Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life

WikiProject Tree of Life

Main pageTalkArticle templateTaxonomic resourcesTaxoboxesParticipantsArticle requests

Guidance needed for etymology of taxon names

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

I see that this topic has come up in multiple past discussions already ([1], [2], [3]), but—partially because there's a lot of non-linear discussion to read through—I wasn't able to determine if a clear consensus was reached or if any guidance had actually come about after those discussions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Late here, but I would support publishing this now or soon without much change. As an essay, it does not require consensus but it does summarize important issues very well and is a useful resource. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

A new, fully monophyletic classification of diatoms

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

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

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

AlgaeBase also started to partially follow that paper, see Corethrophyceae for example. Jako96 (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

The article is published online, see PubMed or Wiley. The full text and pdf are available via the Wikipedia Library.  —  Jts1882 | talk  10:40, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out Jako96 (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Finally!!! — Snoteleks (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, how nice. So, uh, Snoteleks, do you think we should treat the Bacillariophyta as a phylum, or we should've kept the Ochrophyta as a phylum (Bacillariophyta would be an unranked clade)? Jako96 (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Definitely an unranked clade, Ochrophyta should be the phylum — Snoteleks (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Why not Gyrista as a phylum (C.-S., 2017) :-)? The ranking of clades is not an objective attribute, it is based on the POV of the individual study and their authors. It is important to have the correct hierarchy of clades in the taxobox, to find a consensus is sometimes very difficult; my "favorite" example are nucleariids with ranking from a regnum to an order. Well, sometimes the suffix gives some suggestion; in case Bacillariophyta vs. Ochrophyta not applicable. Petr Karel (talk) 08:48, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

@Petr Karel Several of us have already discussed this at length throughout 2025, but to give you a summary: Cavalier-Smith's system was unique and largely unsupported by the larger scientific consensus when it comes to higher names and ranks, and even contradicted itself across time. Since nobody else supports it, nobody is updating it to match current knowledge post-mortem. The scientific consensus is that both Ochrophyta (or Heterokontophyta) and Oomycota are regarded as independent phyla/divisions, and therefore a phylum containing both contradicts this. — Snoteleks (talk) 12:38, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

The C.-S. phylum Gyrista was only an illustration (ment as a joke) of the relativity of higher taxon ranking. Petr Karel (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh I totally agree with you, it's incredibly subjective and sometimes gets ridiculous :) — Snoteleks (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I really like it when a phylogenetic study is followed up with a taxonomic one. Too often those doing the phylogenetic work are not so interested in solid taxonomic conclusions.  —  Jts1882 | talk  20:31, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Problematic edits

@Jts1882, Snoteleks, and Petr Karel: The changes purportedly based on this paper by @Jako96: need to be vetted. They have been willy-nilly changing taxonavigation without updating articles resulting in things like Aulacoseira being listed as a genus of Melosiraceae in the taxabox, but leaving article prose discussing Aulacoseiraceae. IF the genus is truly moved then shouldn't the family be iehter dissolved without the type genus, or renamed and circumscribed to reflect a changed type genus? Jako96 also made a taxonomy change that (jusding by the comment involved Let's assign this directly to Coscinodiscophyceae for now, as the 2025 revision of diatom taxonomy excluded Aulacoseira from the Aulacoseiraceae and Aulacoseirales is NOT actually in the paper at all). I'm guessing little to no coverage in the paper for the fossil record, and so the move is pure OR/SYNTH.--Kevmin § 23:07, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Agreed with the inconsistency issue (which everyone ignores tbh), but if you check the paper "carefully", you'll see that Aulacoseira is REALLY excluded from Aulacoseiraceae. I don't know what paper you're talking about, but I'm talking about this one, which doesn't talk about the family. Jako96 (talk) 08:33, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Ohhh, okay, my bad. Seems like you were talking about the paper not talking about that family. I made that Eoseira edit because otherwise the Aulacoseiraceae would be invalid under the ICN. The same problem was also with one more genus, but until there is a consensus about that, I won't just remove taxa, I apologize. I do think that my edit could be regarded as WP:OR, but there is a lot of classifications that could be regarded as WP:OR in the protist classification of the wiki, I think. Jako96 (talk) 15:43, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Weird template

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

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

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

Is that really the way the output is intended to appear? It's a technically bad format, as it does not italicize the first occurrence of the scientific name in the template. Frankly, that's terrible. Is there no way to fix the template so the output is correctly formatted? Dyanega (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

@Dyanega: - fixed the italics display. A quickfix for now. Shyamal (talk) 07:32, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Developayellidae § Requested move 8 January 2026

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Developayellidae § Requested move 8 January 2026. Jako96 (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Guidance on writing articles about families and genera

Hi all! I am a fairly new editor and enjoyed improving the Physella acuta article. I'd like to try my hand at Apple snail next, but am a little overwhelmed. Writing about a single species is much simpler than writing about an entire family. I also find it hard to justify a family's trait when sources usually only discuss a subfamily or even species. Are there any Wikipedia guides on writing about higher taxonomic ranks? Barbalalaika 🐌 21:01, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I have worked on a few articles on genera, and it is hit or miss on how much coverage you can find. Do you use Google Scholar? Sometimes I could find enough for a brief, but informative article, such as Floridobia or the somewhat longer Pharaxonotha. Sometimes, I had to settle for an article that was just a list of species, such as Aphaostracon. Sometimes sources about individual species will include statements about higher taxons. My impression is that more and more taxonomic articles are coming on line, although you often have to search under various combinations of terms to find everything. Once you have completed enough edits, and otherwise qualify, you can use the WP:Wikipedia Library, which will give you access to many sources that are behind paywalls. Donald Albury 22:13, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Donald. I use Google Scholar and sometimes Web of Science (which is good for those combinations of terms). I have a feeling that Apple snail will have the opposite problem in the sense that it sees a lot of coverage, although attention varies by subfamily and genus. Here's where I wonder how far I could generalise a statement. But since there seems to be no other way other than diving right in, I'll cross that bridge when I get to it.

I had no idea about the existence of Wikipedia Library, thank you for bringing it up! Barbalalaika 🐌 15:37, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

And I see that you are 29 edits and five days away from qualifying for access to the Wikipedia Library. Check it out next week. Donald Albury 22:17, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I too generally work on species. Based on the limited work I've done with higher taxonomic ranks, I'd suggest spending some time (a couple months) expanding and researching the articles on some constituent taxa, so you can gather up enough good sources and get a broad enough impression of the taxon to know what's important. The higher the taxonomic rank, the longer it takes to work on the article. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 15:16, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I see there's no silver bullet - just cold, hard work :P Working on the constituent taxa is a great idea, I'll do that! Thank you so much for your input! Barbalalaika 🐌 15:33, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I've worked on articles ranging from kingdoms to species. My take is that it depends almost exclusively on: 1) how much information you can find (also, feel free to ask here for sources that you cannot access), and 2) how much detail you are willing to write. In Wikipedia, any taxonomic article, regardless of rank, can range from a stub level (barely any citations, poorly written) to a Featured Article. So do not feel pressured by some idea that the family-level article needs to be 10 times as complex and full as the species-level article. Just try to do your best. I think reaching C-class (relatively brief but still well-cited) or even Good Article status is fairly easy for most taxa, but again, it depends on the sources. For reference, here are some family- and genus-level Good Articles I've written: Cafileria, Syssomonas, Urceolus, Hyalospheniidae, Kathablepharididae, Nucleariidae. You will see that the number of references varies a lot (even less than 7); they just have to be reliable and properly used. It's also good if you can add free images. Thank you for joining us in this project! — Snoteleks (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Carl Linnaeus

Carl Linnaeus has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Candidozyma auris § Requested move 17 January 2026

An editor has requested that Candidozyma auris be moved to another page, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 10:55, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

iNaturalist and common names

Do we have some sort of guideline on using iNaturalist as a source for common names? Newcomers often use iNat as a source in drafts but, flaky taxonomy aside, I've found the website has an alarming tendency to invent its own vernacular names or, at least, give rarely used ones prominence. Take, for example, Oxythyrea cinctella, which it calls the "Middle Eastern Flower Scarab". I found simply no hits on Google Books for that name, with or without a hyphen in "Middle Eastern" and general search results mostly gave iNaturalist and its mirrors. I wouldn't blame new editors for relying on iNaturalist, but I think we should stamp down on this sort of thing to avoid its invented common names proliferating. Perhaps a sentence added somewhere to one of our guidance pages urging caution sourcing common names to iNaturalist?

