project (before being forked here) and the importance of Avemetatarsalia was questioned (not for the first time). The question to me seems to be, do we show the parent before important splits (e.g. Archosauria) or the first node of the split lineage. Including both seems overkill. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh you are definitely right in that it was noticed. My own experience is that of not noticing despite doing a bunch of bird taxoboxes in that time, haha. I don't have much of an opinion on the all bird articles question.

Personally, I don't think that it's efficient to have >1 Triassic dinosaur clade. In honesty, either would have been perfectly fine (I don't really hold many of the same opinions as before)...

Good question about the divergence of living groups. No real stance here. Many of the extent vertebrate groupings include the total group, but they often don't have something named with significance of Archosauria as parent.

Sub31k (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

this debate has been going on for thirty years. So I guess we cannot expect to resolve it easily in a couple of months. I am fine with this change, I only preferred therapoda over dinosauria because of the position of the name within the more accepted trees, however, that is I acknowledge a technicality and I can accept either. In the end what drives the argument is where people are coming from in their view of the value of this. From the perspective of a person interested in birds, mostly modern birds, for example, does this term add value. We need to show it does add value for their perspective. By the way I have seen plenty of vandalism over the years over humans being in Hominoidea, so it does go both ways. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 05:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Does it add value? is a good question. For me, I think it would have added value - as someone who started out interested purely in modern birds and through that became interested in prehistoric birds, both in the crown and in the stem.

I will mention that Theropoda having rank (and Dinosauria being a clade) might be a result of that long period in which dinosaurs were not considered a natural group. But I don't think there's much disagreement to pick over there. Sub31k (talk) 05:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Some inconsistencies among Stramenopiles classification

I've noticed some convoluted inconsistencies between the current taxonomy of certain ochrophyte algae so I'm summarizing my findings here.

• The page Ochrophyte states that the currently accepted name is Ochrophytina, instead of Ochrophyta. However, this is supported by nobody except Thomas Cavalier-Smith, and is therefore not the scientific consensus. Numerous papers between 2018 and now use Ochrophyta.
• In the same manner, there is exactly 0 support for Cavalier-Smith's classification of Dictyochophyceae. In his article, it is stated that Dictyochophyceae contains three different groups: Pelagophyceae (stated as a subclass, again not supported by anyone else), Olisthodiscus (which is a different class Olisthodiscophyceae) and Pedinellia (supposedly equal to the Dictyochophyceae that is supported by everyone else). It is true that Dictyochophyceae and Pelagophyceae are sister clades, but there is no scientific consensus that supports joining them both under Dictyochophyceae. For reference, this is the way it looks according to Cav.-Sm.:

• Infraclass Diatomista (=SIII clade)
  • Superclass Hypogyrista
    • Class Dictyochophyceae
      • Subclass Pedinellia (=Dictyochophyceae in every other source)
      • Subclass Pelagophycidae (=Pelagophyceae in every other source)
      • Subclass Sulcophycidae (contains Olisthodiscophyceae which is an outsider, and Sulcochrysis which is incertae sedis)
    • Class Pinguiophyceae (is also an outsider)
  • Superclass Khakista
    • Class Bolidophyceae
    • Class Bacillariophyceae (diatoms)

And this is the way it looks according to the rest of sources:

• SIII clade/Diatomista
  • Unnamed clade
    • Dictyochophyceae
    • Pelagophyceae
  • Khakista
    • Bolidophyceae
    • Bacillariophyceae

These are the changes that I will be trying to implement on Wikipedia. —Snoteleks (Talk) 11:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Go for it. There are quite a lot of inconsistencies in the Stramenopiles classification. I balked at attempting to make the changes, partly due to lack of a clear taxonomic source. Is there one you plan to use or is a "consensus" of various phylogenetic papers? —  Jts1882 | talk  17:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh man, I wish there was one unifying taxonomic source. Sadly stramenopile classification is very spread out so right now I'm slowly gathering a consensus between many papers. Luckily, the ones that aren't from Cavalier-Smith seem to agree with each other 99% of the time. I basically use Adl et al. (2019) as the baseline and then build from there according to posterior studies. —Snoteleks (Talk) 18:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Speaking of stramenopiles, I just updated Template:Taxonomy/Oomycota to point towards Template:Taxonomy/Stramenopiles rather than Template:Taxonomy/Heterokonta. The latter, a less accepted synonym whose taxonomy template uses the outdated and paraphyletic Chromista instead of SAR, doesn't even give the correct color on taxoboxes, and I'm surprised there's such a widespread duplicate. Should Heterokonta be fully replaced by Stramenopiles in taxoboxes or is there still any use for it? ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 20:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

