Talk:Viviparous lizard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biota of Great Britain and Ireland (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biota of Great Britain and Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the biota of Great Britain and Ireland 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

I think that this article should be renamed to viviparous lizard, because it is more descriptive name; also common lizard isn't common everywhere.

I did a Google test, and looked also for examples I considered important.

  • "viviparous lizard" +"lacerta vivipara" produced 605 hits.
  • "common lizard" +"lacerta vivipara" produced 832 hits.

Rather even, I would say. I don't know how much the Wikipedia article influenced the result. The article doesn't even mention the name "viviparous lizard".

I didn't want to search without the scientific name, because common lizard could be a different species around the world or used in the text like "X is a common lizard in Barbados." All the English reptile books that I've read use the name viviparous lizard, but I live outside English-speaking countries, so I'm not sure, if I can generalize it. -Hapsiainen 17:40, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

I would also recommend to use the name Viviparous Lizard to avoid confusion. Moreover, the new scientific name is Zootoca vivipara ! -- Fice, June 4, 2005
Interesting. Do you know which authors have proposed the new name? It is Zootoca in some of the databases linked above. -Hapsiainen 18:39, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Well, as far as I know, the name Zootoca was first mentioned already in 1830 (by WAGLER). But the original name Lacerta vivipara stayed dominant in use – until to our days. In 1996, MAYER & BISCHOFF classified some species of Lacerta newly and postulated to separate the Viviparous Lizard. They reactivated the name Zootoca. The fact that only one species belongs to this genus (with just two subspecies) has surely not promoted the acceptance of the new name Zootoca vivipara JACQUIN, 1787. -- Fice, June 4, 2005
I saw some related pages: [1], [2]. When you see just a list of some authors' opinions from different decades and centuries, it is hard to decide what is the most descriptive classification. If you think that Zootoca is the best, then change the text. I am no-one to change it back. But you you should provide even a vague explanation why the classification was changed. Otherwise someone else might change the page back.... Oh, and Wikipedia needs then a Zootoca article, too. -Hapsiainen 22:41, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Hello Hapsiainen, obviously there is – like so often – controversy among the scientists about a taxonomical question. Here it is how to treat Zootoca – as a genus or as a subgenus. Unfortunately the original essay of Mayer & Bischoff (1996)* is not available to me at the moment – probably it concerns a molecular-biological/genetic investigation. At least I know that Wolfgang Bischoff is a “famous” reptile specialist of international rank. So I am willing “to believe” him and his colleague and to accept Zootoca as the new genus name (perhaps with a note on the alternative name Lacerta). As I saw in your links, in the meantime already four subspecies are differentiated. – Greetings, Fice, June 5, 2005
  • [”Beitraege zur taxonomischen Revision der Gattung Lacerta (Reptilia: Lacertidae). Teil 1: Zootoca, Omanosaura, Timon und Teira als eigenstaendige Gattungen” / "Contribution to a taxonomical revision of the genus Lacerta. Part 1: Zootoca, ... as independent genera" / – Salamandra 32 (3): 163-170.]