Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 68

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 65Archive 66Archive 67Archive 68Archive 69

Teleostomi is paraphyletic

Teleostomi is paraphyletic, so we should not use its taxonomy template as a parent. See Jako96 (talk) 07:08, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I can only repeat that a taxon being paraphyletic does not of itself justify our not using it in taxoboxes. What matters is what reliable sources do. Unfortunately, |refs= is too rarely completed in taxonomy templates. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:30, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
Let's make it unranked then. See https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174655 for example. Jako96 (talk) 09:39, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
Is it paraphyletic? I thought it was one of the fish taxa that have been redefined to include tetrapods (like Osteichthyes). It would be helpful if such assertions were accompanied by sources supporting them.  —  Jts1882 | talk  12:37, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
Recent sources pretty much never use Teleostomi, since it was meant to group acanthodians together with osteichthyans while excluding chondrichthyans. But acanthodians are now universally accepted as stem-chondrichthyans (as seen in the paper linked by Jako). Even if Teleostomi was treated as a monophyletic group, it would just be a synonym of crown-Gnathostomata/Eugnathostomata, so why not just get rid of it? —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 13:07, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
So let's get rid of it. Pinging @Plantdrew and @Snoteleks as they are pretty active on this WikiProject. Jako96 (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
Ehh sure, I can give it a go. I honestly did not participate on this thread on purpose because I am quite ignorant about fish taxonomy. I actually thought Teleostomi was just a synonym of Osteichthyes or Gnathostomata or something like that, not its own thing... — Snoteleks (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
Ah wait, I'm not a template editor or an administrator. I cannot change this on my own. But I see that you've already suggested the edit. I'll leave a support comment just for good measure. — Snoteleks (talk) 21:55, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
What? I did provide a source. I don't know what you mean. Jako96 (talk) 13:15, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I think this should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fishes; at the bare minimum the discussion here should be advertised there. It seems to me that there are too many discussions here which should be at more specific WikiProjects. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:08, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. I put up a notice of this discussion at that talk page. — Snoteleks (talk) 22:09, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Taxa by author diffusion again

There is a proposal to diffuse Category:Animal taxa by author, in the form of a to-do list on Category talk:Animal taxa by author, that has been partially implemented (basically breaking animals into higher taxa that are the subjects of WikiProjects). The apparent consensus in the recent discussion about diffusing taxa by author, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/Archive_64#Category:Taxa_by_author_diffusion came down against diffusing by nationality of authors, but had some support for diffusing by animal/plant. The nationality categories never got deleted (it seems the original impetus in creating them was to deal with bad category contents; e.g. Category:Czech taxonomists should only contain people, and shouldn't contain taxa in subcategories).

Breaking animal taxa by author into e.g. fish and reptiles is inevitably going to have some taxonomist who described both fish and reptiles having all of their taxa subcategorized as both fish and reptiles (we already have all Linnaeus taxa being subcategorized as both animals and plants).

There are an enormous number of taxa by author categories, so I get why some people want to diffuse them. I don't think there is really a workable system to diffuse. But another option would be to discuss limiting the creation of taxa by author categories and potentially deleting some existing ones.

For example, Category:Taxa named by Anthony J. Cobos. Cobos has been credited with naming 11 species (per publications listed at ResearchGate), and was the lead author for one species. The other ten species are because Larry Lee Grismer is quite generous about crediting undergraduates (and former undergraduates) with authorship (producing papers with 15 authors). Cobos is unlikely to ever have a Wikipedia article, and I don't think has done any further work as a taxonomist since his undergraduate days (his masters and PhD advisers are physiologists working with herps).

Then there's Category:Taxa named by Jason Alexander. No, it's not that Jason Alexander, but this one who was the lead author for one species, but otherwise does not seem interested in taxonomy.

Should everybody who was created with authorship get a taxa by author category? Is there some reasonable way to limit the proliferation of categories, in order to forestall calls for diffusion? Plantdrew (talk) 01:01, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Not a lot of uptake on this. Agree that there's not a workable diffusing category system, and this blunt 2004-era tool is growing out of hand. I would support a category bar of "contains minimum 10 species" or "author has an article" as a short/medium-term fix. Perhaps long-term this sort of data belongs on Wikidata (along with the data contained in its contentious sibling category "Year described in"?) Then one could envision being able to do more interesting and complex searches ("find all the authors who have published taxa in two or more kingdoms"; "make a list of the 100 most prolific authors"; etc.) with Listeriabot/SPARQL queries. Esculenta (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm coming to this discussion a bit late, but it's something I find interesting having created a few "taxa named by [x]" categories myself (just a few minutes ago I created Category:Taxa named by Susan Carter Holmes!). There ought to be some threshold that authors are expected to meet in order to warrant a category like this - my personal benchmark is that the author must have (or be notable enough for) a biographical article and have described at least 5 valid taxa as a primary author. I see little point in creating categories like this for individuals who do not have their own article and are unlikely to pass WP:GNG, or for individuals who have only described <5 taxa. I really don't see any practical use for Category:Taxa named by Jason Alexander at this point. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 10:13, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Taxonomy/Neognathae § Always display

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Taxonomy/Neognathae § Always display. Jako96 (talk) 22:01, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