Notes

Cremastra (talk · contribs) 03:10, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

"Common names" should not be sourced to iNaturalist. iNaturalist has a policy that common names shouldn't just be made up on iNaturalist, but that does happen some anyway, and iNaturalist discourages getting common names from Wikipedia (they shouldn't be getting made up here either, but iNaturalist recognizes that does happen). There was a case where fish common names were getting made up on Wikipedia and iNaturalist (it wasn't clear which site had them first, but the names were showing up on both in a short time frame). There was a case where an iNaturalist curator with BugGuide editing privileges was making up common names on BugGuide (which AFAIK doesn't have any policy against that) and the adding them to iNat.

Any common name from iNaturalist is supposed to be able to be sourced to somewhere else. Any common name on Wikipedia should be able to be sourced to somewhere else. Wikipedia/iNaturalist should not be employed in concert to launder vernacular names that somebody with editing privileges on either site just made up.

Sourcing somewhere else isn't necessarily perfect; both Wikipedia and iNaturalist have both picked up common names that had clear misspellings from IUCN and USDA PLANTS (and Wikipedia still has a bunch of malformed redirects for IUCN common names that had diacritics in them).

Notes

Plantdrew (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I second everything Plantdrew said. I've been an iNaturalist user for almost 7 years (I actually started editing because of a friend I met through the site!) so I am very aware of its shortcomings...
iNaturalist allows any registered user to add common names to taxa, and despite discouragement of made-up names Plantdrew mentions, this is frequently misused (or outright abused). This ranges from good faith attempts to add newly invented but otherwise inoffensive common names, to joke names, to names that are intended to cause offence, and there are a few known "problem users" who frequently add new names. I really can't think of any situation in which iNaturalist is appropriate as a citation, besides references to the website's own official policies, statements, etc. It's not suitable as a taxonomic framework (as you note, iNaturalist can be very inconsistent - some groups are automatically updated based on trusted data sources, but many are only updated when a user flags the taxon manually. This means that it sometimes lags behind new developments, but also that it sometimes jumps the gun by committing to changes that aren't widely accepted by the broader scientific community and are eventually rolled back. In any case, it is better to cite the source that iNaturalist uses for its taxonomy of a given group than to cite the middleman) and all non-official content is user-generated. If we're to introduce a warning about citing iNaturalist to this project's guidance, I say discourage all use of iNaturalist observations/data as citations, not just for common names. Cheers, Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 09:44, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree with everything Plantdrew and Ethmostigmus have said, and I would support adding clear guidance against using iNaturalist as a source in this context, if that guidance doesn't already exist. MossOnALog^Talk 15:06, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Most of the time someone can just point out it is WP:UGC and leave it at that for guidance. Maybe WP:FLORA and WP:FAUNA could have a short sentence saying iNaturalist is UGC and is not a reliable source for names or other content, but that's probably the most need I'd envision. KoA (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

The question, I think, is this: since most of the editors who are adding common names from iNat are not taxonomists, nor aware of Wikipedia policy, if some editor reverts one of their additions and cites WP:UGC, is that going to educate them and get them to stop adding common names, or is it simply going to provoke arguments? I'm slightly concerned that we might need a bigger proverbial hammer, such as explicitly including "common names from iNaturalist" to the list of unacceptable sources given in the UGC policy statement itself. Dyanega (talk) 15:53, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

iNaturalist is already designated as a generally unreliable source at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#iNaturalist (and there's a shortcut for that, WP:INATURALIST). We do have a fair number of articles that cite iNat, in part because iNat has a feature that makes it easy to create a bare-bones Wikipedia article that cites iNat. I think it is better to cite iNat than to not cite any source at all, but iNat citations should be getting replaced with better sources (an "unreliable source" on Wikipedia is not a "deprecated source", so there isn't necessarily any urgency to replace it). If it would be helpful to add mentions of iNat's unreliability to any more specifically ToL-related policy/guideline pages on Wikipedia, go for it. Plantdrew (talk) Plantdrew (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

That WP:INATURALIST link definitely helps with what Dyanega was concerned with, at least when it comes to reactive guidance. Could be some areas you mention to be proactive on a little more, but I also wonder how many of the people adding those iNat references are going to those pages first before editing.

Maybe I'm wrong, but didn't it also go the other way around where iNat generated text by pulling from Wikipedia? Maybe I'm mixing it up with a different website that comes up in Google searches when you put in a species name. It's definitely been an issue though when it comes to species-related sources overall. KoA (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

iNat displays Wikipedia articles in their About pages, and is pretty transparent that Wikipedia is the source.

I'm not sure exactly how that works on the technical side; I don't think they necessarily display a current version of the article if it was last edited seconds ago, but they don't host months/years old versions of articles unlike some other websites that have forked Wikipedia. I do know that Wikidata drives the connection between iNat and Wikipedia; iNat won't display a Wikipedia article until iNat and en.wiki are linked to the Wikidata item.

Encyclopedia of Life also displays Wikipedia articles. I haven't paid enough attention to EOL to have any idea about the details there. Plantdrew (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Weigeltisauridae in the Sauria taxobox

There has been some edit warring about whether Weigeltisauridae should be included in the taxobox for Sauria based on a single paper result. The paper cited for Weigeltisauridae being within Sauria [4], is about sauropterygians and not about diapsid systematics. The only part where a weigeltisaurid is included in the paper is in a single cladogram focused on sauropterygians where Coelurosauravus is found closer to Archelosauria than to Lepidosauria [5]. This result is never commented on in the paper. Other scientific literature on the topic universally concludes that weigeltisaurids are diapsids that lie outside of Sauria e.g. [6] [7], [8] [9]. I think fishing out random odd phylogenetic results from single papers that aren't even commented on in the paper in question is undue. I think something has to be a widely held, even if minority opinion for it to warrant taxobox inclusion. I started a conversation here because I think barely anyone watches the Sauria talkpage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Seems I am inadvertently part of this edit war. I added Weigeltisauridae back with a questionmark after adding the citation mentioned in the edit summary but not added to the article. I agree that it is inappropriate. The paper only included Coelurosauravus and even if this is correct, a study with other members of the Weigeltisauridae would be needed to put the family there against existing consensus, and genera with disputed position are not needed in the taxobox. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:36, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

As early as 2009, a paper supported the view that Weigeltisauridae belonged to Sauria, and I recall that a small number of other papers have also supported this view since then. Chanchu0518 (talk) 12:00, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Although which has received support from only a few papers, what exactly is wrong with marking it with a question mark? Chanchu0518 (talk) 14:23, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

