Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life

WikiProject Tree of Life

Main pageTalkArticle templateTaxonomic resourcesTaxoboxesParticipantsArticle requests

Dinosaurian clades outside bird taxoboxes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dinosaurian clades in ALL bird taxoboxes?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can we try and achieve a consensus?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strawpoll

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Avialae

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Theropoda

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Dinosauria

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Archosauria

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Sauropsida

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is an idea. Why not just have class Tetrapoda, subclass Sauropsida, unranked clade Dinosauria and family Avidae (aves)?

Botanical Taxa by Author

In another thread on the WP:Plants talk page, a recurring discussion has arisen, about how to properly use the "Taxa named by" categories (Category:Taxa by author).

Some previous discussions for background:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals/Archive_11#"Taxa named by" categories? (category first proposed)
• Talk:Sambucus_australasica#Category:Taxa_named_by_John_Lindley
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants/Archive73#Category:Taxa_by_author
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/Archive_47#Taxa_by_author_subcategories
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/Archive_53#Category:Taxa_by_author_subcategories
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/Archive_45#Category:Taxa_by...

User:Jts1882 suggested renaming the category to Category:Taxa described by xxx or Category:Taxa described and named by xxx as a possible solution. I can see some advantages to this:

• Accurate representation: Using "described by" accurately represents the work of early naturalists and botanists who not only named but also described and documented many species.
• Comprehensive: The term "described" encompasses the entire process of identifying, naming, and describing a species, making it more comprehensive than just "named."
• Clarity: "Described by" may be clearer to non-experts, as it directly signifies the person(s) responsible for documenting the species, avoiding confusion with the formal naming process.

To this end, here might be some explanatory text that could be on the category page.

"Category:Botanical Taxa by Author

This category is dedicated to organizing botanical taxa (species or other taxonomic ranks) based on the individuals who originally described them. In accordance with established botanical taxonomy practices, this category emphasizes the taxonomic authors who provided the initial descriptions and scientific names for various plant species and related taxa. The "described by" approach to categorization is used in this context. This means that taxa are categorized based on the botanists (including algologists, byrologists, lichenologists, mycologists, phycologists, and pteridologists) or researchers who authored the original taxonomic descriptions, including the publication of species names and associated descriptions. This approach aligns with the principles of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICNafp), which governs botanical nomenclature.

Authors are included in this categorization, even if their original publications were later considered invalid according to taxonomic standards (often indicated by the use of the term ex. in the author citation). The focus remains on the individuals who initially delineated and named the taxa, as per the ICNafp guidelines. This category does not encompass subsequent taxonomic revisions, reclassifications, or other contributions linked to plant taxonomy, which may be addressed through alternative categorization methods. For higher taxa, like genera, families, or orders, subsequent taxonomic revisions may have significantly altered the circumscription of these groups. Nevertheless, this category primarily acknowledges the historical contributions of those who initially introduced the taxon name and described its content, even if the circumscription has evolved over time.

Replacement names are introduced when a previously published name is deemed invalid or unavailable according to the ICNafp. In such cases, categorize the taxon based on the validly published name recognized in contemporary taxonomy, following ICNafp principles. The emphasis should be on the valid name acknowledged for nomenclatural purposes, rather than on the original author of the replaced name. Please avoid including the original author of the replaced name in the category for the replacement name. Instead, prioritize categorizing the replacement name based on its validly published authorship to ensure alignment with current taxonomic conventions. For instance, consider Persicaria maculosa, which was introduced by Gray as a replacement name for Polygonum persicaria, originally described and named by Linnaeus. In this example, the category should be assigned under Gray, not Linnaeus."

For taxa described in accordance with other codes or nomenclatural systems, such as the ICZN for animals or specific codes for viruses, separate categorization practices may be needed, but I don't know much about these.