References

@Snoteleks:, you're the one who made the edits that changed the taxobox from displaying Ochrophyta to Ochrophytina. Many details of Cavalier-Smith's classifications aren't accepted by anybody. I agree with trying to find a follow a consensus source. Plantdrew (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that was me. And I wish I hadn't done it because it's become increasingly clear how unsupported the change was. —Snoteleks (Talk) 18:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

1. There is no problem to use the name Ochrophyta for the clade. But if you apply the standard taxonomical ranks, you also should apply the traditional endings of the taxon name according to this rank. For phylum it is -phyta, for subphylum -phytina, for class -phyceae. C.-S. applied the phylum rank for the stramenopile groups Gyrista and Bigyra (only Gyrista is a clade, Bigyra may be paraphyl. because of some basal heterokont lines); after moving the ochrophyte clade to the lower level, the change of the ending was necessary. So, the intro of the article is IMO O.K., I only miss the information that it is not only "a group" but a clade (named Ochrophyta). The name Ochrophyta shoul be also applied for the clade in section Phylogeny (in the cladogram) and everywhere in the article, where the "official" taxomical rank is not important (it is not possible in section Classification without changing the whole system either to a system, where the Ochrophyte clade is placed as phylum, or to a system without the taxon rank names phylum/subphylum).

2. I agree with the proposal to change the cladogram for the SIII clade (Olisthodiscophyceae and Chrysoparadoxophyceae outside it, and Pelagophyceae outside of Dictyochophyceae). (But I would not consider it as definitiv, changes of this are possible in next phylogenetic studies. We have to wait for solid references to comprehensive studies of stramenopile phylogeny.) --Petr Karel (talk) 05:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Monotypic taxon example needed that isn't likey to change (and has article and appropriate redirects)

Resolved

Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (fauna)#New example required for WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA. I could just pick a random one, but maybe someone has an ideal example.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh I have hundreds of examples. Axomonadida and Tetraheliidae redirect to Tetrahelia, Saccharomycomorphidae redirects to Saccharomycomorpha, Proleptomonadidae redirects to Proleptomonas, Thecomonadea and Apusomonadidae redirect to Apusomonadida, Actinosphaerina and Actinosphaeriidae redirect to Actinosphaerium, Chthonida and Yogsothothina and Yogsothothidae redirect to Yogsothoth (protist)... need more? —Snoteleks (Talk) 22:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

A subset of such birds: 3 orders, 38 families and many, many genera, here: User:Kweetal nl/sandbox10 Kweetal nl (talk) 02:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I dropped your suggestions into the other thread over there. Thanks, that should be sufficient.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Short descriptions

Based on this PetScan query, there are approximately 9400 species articles without short descriptions. I've started a bit, but if a few others are interested, we could reduce the backlog pretty quickly (especially using ShortDesc helper). Cheers, Edward-Woodrow • talk 22:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I will include this in #todo just so _>>> Webclo^udd@their-talk-page 02:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Webclouddat; we're down quite a bit. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm sick of people constantly confusing polyphyletic and paraphyletic groups

So many non-monophyletic groups have been erroneously referred to as the wrong kind of non-monophyletic group. I found slugs, traditional Pelecaniformes and ratites wrongfully called paraphyletic, and birds of prey and antelopes wrongfully called polyphyletic. What can we do about this? These are just the ones I found, there are probably many other groups being wrongfully labeled in this way. --Grey Clownfish (talk) 05:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

The distinction between paraphyletic and polyphyletic can be ambiguous - whether a group is paraphyletic or polyphyletic can depend on how the stems are classfied. I would call antilopes (all bovids other than cattle/bison/buffalos and sheep/goats/musk oxen) paraphyletic, but looking at the cladogram one could divide them into antilopes(I) (sister to cattle, etc.) and antilopes(II) (paraphyletic with respect to Caprinae), which would be a diphyletic group. On the other hand to make birds of prey paraphyletic one has to include the root of Telluraves within birds of prey. I don't know anything about stem group fossils in Telluraves, so I don't know whether that makes sense - I can see the possibility from the tree, but I'd look for more evidence. I can see sensible definitions of birds of prey which are polyphyletic. I would have said that ratites were monophyletic (with tinamous) or paraphyletic (without tinamous). Lavateraguy (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Telluraves were probably ancestrally birds of prey. Both branches have predatory groups as the early branches, so you could make the case for them being paraphyletic as they didn't develop the predatory behaviour independently. However, it seems a stretch to have to exclude several large groups and does illustrate your point about it being difficult to decide unambiguously. There is also the question as to whether the terms should be applied to vernacular terms that are not taxa. —  Jts1882 | talk  17:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

