This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Tree of Life This page is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree of life on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tree of LifeWikipedia:WikiProject Tree of LifeTemplate:WikiProject Tree of Lifetaxonomic

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 45 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The redirect Polytypic taxon has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 14 § Polytypic taxon until a consensus is reached. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:12, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I propose a slight modification to the {{Automatic taxobox}} and {{Speciesbox}} templates which introduces a parameter similar in function to '|synonyms=', called '|organ_taxa=' which would be used to list the form taxa that comprise a whole-plant taxon.

For those who don't know, in Palaeobotany: leaves, stems, roots, fruits, etc. all get different names when found disarticulated, but when found in association, either a new name is given to what's called the whole-plant taxon (viz. Ohaniella), or it's named after one of the form taxa (usually the female reproductive organ, viz. Wielandiella; sometimes the first form taxon named, viz. Lepidodendron).

I believe this change will give clarity to the many people confused about how Palaeobotany uses form taxa and will create a more intuative separation between form taxa and whole-plant taxa, the extra parameter will also make creating taxoboxes about plants which utilise this method of taxonomy easier.Sauriazoicillus (talk) 20:06, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone has tips for getting access to oldish papers published in obscure journals, I'd heartily appreciate it. I'm looking for:

Fleming, C.A. & Ordish, R.G. 1966: Type specimens of G.V. Hudson's taxa of New Zealand cicadas (Genus Melampsalta: Hemiptera Homoptera). Records of the Dominion Museum, 5(20): 195–200.

It used to be on BUGZ, but the link Wikispecies has is link rotted and I can't find any good archives of it. I've searched on the new BUGZ site but they don't have it. It's available here for a cost and HathiTrust has the volume, but I don't have access to it. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 03:13, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:RX might be a better place for this. Chess enjoyer (talk) 03:43, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's link-rotted try (if you haven't already tried) archive.org. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:15, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried every archive service I know of. :/ I'll post this to RX as well. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 15:59, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a book that is central to heliozoan taxonomy, cited by almost every centrohelid-related paper, that, to my knowledge, has never been published or uploaded online:

Кирилл Андреевич Микрюков [Kirill Andreevich Mikrjukov] (2002). Центрохелидные солнечники [Centrohelid heliozoa]. Moscow: KMK Scientific Press Ltd.

There is a google books link but of course it's only a small preview. If anyone knows where I could get my hands on the complete work, I'd really appreciate it. Even moreso if someone within reach could e-mail me scans of it. — Snoteleks (talk) 13:57, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Snoteleks: It's on Anna's Archive ([4]), if you're willing to risk exciting malware. I haven't checked the PDF, but there's also a DJVU version I downloaded that didn't anything horrible to my computer instantly. (In truth, I've never gotten any malware from Anna's Archive that I know of so far. It just seems more than a little dodgy.) Cremastra (talk · contribs) 16:07, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cremastra Thank you so much! I downloaded it without issues — Snoteleks (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Would someone more familiar with the subject be able to look at Partula turgida? As an outsider who has been spending a bit of time with species articles recently, what I gather is that P. turgida and P. clarkei were messed up historically. That is, people thought they had P. turgica, but they really had P. clarkei, both of which are now extinct. As such, a lot of the information we have about P. turgica is incorrect. 0x16w thus moved the P. turgida article to P. clarkei, then seems to have copied the information back over to P. turgida for review as some of the information may be accurate. (0x16w, correct me if I'm wrong on your rationale) This should be reviewed fairly quickly, though, to aid with confusion. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In August last year, the article Sepiida was renamed to Sepiina based on WoRMS and citing WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA. On the face of it, I can see how this makes sense because WoRMS lists Sepiina as the one and only suborder of Sepiida in its taxonomy presently. However, I believe this should actually be reverted, because I think WoRMS is in error continuing to give Sepiina as a valid suborder now that the former Sepiolina is its own order Sepiolida, and so I started a discussion at Talk:Sepiina about this. But since I never got a response there, I bring this here instead to get more attention.

Also, happy new year everyone! Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor who (re)created the page, i think we should indeed stick to the "main" taxonomic ranks. Anthropophoca (talk) 02:48, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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