About using quotes on prokaryotic taxa

Should we continue using invalid prokaryotic taxa with quotes? Jako96 (talk) 09:40, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not a prokaryote expert, but I just think quotes are ugly for any taxon. I don't know why Wikipedia should use them besides when sometimes referring to non-monophyletic taxa. Same with using Candidatus always in front of many of the names; it's not appealing to the average reader, I don't see the necessity to disclose it in every mention. Personally, it just makes me think: if the name is invalid, just make it valid already and shut up about invalidity! Still, more prokaryote-inclined editors should have the say here. — Snoteleks (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
I generally stay away from editing prokaryotes because of this stuff, but I don't think we're very consistent in using quotes where LPSN does so, and we are definitely not flagging up all the Candidatus taxa. I don't really have any recommendations to make about using quotes or not, but I do think we should be using |classification_status= more in taxoboxes to flag Candidatus taxa. Plantdrew (talk) 01:50, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
As in classification_status=proposed (or similar), or classification_status=Candidatus? — Snoteleks (talk) 13:13, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
classification_status=Candidatus. Plantdrew (talk) 15:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
We don't need that. The taxoboxes already state they are candidates. See Vampirovibrionophyceae and Candidatus Thorarchaeota. Jako96 (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Their are hundreds of articles on Candidatus species in non-Candidatus genera that don't mention that they are Candidatus, and speciesboxes don't support showing Candidatus very well (I guess we could have two taxonomy templates for the genus; one for Candidatus species and another one for non). Plantdrew (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
That was a problem I was gonna talk about in the future. It can be fixed. We don't need classification_status=Candidatus. Jako96 (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
I am a prokaryote-inclined editor, so I think I do have a say. I think we should probably just continue using quotes. Or maybe, just maybe, we should not use quotes only for taxa that we use. Jako96 (talk) 07:50, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Pinging "more prokaryote-inclined editors" just in case: @Petr Karel, @Videsh Ramsahai and @Artoria2e5. Jako96 (talk) 09:09, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Quotes are definitely the right thing in the Taxobox. I do believe we should do the same in the article body. As for page titles… they do make category sorting and link creation bit unwieldy. For category sorting there’s the DEFAULTSORT: thing, but creating a properly-formatted link to such a page is clunky. A Lua template might help. Artoria2e5 🌉 01:32, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
I have no problem with using Candidatus/Ca. for the formal taxa with valid publication (LPSN) but with not distinguishing of these formal taxa and phylogenetically correcter clades with similar name.[1] --Petr Karel (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
The cited sources didn't include such a "Proteoarchaeota". Not my fault. If there is such a taxon, please add it to Wikipedia with the correct sources instead of trying to humiliate me. Jako96 (talk) 14:01, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Also you hypocritically saying "I am not Jako96" in this discussion, even though you first added about Glissandrida and Glissandra to CRuMs page with this edit. Jako96 (talk) 14:03, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Also, the "Proteoarchaeota" that includes Promethearchaeati and Thermoproteati is WP:OR. The source you showed only includes "Ca. Lokiarchaeota" from the Asgard group. Jako96 (talk) 09:47, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Taxonomy/Ecdysozoa § Template-protected edit request on 20 August 2025

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Taxonomy/Ecdysozoa § Template-protected edit request on 20 August 2025. Jako96 (talk) 10:20, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Taxonomy/Lophotrochozoa § Template-protected edit request on 20 August 2025

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Taxonomy/Lophotrochozoa § Template-protected edit request on 20 August 2025. Jako96 (talk) 10:22, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Type species in dinosaur families

I've noticed a lot of articles about dinosaur families have a type species despite families always being named after the type genus. I asked about this in the Spinosauridae article and got led here. Are these errors or am I just misinformed? :) Battlebox0 (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I believe those are errors. Although technically correct, since the type species of the type genus "would be" the type species of the family, it's not something explicitly written by taxonomists. The families are (as far as I know) only assigned a type genus. — Snoteleks (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Under the ICZN, family-rank taxa have type genera, they do not have type species. No WP article should ever list a type species for any taxonomic rank above genus; it literally does not work that way. Now that I think about it, the automated taxobox system should - at least in principle - not allow for type species to be included unless the taxon is a genus, but I suspect that sort of programming would be extremely difficult to implement. Dyanega (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Given families with a single genus, that would be basically impossible to implement. Another error with types on Wikipedia is giving a subsequent combination for a type species (I don't remember if this is an error under all the codes). Searching for |type_species_authority= with a parentheses could catch some of those (provided a type species authority is specified and has correct parentheses). Searching for "idae" or "aceae" in a page title and |type_species= will catch some of type species that should be type genera (but won't work if a common name is used as a title).
Aside from user errors, there are some technical limitations. Speciesboxes don't support |type_species= which could be applicable in the case of a monotypic genus. |type_strain= is supported for prokaryotes, but type specimens are not supported for plants and animals (although I don't think type specimens should be supported in taxoboxes). Plantdrew (talk) 18:12, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Skink § Requested move 27 August 2025

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Skink § Requested move 27 August 2025. Jako96 (talk) 07:57, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Bamboo coral

From what i gather the taxonomic status is volatile, but this concerns the namespace "Bamboo coral", which is a page on Keratoisididae, which was split out from Isididae quite recently. The issue is that Isididae (and a number of other families) are also referred to as "bamboo coral"; so what we should do is to see if these disparate families actually form a clade, then that clade should receive the "Bamboo coral" namespace. If not, then disambiguate. Anthropophoca (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

