Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life

WikiProject Tree of Life

Main pageTalkArticle templateTaxonomic resourcesTaxoboxesParticipantsArticle requests

Ancyromonadida

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pseudofungi-oomycete-bigyromonad mess: two proposed solutions

Context: the clade Pseudofungi is usually considered to contain three clades, oomycetes, bigyromonads and hyphochytrids. Main issue: the taxonomic ranks of these four taxa are inconsistent across papers, and there is no strict ranked classification with all of them (see more detailed context in this previous discussion). I propose two completely different solutions to bring harmony to our taxobox system while keeping the content accurate and not following an obsolete system:

1. Pseudofungi as a clade above phylum-level. This would mean it contains three phyla: Oomycota, Hyphochytriomycota, and Bigyromonadea.
   • Advantages: mycologists and oomycete specialists alike prefer Oomycota as a phylum/division over a class, and there is now majority support for its division into two classes, Saprolegniomycetes and Peronosporomycetes (plus several basal class-less orders).
   • Disadvantages: the Bigyromonadea are not cited as a phylum-level taxon in almost any paper. The author that described it, T. Cavalier-Smith, only ever considered it a class of Pseudofungi (or more frequently a subphylum of Gyrista, with the alternate spelling Bigyromonada). Just one paper cites it as a phylum.
2. Pseudofungi as a phylum-level clade. This would mean it contains three classes: Oomycetes, Hyphochytriomycetes, and Bigyromonadea.
   • Advantages: both subgroups of bigyromonads are two monotypic classes (i.e., each with their own order), making this an easy change: instead of Developea and Pirsonea, we can just use Developayellida and Pirsoniales directly. This is consistent with the Cavalier-Smith paper from 2006, in which bigyromonads were treated as a class of Pseudofungi instead of a subphylum of Gyrista.
   • Disadvantages: it goes against the mycological consensus stated above.

Pinging @Tony 1212 and @Jako96 since they contributed to the previous conversation about this topic, but of course I would like to know which choice is preferable among other editors. — Snoteleks (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the second one, but is there a source that places the class Hyphochytriomycetes inside the phylum Pseudofungi? If not, then we should use the name Hyphochytrea. Jako96 (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I prefer proposal 1: the advantages are strong (as stated) and go with consensus in the botanical field (the main group interested in these organisms it seems) and to my mind outweigh the stated disadvantage.

Bigyromonadea, being a zoological name, does not need to be formally established at any particular rank to be employed "somewhere/wherever" above family by whomever chooses to do so. Of course on Wikipedia we need published sources (1 is cutting it a bit fine) and not "original research" but we also need internal consistency across domains/kingdoms/whatever, something the published sources have failed to address in this case. My preference would be to use Bigyromonadea as a phylum in Wikipedia, noting perhaps that this is a "placeholder" solution pending a more permanent resolution (e.g. if there is ever a Ruggiero et al. v. 2.0 it could/should be addressed there). If it helps, "we" (IRMNG editors, now including 2 persons in this discussion) can make that change in IRMNG as well (not a peer reviewed source but citable in my view) and reference it in Wikipedia as needed.

That way, logic is maintained (Pseudofungi, as a superphylum perhaps) includes both Oomycota and Bigyromonadea (as well as Hyphochytriomycota (?)) as phyla), and Oomycota as a phylum can include its currently "accepted" classes Saprolegniomycetes and Peronosporomycetes (as per the current leading authorities in that area). Tony 1212 (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Now I did some research, and I understood that the two classes Saprolegniomycetes and Peronosporomycetes are pretty much consensus. Also, since most sources don't care about ranks and just phylogenetics, Bigyromonadea, Developea and Pirsoniales are most mentioned in scientific articles (even though Bigyromonadea, normally a class-level name, can't include another class Developea). Ranking the Bigyromonadea as a phylum is a new thing though, but, since Wikipedia uses a Linnean classification, I do think we should use it. I agree with the first proposal. Jako96 (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Wait, Snoteleks, you said that the source that uses the phylum Bigyromonadea uses the Oomycota phylum for both oomycetes and hyphochytrids, right? Then, I think we should use an unranked clade Bigyromonadea, because otherwise it would be WP:SYNTH. As I said, Bigyromonadea, Developea and Pirsoniales are most mentioned in articles because of phylogenetics, so, we should use the classes Developea and Pirsonea under the clade (not phylum) Bigyromonadea. Jako96 (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@Jako96 We shall use whichever name is most common. — Snoteleks (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

For what it is worth... Hyphochytriomycota is treated as a phylum in Hyde et al., 2024, alongside Oomycota; same in MycoBank, https://www.mycobank.org/page/Name%20details%20page/field/Mycobank%20%23/90205 .