This article presents "raptors" as paraphyletic based on molecular studies inferring ancestral lifestyle of an "apex predator" Jarvis et al. 2014 or a "raptorial grade" Prum et al.. (That the excluded groups are more than half of avian species need not be of concern; it's not tremendously relevant to this understanding.) Sub31k (talk) 20:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

How can a sensible defintion of birds of prey be polyphyletic? Defining it as Cathartiformes + Accipitriformes + Strigiformes + Falconiformes or something? Do you know why those are the only extant orders considered raptors (except by the few people who include Cariamiformes too)? Because they have ancestral telluravian traits. There is strong evidence that the first telluravian was a raptor if you ask me. In extinct potential raptors like Messelasturidae and Halcyornithidae and in extant and extinct non-raptors, like seriemas, parrots and Sandcoleidae.

As for ratites, a paraphyletic definition like Palaeognathae - Tinamiformes isn't sensible, as it's the tinamous who have the ancestral traits. Palaeognaths originally had keels and flew. The 6 ratite orders all independently evolved their ratite traits. In fact, it seems that they actually flew to the different continents and islands. The first palaeognath was not a ratite, unless you redefine ratites as palaeognaths, in which case you must include tinamous. Because I bet the first palaegnath had hardly any traits in common with extant ratites that tinamous lack. And any such traits are not the ones that make them ratites. Because the trait that makes them ratites is not having a keel. --Grey Clownfish (talk) 01:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Clearly I'm in need of a refresher – I know what monophyletic and polyphyletic groupings are, but what are paraphyletic ones, and how to they differ from polyphyletic ones? Edward-Woodrow (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Polyphyletic means they don't have a common ancestor, they're united by characteristics that evolved independently and separately by convergence. All polyphyletic groups include only individual groups scattered across evolution (e.g. Heliozoa). Paraphyletic means they do have a common ancestor, but not all the descendants of said ancestor are included (e.g. crustaceans are paraphyletic, while their monophyletic counterpart, Pancrustacea, includes insects). —Snoteleks (Talk) 21:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Ichnotaxa as "extant"

@Grey Clownfish:, as a note I have reverted your Nov 5 edits to the ichnotaxa taxonomy templates, given that ichnotaxonomic classification is specifically ONLY used for paleontology that I am aware of. Can you provide sources that use it explicitly for modern cases. The KU ichnology page does not give any sourcing for its assertion, and the PBDB is not considered a reliable source for more then citations of taxa by WP:Palaeontology due to the high error rate in its data. While the car image is of modern feeding to which that ichnogenus resembles, that does not make the car image actually of the trace fossil.--Kevmin § 17:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I mean, whatever produces Paleodictyon is extant, so I guess that counts? Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

in a strict sense, the shapes are still being produced, but what sources USE Paleodictyon for modern, non-fossil impressions?--Kevmin § 19:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

It is regularly used for recent structures e.g [7] Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

A difficulty for me is that the name applies to the trace, not to the organism that produced it. So, strictly speaking, Paleodictyon species can't be either extinct or extant. In the taxonomy templates I created I used |extinct=yes because that seemed the conventional approach. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

"Paleodictyon nodosum" was apparently described in 1977 on the basis of the work of an extant animal. Names published after 1930 based on the work of an extant animal are outside the scope of the ICZN. The ICZN defines an ichnotaxon as "A taxon based on the fossilized work of an organism." I guess that doesn't preclude associating a modern trace animal work with an ichnotaxon, but the ICZN does preclude post-1930 publications of modern "ichnospecies" in a (fossil) ichnogenus. "Paleodictyon nodosum" should not have a taxobox (and should not be driving Template:Taxonomy/Paleodictyon to display as extant). Plantdrew (talk) 02:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree that not being described under a taxonomic code means it shouldn't have a taxobox. The ICZN also doesn't apply to animal taxa above the family group. And the ICNP requires prokaryotes to be cultured to decribe them, but we have taxoboxes for Candidatus species and genera. --Grey Clownfish (talk) 02:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

As an ICZN Commissioner, I can assure you that some of the Articles in the Code apply to names above the family group ("1.2.2. The Code regulates the names of taxa in the family group, genus group, and species group. Articles 1-4, 7-10, 11.1-11.3, 14, 27, 28 and 32.5.2.5 also regulate names of taxa at ranks above the family group."); that includes Articles 1 and 2, which define what the Code applies to and what it does not. As Plantdrew correctly noted, taxa described after 1930 from "the work of extant animals" are expressly excluded, under ICZN Article 1.3.6. Strictly speaking, the name "Paleodictyon nodosum" should not even be italicized, because it is most definitely not a scientific name as defined by the Code. Dyanega (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

If they're neither extinct not extant, then they're not extinct. So why would you mark them as extinct?