There is no clade. "Bamboo coral" refers to their morphology; articulated, with bamboo-like nodes and internodes. The former circumscription of Isididae was based on this morphology, but it turns out the morphology evolved at least 5 times, making Isididae s.l. polyphyletic (see this reference which is cited in the article). Plantdrew (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Then a disambiguation/page discussing the taxonomic situation is needed Anthropophoca (talk) 08:40, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Make it a set index article. Donald Albury 13:31, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
After deliberating, I believe that the best course of action would be to move Bamboo coral to Keratoisidae and then move Isididae into Bamboo coral; the taxonomic situation is already explained in Isididae and the necessary pages are linked over there (though many still redlinked), so any potential improvements to the coverage would likely be best included in the "original" bamboo coral clade.
Would Ahecht's pageswap script work in this scenario?
PS: The original pagestate of Bamboo coral states that it describes the family Isididae. I think this will effectively be an overdue homecoming for this name

Anthropophoca (talk) 10:46, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Except, you have already been told that "bamboo coral" is NOT phylogenetic. Its a morphology shared by unrelated groups. We should be moving towards monophyletic page groups not polyphyletic page groups. Make "Bamboo coral" a set index article and leave the family pages alone.--Kevmin § 15:00, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
If bamboo coral was to be the title for Isididae, there should be a history split, not any kind of move or pageswap. Prior to 12 July 2024, the nominal subject of bamboo coral was Isididae (in its broader circumscription). However, the article content prior to that was (and still is) mostly complete garbage (especially the Description section), and many of the references are dead links. Going into detail about a 2007 mission is unnecessary, "giving scientists a window into the ocean's past" is not encyclopedic language, and life span is given as 75-126 years in one place, and 4000 years in another place (I suspect the 4000 years might be a dead coral that was alive around 4000 years ago, but the reference link is dead).
I don't think there is really any article content/history with bamboo coral that is worth associating with articles about any family. The history can stay with bamboo coral if it is converted into a set index article. Plantdrew (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
Alright then, so the first half of my proposal would still work out? I'm gonna try fixing the tree i coded at Isididae so that it's closer to the one in the cited paper for now. Anthropophoca (talk) 01:07, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
Seems that no one really cares about finalizing the technical actions (me included), but what needs to be done first is to do a technical move so that the page currently at Bamboo coral is moved to Keratoisididae (currently a redirect), so that the former can be converted into the set index page Anthropophoca (talk) 06:36, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

About WP:OR in diatom classification

We are using an original research diatom classification, which we should not. The classification we are using is from Adl et al. 2019, but taxa are given ranks, though Adl et al. used unranked groupings. We should use a different classification. Pinging @Plantdrew and @Snoteleks as they were involved in this discussion. By the way, I'm posting this here because Algae and Protista talk pages are kinda dead. Jako96 (talk) 18:52, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I was not aware that we were giving ranks to the Adl et al. (2019) diatom clades. That should be reverted (except for classes and below). — Snoteleks (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
I think we can use the Cavalier-Smith classification. What do you think? Jako96 (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Absolutely not. His diatom scheme makes no sense, it's an isolate that lacks scientific consensus and needs to be forgotten. — Snoteleks (talk) 21:45, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Well, we can't use Adl et al. Jako96 (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
I think we should use NCBI Taxonomy, DiatomBase or WoRMS classification at this point. Jako96 (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
As a massive Metazooa enjoyer, i can wholeheartedly disagree with the option of using NCBI taxonomy to base anything on. Their matrix is outdated unless you email the administrators to update it. Anthropophoca (talk) 10:11, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
@Jako96 Why do you say that? — Snoteleks (talk) 23:39, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
DiatomBase is WoRMS. I set up taxonomy templates for diatoms following WoRMS in May 2024. To the extent that diatom taxonony templates aren't following WoRMS, it looks like that is largely due to edits that you made, Jako96. I don't particularly care what classification is used. My primary interest in the area of diatoms was implementing automatic taxoboxes, and that required a source that assigns genera to families. Plantdrew (talk) 00:22, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
I think this whole situation is a non-issue. Adl et al. (2019) provides the classification above class level, and WoRMS and pre-2019 taxonomic revisions provide the classifications below class level. I have not seen any conflict between them yet. — Snoteleks (talk) 00:36, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Because first Snoteleks started to apply Adl et al. classification, and I continued. Jako96 (talk) 16:06, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Because, Adl et al. themselves say that even these "classes" are unranked. Jako96 (talk) 07:28, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
That's like saying we can't use Adl et al. for anything. They purposefully don't disclose ranks because they don't want to delve into ranking higher taxa, because it would be a controversial ever-changing system. That doesn't mean their paper makes all ranks ever described disappear, it just means it's not their objective to display them. If clades displayed in Adl et al. have a rank outside of Adl et al. in a way that is not supporting an obsolete/non-consensus ranking system (like Chromista), it means it's compatible. In the case of diatoms, since there's never been anything above class level, the introduction of above-class clades in Adl et al. is compatible with previously recognized classes. There's even formal descriptions of each diatom clade and some of the genera they include, making it even easier for others to know what classes, orders, etc. are included. It's not exhaustive (it does not display down to family level always) because that's not the purpose of this paper, just like it does not display all foraminifera or radiolaria. That does not force us at any point to use an earlier, more erroneous classification. — Snoteleks (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
You're right. I'm fixing diatom taxonomy now. The reason I said they are using unranked groupings is that there was a sentence in their article which they said that, I think I remember. I'll try to find it later, but uh, we should probably follow Adl et al., yes. Jako96 (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
@Snoteleks, also Adl et al. ranked Diatomeae as a phylum in table 3.1. I think we should also do that, what do you think? Jako96 (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
That table should not be used as a reference for ranks. The researcher Sina Adl in particular has this weird belief where he gives random ranks to taxa depending on how many child taxa they have. This is something also seen in his 2025 book "Protistology". But it's far from the practice of the majority of taxonomists. We should make it a clade, so that it is compatible with the Ochrophyta phylum. — Snoteleks (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
You're right, actually. Because they say that they don't care about ranks in their classification system. Also, that table is kinda goofy. They both use the phyla Discoba and Euglenozoa, like, bro what? I mean they are even using a monophyletic Discoba in table 1. Jako96 (talk) 22:30, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Well, Discoba is monophyletic. But yes, it's vey goofy. It was very frustrating when I first noticed how incoherent table 1 is. But I suppose with so many authors there is limited ability to coordinate in such a long paper. — Snoteleks (talk) 00:51, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
I meant that they use a paraphyletic Gyrista in table 1, and also a monophyletic Discoba. But for some reason, they treat Discoba and Euglenozoa as separate phyla in table 3.1. They are not even using such a Discoba in table 1, like what? Why would they do that? Jako96 (talk) 09:12, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
I am extremely uninitiated in the complexities of taxonomy, so pardon my intrusion, but I was under the impression that phyla are endlessly debated classification which we're unlikely to find one consensus on. Our current system ranks Ochrophyta as a phylum, which I dare say has fairly strong support. We should probably leave it as is. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 19:45, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Yes, that's pretty much correct. — Snoteleks (talk) 19:50, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Okay, I didn't know that. Classical Cavalier-Smith things, eh. Jako96 (talk) 21:49, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
And I agree that WP:Algae is kinda dead, but WP:Protista? Almost all discussions of its talk page have gotten comments. — Snoteleks (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
I forgot to answer you here. I meant that WP:Protista's talk page was less active. The project itself is not dead of course. But saying dead was nonsense, I agree. Jako96 (talk) 08:12, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Upheaval in basal sauropsid systematics