For example, this article

Sobral, Gabriela; Sues, Hans-Dieter; Müller, Johannes (2015). "Anatomy of the Enigmatic Reptile Elachistosuchus huenei Janensch, 1949 (Reptilia: Diapsida) from the Upper Triassic of Germany and Its Relevance for the Origin of Sauria". Chanchu0518 (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Weigeltisauridae is located within Sauria. Chanchu0518 (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Only in some of the phylogenetic trees that used the particular matrices of Chen et al. 2014. Buffa et al. 2024 [10] states: all recent studies recover weigeltisaurids as stem-saurian diapsids. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @LittleLazyLass:, @NGPezz: and @SlvrHwk: (sorry if I've been pinging you a lot recently) for their input. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Definitely agree that the current evidence does not support including Weigeltisauridae in the Sauria taxobox. Not that we need further support in the overwhelming consensus already established by the first comment, but here is another recent publication on amniote phylogenetics using an independent matrix that supports a stem-group position for weigeltisaurids (also the most recent version of the Buffa matrix here). Using either non-relevant ([11]) or decade-old ([12]) publications to support a saurian placement is quite blatantly in opposition to the substantial (and recent) research performed more directly on the clade in question. -SlvrHwk (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

In an era where basal reptile phylogeny is absurdly unstable, it does seem like one of the few consensus positions is that weigeltisaurids are non-saurian. It's certainly worth discussing alternative proposals on the family's article, but to state outright that "Weigeltisauridae is located within Sauria", as if it's a true statement, is not credible. It seems to me that Chanchu0518 is motivated more by personal grievance against Hemiauchenia rather than any aim to respect the median academic perspective. NGPezz (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@NGPezz To be fair to Chanchu0518 (who appears to not be a native English speaker given somewhat confusing comments like this), I think what he meant is "In Sobral et al. 2015, Weigeltisauridae is located within Sauria". I still think this is a misleading summary of the source though. Chanchu0518 has always proposed to add Weigeltisauridae with a question mark to the taxobox (e.g. [13]), not that Weigeltisauridae should be included in the taxobox outright without a question mark, which would of course be unreasonable.

I think including taxa with "?" in the taxobox should be reserved for taxa where there is a serious dispute about their placement (e.g. drepanosauromorphs as non-saurian diapsids or as archosauromorphs, or silesaurids as dinosauromorphs or stem-ornithischians), with this disputed position having been supported by at least a considerable minority of recent studies, rather than placements supported by only one or a small handful of tangential phylogenetic results that may be a decade old at this point, otherwise taxoboxes would end up getting bloated with these occasional outliers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria for List of organisms of Place

I monitor a bunch of lists ranging from List of Lepidoptera of Albania to List of reptiles of the Recherche Archipelago. They are mostly quiet, but conflict comes up in five areas:

• Should the list include domestic, introduced or feral species?
• Should the list include extinct species and if so, which ones?
• Should the list include subspecies?
• Should the lists of mammals or biodiversity include humans?
• Should genera be abbreviated?

These ideas would apply to flora, flora, funga, etc.

Usually the consensus has been to include:

• Animals that are part of a self-sustaining wild population even if those animals are introduced, reintroduced or feral.
• Animals which were present in 1500 including species which became extinct locally after 1500. This is a relatively easy line to draw, but not always most helpful.
• Subspecies are often included, but usage is very mixed. There are more edit wars on this topic than any other.
• Some lists include humans under Primates because they are present, others exclude them because they don't think they are wild or they don't think they are animals.

I've come up with a model sentence below to add to such articles, but I'm open to suggestions.

This list includes all wild Lepidoptera species of Albania which maintain a self-sustaining population and which are extant or became locally extinct after 1500.

Of course the appropriate clade would be substituted for Lepidoptera and whatever place substituted for Albania. This would not include subspecies (it says species), humans or domesticated species (it says wild, but I'm still not sure if humans are wild).

Where else should this be advertised? SchreiberBike | ⌨  16:49, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I've added notices about this discussion to the following WikiProject talk pages: Amphibians and Reptiles, Animals, Bats, Birds, Fishes, Lepidoptera, Fungi, Mammals, Monotremes and Marsupials, Plants, and finally Lists. I mostly work with fauna, so I may be missing places which should be notified. Please either do so or let me know. Thank you. SchreiberBike | ⌨  04:02, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

My own opinion after working on a few of these articles:

• Domestic species such as cats and cows shouldn't be included, period; introduced and feral species should be, but should be in a separated section or clearly marked with an asterisk. (As an example, most Canadian earthworms are actually introduced, and it would be absurd to not include them.)
• I agree that 1500 is a somewhat arbitrary line, but we need to draw that arbitrary line somewhere.
• If only one subspecies of several of one species is found in the place, and the subspecies is endemic, it should be named and not the species. I think if multiple subspecies are present, there is no need to list them
• Humans could be included on a technicality, but I hardly think any reader would expect them, and it's splitting hairs to include it.
• Genera can be abbreviated after the first use, as in any other article.

Cremastra (talk · contribs) 17:10, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

In my opinion, we should be utilizing the existence of sections to their full potential. Make one section for domestic native (perhaps make a subsection for endemic) species, one for introduced species (with a subsection for invasive species), and one for extinct and fossil species. — Snoteleks (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm wary of including domestic animals on such lists, as they are usually implicitly about wildlife. Perhaps we need to determine a guideline on whether domestics should be included? In my experience they usually aren't: List of mammals of New Zealand does not include the sheep, for example. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 00:49, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I was understanding "domestic" in the sense of "from that habitat". I would not add domestic as in domesticated animals. — Snoteleks (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Just to be clearer, this is the sectioning I propose for "List of flora/fauna of place":

• Native species
  • Endemic species
• Introduced species
  • Invasive species
• Extinct species
  • Recently extinct (after 1500)
  • Fossil species (i.e., fossils found in that place)

Evidently, the extinct section would require further sources since they are not usually covered by the checklists. But I do not see this as an issue. — Snoteleks (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure that splitting Native species, Endemic species, Introduced species, Invasive species and Recently extinct species into separate sections is the most useful approach. Having read a lot of studies documenting the "Flora of Place_X" the most common and most useful approach seems to be to list all species (including extirpated and recently extinct, if known) in the same list, organized by phylum, class, order and family. Species are assumed to be native, unless marked as introduced. Other markers for species endemic to a country or smaller region are helpful. A marker for invasive species could be useful, but there's a serious concern about finding WP:RS for such a statement. If the place has an authority that specifically designates invasive species, that would seem appropriate.

I would place fossil species in a separate list. In almost all cases, the fossils found in a place are almost unrelated to the present-day flora and fauna, due to plate tectonics and the vast timescales involved.