Also, how is it the conventional approach? The fact that those ichnotaxa and ootaxa were not marked as extinct before suggests otherwise. Also, I have barely seen any source outside of Wikipedia calling ichnotaxa/ootaxa extinct, and when they did, it's likely that they were just blindly copying Wikipedia. --Grey Clownfish (talk) 03:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The traces are still being made, and I don't see any reasoning to say that they're extinct. There are, somewhere in the sea, Paleodictyon traces still being made by whichever creature has been making them for a while. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 20:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

How can an trace fossil that's still produced today be reasonably considered extinct? Just because it's a fossil? So if someone finds a fossil of a modern human, then modern humans are extinct?

If something is extinct, then no more fossils will be produced of it. Fossils may continue to be produced only if it's extant.

Also, it must be understood that trace fossils can be produced by extant species. The cut-off date for calling something a "fossil" is 10 000 years ago. There were many extant species around at that time, so trace fossils of extant species could easily be found. Especially with many being recent. Maybe that "Radulichnus" on the car wasn't really a Radulichnus as it wasn't a fossil yet, but if it fossilised, it would be one, formed by an extant land snail.

I really don't see how extinct vs extant for trace fossils is any different than it is for organisms. We call organisms extinct if there are no living members and extant if they are. There are never any new fossils formed of an extinct organism. Likewise, trace fossils are extant if they can be produced by extant organisms. In fact, given that ichnotaxa are defined by apperance, not the organism that produces them, maybe we should consider them all extant, even the ones that aren't being produced today, because they have the chance of being revived. --Grey Clownfish (talk) 01:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Grey Clownfish: "they" don't have the chance of being revived, if by they you mean ichnotaxa. Ichnotaxon names refer to the trace, not to the organism that produced them, which will be given its own name under the ICZN. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

What I mean is that if an ichnotaxon stopped being produced because the organism that produced it went extinct, there's a chance that another organism could convergently evolve to produce similar or identical traces. So the new traces would have to be classified as the ichnotaxon.

I've heard that the "work of an extant animal" is not under the scope of the ICZN. Well, species that produce the trace could go extinct. Then their traces would count. --Grey Clownfish (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Ichnotaxa are the bane of the ICZN, as well, with an absurdly large number of exceptions to standard rules, or special rules of their own, regarding how to name them and how to treat the names that are being used for them. They are paleontological by an overwhelming majority, and using extinct as the default is fairly sensible if one feels compelled to adhere to the "extant/extinct" dichotomy. Making exceptions for the few outliers like Paleodictyon seems like a fair bit of effort with little real benefit, given the state of ambiguity surrounding that and other ichnotaxa. Aside from giving them their own set of rules, it's very hard to fit them into anything conventional, either taxonomically or nomenclaturally. Dyanega (talk) 23:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• As ichnotaxa have their own special kind of taxobox template, {{Ichnobox}}, if there's a consensus not to display † in the taxobox, it would be easy to program the template to ignore |extinct= in the taxonomy template.

As noted above, ootaxon names offer another example of names not applying to organisms as such. There are also form taxon names in botany, including cases where the sporophyte and gametophyte of the same species have been given different names before the link was discovered (thus Lyonophyton rhyniensis is thought to be the gametophyte of Aglaophyton majus). Talking about things requires names, and in paleontology, names are needed for kinds of fossils or fossil evidence without the need to make unwarranted assumptions about identity. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd never considered this before (just assuming they are extinct), but it seems clear to me now that ichnotaxa are a product of a living form, which might be extant or extinct, and are not themselves either. So I'd support not displaying extinct in the taxobox. The ichnoboxes show the rank (e.g. ichnogenus) so there will be no confusion. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this perspective. Ichnotaxa are not living organisms, so therefore cannot be extinct/extant. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

just a general comment I have always found the concept of considering ichnotaxa as "taxa" problematic. No doubt it is something produced by a living organism, but it is not the organism. I mean the ludicrous end point is the pyramids are also produced by a living taxon. Are the pyramids taxa? No they are structures. As Dyanega said do not italicise them, and I add they are not taxa in terms of biology. Of course they need to be reported on, but we need another category for these. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 03:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@Faendalimas: are egg fossils (ootaxa) "taxa"? are morphotaxa (form taxa) "taxa"? Clearly not in the full sense, i.e. "nomenclatural taxa", but, like ichnotaxa, these concepts are needed in paleontology. A quotation from Taylor, T.N.; Taylor, E.L. & Krings, M. (2009), Paleobotany The Biology and Evolution of Fossil Plants (2nd ed.), Amsterdam; Boston: Academic Press, ISBN 978-0-12-373972-8, pp. 41-42 is relevant:

"A morphotaxon is a fossil taxon which, for nomenclatural purposes, comprises only the parts, life history stages, or preservational states represented by the corresponding nomenclatural type ... The first reason for naming parts is so that the fossils can be studied and referred to in publications and discussed with other paleobotanists. The other reason is that some identical plant parts may be attached to different plants ... and a name is necessary to describe and study the part."