Over the last 5 years or so, there has been a major upheval regarding the phylogenetic placements of basal members of the clade Sauropsida, with a number of papers radically changing the placement of some members (rendering traditional groups like Parareptilia paraphyletic) and removing some members (like Captorhinidae) from the reptile lineage entirely, with some papers going so far as to suggest that "Diapsida" should be deprecated as a clade (due to the traditional basalmost diapsids, the Araeoscelidia, being placed much more basally than other "diapsids", sometimes even outside Sauropsida entirely). This recent paper summarises the issue well. The problem is, given the upheval is so recent and ongoing, it makes it extraordinarily difficult to coherently write about this topic or provide a coherent wiki classification framework for basal sauropsids. Several proposals have been made. The first, Talk:Sauropsida#Merging_Parapleurota_into_this_article, suggests merging the clade Parapleurota, which has only been used in a single paper, into Sauropsida (or possibly Diapsid). The other Talk:Diapsid#Remove_Neodiapsida_from_Diapsida, suggests that Neodiapsida should be split out from Diapsida, where it was formerly merged. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Diapsida has been used in some of the papers with the new topology (including Parareptilia and Varanopidae) e.g. https://doi.org/10.1093/zoolinnean/zlae050 (this one also has Captorhinomorpha within Sauropsida as sister group to everyone else). It is probably too early to claim a couple papers have redefined the consensus. Kiwi Rex (talk) 01:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Raphidomonadea § Requested move 31 August 2025

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Raphidomonadea § Requested move 31 August 2025. Jako96 (talk) 17:00, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Synurid § Requested move 31 August 2025

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Synurid § Requested move 31 August 2025. Jako96 (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

The Afrikaans Wikipedia's 60,000 flora picture project.

Hi there! Two years ago I bumped into the South African botanist Emeritus Professor Braam van Wyk. Over a cup of coffee he informed me that his life's work consists of inter alia 60,000 pictures and if he starts loading it onto Commons, will we create articles for them on the Afrikaans Wikipedia? There is only one answer to this: YES!!. He has the Username SAplants and has uploaded 20,000 pictures already resulting in the Afrikaans Wikipedia having more Southern Africa and fynbos articles than the English Wikipedia! I have done the bulk of work on the Afrikaans Wikipedia resulting in me updating Wikidata, working on Commons and Wikispecies. The irony is that I do not have any flora qualifications or experience.

From all of this two issues: I have just finished with the genus Psoralea, there is a lot work to be done on Wikidata e.g species still missing or double creations. Note that the genus Otholobium is now part off Psoralea; Otholobium is now just a synonym.

The second issue: there is lot of work to be done on Wikispecies as well, species still missing as well. Is it possible that we can set up an online meeting with users that are interested in assisting me to resolve all of this as a community? I have dealt a lot with prof. Rafaël Govaerts at KEW Plant of the World as a result of my activities with the pictures. The fact that he is a Flemish speaking Belgium allow us to speak at mother tongue level as Afrikaans and Flemish are every close

I have a vision of a big Flora symposium for us flora users and lovers... Every picture uploaded can be used by potentially 343 Wikipedia's!