Bigyromonadea, established as a class, could remain so within a superphylum Pseudofungi (i.e. not be raised to a phylum, and unplaced within the superphylum) at least in IRMNG, probably also in Wikipedia if desired. From Cho et al., 2022: "Maximum likelihood analyses show Bigyromonadea related to oomycetes, whereas Bayesian analyses and topology testing were inconclusive. We observed similarities between the novel bigyromonad species and motile zoospores of oomycetes in morphology and the ability to self aggregate. Rare formation of pseudopods and fused cells were also observed, traits that are also found in members of labyrinthulomycetes, another osmotrophic stramenopiles. Furthermore, we report the first case of eukaryovory in the flagellated stages of Pirsoniales. These analyses reveal new diversity of Bigyromonadea, and altogether suggest their monophyly with oomycetes, collectively known as Pseudofungi, is the most likely topology of the stramenopile tree." Tony 1212 (talk) 05:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

We can't use a superphylum Pseudofungi, that would be WP:OR, as there is no such usage. And it's not "unplaced" in the Pseudofungi, there is just not a traditional phylum placement, and that's it. Jako96 (talk) 13:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

No, Snoteleks, that would be WP:OR. We can't use the name Hyphochytriomycetes if we are using the three-class system of Pseudofungi, there is no such usage. Jako96 (talk) 13:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

If fixing the Pseudofungi inner clades with the standard taxonomic ranks, I would prefer the lowest possible rank (this approach is often applied in classification by protistologists, see e.g. Adl et al. 2005,2012,2019), in this case orders or classes (and redirects from the higher levels). We should take into consideration, that there are several MAST clades (in Pseudofungi at least MAST-1, MAST-2, MAST-23, MAST-26), which, after discovery and cultivation of a representative, may destroy the "fixed" higher level hierarchy. --Petr Karel (talk) 09:34, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused with this discussion. Looking at other articles, are bigyromonads pseudofungi? The Stramenopile and Gyrista articles suggest not and in the taxonomy template system, Bigyromonada is a subphylum within clade Gyrista and Pseudofungi is ranked as a clade.

Could anyone provide a primary reference with the taxonomic diagnosis or cladistic definition of the Bigyromonada/Bigyromonadea? This must be the first step, later we could search for modified amendments in other studies. The reference in the article Bigyromonada (Cavalier-Smith, 2017) provides only diagnosis for the new inner classes Developea and Pirsonea, subphylum Bigyromonada is considered "probably paraphyletic", and Psudofungi is a different subphylum! Petr Karel (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

From T. Cavalier-Smith. (1997). Sagenista and Bigyra, two phyla of heterotrophic heterokont chromists. , 148(3), 253–267. doi:10.1016/s0003-9365(97)80006-1 :

"Subphylum 1. Bigyromonada CAVALIER-SMITH 1997 Class Bigyromonadea cl. nov. Diagnosis as for subphylum Bigyromonada CAVALIER-SMITH 1997b

..Order Developayellales ord. nov. Diagnosis as for subphylum Bigyromonada CAVALIER-SMITH 1997b

....Family Developayellaceae fam. nov. Diagnosis as for subphylum Bigyromonada CAVALIER-SMITH 1997b. Type genus Devefopayella TONG 1995"

> note the reference to subphylum Bigyromonada CAVALIER-SMITH 1997b here is incorrect; correct is:

Cavalier-Smith, T., 1998. A revised six-kingdom system of life. Biological Reviews, 73(3), pp.203-266.

"Phylum 2. Bigyra phyl. nov. (diagnosis: ciliary transition region with double helices or concertina-like rings; without plastids: regio transitoria ciliorum annuli in forma concertinae praebens; sine plastidis).

.. Subphylum 1. Bigyromonada subphyl. nov. (diagnosis: biciliate free-living bacterivorous phagotrophs without cell walls; retronemes on anterior cilium; double ciliary transition helix: cilia dua; murus absens; mastigonemae tubulatae in cilium anterius; pabulum cellulae prokaryotae est; regio transitoria ciliorum annuli in forma concertinae praebens) (Developayella Tong 1995)." Tony 1212 (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

One could split a hair and point out that the diagnosis of "Class Bigyromonadea cl. nov." was invalid (illegitimate? unavailable? scarcely matters since names above family are not governed by any Code) on account of the basionym for the description being incorrectly cited, and/or that name post-dating the one in question, but I guess the intent is clear: they have the same definition, at least as proposed. Tony 1212 (talk) 04:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Let me make a summary of my recent search:

