Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods

This is a noticeboard for messages to people working on articles relating to snails and slugs.
Shortcut

Paraguraleus - synonymised or not?

After recently updated the article Paraguraleus, and I can't seem to work out if the genus has become a synonym or not. A paper in 2011 by A. G. Beau stated that the genus had become a new synonym of Propebela, but this doesn't appear to have been accepted by WoRMS. The entry on WoRMS has a note "Beu, A. G. (2011)...treated as a synonym of Propebela Iredale, 1918", but with no justification why the genus is still considered accepted. Even stranger, the genus was apparently synonymised back in 1966 with Antiguraleus (which the Beu paper also synonymised with Propebela). --Prosperosity (talk) 03:36, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If WoRMS accepts Paraguraleus as the accepted name, then so do we. As to being a possible synonym of Propebela, I advise you to take up this discussion with WoRMS who may involve the taxonomist Marshall Bruce of the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa. JoJan (talk) 09:05, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've sent an email, but Bruce Marshall stopped working at Te Papa six years ago, so it seems unlikely that he'll get back to the WoRMS staff members. Prosperosity (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)
It does seem to be a recent decision by WoRMS to retain Paraguraleus rather than just an old record not updated. The A checklist of Australian marine Cenozoic Mollusca (Darragh 2024) recognises Paraguraleus and says it follows WoRMS for the higher classication and (laregly) genera. Beu is thanked in the acknowledgements which suggests Darragh has made the decision in full knowledge of the lumping proposal. Molluscs of Tasmania and SealifeBase also retain the genera. The latter places Antiguraleus and Paraguraleus in Turridae, unlike WoRMS which includes all three genera in Mangeliidae. It doesn't seem like Beu's proposal has been widely accepted.  —  Jts1882 | talk  10:05, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like a very odd decision to me - typically I'd expect a decision to retain a genus to be based on a journal article or something similar, but for this genus, the change was made seemingly with no paper trail (or rather, a paper trail showing two sources supporting synonymy).
That Beu's proposal wasn't accepted (except by the Australian Faunal Directory) is surprising as well, since that paper is used as a source for over 100 taxa in WoRMS. Prosperosity (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Synonymy can be proposed for several reasons. It may just be a matter of opinion, that the genera are similar enough to just recognise one genus. Alternatively it might be based on phylogenetic analysis where the genera are not all monophyletic (e.g. one or two nested in another). The Beu paper is just comparing morphology so the proposal seems to fall in the former category, as it is not based on a quantitative phylogenetic analysis. When it's just a matter of opinion on what differences deserve recognising at generic level then others can disagree on the exact same data. I suspect this is the case here.  —  Jts1882 | talk  08:37, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, we don't decide in these matters. No original research in wikipedia. Again I ask you to bring this matter to WoRMS, as I have done many times in the past. They are always very helpful. Bruce Marshall is still working with WoRMS, as he made a contribution even yesterday [1].. Let them decide. JoJan (talk) 08:20, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've gotten a response - Bruce Marshall does not recognise the synonymy of Paraguraleus and Antiguraleus with Propebela or with each other, due to the lack of convincing evidence, so the WoRMS entries are accurate as of this date. --Prosperosity (talk) 20:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cladogram for P. acuta

Hello all,

I have nominated Physella acuta to GA, with the arrangement that the article will also be reviewed with a view to an FA nomination. The reviewer asked about a cladogram.

The systematics of Physidae are still very unclear, with little consensus. This is the most recent phylogeny I could find and I'm inclined to accept it, as its multi-gene approach to the phylogenetic analysis could be more robust than the previous attempts here and here. It is also, as mentioned, the more recent reliable source, which took the two older papers in consideration in the analysis. But I'm not an expert in Gastropoda, I just like bladder snails. I would appreciate some input from you if 1. a cladogram even makes sense when group relationships are still heavily debated and 2. if so, if the source I named is indeed the mosr appropriate.

Thanks 🐌 Barbalalaika (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When there is little consensus, we follow WoRMS. The most recent study you mention treats P. acuta as a global invasive species. It also states that Physella and Physa form a clade, which, however, is not (well) supported and represents the sister to Stenophysa , which together form the subfamily Physinae. North American and European Aplexa, representing the subfamily Aplexinae, form a well-supported but rather distinct clade that is sister to all other Physinae. And so does WoRMS. A cladogram can rely on this data. Furthermorer, WoRMS also gives an extensive list of synonyms, lacking in the article JoJan (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Grand, thank you! Barbalalaika (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about WikiProject banner templates

For WikiProjects that participate in rating articles, the banners for talk pages usually say something like:

There is a proposal to change the default wording on the banners to say "priority" instead of "importance". This could affect the template for your group. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposal to update wording on WikiProject banners. Stefen 𝕋ower Huddle • Handiwerk 19:43, 6 December 2025 (UTC) (on behalf of the WikiProject Council)[reply]

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

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

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Nudibranch § Division into Nudibranchia sensu strictu and Doridida, and the need to update nudibranch taxonomy. Sclerotized (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bythinellidae stubs

Hello all, it seems Template:Bythinellidae-stub is being redirected to Template:Truncatellidae-stub. Any reason for that?

On a tangential note, some Bythinellidae are marked as Amnicolidae stubs (and also described as Amnicolidae in the lead despite the taxobox placing them within Bythinellidae). Examples are Bythinella austriaca and Bythinella bavarica. I assume there's been a recent taxonomic rearrangement? Barbalalaika 🐌 20:03, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I've made the necessary changes. JoJan (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gastropods