Regards Oesjaar (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I am a big fan of South African flora (although have never visited) and would be interested in helping with this. YFB ¿ 22:54, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Microbiology § About Candidatus taxa

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Microbiology § About Candidatus taxa. Jako96 (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Acanthocephala

Someone's previous attempt to have Rotifera as Acanthocephala's parent taxon was dismissed because both still have the same taxonomic rank in popular catalogues. However, just like Kingdom Chromista is present in the same catalogues but absent in Wikipedia taxoboxes, Acanthocephala should be listed as a rotiferan unranked subgroup following the cladistic consensus, e.g. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2015.11.017; https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02338837; https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-08830-5. The unranked status would avoid a conflict with the 'class' rank usually attributed to its four subgroups (unlike the 'subclass' rank given to Acanthocephala in two recent invertebrate textbooks), and I don't think it has been ranked 'subphylum' often in the literature even though this could be an obvious choice. Leaving it unranked isn't even a distinct taxonomic opinion on its own because it simply makes the taxon a "clade" in the taxobox - and it certainly is a clade. Kiwi Rex (talk) 02:08, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with this, ranking Acanthocephala as a clade of Rotifera seems to be 100% accurate. But, I vaguely remember an alternative solution to this; isn't the name "Syndermata" used for the clade containing a "paraphyletic" Rotifera and monophyletic Acanthocephala? — Snoteleks (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
Yes, Syndermata was proposed as a monophyletic Rotifera replacement (e.g. the first reference above), but I think it's a bit like Cetardiodactyla where redefinition of the older name was eventually accepted.
For a revision of the taxonomy templates, we need a taxonomic source. WoRMS would usually be the choice, but it uses phylum Acanthocephala, which I guess is why we still use it. Here is a comparison of the content in the taxonomy templates WoRMS and that used in Giribet & Edgecombe's The Invertebrate Tree of Life (2020).
Taxonomomy Templates WoRMS Invertebrate Tree of Life

  • Phylum Rotifera
    • Class Eurotatoria
      • Subclass Bdelloidea
        • Order Adinetida
        • Order Philodinavida
        • Order Philodinida
      • Subclass Monogononta
        • Superorder Gnesiotrocha
          • Order Collothecaceae
          • Order Flosculariaceae
        • Superorder Pseudotrocha
          • Order Ploima
    • Class Pararotatoria (Seisonidea = junior objective synonym)
      • Order Seisonacea
  • Phylum Acanthocephala
    • Class Archiacanthocephala
      • Order Apororhynchidea
      • Order Gigantorhynchida
      • Order Moniliformida
      • Order Oligacanthorhynchida
    • Class Eoacanthocephala (=Polyacanthocephala)
      • Order Gyracanthocephala
      • Order Neoechinorhynchida
      • Order Polyacanthorhynchida
    • Class Palaeacanthocephala
      • Order Echinorhynchida
      • Order Polymorphida
  • Phylum Rotifers
    • Class Hemirotatoria (= Hemirotifera)
      • Subclass Bdelloidea
      • Subclass Acanthocephala
        • Archiacanthocephala
        • Palaeoacanthocephala
        • Eoacanthocephala
      • Subclass Seisonidea (= Seisonacea)
    • Class Eurotatoria
      • Subclass Monogononta
        • Gnesiotrocha
          • Order Collothecaceae
          • Order Flosculariaceae
        • Pseudotrocha
          • Order Ploima


What should we use?  —  Jts1882 | talk  07:06, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
Giribet & Edgecombe is one of the books I was thinking of when I said "subclass Acanthocephala" would conflict with the rank of its subgroups (Archiacanthocephala, Palaeacanthocephala, Eoacanthocephala - usually considered classes). Perhaps we could have this:

The current classification barely needs to change. The interrelationships between these classes shouldn't require rearranging the ranks. See how Trematoda, Monogenea and Cestoda are still classes in Wikipedia (they are all within class Acentrosomata in Giribet & Edgecombe), which is perfectly fine as long as the other flatworms aren't a single (paraphyletic) class. Kiwi Rex (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I terms of describing the currently understood systematics, that arrangement is not controversial. The problem is that it is not supported by any sources. Acanthocephala is also given undue weight, given its more nested position. Both the WoRMS and ITOL versions have problems.
  • WoRMS still uses phylum for Acanthocephala and this is unacceptable now. It also uses class Pararotatoria for order Seisonacea, when Pararotatoria was defined to describe the sister relationship of Seisonacea with Acanthocephala.
  • The ITOL classification uses Hemirotatoria, which does seem to be supported by studies focusing on rotifers. It doesn't use Pararotatoria, which also seems to be supported by phylogenetic studies. It has the oddity of using class Eurotatoria with subclass Monogononta, when Eurotatoria is the taxon for Monogononta and Bdelloidea.
Hemirotatoria and Pararotatoria were supported by Sielaff et al (2016; the first reference given above) and more recently by Vasilikopoulos et al (2024; doi:10.1007/s10750-023-05451-9). It would be best to find a taxonomic source reflecting this arrangement. Note that the Vasilikopoulos paper has a nice summary of the different hypotheses for the position of Acanthocephala. It also uses Syndermata for the phylum, undermining my earlier comment that this had fallen out of favour.  —  Jts1882 | talk  08:50, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
There may not be a source explicitly recognising 6-7 classes in a single phylum (Syndermata or monophyletic Rotifera), but I believe most taxonomies do recognise 6-7 classes in 2 phyla, though one of these has to be stripped of its status as a 'phylum' (unless the other 3 rotifer groups become distinct phyla, but no one wants this) for the same reason we're ignoring e.g. how WoRMS has "Megaclass Tetrapoda" external to "Parvphylum Osteichthyes" and "Gigaclass Sarcopterygii". The absence of Hemirotatoria, Pararotatoria etc. in a Linnean taxonomy shouldn't be interpreted as a negation of their existence; they could also appear in the taxoboxes as unranked taxa between Rotifera and Acanthocephala if someone creates pages for them - but that doesn't seem necessary. I think we should keep the four acanthocephalan classes for now. It doesn't contradict the phylogeny because the ranks don't mean anything and don't really demand a distinct phylum for Acanthocephala. Perhaps it would be more aesthetically(?) pleasing if Acanthocephala were a single class, but that's irrelevant. Kiwi Rex (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
There is no doubt that the seven classes are widely recognised, especially by sources that have complete checklists. I was hoping to find a source containing the rotifer classes within a higher ranked taxon (e.g. subphylum or superclass), but the people who care about the higher taxonomy have gone the other way (e.g. subclass Acanthocephala), but they don't provide a lower taxonomy (i.e. what happens to the traditional Acanthocephela classes?). So I agree the best solution is to use the traditional classes and have Acanthocephala as unranked or clade. An advantage of this is that we can continue to use WoRMS for the taxonomy below class level. That means we just need to find a suitable source for the Acanthocephala taxonomy template, which will support the parent and if not the rank.  —  Jts1882 | talk  09:26, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I am trying to update the protist classification article but particularly the rhodophyte classification is hard to access. There are two specific books that I'm trying to find online:

  • Kamiya, M. et al. (editors). Syllabus of plant families; Adolf Engler’s Syllabus der Planzenfamilien—Part 2/2—Photoautotrophic eukaryotic algae—Rhodophyta. Borntraeger Science, Stuttgart (2017).
  • Huisman, J.M. (editor). Algae of Australia. Marine benthic algae of north-western Australia. 2. Red Algae. ABRS & CSIRO Publishing (2018).

Are these accessible somewhere for autoconfirmed Wikipedia editors? Or, is there anyone here that has access to those books and can contribute? For those interested, I am updating the page slowly in this test page. — Snoteleks (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I have access to the Algae of Australia set through the State Library Victoria and would be happy to go in and scan it for you when I have the time, though that probably won't be until the beginning of next month. If no one else is able to source it for you before then, just give me a ping around the first day of September and I will request it from the library and organise to go in and scan it. Best of luck! Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 00:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
Thank you, that would be wonderful! I will let you know next month. Meanwhile, I might be able to request the Syllabus of plant families volume from a local college library. I will try my luck with it. — Snoteleks (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
Nope, turned out to be just academic reviews of the book... However I've requested it from libraries worldwide through my university's delivery system, hopefully that works out. — Snoteleks (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
Unfortunately that was also a stump. None of the country's libraries have it, and borrowing it internationally is too expensive. — Snoteleks (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
@Snoteleks, looks like I'll be in the city on Thursday and should have time to pop into the library and take some scans. Do you have any idea roughly what page range you need? Volume 7 appears to be quite the tome at nearly 700 pages - I take it from your original post that you're primarily looking for any sections covering higher classification? Also just want to check if you have email enabled - if so I'll just send it to you as a PDF via email, otherwise, I'm sure we can work something out :) Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:07, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Ethmostigmus, that would be great, and yes I have email enabled! Indeed I want to take a look at the higher classification. Perhaps there's some kind of summary content table where all the rhodophyte families are displayed in ther classification? But also, I would like to know specifically the classification of the Corallinales order. According to WoRMS, this book divides the order into two suborders and several new families, subfamilies, genera, etc. If you could get those pages, that would be wonderful; I would be able to see first hand that WoRMS is reliable in that regard, instead of blindly trusting it. — Snoteleks (talk) 23:26, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
Oh also, if you see any information about incertae sedis genera and the reasons for why they are incertae sedis (for example, Rhodytapium), it would be great to have that too. However, I understand that it's quite a large book, so if that's too difficult, do not mind that. — Snoteleks (talk) 23:33, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
All good - I will try to get as much as I can, and the PDFs should land in your inbox in the next 48 hours or so :) if you find there's anything missing from my scans that you still need just let me know, I am more than happy to go back and scan more for you. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:27, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
Alright, I forgot that I can't send attachments via wikimail but I have your PDF, so if you can just send me an email I'll reply with it. Unfortunately, there wasn't an easy table laying out the higher classification - I basically scanned the table of contents, the index, the section of the introduction explaining the taxonomic arrangement, the references, and then all accounts above genus level (so most species accounts are excluded for brevity). If you find that there are any pages missing that you think you need, just leave a message on my talk and I can arrange to go back for it. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:03, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
For comparison, Handbook of the protists, 2017 edition contains the higher-level taxonomy of red algae on pages 117–118 (but it is actually the taxonomy from 2010); updated phylogram from 2017 is in The New Red Algal Subphylum Proteorhodophytina Comprises the Largest and Most Divergent Plastid Genomes Known. --Petr Karel (talk) 07:36, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I have been using those two sources as the most recent higher classification sources. Unfortunately they do not delve into family-level relationships — Snoteleks (talk) 11:16, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Coelacanth/Actinistia/Coelacanthiformes

Only making this post here as there had been no replies at the talk page there for 3 months

tl;dr i'm planning to move sections over to the extant coelacanth pages. Anthropophoca (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Help with cleaning up Soft Corals classifications

Hi all,

I've recently learned that most, if not all, of the classifications for soft corals on Wikipedia are incorrect due to changes in 2022. It significantly revised the class Octocorallia, rendering the old order Alcyonacea and many of its families obsolete. Currently, a large number of Wikipedia's soft coral articles are still based on the old classification. Manually updating the hundreds of affected taxonomy templates (e.g., Template:Taxonomy/Nephtheidae) is killing me. The definitive source for all these changes is the World Register of Marine Species (WoRMS).