Comments? Esculenta (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

• Seems reasonable to me; someone who came along 200 years later and based on some genetic cladistics ended up renaming something probably shouldn't get a lot of categorization credit versus the actual describer(s) of the species.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
• The suggested note on the Category page is a good idea. Changing the category to Category:Taxa described and named by xxx or Category:Taxa originally described and named by xxx might also clarify. Gderrin (talk) 23:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
• I agree that the clarification is desirable. I'm not sure that the category page is the right place for it. Category:Botanical taxa by author is a container category, so is unlikely to be looked at by someone categorizing an article. It can only be used for authors who have exclusively named taxa under the 'botanical' code, but there are biologists who have named both plants and animals. If there's to be a category Category:Botanical taxa by author, then lowest level should be "Botanical taxa [named by/described by/whatever] AUTHOR". Achieving this would involve a lot of work. Category:Taxa named by Carl Linnaeus‎ is a subcategory of Category:Botanical taxa by author, but it includes many animals (and has weird subcategories).

The whole system is a mess at present for botanical taxon names with an original and a transferring author, with inconsistent use of one or both of them in categories.

Don't forget the issue of replacement names. In these cases the original describer/namer isn't cited. Persicaria maculosa Gray was originally described and named by Linnaeus (as Polygonum persicaria). How should the author category be used? Currently the article is categorized as Category:Taxa named by Samuel Frederick Gray, but if this were changed to "[originally] described and named by" it should be only be Category:Taxa named by Carl Linnaeus‎.

Peter coxhead (talk) 06:43, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Why don't we just have the redirect page called ''Polygonum persicaria'' belong to the Linnaeus category? —Snoteleks (Talk) 09:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

• I agree that replacement names is another issue to solve. I guess the category "Botanical Taxa by Author" can serve dual purposes: historical recognition of contributors and contemporary taxonomic reference. The inclusion or exclusion of authors depends on whether the focus is on historical contributions (wherein the original author is included) or on validly published names (wherein the replacement name takes precedence). If we can agree on what the purpose of the category is, we can provide appropriate explanatory text on the category page. Re: "Achieving this would involve a lot of work"; I agree, but completing Wikipedia is a lot of work, and we're still here :) I'm happy to go through each fungus article and correct it to whatever scheme we agree on here. I'm on board with the idea of renaming the categories to Category:Botanical taxa described by Whoever, if it gets us on the road to permanently fixing this perennial issue. Esculenta (talk) 16:24, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

A possibility is to separate the "described by" and "named by" properties. So Persicaria maculosa would in Botanical taxa described by Carl Linnaeus and Botanical taxa named by Samuel Frederick Gray, while Malva sylvestris would be in both Botanical taxa described by Carl Linnaeus and Botanical taxa named by Carl Linnaeus. Would that be an excessive amount of work, or "just" (apart from the issue of replacement names) a matter of tweaking the automatic taxobox code? Lavateraguy (talk) 11:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

One of the things I like about changing the category name to put emphasis on "describing" rather than "naming" is that in the vast majority of cases, the describing and naming is done by the same person/people, so it'll help reduce future categorization confusion. I've boldly added a paragraph in the proposed introductory text dealing with replacement names (using Peter's example to help explain); I think it aligns with current practice (reducing future recategorization load)) and has a logical taxonomic rationale. If people agree that this is acceptable, then we'd just have to get a bot run to change the Category:Botanical taxa by author daughter category names. Esculenta (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

• I think the categories along the lines Category:Taxa described and named by xxx make things clearer for species, but what about higher taxa? Someone proposes a taxon name and describes its content, but later authors can change the circumscription, sometimes substantially. The description becomes quite different from that originally circumscribed. It might be better to keep Category:Taxa named by xxx categories and make the new ones for species, assuming it be acceptable for Category:Species described and named by xxx to be a subcategory of Category:Taxa named by xxx? —  Jts1882 | talk  06:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jts1882: changed circumscriptions don't only apply to higher taxa. Many earlier described species have now been split up or combined, and the current circumscription is different to that of the original author(s). Speaking very strictly, the "description" of a species is really only always applicable to the type of the species. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