Lastly, I would tend towards naming all infrataxa present, but I think this is likely to differ between botanists and zoologists.Rupert Clayton (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

In the few I've worked on alongside the more general Wildlife of X prose articles, I can't recall a source including humans or domestic animals. Most also do not include extinct animals, caveated with some including the recently extinct/probably extinct but unconfirmed. They definitely have not gone back to 1500. I've seen subspecies or unclear taxonomy mentioned, in such cases it seems simple to resolve this with notes. Introduced species are a bit more complex, sources treat them differently, I would lean towards inclusion but distinguishing in some manner. CMD (talk) 04:08, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Adding extinct species is usually difficult from a sourcing perspective, because checklist papers that form the backbone of these lists exclude them for obvious reasons. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 13:34, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

However, you do get sources discussing extinct species exclusively, so they may work on separate pages like List of Australia-New Guinea species extinct in the Holocene. CMD (talk) 07:59, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand why they should be separate pages. — Snoteleks (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Because they're different topics that sources often treat differently. CMD (talk) 01:34, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Then should extinct arthropods be excluded from the Arthropod page, since they are different topics that sources often treat differently? — Snoteleks (talk) 12:14, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't know, I have not reviewed general sources about Arthropods. I would be very surprised if sources on taxonomic subjects follow the exact same conventions as sources on today's wildlife though. CMD (talk) 12:27, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I have reviewed sources on arthropods, and I guarantee that the sources that talk about extinct taxa are completely different from the sources that talk about live diversity. In fact, that's the pattern for all groups of life. Please, if you can, explain why they should be separate, or elaborate on why it matters that they do not follow the "exact same conventions". — Snoteleks (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

It matters if sources do not follow the same conventions as our writing broadly follows what reliable sources write. I don't fully understand the question of why two separate topics should be separate. CMD (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Furthermore, extinct species have been found in country x and the present wildlife in country x are of interest to quite different reader groups. The latter will be far more popular, and a reader looking for the former will probably be doing research only on the former and be quite disinterested in present wildlife. Shoehorning extinct species into the lists makes them needlessly longer and more difficult to write and maintain. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 17:17, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I see your points. I especially agree that it would make them more difficult to write and maintain. — Snoteleks (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I think that in general we should be guided by the IUCN Red List accounts. YES for inclusion of wild and native species; of subspecies only if valid and range clearly defined; and of regionally or nationally extinct ones only if after 1500. NO for domestic species including feral ones, and for humans, which are also domestic :):). Re introduced ones: YES for those that have been introduced so long ago that they have been reproducing in the wild for at least 3 generations and form self-sustaining populations, but with a WP:RS. NO if a few individuals crossed an int'l border, were caught and taken to a zoo or fenced wildlife park. BhagyaMani (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

This pretty much seems like a good approach. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 23:16, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Exclude humans and domesticated species. I agree that readers don't really expect this and including these species doesn't conform with the commonly understood meaning of "List of mammals in Place" (or similar). —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Summary of consensus?

@Cremastra, Snoteleks, Rupert Clayton, Chipmunkdavis, BhagyaMani, and Myceteae:

Domesticated species are not expected in such lists and should not be included, though they could have a place in separate lists or could be included if marked as such.

The lists that exist in Wikipedia now, in the "List of clade of Place" series, do not generally include include long-extinct species, but only those recently extinct or extirpated from a place (since 1500). I see support for that. Separate lists of extinct species generally cover geographical areas rather than follow political lines.

Sometimes subspecies (infrataxa) are important but usually they are not. I don't think we can make a general rule about that. Any edits which add or remove them should follow the bold, revert, discuss cycle as needed.

The consensus is to not include humans. I disagree philosophically, but that is what most people expect.

Usually all species in a clade are listed in taxonomic order. Species that are endemic, introduced, feral, invasive, locally extinct (since 1500) are usually marked as such in the list, but that is not now consistent.

If you disagree about my summary, let me know, but let's not re-argue the points if we can avoid it.

Next steps?

If the consensus above were established as a guideline, it would not result in major changes to existing lists, but it would make it easier to explain why some edits are not appropriate.

Should we create formal guidance for such lists? Where should that go? How do we make such guidance clear to editors?

Any other ideas? Thank you. SchreiberBike | ⌨  00:41, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

I agree with the consensus that domestic animals and humans should not be included, since the lists are implicitly about wildlife.

I also agree with the consensus that long-extinct species should not be included. 1500 CE is the cutoff used by the IUCN, so we can run with that. Personally I think that definition runs into serious friction in a few isolated cases, like Hawaii and New Zealand, when numerous species became extinct relatively shortly (a couple centuries or decades) before 1500.

I agree that species should be listed in taxonomic order, with major sections being taxa like "mammals" or "birds" and not categories like "endemic" or "introduced."

I agree that species that are endemic, introduced, feral, or locally extinct (since 1500) should be marked as such.

Next Steps

• I believe that organisms from a single defined geographic area - animals, plants, and fungi - should be treated in a single list. This may required mass merges in several cases. I hope this prevents certain overlooked groups (like reptiles or plants) from being passed over in favor of dedicated lists about mammals or birds.
• I believe that there should be greater clarity about what geographic areas should be included. See below:
  • Should geographic areas be defined primarily geographically/biogeographically, or primarily politically?
  • How small of a geographic level should we go down to? Continents? Countries? States/provinces? Or maybe the geographic area we focus on should be determined by its biodiversity, not sheer size? If you look at the talk page for List of European species extinct in the Holocene, I previously took some fire for merging a bunch of articles into this single, previously existing article (including merging niche articles focusing on topics like British plants, Manx animals, or Catalonian animals). At the same time, I thought it was proper to separate off the Macaronesian islands and Madagascar into their own, new lists separate from Africa because of their distinct insular biography.
  • Is it OK to have articles that overlap in scope (e.g., New York state vs. United States)?
• We should adapt the consensus for Lists of extinct species by region.
  • I think all of the existing points still apply, except for the 1500 CE cutoff. However, we still need to define some cutoff. In particular, should our articles be primarily about the Quaternary extinction (Late Pleistocene to present) or Holocene extinction (mid to late Holocene, to present)?
  • Although all of these articles say "Holocene" in their title, in part because of edits I made a few years back, in reality several of these articles include numerous species from the Pleistocene-Holocene boundary. In effect, this means that some but not all of the Pleistocene megafauna appear on the lists.
  • I support an all-or-nothing approach to the Pleistocene megafauna. Either we put the cutoff early enough to include all of them, or late enough to include none of them, but an Pleistocene-Holocene boundary cutoff while the extinction was still ongoing is not ideal. Personally I favor the "nothing" side of the debate, but I would still prefer "all" over these weird middle ground we have today. Columbianmammoth (talk) 01:40, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

  Some of the considerations seem beyond the scope of the current discussion. We didn't really discuss whether clades should be lumped or split or which level of geographic organization should be used. If these are live issues, it may warrant a separate discussion. I think these are largely matters of editorial discretion within the bounds of typical considerations and P&G, such as list size. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 04:08, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

• @Columbianmammoth: What places should be included seems to me to be a bold, revert, discuss issue. General rules are hard to make as some small areas have been studied in detail and would meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, while some large countries have had very little work done for some clades. I also agree that extinct species lists should be handled differently from extant lists. SchreiberBike | ⌨  15:46, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

• • A 1500 AD cutoff sounds fine for lists of species by modern political country/subdivision. It is arbitrary of course, but there has to be a cutoff, and this one follows the IUCN precedent. Personally I feel it would be silly to list the woolly mammoth in a list of mammals of Luxembourg (in the hypothetical case that fossils have been found there, not that I know if they have). The List of European species extinct in the Holocene would be included for further information at the bottom, and so on.--Menah the Great (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

This looks to me like an accurate summary of consensus. I'm not sure that there were enough participants here to publish this as a guideline. I suspect there are more editors who contribute to these various lists than there were participants here. To be clear, I would support this as the basis for a guideline. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 04:12, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

• @Myceteae: I had hoped to get wider participation. Silence is not necessarily consent, but perhaps the thing to do is to begin to move forward and work though objections as they come. SchreiberBike | ⌨  15:48, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  @SchreiberBike Perhaps we could publish this as a WikiProject advice page. This would facilitate linking the recommendations as well as further workshopping and "road testing" and could be a step towards wider adoption. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

• Would that be like creating a page such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Guidance for lists of clade of Place? I worry that no one would notice it. SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:58, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

• I definitely agree with the 1500 AD cutoff for lists of species by modern political boundaries, for excluding humans (though not strongly), and for noting whether a species is endemic/native/introduced/invasive. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Proposal

I think the most likely next step is to add an edit notice to the relevant pages. The instructions for doing that are complex but manageable. An edit notice would appear only when editing the page. There's an example of such a notice at Hummus; click on the Edit button and you can see the notice near the top.