As for styling, if we follow sources, for paleobotany it's clear that morphotaxa are styled in the same way as nomenclatural taxa. I'm not as familiar with paleozoology, but those sources I've seen (e.g. doi:10.3374/014.055.0210) also style ootaxa and ichnotaxa in the same way as nomenclatural taxa. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I suppose we will get to Coprolite soon enough. In saying no italics I am basically agreeing that under the code they are not zoological names. However, in the basic rules of writing language when you have a phrase in a language other than the main document you are supposed to italicise it. That has nothing to do with the rules of nomenclature thats just basic writing good practice. Same as italicising first person speech etc. Anyway I think we may need a set of rules for ichnotaxa that are unique, they may borrow significantly from the TOL taxobox etc but still be their own rules and may have parameters not present in the taxoboxes. There are fossil footprints of modern humans, we are certainly extant. You may want a parameter that identifies if the ichnotaxa is a trace from a living or extinct species. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 12:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

My perspective a non-specialist in this area (i.e. as just a random editor/reader) is that "Ichnotaxa are not living organisms, so therefore cannot be extinct/extant" is correct. Treating them otherwise is apt to be confusing for a lot of end users.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

While that line of logic is rational, we are constrained by what the literature itself actually does, so we should go with italics or daggers when the literature specifically does.--Kevmin § 18:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

WP is not in any way constrained to adopt styles and sigils from specialist literature when they do not signify anything meaningful to our readers.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with SMcCandlish here, we are responsible to convey the information of the source literature, how we do that ie the style, can be developed by us as long as it makes sense. The source literature in using italics or daggers is just following their own point of view, there is no standard on this for ichnotaxa. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 01:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

At MOS:ORGANISMS, we've spent years developing a one-stop shop for all biological taxonomic style matters as they seem to pertain to encyclopedic writing. And we've rejected an few non-mandatory divergences in some of the literature as not conductive to that goal and just introducing unnecessary reader and editor confusion. It doesn't presently address ichnotaxa at all (and arguably shouldn't since they're not life forms even in the broad sense that includes viruses), but if it did, I don't think it would advise using such markup that is easily mistaken for extinction declarations that pertain to organisms. Could be wrong of course; it's a dicussion not had yet. But it's what I would predict.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

The ICZN Code is very clear on the point that any "names" given to the works of extant animals after 1930 are not scientific names at all. If the people studying ichnotaxa are ignoring the Code (whether intentional or not), it's still a violation of the Code, and I don't think Wikipedia editors are compelled to adhere to such practices, even if they are in the literature. The only real difficulty I see here is whether we can clearly distinguish between those ichnotaxon names that are governed by the Code, and ones that are not. While Paleodictyon nodosum very clearly is not a scientific name, it gets much harder to know what to do about other names. My inclination would be to restrict the use of italics to ichnotaxa that are actual fossils, but that is a complicated and obscure rule for editors to follow, so unless one person is overseeing the whole assemblage, the ichnotaxon articles collectively are likely to be inconsistent. Dyanega (talk) 16:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Pterygota discussion at WikiProject Insects

Hi, I started a discussion about Pterygota (or more specifically, the internal phylogeny/systematics of the group) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Insects#Pterygota systematics back on Monday, and I would like some feedback. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Scientific name excised from pop-up preview - please, can it be prevented?

Hi, The pop-up that a mouseover causes when over a link to a taxon-article, shows a necessarily short preview of that article (I am using the "Vector(2022)" skin). This is wonderfully useful. Unfortunately that pop-up cuts away (!) the scientific name from the preview-text. To get now at the scientific name, you /still/ have to click the link, /and/ then go back again. This makes the feature much less useful than it would otherwise be. Is there a workaround (css, javascript)?
Random example:: White-eared jacamar
Text on the page: "The white-eared jacamar (Galbalcyrhynchus leucotis) is a species of bird in the family Galbulidae. It is found in Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru."
Text on the preview: "The white-eared jacamar is a species of bird in the family Galbulidae. It is found in Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru."
Apologies if this is the wrong place for this - but where if not here?
Kweetal nl (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Weird, this also happens on Vector 2010. Sub31k (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I can't speak as to Vector 2010, but it happens in the hovercard view because the binominal is in parentheses (round brackets), and hovercards drop all such material.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Parenthetical binomials display for me (Vector 2010, Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups enabled), but they didn't always and I don't think I've changed any of my settings that would be relevant. Plantdrew (talk) 01:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Displays for me on these settings as well, although I can't recall if/when it did earlier. CMD (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm using Vector Legacy (2010) and not using the navigation popups feature found under Preferences: Gadgets. I'm using the hovercards provided by the mw:Page Previews feature which has been enabled at en.wikipedia for some time, even for non-logged-in users. Might switch to nav popups, but I had some issue with that last time I tried it a couple of years ago. I just turned it on, and can confirm that the missing binomial problem is not an issue in that form of hovercard. So, users who don't have an account, those who do but are not logged in, and those who are but don't have navigation popups turned on in prefs, are all going to get a hovercard without the binomial.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Checking "Gadgets/Navigation popups" does indeed solve my problem (and it has more info/features too) - Thank you. - Kweetal nl (talk) 06:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T91344