• Splitting up the categories is one approach. Another approach (maybe less complicated?) to address this issue is to consider categorizing higher taxa based on the original author(s) who proposed the name and provided the initial description, even if subsequent taxonomic revisions have significantly altered the circumscription. This way, the focus remains on acknowledging the historical contributions of those who originally introduced the taxon name and described its content. This is consistent with our current method (again, meaning fewer recats down the road). I've added a bit more to the introductory text to explain this. Esculenta (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The advice being developed here conflicts with that at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Description in year categories with regards to "ex" authorship and replacement names. I do appreciate the attempt to develop some guidelines on how to apply the categories, since that was dismissed as "nitty gritty" when these categories were first proposed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals/Archive_11#"Taxa named by" categories?.

I know editors have spent a lot of time creating and populating these categories, but I question whether they are really appropriate. Author (and year of description) are arguably WP:DEFINING characteristics of a name, but not of a taxon. Wikipedia articles are about taxa (if author/year categorization goes with replaced names (as current guidance for plant year categories advocates), rather than replacement names (as this proposal advocates, than I suppose we are trying to track a characteristic of a taxon rather than a name). What purpose do the categories serve? In application, they are too mixed up to be useful to taxonomists. Some of them may be moderately interesting to readers. But overall, it seems to me that author/year categories are mostly a waste of time with little benefit. Plantdrew (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

When I read an article about a taxonomist, I like to see a list of what taxa they have published that have articles on Wikipedia. I think some other readers have a similar interest. I waste a lot of time on Wikipedia (with little benefit!), and am willing to waste more to standardize this categorization. Happy to change the proposed "ex." classification instructions to align with "Description in year categories" if that helps. Do you foresee any other problems with this proposal, Plantdrew? Esculenta (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't foresee any more problems than we already have. Editors don't read the guidance on year categories for plants and may use year categories for subsequent combinations. Plantdrew (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, the actual use of the year categories quite often departs from that intended, but I think the categories we are discussing here are currently more confused.

Sadly, Wikidata adds massively to the confusion between taxa and taxon names. First describing a taxon scientifically involves giving it a taxon name, but as replacement names and changed combinations make clear, taxa and taxon names are not the same thing.

@Esculenta: I like to see a list of what taxa they have published that have articles on Wikipedia – yes, but the issue is what you mean by published. The combination author(s) and the ex authors have all published taxon names in some sense of the word published. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Semantically, I guess I should have written "described" instead of "published". Personally, I don't care much if a taxonomist described a species under a name that turned out to be nomenclaturally invalid and later had to be renamed; I think the original describer should get some credit for the work ("credit" in this case is being listed in a category on Wikipedia...). I do understand, however, the desire to align these categories with the "year described in" categories. Would the "Described by" categorization work if we essentially copied the instructions from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Description in year categories? Still an issue with replacement names though, as there's a conflict over "describer" and "publisher of valid name"; this categorization suggests that the "describer" should be credited rather than the "valid namer". Still, would this be a major problem if the "described by" and "Described in year" cats don't align in the <5% of cases to which these exceptions will apply? Esculenta (talk) 16:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The early arachnologist Chrysanthus [Janssen]

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Talk:Chrysanthus Janssen#Requested move 24 September 2023 – ToL regulars are apt to care about how names of early taxonomic authorities are handled.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Onychophora higher classification

Can we revisit the higher classification currently used in the Onychophora taxobox and navbox? Currently, according to Wikipedia, the phylum supposedly has a single class Udeonychophora, with two orders Euonychophora and Ontonychophora. There are a number of problems with this system, however...