The edit notice night look something like:

These lists organisms of a clade of a place use the following conventions:

• Include wild species which maintain a self-sustaining population.
• Include species which are extant or which became locally extinct after 1500.
• Mark species which are endemic, introduced, invasive, feral, extinct or extirpated.
• List species in taxonomic order.
• Include notable subspecies.

The notices for New Zealand, Hawaii and a few other islands (suggestions?) should say that other cutoffs for extirpating/extinction may be more appropriate. The notices for lists which might include primates should mention that humans are not considered wild for this purpose. Some version of the above should be included in the introductory text of each list too.

I'm open to suggestions for other approaches or how such an edit notice might be worded. The opening sentence in the box looks wrong no matter what I try. Thank you. SchreiberBike | ⌨  16:07, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

We should ask at WT:NZ to get input on what cutoff they might deem better. Given the number of recently extinct bird species, I feel like 1880 or 1900 would be a good cutoff, with anything before that on a separate list. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 17:21, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Nudibranch § Division into Nudibranchia sensu strictu and Doridida, and the need to update nudibranch taxonomy

Hello, I recently created a discussion in Talk:Nudibranch on 1) the recent restriction of order Nudibranchia and the reinstitution of Doridida as an order, and 2) the need to update nudibranch taxonomy, and would like to have some imput on how we should proceed. Thank you.

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Nudibranch § Division into Nudibranchia sensu strictu and Doridida, and the need to update nudibranch taxonomy. Sclerotized (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Greetings, and apologies!

Hello,

I'm a relatively new Wikipedian, and had recently been linking existing greek/latin roots of taxonomies to their corresponding wiktionary articles.

I've now learned from helpful folks at the WikiProject Biology [where I first commented] that this is considered original research, a taboo at wikipedia! I don't want to run afoul of the rules and regulations of wikipedia, and i certainly don't want to annoy other folks who find taxonomy interesting

So, having now read many past discussions here, the essay from YummiFruitBat -- I better understand why it is inadvisable to do what I had been doing, and I'm sorry for having done so -- I see some of the changes I made have already been reverted, and in the future if I have an etymology to add, I'll track down the namer's statement on the origin of the name, if it's available. Ngenthatcould (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Ngenthatcould, first, it would really be preferable to add a new section for etymology rather than putting it in the lead, since the point of the lead is to "identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight" per MOS:LEAD. Since we agree that a citation is needed to establish a genuine etymology for scientific taxon names, having etymologies only in the lead also conflicts with the guidance against using citations in the lead (MOS:LEADCITE) in most cases since the content should exist in the body with a proper citation. If in the rare cases where the etymology is legitimately a significant factor of the taxon's notability, then it would make sense to briefly summarize the etymology section in the lead. Lastly, I would recommend switching the order of operations, i.e., track down the reliable source stating the etymology before having an etymology to add (in other words, do the research before coming up with content). MossOnALog^Talk 20:55, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Merge proposal needing input

There is a new merge proposal on Talk:Ctenobethylus that needs input from editors.--Kevmin § 01:00, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Fossil species notability

Please see Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Quick straw poll on fossil species Replying should only take a few seconds. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Aepyornithiformes: Newton 1884, or Newton 1877?

The authority for the order comprising the elephant birds, Aepyornithiformes, is widely given as Newton 1884, citing an article he wrote for the 9th edition of the encyclopaedia Britannica, where he used the form "Aepyornithes". Britannica article 1963 work giving the 1884 Britannica article as authority for Aepyornithiformes. However, it turns out that Newton had used the name "Aepyornithes" earlier, in the 1877 publication "The nomenclature of the groups of Ratitae". in The Annals and magazine of natural history 4 (20), 1877, pp. 499–500 [14]. Is the correct authority therefore actually Newton 1877? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

If using the name Aepyornithes is sufficient to be the authority, then 1877 seems correct. That paper is specifically about names, rather than an encyclopaedia entry. In the 1877 paper, Newton says the names are not new (except for one), which hints that there could be an earlier use, although perhaps he just means the family name exists.

However, we need a source for this, as "(Newton, 1884) is widely used. Why the parenthesis? Is this to indicate the different spelling?  —  Jts1882 | talk  09:29, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I think the brackets are to note the emendation from Aepyornithes (originally Æpyornithes in Newton 1877) to Aepyornithiformes. Max Fürbringer's 1888 work, Untersuchungen zur Morphologie und Systematik der Vögel seems to have been the first work, or at least among the first, to use "Aepyornithiformes". [15] Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Aepyornithiformes was used in (Fürbringer, 1878).

I'm not au fait with the ICZN, but I'm not seeing any reason to exclude any of these publications. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough, looks like Aepyornithiformes was in use considerably earlier than I thought. @Dyanega: for his view on what the correct authority is here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

@Lavateraguy this is actually incorrect. The Google book is confusing, because it looks like a single work, but if you actually closely inspect it it's actually a compilation of several works by Furbringer written several decades apart, so I understand why you were mistaken. The section of google books document that mentions Aepyornithiformes is not from 1877, but is part of the 1902 work "Zur vergleichenden Anatomie des Brustschulterapparates und der Schultermuskeln" [On the comparative anatomy of the thoracic-shoulder apparatus and the shoulder muscles] (which starts at p. 287 of the google books doc), rather than the 1878 work "Zur vergleichenden anatomie und entwicklungsgeschichte der excretionsorgane der vertebraten" [On the comparative anatomy and developmental history of the excretory organs of vertebrates], which is the work at the start of the Google doc. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree with all the above comments, but I find it suspicious that my online searches have failed to uncover a single use of "Aepyornithiformes (Newton, 1877)", "Aepyornithes Newton, 1877", or minor variants on these. With all due respect to Hemiauchenia's research, it seems slightly more likely that we're missing some wrinkle rather than that a 100 years of scholarship have overlooked an error. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 17:22, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

The scholarly literature was far harder to search pre-internet, and it's genuinely possible it got missed and people just kept copying the authority without looking deeper, see for example the fact that the authority of Trogontherium cuvieri was missed for 200 years [16]. I should credit Dagdamor for noting the initial discrepancy in the German Wikipedia elephant bird article, as that's how I found out about it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

The ICZN rules do not govern names above the rank of superfamily. Not authorship, not dates, not priority - it's complete chaos. This is like visiting an in-law's house and seeing a bunch of kids fighting and you sit back, smile, and know that none of that mess is your responsibility. Sorry. Dyanega (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Dyanega is entirely correct (unfortunately) which means we are likely to end up going against convention to be correct. Aepyornithiformes Furbringer 1878 should be the correct attribution for Aepyornithiformes until/if some earlier mention is found. The mention does not have to include *anything* beyond the same spelling and use as a "group" (even monotaxic) to be an acceptable attribution. Aepyornithes Newton 1877 is similarly the correct attribution for that name until/if some earlier mention is found, and there is no correlation between the attribution of Aepyornithiformes and Aepyornithes as coordination does not exist at these levels of rank/clade. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 19:35, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Should this be changed on Wikispecies as well? [17] @Monster Iestyn for their input. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: Beats me. Owing to ICZN not governing these issues at all, there's no consistency whatsoever as to what authorities higher-ranked names should use. If a name was originally vernacular or otherwise had its spelling emended (as here), some authors choose the authority of the original name, some use the authority of the first time that particular spelling was used (the example I'm thinking of for the latter is Arthropoda). In practice though I suspect a lot of people just copy the authorities that others before them have used and never really question them, leading to confusion today.