My question is: are there any existing bots, scripts, or semi-automated tools that can help with this process? Specifically, is there a system that can read data from a WoRMS entry (or a similar database) to either create or pre-fill new Template:Taxonomy/... pages? I attemped to create new family and genus pages to match the accepted versions on WoRMS, but it has become apparent that it is simply not possible without some form of automation. Is there a system that I can use to automatically create new templates off of WoRMs?

3602kiva (talk) 02:44, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

The automated taxonomy system is hierarchical, meaning any change to a parent taxon is reflected in all of its children taxa. I'm not sure why we would pursue automating further a process that is already as automated as possible. And I don't think introducing a script that mimics a non-peer-reviewed database (especially one that, depending on the group of organisms, can be very outdated) is a good decision for Wikipedia. Reminds me of those articles produced en masse by an AlgaeBase bot; they were all deleted eventually due to their poor encyclopedic quality. — Snoteleks (talk) 02:56, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
@Snoteleks Sorry, I think I was not clear in my request. I'm not looking for a bot or anything of the sort. I'm just trying to see if there's a faster way of updating the taxonomy system semi-automatically, as a lot of the corals as the moment are linked to a taxon that is now obsolete.
3602kiva (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
Anything semi-automatic would still necessitate loading some external database and making semi-automatic changes based on that, which isn't good. Your suggestion of reading WoRMS above isn't feasible, because we shouldn't rely on one database to source all our taxonomy, in an ideal world at least. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 04:31, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
Also WoRMS, like CoL, is hit and miss. It is only as good as its source databases. The mollusc and crustacean databases tend to be well curated and updated. The World List of Octocorallia look like it is in the same category, as it is based on a recent peer-reviewed source (although its not independent). Care should be taken, as even when the source database is reliable WoRMS doesn't always use a recent version (e.g. FishBase).  —  Jts1882 | talk  11:18, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
@3602kiva From what you're explaining, I understand that there are a lot of corals (species) that link to a parent taxon (Alcyonacea) that is now obsolete. If that is the issue, what impediment is there to simply manually update the children taxonomy templates manually and adding references? What quantity of taxa are we talking about? Also, could you please provide a link to this new 2022 classification? — Snoteleks (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
@Snoteleks The issue is a bit deeper than just the order-level changes, as the 2022 revision also reclassified many family and genus names. I think it's around 3,000 species, but some aren't on Wikipedia of course.
I'm certainly willing to implement the changes manually; I was simply curious if there was a way to expedite the process. I apologize for my inexperience!
And yes, I am primarily referring to the World List of Octocorallia. That happens to be on WoRMS, which I thought might be more recognizable.
The paper itself is https://doi.org/10.18061/bssb.v1i3.8735.
3602kiva (talk) 04:51, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
There isn't any tool that can help make the edits, but I have a script that allows you to review the taxoxonomy template hierarchy in an interactive treeview. Add importScript('User:Jts1882/taxonomybrowser.js'); to your commons.js file and the option will appear as "Taxonomy browser" in the tools menu. You can then see which taxonomy templates need changing. Unfortunately, there is no way of automating any necessary updates to the articles so the articles and taxoboxes are consistemt.  —  Jts1882 | talk  09:58, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
I've gone through the taxonomy templates for family and higher and I think all families are assigned to the correct new orders. The old suborder templates are only used by the suborder articles. I have tried to make the appropriate taxonomic changes in the family articles where I changed the taxomomy templates, updating many of the genus lists. I haven't checked articles for families where the taxonomy templates had already been updated. I've gone down to the genus and species articles in a few cases, but that is a much larger job to do thoroughly.  —  Jts1882 | talk  13:23, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Request for consensus on "Species described in (year)" categorization

How should we deal with synonyms and new combinations when categorizing them? Example: the species Apoikia lindahlii (2010) is a new combination from the basionym Monas lindahlii (1956). As I understand it, the purpose of "species described by year" categories can either be:

  1. To categorize new species, in which case the article Apoikia lindahlii would belong in Category:Protists described in 1956 and the redirect Monas lindahlii would not be categorized.
  2. To categorize new names, in which case the article Apoikia lindahlii would belong in Category:Protists described in 2010 and the redirect Monas lindahlii would belong in Category:Protists described in 1956.

Since I haven't seen consensus on which of these options we are following as a WikiProject, I thought I should ask. Personally, I veer towards the 1st option, as it serves a statistical purpose for seeing how many species are described each year. — Snoteleks (talk) 18:09, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