• This higher classification, as well as the names Udeonychophora and Ontonychophora, comes from a single source: Poinar (2000). This is actually the primary source for the classification, not a secondary one.
• Poinar's (2000) classification of Onychophora actually included two classes, Xenusia and Udeonychophora, with Onychophora itself treated as a subphylum of Lobopodia (along with Tardigrada). Xenusia is not included under Onychophora on Wikipedia as of writing, which makes me question if there is a point in using class Udeonychophora at all.
• According to Grimaldi et al. (2002), the original descriptions of Tertiapatus and Succinipatopsis are flawed, as their absence of claws could be an artifact of preservation. They therefore also synonymized Ontonychophora and Udeonychophora (?!?) with Euonychophora. (I think they were confused, Udeonychophora isn't an order for Palaeozoic forms???) The net result following their article is that the phylum now has only one order Euonychophora, with possibly no classes (?). (But they apparently consider Xenusia to be a stem group of Onychophora)
• After Poinar (2000) and Grimaldi et al. (2002), neither of "Udeonychophora" and "Ontonychophora" at least appear to be discussed much in scientific articles ever again, let alone be generally accepted as a class/order name in Onychophora. (Though Google Scholar gives 25 results for "Udeonychophora", none besides Poinar (2000) and Grimaldi et al. (2002) discuss Onychophora taxonomy in any depth. Even more strikingly, "Ontonychophora" has only 2 results in Google Scholar, which are those same two articles again.)
• More recently, the 2012 world checklist lists the fossil genera Cretoperipatus, Tertiapatus and Succinipatopsis as having uncertain relationships to extant taxa citing Grimaldi et al. (2002), suggesting no further research on them since then. No classes or orders are used here.
• The website version is little different, except Helenodora is also listed as a fossil. No classes or orders are used here either.
• The Onychophora classification from the "An Outline of Higher-level Classification and Survey of Taxonomic Richness (Addenda 2013)" Zootaxa volume gives just two extant families and three fossil families (Tertiapatidae, Succinipatopsidae and Helenodoridae) under Onychophora, again with no classes or orders.

All this suggests to me so far is that currently the consensus is that there is not really an accepted higher classification for Onychophora, just two extant families and some fossil genera of uncertain placement (sometimes placed into their own families). Does this sound right to everyone else? Did I miss something? Monster Iestyn (talk) 23:13, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I've fixed the article taxobox so the parent is Onychophora, without reference to Udeonychophora. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: Thanks, but that's just the tip of the iceberg: it's not just Udeonychophora that needed to go, but also Euonychophora and Ontonychophora if I'm right. Monster Iestyn (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The change to five families (2 extant) seems appropriate. CoL uses ITIS and both just have the two extant families (with no order). ITIS lists Udeonycophora, Euonycophora, Udeonychophora, and Euonychophora as synonyms of Onychophora. The ITIS record was updated in 2022 and cites Oliveira et al. (2012) and more recent secondary sources, e.g. Giribet and Edgecombe's (2020) Invertebrate Tree of Life, which says the two extant family division is supported by molecular data (citing Oliveira et al. 2013). The Ruggiero et al (2015) classification uses class Udeonycophora and order Euonycophora (although not adopted by CoL). —  Jts1882 | talk  07:45, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to @Ypna:, as main editor on the Navbox. Is there a recent source for the higher taxa that we should consider in this discussion? —  Jts1882 | talk  07:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I created the navbox and contributed most of its content. Udeonychophora, Euonychophora, and Ontonychophora were all already mentioned when I first started editing Wikipedia's coverage of Onychophora, and I followed this system without critically evaluating whether any literature subsequent to Poinar (2000) and Grimaldi et al. (2002) supported it. I'm surprised to realise Oliveira et al.'s (2012) comprehensive checklist of the phylum actually doesn't mention these higher taxa, implying they did not consider them credible enough to mention. Therefore, I suggest reducing the emphasis given to the superfamilial taxonomy, leaving just a sentence or two on the history of taxonomic thought, on the main Onychophora article. Ypna (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay then, since everyone here (so far) is agreeing that the orders/classes aren't generally used at all, I've now updated the taxonomy templates of all families to link directly to Onychophora, skipping class and order (or superfamily). Euonychophora, Ontonychophora and Tertiapatoidea are now the only articles left using any ranks higher than family in Onychophora, but all of them are stubs that cite only Poinar (2000). IMO, they should all be turned into redirects to Onychophora#Evolution. Monster Iestyn (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I've also updated the navbox as well now. Monster Iestyn (talk) 23:37, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Monster Iestyn. I appreciate you identifying and resolving this issue. I think Wikipedia should be internally consistent, so the three remaining articles should be turned into redirects as you say, and the content integrated into Onychophora#Evolution. I think you have the best understanding of the taxonomic situation (I've always been more interested in the extant members), so if you could fix this last bit, that would be great. Ypna (talk) 06:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ypna: They have now been turned into redirects, though I'm not entirely sure how I should integrate their contents exactly (I just understood the classes/orders were already mentioned there). Also, I'm wondering what to do about the categories Category:Onychophoran orders and Category:Onychophoran superfamilies (both of which you created as it happens). There are currently no other ordinal/superfamilial names for Onychophora besides the ones already given in these categories, so they seem like possible instances of WP:OVERCAT. Unless I'm mistaken and it's still useful to have these? Monster Iestyn (talk) 10:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Great. After checking, I realise there's only one bit of information to salvage from the redirects, and that's to mention the proposed superfamily Tertiapatoidea. I just did that. Oops, yes, I've over-categorised. What's the process for deleting a category? Just blank the page and delete the category links from the bottom of the articles? Ypna (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ypna Thanks! I think you're supposed to go through Wikipedia:Categories for discussion for deleting categories. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ypna: If it's a category you just now created as a mistake and it's never been used by anyone else, then yes empty it and mark it for speedy deletion, e.g. with {{db-g6}}, and a sensible admin will probably delete it without you having to go through the week-long "speedy" deletion process at WP:CSD.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