I do not think that switching to the gadget is a reasonable long-term solution, considering that the mw feature is the global default. Instead we should be pestering the page preview people at phabricator to try and find a midground between wasting 20% of the preview card on parenthesized other-language names and having the binomial name cut off. Huh, there actually is a ticket for that. Adding the "tracked" template. --Artoria2e5 🌉 15:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

FYI – November lichen task force newsletter

<--- Previous issue | Next issue ---> | Tip Line SYMBIOSIS: The lichen task force newsletter — November 2023 A look at what we've accomplished, working together
Our tiny task force is working to improve coverage of the world's lichens – unique symbiotic organisms composed of one or more fungal partners with one or more photosynthetic partners. They're found around the world, covering more than 7% of the earth's surface – from frigid polar areas to the steamy equator, from the edges of lapping seas to the highest mountains, and from city walls to the most pristine wilderness areas. They provide food and nesting material for myriad animal species, may be major players in the creation of soil from rock, and produce substances which may prove beneficial in our fight against pathogenic organisms. Want to learn more? Join us!	Articles of note New featured list: Outline of lichens (October 29) New good articles: Teloschistaceae (9 September) – a large family of mostly lichen-forming fungi Elke Mackenzie (18 October) – a noted British lichenologist who was also part of a secret WWII mission to Antarctica Teloschistes flavicans – the type species of the type genus of the family Teloschistaceae
Project news Esculenta has been on a tear recently and now has six articles under consideration for good article status: Anaptychia ciliaris, Buellia frigida, Chrysothrix chlorina, Placidium arboreum, Pulchrocladia retipora, and Punctelia. Esculenta has also submitted Teloschistaceae (which received its GA star in September) for consideration as a featured article. We now have articles about two additional noted lichenologists: Vitus Grummann and Oscar Klement. "Year of description" categories have been added to all genus and species articles. The number of genus and species articles continues to grow. We now have 935 articles about lichen genera and more than 2100 (including redirects) about lichen species. It's not all good news: The number of articles on our cleanup listing has also grown, with 5% of the task force's articles showing some sort of potential issue. These range from missing or unreliable sources to dead external links and orphaned articles. Some of these could probably be sorted relatively quickly, if you're looking for a fast way to help the project improve the quality of its coverage.
Newsletter challenge The "Phytochemistry" section in our Stereocaulon ramulosum is convoluted and virtually unreadable – and has had a "clarification needed" tag since July of 2022. The editor who whips this short section into shape (and the one who cleans up the associated references) will get public kudos in the next newsletter.
Got a suggestion? A correction? Something you'd like to see included in a future issue? Drop a note at the Tip Line with your ideas!

Armadillo classification

A 2016 genetic study of armadillos, which included the genome of the extinct glyptodont Doedicurus decided to reduce the number of armadillo families to two, Dasypodidae, only containing Dasypus and Chlamyphoridae, containing all other armadillos, with the subfamilies Glyptodontinae, Euphractinae, Chlamyphorinae (fairy armadillos), and Tolypeutinae, with these subfamilies reduced from family level. [8]. Wikipedia currently follows this arrangement. However, I don't know if other researchers have accepted the classification scheme. A brief search on scholar suggests mixed results A study from the same year walked back the sinking [9], though some later paleontological studies have continued to support it [10]. Should this be change be reverted back? Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