1. Developea Karpov et Aleoshin, 2016
   • order Developayellales Cavalier-Smith, 1998 (https://doi.org/10.1017/s0006323198005167)
   • + new genera -> class Developea Aleoshin et al., 2016 (https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.01194)
   • Confirmed and completed in 2022 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2022.107468)
   • May be affected by MAST-23 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protis.2015.05.001)
   • summary: quite consensual
2. Pirsoniales Cavalier-Smith 1998, emend. Prokina, Yubuki, Tikhonenkov, Ciobanu, López-García & Moreira, 2024
   • order Pirsoniales Cavalier-Smith, 1998 (https://doi.org/10.1017/s0006323198005167)
   • confirmed and completed (+ new Pirsonia-related branches) in 2016 (https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.01194)
   • confirmed and completed (+ new genera) in 2022 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2022.107468)
   • refurbished and completed (+ new genera) in 2024 (https://doi.org/10.1111/jeu.13061)
   • summary: consensual
3. Bigyromonadea
   • class Bigyromonadea Cavalier-Smith, 1997 (https://doi.org/10.1016/s0003-9365(97)80006-1)
   1. recovered as clade (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2023.107964), (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2024.108120), (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2022.107468 in multi-gene phylogenomic analysis)
   2. not recovered as clade in (https://doi.org/10.1093/femsec/fiae130: paraphyl.), (https://doi.org/10.1111/jeu.13061: polyphyl.), (https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.01194: paraphyl.), (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protis.2015.05.001: polyphyl.) (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2022.107468: polyphyletic in SSU rRNA phylogenetic tree) (https://doi.org/10.1111/jeu.13003: polyphyletic in SSU rRNA phylogenetic tree)
   • may be affected by MAST-1, MAST-23 (https://doi.org/10.1111/jeu.13003)
   • summary: more studies needed to reach consensus with sufficient stability
4. Pseudofungi
   1. subphylum different from Bigyromonada (with uncertain monophyly) (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs00709-017-1147-3) and many earlier Cavalier-Smiths studies
   2. grouping including Bigyromonada, recovered as a clade but avoided as taxon name (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2023.107964), (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2024.108120, but not in all stramenopile topologies recovered from phylogenomic analyses),(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protis.2019.125682)
   3. grouping including Bigyromonada, but not recovered as a clade (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protis.2015.05.001: paraphyl. in SSU rRNA phylogenetic tree), (https://doi.org/10.1111/jeu.13061: paraphyl.), (https://doi.org/10.1111/jeu.13003: paraphyletic in SSU rRNA phylogenetic tree), (https://doi.org/10.1111/jeu.12207: paraphyletic in SSU rRNA phylogenetic tree)
   • may be affected by MAST (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2023.107964 MAST-1, MAST-2, MAST-23), (https://doi.org/10.1093/femsec/fiae130 MAST-1, MAST-2, MAST-23, MAST-26), (https://doi.org/10.1111/jeu.13003 MAST-1, MAST-23)
   • summary: more studies needed to reach consensus with sufficient stability

Could someone do the same for oomycetes and hyphochytriomycetes (to find taxa of the lowest possible rank, support for their monophyly and possible affects of their stability from uncultivated MAST)? --Petr Karel (talk) 14:53, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

One non-trivial detail to know is that bigyromonads specifically never branch together in SSU-only analyses; only multigene or phylogenomic analyses recover them as a clade. This has already been discussed in papers. — Snoteleks (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

It looks like Pseudofungi and Bigyromonadea/Bigyromonada (I realized about bigyromonads early already) are uncertain of monophyly, so I think we should just use the phyla Oomycota (classes Peronosporomycetes and Saprolegniomycetes) and Hyphochytriomycota (class Hyphochytriomycetes), and the classes Developea (order Developayellales) and Pirsonea (order Pirsoniales) directly under the unranked clade Gyrista (also contains the phylum Ochrophyta and order Actinophryida as cultivated taxa). Who supports me? Because of this, Adl et al., 2019 does not use these names. Jako96 (talk) 11:23, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I support the idea. As I already mentioned, we should use the taxa of the lowest possible rank and wait for a stabile stramenopile phylogram. Petr Karel (talk) 08:56, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I do not support getting rid of Bigyromonada/ea. It's a well-recognized clade with more than enough references in the literature. Just because it does not appear in simpler single-gene phylogenies (of ribosomal DNA in particular) does not mean it is "uncertain of monophyly". The exact same could be said of many other clades that are only recovered in multigene or phylogenomic/transcriptomic analyses, such as Rhizaria. Adl et al. 2019 is a good guide to follow, but there are plenty of taxa that have been updated since then (6 years ago btw), or even earlier. I don't have such a strong opinion towards Pseudofungi, but I haven't had any reason to think it's uncertain in monophyly either. — Snoteleks (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

We're gonna need some refs to confirm your claim about Rhizaria. Jako96 (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Notes

References

Chondrocladia robertballardi sp. nov.