They've never been used by anyone else, but I didn't create them just now, I created them a few months ago. Also, I've already submitted a CfD proposal here. Ypna (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Proposed fungal taxonomic move without a source, but could actually be correct(?)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Talk:Amanita muscaria var. guessowii#Requested move 25 September 2023.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Project Page look

I am trying to update it to look like WP:VIRUS, but its difficult :)

Webclo^udd@their-talk-page 04:01, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Using large tables doesn't use the space efficiently. There is a lot of blank space on the right and the content gets squeezed. The "left panel" subpage should be split and then more of the content could be displayed as full width. Have you considered the tabbed approach as used by Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants? —  Jts1882 | talk  06:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I know, I am trying to think of ways to move stuff to the right panel.

I have considered the tabbed approach as used by WP:Plants, but as WP:Viruses doesn't use it, and as i do not know how to use it, i am not doing

If you could add tabs at the start, we could have a hybrid system of the two [[WP:]]s, as this is the top page of those two as well :)

Webclo^udd@their-talk-page 13:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I've created a tabbed banner, modelled after the plant project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Tab header

• I've removed the taxonomic resources from the left panel and created a subpage, which I use for one of the tabs. It's also included full width on the main page for now.
• I've added a Article Template tab, which needs a subpage. The article title,article taxon template and taxobox sections of the main page could be moved here
• The plant project has tabs for Botanist template, New articles, Requests and Index. We could add some of these or new ones. Perhaps, participants.#
• I left the image used by the plant project. We should select something more appropriate for the broader project.

—  Jts1882 | talk  17:01, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

are there to do list and requests pages?

If so, which ones are they?

If not, please let me, i will create them Webclo^udd@their-talk-page 17:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

The Article Alerts section is now really far down, is should be closer to the top please. SilverTiger12 (talk) 13:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

now there is a Content: Sections §, where #9 is the article alerts, is this good?

todo is also moving Taxonomic articles by quality log and Article alerts together while making separate page for To-do

_>>> Webclo^udd@their-talk-page 03:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Assembled in GIMP, derivative of this file (with some noise reduction); text in FreeSerif.