As it happens I just learned the other day for instance that Arachnida's authority is another of these can of worms: it's been given as "Cuvier, 1812" (complete fiction from a Zootaxa paper afaik), Lamarck, 1801 (who spelled it "arachnides" in French vernacular), Cuvier, 1798 (ditto but "arachnéides"), and the first time the spelling "Arachnida" appears that I know of (so far) is actually MacLeay, 1821, but nobody has ever used that authority. (I went for "Cuvier, 1798" on Wikispecies (species:Arachnida) but quite frankly I'm not really that happy)

Anyway, I would like to think it's best to use whatever most authors consider the authority of Aepyornithiformes to be, but I don't know beyond that? Up to you really if it should be changed on Wikispecies. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Based on Hemuauchenia's correction of my misinterpretation, it would be Fürbringer, 1888 (not 1878), unless you treat Aepyornithes and Aepyornithiformes as equivalent, in which case Newton, 1877. Lavateraguy (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

If we're following the interpretation that the brackets in the current author citation are because of the spelling emendation, Newton 1877 would be correct rather than Fürbringer. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 22:25, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

The comment above "there is no correlation between the attribution of Aepyornithiformes and Aepyornithes as coordination does not exist at these levels of rank/clade" is probably the most telling and crucial, and I should have emphasized it; it is perhaps the most distinctive and non-intuitive feature of how the Code treats names over historical time. The author of a genus first published as a vernacular does, under the Code, sometimes get credited with the non-vernacular form, and also two (or more) names with the same prefix but differently-ranked suffixes are considered coordinated and given the same authorship even if the author only published one of them. Since these principles don't apply to higher-rank names, acting as if those principles DO apply is more likely to get you in trouble than just being strict and literalist. Taking off my Commissioner hat for the moment, then, I'd advocate giving attributions and dates only for exact spellings, not variants. For example, in the example above about Arachnida, I would (assuming the research is accurate) only give MacLeay, 1821 as the author and date, and ignore the others that pre-date it, because the spellings they used are not presently still in use. Dyanega (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 17:09, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Whatever we may feel is the correct authority, we can't use it unless we have a reliable source. Everything I've found is Aepyornithiformes Newton, 1884 or Aepyornithiformes (Newton, 1884). I can find nothing for Aepyornithiformes Newton, 1877 or Aepyornithiformes Fürbringer, 1888.  —  Jts1882 | talk  09:34, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps this is something that would be worth a brief paper in a taxonomic journal, similar to the one on the authority of Megalonyx [18]? As I admitted earlier, I was not the first to notice the discrepancy around the authority, so I would have no issue with anyone writing a paper clarifying the nomenclature surrounding the issue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I've asked the question on Bird Forum, which hasn't received much interest so far. Their taxonomic discussions sometimes lead to short articles clarifying nomenclatural issues, although these usually revolve around ICZN rules (e.g. on appropriate family names).  —  Jts1882 | talk  13:49, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Protist diversity style: prose or table?

I have been slowly improving the Protist article for quite some time, and recently I expanded the diversity section to cover briefly all protist groups, with mentions of their species richness, lifestyle, habitat diversity, and main distinguishable traits. However, I think ideally it should be even more brief.

I have been considering turning it into a table, much like the diversity table at the Animal article. I have a draft here, still a work in progress, but I would like to know the opinion of other editors about whether the style itself is/looks better or worse than the existing prose at Protist. — Snoteleks (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

P.S. If possible I would like others' opinions on specific details. Size of images? Should images be included? Are the descriptions too long, and are simpler statements divided in columns (such as nutritional mode, parasitism, etc.) as in the Animal table preferable? Should all of these groups be included, or only the ones above 100 species or more? Does it make sense to have a table this long, or is it better kept as prose? — Snoteleks (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

The style is fine. Include images. I don't think additional columns are needed. Neutral on cutting off low diversity groups. In the existing protist article, the pair of pie charts seems pretty awful to me. I get why, in the context of protists, a more precise term than "plants" is useful, but I don't understand why it is streptophytes in the first chart and archaeplastida in the second chart. The caption should at least mention that streptophytes are plants and metazoans are animals. Plantdrew (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

@Plantdrew Thanks for the input, I would also like your opinion on the short version which may be more suitable for the article. Also, good eye, I never noticed those mistakes in the pie chart figure! I might just create an accurate version using the data from the original paper. — Snoteleks (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I prefer the long version. The "major protist groups" columns includes a lot of things I'd at least heard of as an undergraduate (although I didn't learn anything detailed about any non-photosynthetic groups). The short version has few clades I'd heard of (granted, some of them hadn't been identified as clades when I was an undergraduate). Plantdrew (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Even considering the descriptions on the short version? I tried to outline the most commonly known groups — Snoteleks (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

The statement that red algae lack chlorophyll seems to be false. It may be that they lack chlorophyll b. Lavateraguy (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Good catch. I fixed it. — Snoteleks (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I like the table, but it might be excessive for the main protista article. Not sure where else it could go.  —  Jts1882 | talk  16:53, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

@Jts1882 After much pondering about this, I have created a short version which may be more ideal for the main article. What do you think? — Snoteleks (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I think the shorter version is better for the main article. The long version is too overwhelming and the diversity gets lost in the detail. There must be somewhere where the longer version could go, possibly some list article.  —  Jts1882 | talk  18:05, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Create a "diversity of protists" article? Lavateraguy (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps at Protist classification? — Snoteleks (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Category:Arachnids described in 2023

I was just going through some of the species described in year categories recategorizing some of those that needed recategorizing (e.g. placing plant species placed in the main cat into the plant subcat etc.) and I came across this category, its the only Arachnid described in year category and spiders described in year would be considered a subcat of this, so should we create a new cat link tree on Template:Category described in year so that the spider subcat appears in this cat and create once for other years as well for consistency or just move all the pages to the animal category and delete this? Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:19, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

And if we do create it I have another idea for a cat tree: "Arthropods described in year" with arachnids, crustaceans and insects as subcats of this. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:24, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

It is not the only Arachnid described in year category; there are 21, see subsubcategories of Category:Arachnids_by_century_of_formal_description. Plantdrew (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I confused myself, its the only 21st Century one and there was not 20th Century ones. Either way, something needs to be done to either make spiders a subcat of it or it being deleted completely. Also Arthropods described in year exists for 4 years, so something needs to be done so Arachnids/Spiders, Crustaceans and Insects are subcats of those as well. I am not a template/module editor. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I'll look into recategorizing. Templates and modules shouldn't be needed. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 14:52, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

The reason I brought up templates is because most of these use the {{Category described in year}} template to auto generate the categories. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I see, thanks. That's fine. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 17:02, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Guidelines for reliable sources

Following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porphyrio claytongreenei, I think that we should probably draft something to clarify what sources are useable for taxonomy-based Wikipedia pages in the vein of WP:MEDRS (though I think we can all agree that their policy for sources is untenable for the writing we do).

