This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Gastropods This page is within the scope of WikiProject Gastropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of gastropods 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.GastropodsWikipedia:WikiProject GastropodsTemplate:WikiProject GastropodsGastropods Taxonomy: For all marine species, Project Gastropods uses the taxonomy in the online database WoRMS. When starting a new article, do not use sources of taxonomic information that predate the 2017 revision for all gastropod groups ("Revised Classification, Nomenclator and Typification of Gastropod and Monoplacophoran Families" by Philippe Bouchet & Jean-Pierre Rocroi, Bernhard Hausdorf, Andrzej Kaim, Yasunori Kano, Alexander Nützel, Pavel Parkhaev, Michael Schrödl and Ellen E. Strong in Malacologia, 2017, 61(1–2): 1–526.) (can be dowloaded at Researchgate.net), substituting the previous classification of 2005 Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005). If you need help with any aspect of an article, please leave a note at the Project talk page.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 30 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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

• "This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale."

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]

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]

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]

Pusia vassardi needs to be moved if the accepted name is now Eupusia vassardi as the article has recently been edited to say. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:21, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I tidied up the refs in the article and created the Eupusia template, but since I'm not experienced with taxonomy templates someone should double-check before using it. Barbalalaika 🐌 08:12, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the move. JoJan (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The article Cryoturris albida has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Both Polystira albida and Cryoturris albida are synonym to Pleurotoma albida, they are equal. The former should be kept. (World Register of Marine Species & bagniliggia.it)

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Labratscientist (talk) 09:33, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not all synonyms but rather homonyms. Pleurotoma was used in the 1800s as a massive "catch-all" category for hundreds of different sea snails. George Perry described in 1811 Pleurotoma albida in the family Turridae. This later became a a direct synonym of Polystira albida.

In 1845, Charles Baker Adams described a completely different, much smaller snail also belonging to the family Turridae and also named his new shell Pleurotoma albida. This has now become an invalid junior homonym of Cryoturris albida, but WoRMS still regards it as an unsettled issue and gives it the status "uncertain - unassessed". This is adding to the confusion.

Cryoturris albida is therefore, in my opinion, a distinctly separate, valid species. It is not a synonym of Polystira albida. JoJan (talk) 12:28, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see. My original reasoning was definitely wrong, but I still think it should be removed. Based on my understanding now, the three most accepted database for gastropods should be WoRMS, WMSDB and GBIF. And WoRMS is generally regarded as more reliable. However, someone else should be making these decisions. I am surprised there's not a detailed WP:NSPECIES I can refer to.

• "WoRMS や WMSDBの記載に違和感を覚えた時は、GBIF で最終的な判断を下した。"[When I felt something was inconsistent or strange in the descriptions on WoRMS or WMSDB, I made the final judgment using GBIF.][1] Labratscientist (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]