On this note, I've created a draft logo for the project, something I've long wanted to do. You can see it to the right. @Jts1882 and Webclouddat:, what do you think? Cheers, Edward-Woodrow • talk 22:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

BEAUTIFUL TREE! Webclo^udd@their-talk-page 03:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't draw it myself. But yes. Edward-Woodrow • talk 12:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, it's a nice tree, which reminds me of one in the new recently (a famous tree near Hadrians wall that someone cut down). I've added it to the project status at the main page. —  Jts1882 | talk  12:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Something extra:

could the Taxon article templates and Taxoboxes Guide sections be merged

or be merged with the other articles in the main pages or see also templates

and could those also be merged into one or two pages (excluding separate large pages like Cultivar info)

Could Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Taxon template also be merged into Wikipedia:Automated taxobox system

Webclo^udd@their-talk-page 02:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

When I created the banner, I just added some tabs for subpages that were available. It was never meant to be the final arrangement, so feel free to make changes. The taxobox tab is unnecessary as the automated taxobox system pages are linked from both the main page and the taxon template subpage. It could be replaced with something else. There are several parts of the main page that could be moved to a subpage (e.g. Article alerts). Also Taxonomy Resources and Participants sections on the main page are redundant now they have tabs; they should be removed or replaced with a minimal section providing the link. —  Jts1882 | talk  15:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Authority dates

The clade Perissodactylamorpha was published in a 2019 dated volume of the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, but the paper itself was actually published in 2020 [5]. Is the authority of the publication Rose et al. 2019 or Rose et al. 2020? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

So odd, that's the first time I see the publication date being a year later than the volume date instead of a year earlier. I guess Rose et al. 2020 would be more accurate in reality. Maybe we should showcase it as an exception, since the rule is usually the volume date instead of the publication date? —Snoteleks (Talk) 20:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The botanical and zoological codes want the date a publication was printed and made available for taxonomists to read, but start with the assumption that a date given in the publication itself is correct. If there is evidence that the date given in the publication is incorrect, the codes want the date shown by the evidence.

I was looking into a situation recently with some homonyms in a self-published journal. Printed dates on the cover were 2002, and 1999. Some sleuthing determined that the earliest date any library had the 2002 dated one was in 2008, and the 1999 dated one showed up in libraries in 2012. 2008/2012 are taken to be the actual publication dates. The sleuths were kind in introducing their sleuthery with the assumption that the journal issues had actually been printed in 1999/2002 and had just sat in a box in the publishers house for years (however, printed date still wouldn't matter if the issues had never been distributed and made available to read). Further evidence discussed by the sleuths suggests that the 1999/2002 dates were completely fraudulent (being kind again, the sleuths didn't use the word fraud). Names published by others after 1999/2002 but before 2012/2008 were judged by the sleuths to have priority.

However, the botanical and zoological codes don't care about priority for ranks above family, nor for taxa published as unranked clades. The PhyloCode is intended to govern clades and has similar provisions to the botanical and zoological codes in assuming a volume date is correct but accepting evidence to the contrary. I don't think Perissodactylamorpha has any standing under the PhyloCode (it's not in their registry). So for Perissodactylamorpha I suppose it comes down to a reasonable year to cite for bibliographic purposes (2019 I guess?) rather than a precise year of actual publication with implications for priority under any of the codes. Plantdrew (talk)

The date of publication under the ICZN code which is used to establish date of publication in animals is "Received 12 Nov 2018, Accepted 03 Jan 2020, Published online: 05 Nov 2020" as per the paper. This is the date when the stable unchanging online version becomes available. Prior to that it was likely a pre-print which has no nomenclatural standing as its not stable. Plantdrew is correct the codes do not manage names above Family for the purposes of Priority, but they do manage all publications for the purpose of nomenclature so the date is still handled by the copde. So correct date is November 2020. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 02:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The full article gives a ZooBank ID for the publication here, which could help with the publication date under ICZN code (?). Unfortunately, the corresponding record hasn't been published, so there's nothing we can read from it... Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)