IUCN seems to be following the Two Family option, rightly or wrongly, which means CITES is as well. We have 6 families on Wikispecies. You may want to check what CoL does as its not useful to be out of step with the major checklists particularly for CITES I groups. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 21:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

just a note 4 of the families on Wikispecies are extinct, among the living taxa we are doing the same as IUCN, Wikipedia and ASM-MDD. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 20:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The ASM-MDD also follows the two family scheme (link, with the three extant subfamilies. CoL is using ITIS as it source for mammals and still seems to be following MSW3 (single family). It's odd they use ITIS so much for tetrapods (also amphibia and birds). As the IUCN and ASM-MDD agree, I think we should follow that scheme. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Came here to say almost the same as Jts1882. Our primary guidance for taxonomic decisions with mammals is the combination of IUCN and ASM's MDD. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:58, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• Fair enough if this is followed by the CITES and IUCN. The only problem with this I suppose is the extinct taxa. Is there really any point of having a separate Cingulata article if its essentially synonymous with armadillo? Recent studies support placing the pampatheres (the only other group historically considered to be non-armadillo cingulates aside from the glyptodonts) as close relatives of glyptodonts within the armadillo crown group [11]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  Probably not and the Cingulata article may be served merged into the Xenarthra article, not sure. Re families for the extinct ones find a balance. Its not a university text book its an encyclopedia, you can always explain these issues in text of relevant articles rather than make main space that is just confusing depending on where your coming from. For groups that contain some genuinely endangered species it really is more of a service to the public to be in accordance with IUCN and CITES. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 01:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Confusing taxonomy template

I'm very confused by this template. How can something have an uncertain position in something that is unranked. I think logically any group could be described this way. Does anyone have a reasonable explanation? YorkshireExpat (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Rank doesn't really have anything to do with it. The lead of Bilateria says it is a clade/infrakingdom. ITIS has it as a subkingdom. What would change for you if the Bilateria taxobox had infrakingdom or subkingdom instead of clade?

Incertae sedis means that the parent/child relationship between taxa is uncertain at some level. Most bilaterians can be classified as prostostome or deuterostomes. A fragmentary fossil might not have the characters needed to classify that fossil as a protostome or a deuterostome. A living organism (or a fossil) might have some characters that are consistent with one parent taxon and other characters that are consistent with a different parent taxon. Incertae sedis means we don't know for sure if the parent is A or B (or C...). If it is known for certain that the parent is neither A nor B, any ranks (or clades) needed to integrate it into the tree of life can be named (in such a case, newly named ranks might be monotypic). Plantdrew (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, think I see now. No, it wasn't the clade that was bothering me. I now see it as it has an unknown position, and that position could be one of several different ranks, maybe clades, Phyla, or Superphyla, or something else. I have been seeing incertae sedis at a given rank, suggesting that the child group is most like a member of something that would be at that rank, but that isn't the case here. Thanks. YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Now I get why you were confused. Taxonomy templates deal with incertae sedis situations in two ways (and don't seem to be particularly consistent). Either an incertae sedis template is created for a particular rank, or the taxonomy template skips any incertae sedis ranks and has a higher taxon as the parent. I don't think I've ever created an incertae sedis template for a particular rank; I stay away from articles where major ranks are incertae sedis, and I've omitted incertae sedis minor ranks in taxonomy template I've edited (e.g. Template:Taxonomy/Apluda, where the subtribal placement is noted as incertae sedis in the source).

The template you've noted is useless. I don't think we should be creating incertae sedis templates when a taxon is incertae sedis at multiple major ranks. I think incertae sedis template should only be created for a single major rank, and should only be created following a source that explicitly says something is incertae sedis at that rank. I think it is probably OR to say that Keurbosia in incertae sedis in Bilateria. There's one source that says it might be a vertebrate or an arthropod, and while Bilateria is the lowest clade that includes vertebrates and arthropods, the source doesn't mention Bilateria (and there's another source that mentions Bilateria without mentioning vertebrates or arthropods).

Now I'm noticing that incertae sedis templates do not permit references; Template:Taxonomy/Incertae sedis/Bacteria has a reference in the code, but it isn't displayed. I not sure how I feel about that. An incertae sedis template could have multiple children (as the Bilateria and Bacteria ones do) with different sources for each child (e.g. one source deals with a fossil that might be an arthropod or a vertebrate, while another deals with a fossil that might be echinoderm or a mollusc). Plantdrew (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Would the incertae sedis ref be the same as its child though? I'm not sure what extra information having that ref would convey.

I've noticed some inconsistency about when incertae sedis is applied on taxoboxes. I guess it comes down to if it adds any information for the reader, and this is a judgement call for the editor. In all the cases where the Incertae sedis/Bilateria template is used, I think it has the potential to cause confusion. I suppose I would though as it confused me, but I would see myself as the man on the Clapham omnibus in this context. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Dinosaur clades in bird taxoboxes featured in the media!