If you work your way up the category hierarchy, you get to Category:Species by year of formal description, which to me makes it clear that the 1st option is correct. For plants, there's guidance at WP:WikiProject Plants/Description in year categories which includes examples, clearly supporting the 1st option. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
Perfect, thanks! That means I have been doing it incorrectly for a lot of taxa, so I will have to fix them — Snoteleks (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead And I assume the Category:Taxa by author is meant for the 2nd option, right? — Snoteleks (talk) 22:31, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
@Snoteleks well, for plants I can only say that my experience is that it's the first namer, so if the authority is "(X) Y" the article goes at "Category:Taxa named by X". For examples, look at Banksia armata or Chordifex dimorphus.
This would be even more clearly the case, I would expect, for ICZN taxa, because in the ICZN the name is firmly attached to the original author - a recombination or change of rank isn't recognized in the authority at all. Panthera leo (Linnaeus, 1758) isn't a new name, it's just a new combination. The specific name is leo whose author is forever Linnaeus, regardless of whether the combination is Felis leo or Panthera leo. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead Understood, thanks for your input — Snoteleks (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
Where this is ambiguous is taxa that have had a replacement name assigned. Technically, species X might have been described in 1885, but given a new name in 1985 when it was recognized as a junior homonym, and given that the category uses the term "described" I would advocate sticking with the original year of description. Giving a taxon a new name does not involve a new description of that taxon. That said, a new replacement name is not the same as a junior synonym that is used as a replacement name when the homonym becomes invalid. That name does have an independent description, so that very specific situation (a junior synonym replacing a homonym) is the one that might be contentious. Dyanega (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
Seems like we are all in agreement so far that option 1 is preferable when categorising by year of description, per the name of the category. I do see value in categorising synonym redirects, especially for heterotypic synonyms, but for the article representing the accepted taxon I think we should reflect the earliest description of the taxon rather than any of its names.
I have always found the Category:Taxa by author categories somewhat problematic for using the term "named" instead of "described" and would like to see these changed, as I think the current naming convention is somewhat out of touch with the way these categories are actually used (that is, the way Peter coxhead describes). Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 02:40, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
@Ethmostigmus: I agree that "named" isn't a good term, one reason being that what counts as a name varies among the nomenclature codes (as noted above, in the ICZN, leo in Panthera leo is the specific name, whereas in the ICNafp, armata in Banksia armata is not a name, but the specific epithet). Using "described" would be better, provided it is clear that it means "first described". Peter coxhead (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Americatheria up for deletion

The clade Americatheria is up for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Americatheria. Please participate if interested, thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Taxonomy/Amorphea § Podiata ref

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Taxonomy/Amorphea § Podiata ref. Jako96 (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Correct spelling of Bubalus wansjocki/wansijocki

I'm not sure what the correct spelling is for an extinct Chinese buffalo species. Wikipedia and PaleoBioDB use Bubalus wansijocki, while most of the scientific literature seems to use the spelling Bubalus wansjocki [2] [3]. The original publication where the species was named M. Boule, H. Breuil, E. Licent, P. Teilhard de Chardin "Le Paleolithique de la Chine" Masson et cie, Editeurs, Paris (1928) is obscure and hard to get hold of. Would anyone be able to resolve this question? Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Pseudofungi § Change to Oomycota? (That page exists already but as a redirect)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pseudofungi § Change to Oomycota? (That page exists already but as a redirect). Jako96 (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Any objection to

... me starting a category:Fungal taxa named by Carl Linnaeus? It would be a subcat of category:Botanical taxa named by Carl Linnaeus. It's of personal interest to me, because I'd like a listing of the Wikipedia articles about fungi described by Linnaeus, and I can't think of any other way of obtaining this than going through the above cat and finding them myself; and if I'm going to do this anyways, I might as well make these search results available for all. No, I don't plan to do this for any other authorities, but obviously Linnaeus is a special case. For background, I'm working on an article List of lichen taxa named by Carl Linnaeus (recommendations for a less bulky title gratefully accepted), which will have about 80 species; I'd like to know what the numbers are for a similar potential list for fungi. Esculenta (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

You could use PetScan to produce the intersection as here. William Avery (talk) 16:13, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks! I will use that. Esculenta (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
May I suggest List of lichens named by Linnaeus? Or is that overly simplified? — Snoteleks (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Well, there's Carl Linnaeus the Younger, but I like the "lichen taxa"->"lichens" shortening. Esculenta (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
 Done I found out from another source that Linnaeus only described about 150 fungi in total (back in the day, fungi were relegated to the "Cryptogamia" along with ferns, mosses, and algae, since they lacked visible flowers), so we're not terribly far off from a "complete" representation of his fungal work. Esculenta (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Microbiology § Should this article be moved (or renamed) for consistency

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Microbiology § Should this article be moved (or renamed) for consistency. CheckNineEight (talk) 02:03, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Genus, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 6 October 2025 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Requested move at Template talk:Taxonomy/Methylomirabilacaea § Requested move 10 October 2025

An editor has requested that Template:Taxonomy/Methylomirabilacaea be moved to Template:Taxonomy/Methylomirabilia, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. CheckNineEight (talk) 04:56, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parathrausta

If some people would like to stick their heads into the above deletion discussion, that might be productive. I frankly don't know enough about the intersection of "quality of publication venue" with "valid taxon status" to come to a definite assessment here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:24, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Move Tasmaniolimulus patersoni to Tasmaniolimulus

Another editor said that monotypic fossil species should be moved to the genus. If this is correct, could someone move Tasmaniolimulus patersoni to Tasmaniolimulus? Лисан аль-Гаиб (talk) 09:22, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Phaeothamniophycidae § Requested move 18 October 2025

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Phaeothamniophycidae § Requested move 18 October 2025. Jako96 (talk) 10:05, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Protista § Raphidomonads

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Protista § Raphidomonads. Jako96 (talk) 12:36, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Bigyromonada § Requested move 20 October 2025

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Bigyromonada § Requested move 20 October 2025. Jako96 (talk) 19:28, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/Archive_68&oldid=1326892985"