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

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

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

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

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

Good article reassessment for Taxonomy (biology)

Taxonomy (biology) 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) 00:35, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Categories for taxa by CITES appendix?

While adding IUCN and CITES statuses to the speciesboxes of various Aloe species articles, I noticed the various Category:Species by IUCN Red List category categories (the ones that are automatically applied when an IUCN status is listed in the speciesbox) and wondered if it would be worthwhile to have a similar set of categories for taxa listed in the CITES appendices. Per the CITES website, the three appendices currently cover Over 40,900 species – including roughly 6,610 species of animals and 34,310 species of plants, so diffusion would be necessary... diffusion by appendix number seems intuitive, but perhaps further diffusion by kingdom (or even order) would also be useful. My personal experience with creating categories has been relatively small-scale so I want to gauge community opinion on this idea - please share your thoughts! Cheers, Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:47, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

These categories are set by {{taxobox/species}}. It seems a bit random whether categories are set (see the documentation). They are set for the IUCN, NatureServe, ESA, EPBC and QLDNCA. We could add Category:CITES Appendix I, Category:CITES Appendix II and Category:CITES Appendix III, if there is support.  —  Jts1882 | talk  14:38, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any reason not to add support. It would probably be practical to do some diffusion by taxon rank, probably to class level (I think class is the perfect amount of information and the perfect size for a category, as for most organisms it is specific enough to be identifiable but vague enough to be useful. Insecta are both classes Mammalia.) Cremastra (talk · contribs) 16:20, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure that diffusion by taxa, on the basis of taxobox parameters, is possible. Maybe kingdom; taxoboxes "know" the kingdom to set the taxobox color. Otherwise, categories such as Category:Critically endangered insects are manually populated by including each article in the category.

CITES species are overwhelmingly orchids. CITES has several families and orders where all species are included (sometimes with a handful of explicitly named species excluded from the CITES appendix). I'm sure the figure of 34,310 species of plants includes ~28,000 orchid species. Artificially propagated Vanilla (genus) is the only excluded orchid taxon, although there various invasive orchid species that would still be covered by CITES in their invasive range. Plantdrew (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Diffusion by higher taxa would be difficult using the automatic taxoboxes and would add significant overhead. If that was wanted I think categories should be added manually, not through the taxoboxes, where the system and status parameters determine the category.  —  Jts1882 | talk  17:16, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

If automatic diffusion by appendix and kingdom as Plantdrew mentions (eg. Category:Animals listed on CITES Appendix I, Category:Plants listed on CITES Appendix II) is possible that would be ideal, but if not, I would also be happy with either automatic diffusion by appendix only or with further manual categorisation by taxon - not sure which of those options is most practical.

I notice that the taxa by conservation status categories like Category:Critically endangered insects are not actually subcategories of the automatically assigned conservation status categories like Category:IUCN Red List vulnerable species or Category:NatureServe secure species but rather both the automatic and manual categories are nested within the category for the relevant conservation status itself (eg. Category:Least concern species). I have to imagine these CITES categories would function differently, and if manual diffusion by taxa is desired, would it be preferable to replace the automatic appendix category when a more specific appendix+taxon category exists? Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 05:31, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

It is possible to diffuse by kingdom or higher taxa using the taxobox colour. This is set by {{taxobox colour}}, with different colours for animals, plants (sensu Archaeplastida), fungi, other eukaryotes, bacteria, archaea, viruses, ootaxa and ichnotaxa. Does CITES list any fungi or other eukaryotes or do we only need caregories for animals and plants?  —  Jts1882 | talk  14:14, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

CITES lists only animals and plants (see here). Vertebrates represent roughly 3/4 of the listed taxa (taxa, not species; the inclusion of all species in various higher taxa shifts the majority of species to plants/orchids). Plantdrew (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

OK, that simplifies it. Perhaps we should follow CITES and use Fauna and Flora for the categories (eg. Category:Fauna listed on CITES Appendix I, Category:Flora listed on CITES Appendix II).  —  Jts1882 | talk  17:39, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

That works for me! There's a possibility that CITES will include fungi in the future (this report regarding the trade of fungi was submitted to the committee just earlier this year), but that's a bridge we can cross when we get to it. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 01:56, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done For the record, I moved CITES status handling in {{taxobox/species}} to Module:Conservation status, modified {{taxobox/core}} to pass the taxobox colour to {{taxobox/species}}, and used the colour to set the category in the module. I created the six categories (numbers at 11:45 16 November 2025):