What are your thoughts? African Mud Turtle (talk) 02:33, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're asking for here. That AfD seems to have nothing to do with concerns about whether the source provided is reliable - the source in question was authored by subject matter experts, published in a peer-reviewed journal itself published by a reputable scientific publisher on the behalf of a scientific association, and by WP:RS standards it can broadly be considered reliable. The nominator didn't start the discussion because the source was unreliable, but because it was the only source on the topic. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:01, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

The issue stated was that the only source was a primary source, and thus insufficient to establish notability per Wikipedia policies. Seeing as there is an understanding within WP:TOL that new taxa which necessarily only have a single relevant source (their description papers) are unproblematic subjects for articles, the suggestion is to enshrine this somewhere to avoid issues at AfD. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 03:04, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Is there an understanding here that articles with only a single source are unproblematic? I certainly don't believe that, and I don't believe the wider editing community would share this view either. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:13, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

It is accepted that any new taxon named is worthy of an article on Wikipedia (at the species level for neontology, broadly at the genus level for palaeontology). If we agree that any newly named taxon is instantly notable for the purposes of Wikipedia, then necessarily we must allow articles based on singular sources. Because the taxa are new, no other source exists at time of article creation, and sometimes none ever will. Either you think that it's okay for Porphyrio claytongreenei to be a topic supported only by a single primary source, or you don't think it's worthy of having an article. It cannot be both. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 03:20, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm asking accepted by who? I don't accept this, and I don't think the average editor with a baseline understanding of WP:V and WP:N would accept it either. Are you referring to some WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, or to WP:NSPECIES? The latter certainly does not state that any newly named taxon is instantly notable for the purposes of Wikipedia, it states that all extant species that are accepted by the relevant international body of taxonomists are presumed notable (emphasis mine). Nothing is "instantly notable". I find it hard to believe this is the local consensus of this WikiProject either, given that the guidelines of several TOL subprojects like WP:MAMMALS explicitly discourage the creation of articles on newly published taxa before they receive recognition from other reputable sources. You're certainly entitled to your view, but I do not think it is nearly as widespread as you think it is, even among biology editors. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:33, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly the understanding we have at WP:PALEO. There is no such thing like those official bodies of taxonomists for most fossil groups, after all. Ask absolutely any editor from that WikiProject and they'll tell you that's how it is done with fossil organisms. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 03:47, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean? There certainly are paleonological associations, and there are paleontological databases. There may not be an authoritative international list of accepted taxa such as AviList, but that's the case for most groups. The fact that palaeontology works slowly is not a very convincing reason to set aside the absolute bare minimum expectation that a notable topic have literally any mention in any other scientific source besides the one that described it before creating a Wikipedia article. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 04:45, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

That belief is only held by people who are misapplying the guideline. {{one source}}—the tag in question—refers only to an essay which applies the problem of a single source to "potential" problems about notability etc. which are unlikely to apply to taxonomy articles. Most editors adding the tag to taxon articles haven't looked at the essay. Similar is the misapplication of the (in any case overzealous) prohibition on relying only on primary sources. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 17:25, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

The WP:GNG says "sources" in the plural, and editors interpret that as requiring "multiple sources". And then they assume this applies to non-GNG subjects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Ethmostigmus The understanding is based on 20+ years of AFD history in which (per the documentation presented during the NSPECIES discussions last year, essentially no species article was successfully deleted. Time and again species have been upheld as notable with only a small subset of non-taxonomy rules lawyers attempting to place a peer-reviewed new taxon article as not acceptable. There is a flex in how guidelines are applied here, just as there is for topics such as N:PROF, BLP, and MEDRS. You would not apply NPROF standards to MEDRS situations and you do not apply MEDRS to anything NOT medical.--Kevmin § 04:07, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not interested in litigating a closed AfD, I'm just trying to figure out what African Mud Turtle is proposing/requesting here. I don't think anyone really thinks that this is a topic area that requires extra guidelines on reliable sources, and the nominator of the AfD seemed to be concerned with notability/the existence of only a single source, not the quality of that source, so I don't see the relevance of WP:MEDRS? Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 04:57, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

As someone involved in drafting NSPECIES:

1. I agree with the interpretation advanced by Ethmostigmus that taxa with legitimate, validly published names in botany (and whatever the equivalent terminology is in zoology) are not automatically notable by reason of being so published. We need some kind of indication that other taxonomists agree that the taxon is real, and not the work of a lone crank.
2. The phrase "accepted by the relevant international body of taxonomists" is vague, for very good reason. Different branches of taxonomy have widely differing levels of centralization and we should account for that. I am open to the idea that "acceptance" can be shown in fairly subtle, implicit ways. "This taxon was described in a peer-reviewed journal that has a high reputation in the field, so taxonomists in that field accept it" is an argument to which I am open, but others may be more skeptical. But yes, I, at least, did not intend that phrase only to mean "there is one Official Set of Names to which we all render due obeisance".
3. Monography is slow in most branches of taxonomy (not just palaeontology). If most relevant taxonomists accept that a taxon is probably distinct, I do not think we do our readers a service by waiting a century for a monograph to be written including the taxon. Therefore we should endeavor to discover the beliefs of taxonomists, which may be expressed subtly and implicitly.
4. I think it is dangerous to argue strictly based on AfD precedents; witness NSPORTS. I do think the modal editor feels that individual species are "worth writing about" regardless of rules-lawyering, but if our guidance is being used to defend immense numbers of stubs that no one seems to be able to expand, we will be in peril.
5. I am not sure it is productive to try to forge source guidance at this (Tree of Life) level, because of the variability of taxonomy in practice. I think it is better to address the specific pain points from the recent AfD (fossil taxa, and fossil members of extant taxa) and tweak NSPECIES as necessary. The lessons from this might not hold up as well in, say, botany. Choess (talk) 05:43, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Maybe an example would help. Imagine that the best source about a species is this:

• Eigenmann, CH (1917). "New and rare species of South American Siluridae in the Carnegie Museum." Annals of Carnegie Museum. 11:398–404. Original description.

If one were to take the MEDRS definition of "primary source", this is a primary source. (If one takes a different approach, this might be "primary literature", but the true primary source is his field notebooks, not his publications.)

If one were to take the GNG approach, then secondary sources are required.

Ergo: Off to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, right?

But NSPECIES doesn't work this way. So the question is: Should we have something written down to warn the unwary GNG-focused, MEDRS-aware would-be deletionist that this is not going to be a good candidate for deletion? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:27, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

That is helpful, thank you, I think I understand now (though do correct me if I'm still off the mark!)
If by "best source" you mean the most detailed and comprehensive treatment of a topic that is the most useful when writing the bulk of a Wikipedia article, I don't think there is any inherent cause for concern in using a "primary source" (per MEDRS logic) like an original description when there is at least a minimum amount of evidence that said description is a reliable source that is accepted by others in the field. I myself rely substantially on such sources when writing on poorly known taxa eg. Archivea. I think it's problematic if this "primary source" is the only source that has ever mentioned the topic, but not because it's a "primary source", if you get what I mean.
As to whether I think we need to write something down to make it clear that not every topic needs to be sourced to the stringent guidelines of MEDRS: eh, not really. Unsuccessful AfD attempts will continue to be launched no matter what guidelines apply and what advice is available. It's not like this is a big issue where floods of pitchfork-wielding deletionists are going around getting rid of swathes of articles on the basis of "primary sources bad" - after all, the AfD mentioned ended in a keep with no significant opposition besides the nominator. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 09:26, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Surely the key guideline for articles about taxa at any level is their acceptance (or in a few cases historical acceptance) by reputable taxonomic databases, since these (a) are secondary sources (b) rely on the existence of one or more primary sources. Once the acceptance of a taxon is sourced, primary sources are fine for descriptions, etc. We shouldn't anticipate wider acceptance by creating articles based solely on the original publication. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:03, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Databases are NOT reliable sources by default. They are a non-peer-reviewed compilation of primary source statements, curated every so often by a handful of individuals, and as such very often outdated. Wider acceptance preferably means referencing by other peer-reviewed works, which are the ideal secondary sources. — Snoteleks (talk) 12:05, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