The discussion about the presence of dinosaur clades in taxoboxes for birds has gotten an article about it from Atlas Obscura a week ago. https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/column-are-birds-dinosaurs Sub31k (talk) 07:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

What a mess. I didn't know it was reverted. Still, I find it incredible that just because the taxobox is shortened people end up thinking birds aren't dinosaurs. The article itself elaborates on exactly why birds are undeniably dinosaurs, and yet here we are at Wikipedia not being able to collectively solidify this fact. —Snoteleks (Talk) 08:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Mytella

Just came across the Mytella stub. The WoRMS page for this genus has a different species list, with two of the current species on our article considered synonyms for a currently unlisted species, and WoRMS having one species not listed on our article. As part of this, it considers our Mytella charruana article to be properly named Mytella strigata. Would it be appropriate to make that page move and adjust the species listed per WoRMS, or is there another source that should be considered here? Thanks, CMD (talk) 12:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

WoRMS is variable as a source, depending on the taxon and its editors, but molluscs are usually reliable and up to date. The bivalve section is edited by Philippe Bouchet, who is highly respected in the field and author of a widely used classification. So unless there is a new source, more recent than the last update to that page (Sept 2020), I would follow WoRMS, and even if there was a new source with a revised classification I'd look for it to be used elsewhere before making changes. In short, your proposed changes look sensible. —  Jts1882 | talk  12:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much, changes made on en.wiki. I note that the species name was already changed on nl.wiki and pt.wiki. The exact process for adjusting wikidata:Q13871656 is slightly beyond me right now. CMD (talk) 10:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Not bold enough to do some bacterial restructuring

I've recently come across two (maybe I've forgot some?) bacterial articles in need of some major change due to taxonomy updates and general historical sloppiness.

• Lacticaseibacillus casei is probably the easier one. The issue is that a good chunk of information either concerns a strain now identified as paracasei or something else, or generally applies to not just casei (or the species complex for that matter). I don't have the guts to empty out this article despite a kind of-roadmap on the talk page.
• Mycoplasma is a bigger overdue mess. Even more of the article apply to Mollicutes in general (or at least, Mollicutes is often the highest common taxon node among what's being talked about). And then there are a bunch of new pages to create.

I don't want to leave the templates up there forever, but every time I look at them I shake my head and decide that it's too much for me. Help. Artoria2e5 🌉 04:46, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Rewrite at Nomenclature codes

Someone's doing rather drastic overhauling there; here's multi-edit diff span [12]. Some of it may be needed, but much of this was done by copying material over from Binomial nomenclature, which may result in a lot of duplicate wording. My personal take is that the lead may be reduced too much, and the tone seems wrong, leaning toward but not quite directly addressing the reader, though that may be reparable. Maybe something between the two versions would be a good compromise.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your concern. I've long thought that there's confusion and overlap among the articles concerned with biological nomenclature. The issue with the Nomenclature codes article is to decide what is sufficiently top-level to go here and what should be at the articles about the individual codes. I think Nomenclature codes should be quite a short article. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, it's about the codes and what spheres they cover, and perhaps some differences between them, but not about binomial nomenclature in general (especially given that the codes cover much more than that).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I think it ought to give some history. Formal codes didn't exist until the 20th century, although there were recommendations of best practices in the 19th century. It ought to discuss the commonalities in the codes; e.g., priority and typification which are concepts that developed after Linnaeus. The "differences between codes" section is poor. The biggest difference between the ICZN and the ICNafp is how they handle priority (by epithet in the ICZN, by combination in the ICNafp). Differences in starting dates and treatment of tautonyms are rather trivial. Plantdrew (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

FieldianaZool, etc. comments

For example, at Peregrine falcon:
<!-- FieldianaZool114:1. FieldMusNatHistZoolSer18:343. Forktail16:147. Micronesica37:69. RevBrasOrnitol14:101. -->

A search for comments starting with each of those 5 returns 761 results.

Is this information useful enough to keep? If so, can/shouldn't it be incorporated more formally into the article, either as a citation, a reference template, as a property at Wikidata to be used in {{Taxonbar}}, or some other way?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  19:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe all of these short journal citations as hidden comments were added by User:Dysmorodrepanis~enwiki. I've been removing them as I come across them. I haven't bothered to look up most these publications, but the ones I have looked at don't have anything useful to add to Wikipedia articles. Forktail16:147 can be seen here (the article is "The ornithological importance of Thrumshingla National Park, Bhutan"). It's mostly a checklist of birds found in the park, with detailed accounts about the presence in the park of some threatened species, and just a line in the checklist for non-threatened species. Go ahead and get ridden of these hidden citations. Plantdrew (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

 Working - will point edit summaries back to here.

I think I've found at least the vast majority of, if not all, variants with this search that returns 1236 results, a small # of which contain extra text like URLs and prose that I'll save for others to manually review.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Conidae into Cone snail

See Talk:Cone_snail#Proposal_to_merge_Conidae_into_Cone_snail. Please participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)