• Category:Fauna listed on CITES Appendix I (763)
• Category:Fauna listed on CITES Appendix II (1,621)
• Category:Fauna listed on CITES Appendix III (26)
• Category:Flora listed on CITES Appendix I (200)
• Category:Flora listed on CITES Appendix II (322)
• Category:Flora listed on CITES Appendix III (6)

Mention any problems or issues here.  —  Jts1882 | talk  14:14, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Amazing, thank you! Category:Flora listed on CITES Appendix III was flagged for speedy deletion but I've gone ahead and populated it with a few articles. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 01:51, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

The tagging was rather quick for a new category, although it wouldn't have been deleted for seven days.

I've updated the numbers above. I'm surprised by how few plant articles are tagged. I suppose it is the placing of whole higher taxa in the Appendices, rather than individual listings. For orchids, it seems that only species listed in Appendix I that have a conservation status. The species in genera placed in Appendix I don't seem to be given a status either (e.g. Paphiopedilum acmodontum). 11:07, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Searches for {{speciesbox}}es with the different CITES statuses gets:

• Articles with CITES_A1: 900 results (25 more with automatic taxobox)
• Articles with CITES_A2: 1,887 results (20 more with automatic taxobox)
• Articles with CITES_A3: 28 results (2 more with automatic taxobox)

 —  Jts1882 | talk  11:25, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, CITES is very underutilised in Wikipedia articles, especially for plants. It is rarely mentioned in the body or in infoboxes. I've been working on adding CITES statuses to articles whenever I notice they're missing - Species+ is helpful for this, since it lists all of the species an Appendix applies to, not just the higher taxon they belong to (ie. all stony corals are listed on Appendix II, but Species+ lists each species independently instead of just saying Scleractinia spp). I've just finished with all the Aloe species and plan to start on all the orchids soon, though that will be a very big project... Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 12:28, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Caprinae vs Caprini

I asked about this topic on the talk page for Caprinae and it was suggested I post about it here, so I will paste the original post I made there and hopefully someone here can help me understand:

The first sentence of this article conflates the subfamily Caprinae and the tribe Caprini as being interchangeable. This is not exactly the case. Further down in this very article under the Species section it divides Caprinae into its constituent tribes: Caprini, Ovibovini, and Pantholopini. Currently, Pantholopini redirects to the only species it contains, while Caprini and Ovibovini both redirect to the Caprinae article. I think both tribes should be considered for articles of their own, and I would be willing to contribute towards that, but I think it is important to clear up the conflation at the start of the article first and foremost. I will wait to make the edit myself in case anyone disagrees, are there any sources outright declaring Caprinae and Caprini to be synonymous? I checked the Mammal Diversity Database source provided, but I don't find it there. In the mammal spreadsheet it seems to assign the tribe Caprini as being part of the subfamily Antilopinae which, at least to my knowledge, is not correct. Subfamily Caprinae isn't found in the spreadsheet at all. I have found sources that do in fact draw a distinction between Caprinae and Caprini, with Caprini being listed as just one subgroup within Caprinae. Phylogeny is confusing though so someone more knowledgeable please let me know if there is a good reason to keep the it as is.

For additional context, the Mammal Diversity Database source I originally mentioned can be found here. Thanks to anyone who can help me understand the ways the terms Caprinae and Caprini are used in scientific literature. Caprinae.Caprini.Capra.hircus (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I think the confusion arises due to a change in the classification. MSW3 (2005) assigns Capra to subfamily Caprinae (see here), which is one of eight subfamilies in Bovidae. The MMD, which is based on newer evidence, assigns Capra to tribe Caprini in subfamily Antilopinae (which has 9 tribes), with Bovidae split into two subfamilies. In terms of contents the subfamily Caprinae of MSW3 is similar to that in tribe Caprini of MDD, which I assume is what the article is trying to say. It's not clear to me what taxonomy the articles in Bovidae are using (maybe MSW3 with some updates).  —  Jts1882 | talk  14:39, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

References

Discussion at Talk:Collodictyonidae § Requested move 11 November 2025

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Collodictyonidae § Requested move 11 November 2025. Jako96 (talk) 13:41, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Lepidoptera

Lepidoptera has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:32, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Supergroup as a rank

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

Discussion at Talk:Anaeromonadea § Requested move 27 November 2025

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

Authority of Rhinocerotidae

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

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

Identifying taxon author

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion at Talk:Camelid#Requested move 6 December 2025

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

Question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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