That's not true, @Snoteleks. Some databases are reliable; others aren't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing Hence why I said "by default" — Snoteleks (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't even think it's "by default". That would be like saying "By default, videos are unreliable". The only way the format of a source affects WP:RS status is if the source isn't Published in a fixed, accessible format (e.g., the "source" is verbal statements that nobody recorded). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, what I meant is that they're not necessarily reliable in terms of the standards we have for scientific sources, not just general WP:RS — Snoteleks (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

No format is necessarily reliable; that's as true for journals as it is for databases. Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man is a database that meets Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) standards; the European Journal of Preventive Medicine is a medical journal that does not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I see your points and I agree. I'm just weary of people assuming that any taxonomic database is good enough to create new articles, especially after the automated AlgaeBase stub articles from years ago that then had to be mass deleted. I would like it if we included in our guidelines some kind of statement or curated list of databases and journals that we regard as reliables. — Snoteleks (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I would love such a list, but think it would be best on an information page at a relevant WikiProject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

So depending on the project you mean? One for WP:ANIMALS, another for WP:PLANTS, etc.? If so, I agree. — Snoteleks (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:01, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

My thoughts are as follows:

1. All eukaryotic species are (or should be) assumed notable at first. However,
2. This does not imply that all eukaryotic species need an article, as this depends on how reliably sourced it can be (notice how I'm not saying "how reliably sourced it is"). However,
3. Just because an article is poorly written or sourced, it does not imply the species should not be covered. It only means that the article is a stub and needs to be improved. See comment below.
4. In biological taxonomy, primary (scientific, peer-reviewed) sources are reliable when secondary sources are absent.
5. Online databases can be a good access to superficial knowledge for editors to get started on a taxonomic subject, but they are not necessarily peer-reviewed, can often be unreliable or obsolete depending on the group, are usually curated only by a handful of people, and as such are subject to the same issues as Wikipedia itself. They should not be 100% relied upon for reliability and sourcing.

Comment: I think every time a discussion like this shows up, everyone forgets that the quality of articles =/= the quality of what the articles are about. A poorly written article does not mean the species deserves to be deleted from Wikipedia. People need to stop looking at deletion as the default escape route, and start encouraging better sourcing and writing. I have yet to see an example where a species article cannot be either expanded upon or (more commonly with fossils) simply merged into its parent genus article. — Snoteleks (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I have no disagreement with any of these points, and would add one clarification to point 4 that the peer-reviewed scientific literature can count as both primary (naming, descriptions, etc) AND secondary (introductions, discussions, etc) for both content and reliability as has been mentioned elsewhere (can't remember where but WP:PRIMARYUSE among others covers it). IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 05:19, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

You might be thinking of WP:PRIMARYINPART. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:50, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Here are some statements from various guidelines including the two just mentioned:

• WP:PSTS says "A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one"
• WP:PSTS again: "a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source for the outcome of that experiment".
• WP:PRIMARYINPART says "many high-quality sources contain both primary and secondary material" and "A peer-reviewed journal article may begin by summarizing a careful selection of previously published works to place the new work in context (which is secondary material) before proceeding into a description of a novel idea (which is primary material)".
• WP:PRIMARYUSE says "In science, data is primary, and the first publication of any idea or experimental result is always a primary source.

The latter could be interpreted as saying that recognition of a species is primary as it's the first publication of the "idea". However, a species determination is not based solely on the description of the specimens and other results in the paper. Recognition of a new species takes into account works on other species and how they compare. WP:PRIMARYUSE#Characteristics of a secondary source says:

• "A secondary source usually provides analysis, commentary, evaluation, context, and interpretation. It is this act of going beyond simple description, and telling us the meaning behind the simple facts, that makes them valuable to Wikipedia."
• "Reputable secondary sources are usually based on more than one primary source. High-quality secondary sources often synthesize multiple primary sources ..."

My interpretation is that the determination of whether the specimens being studied belong to a separate species or are part of another species is based on further analysis, evaluation, context, and interpretation. The comparative analysis of the data in the paper (its primary source material) with that in other primary sources, makes the discussion leading to the decision on whether it is a species a secondary source. More conservatively it is a mix of primary (proposal that it might be a new species) and secondary (determination that it is).

In short, I think the guidelines support what IJReid said about peer-reviewed scientific literature counting as both primary (naming, descriptions, etc) and secondary (introductions, discussions, etc) sources. It's the discussion of the data and comparison to other sources that leads to the concludion on species status.  —  Jts1882 | talk  09:59, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Also:

• Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Biomedical journals: "In addition to experiments, primary sources normally contain introductory, background, or review sections that place their research in the context of previous work; these sections may be cited in Wikipedia with care: they are often incomplete and typically less reliable than reviews or other sources, such as textbooks, which are intended to be reasonably comprehensive."

WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Biomedical is a very different branch of science where oversimplification can have significant negative consequences. All sources that would be of relevance here are from non-biomedical journals (even if the journals sometimes include biomedical topics) so I do not think this applies. Textbooks on taxonomy simply do not exist in the same scope, and review articles are often incredibly difficult to publish so as to nearly not exist. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:21, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, which is why I think it's significant that MEDRS agrees that a source we would call 'primary' may also have a section that contains secondary source material. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

BHL down?

Does anyone know what the story is with the BHL? After about a year of mild panic over the Smithsonian thing, it hasn't been loading for me for the past week or so. biodiversitylibary.org used to give me "server not found" but now it's fielding a cloudfare error code 520. Have other people been able to access it? Cremastra (talk · contribs) 02:00, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

To editor Cremastra: try this link: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org – I'm not sure why you are having a problem reaching their site, but if that link does work for you, then it might be because "library" was misspelled. When I click on that link, I go straight to the BHL website. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 02:33, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Huh, my "libary" in the comment above was definitely a comment-only typo—I was trying to get to the URL you link to. But the cloudfare check worked this time. So I guess you fixed it! :) Cremastra (talk · contribs) 02:36, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

The only thing I did was correct the spelling. It's more likely that BHL corrected the connection problem. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 02:45, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I know, I was joking. Hopefully they can keep the connection up, since, as I said, I've had troubles throughout February. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 02:47, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

This might be helpful: What is happening to BHL’s technical infrastructure?. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 17:24, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I've been having issues with BHL loading slowly (or not at all) on and off for several months across various devices and internet connections, though today it seems to be working fine. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:04, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Me too. It seems intermittent recently. Sometimes it works fine, sometimes I get an error suggesting a problem with the server (cloudfare error 520 is a generic problem with server response error). I assume, or at least hope, this is associated with a move to new hosting.  —  Jts1882 | talk  09:47, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Various taxonomy websites have been getting extreme traffic from bots for several months (presumably for AI related purposes). I know it's a problem for Tropicos, and I assume it's why COL and GBIF now have loading screens to confirm that a visitor is a human. Plantdrew (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Looks like these problems have coincided with transition of the hosting infrastrucure from the Smithsonian to the Field Museum. This blog postyesterday announces the Field Museum as the new host. Earlier announcements seemed vague on where it was going.  —  Jts1882 | talk  17:51, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I took the vagueness as a lack of actual plan, which did make we pretty worried about the library's future. Thank god they found someone. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 20:08, 27 February 2026 (UTC)