User:Chrisrus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
You are welcome to leave me a message.
  • If you are looking for the list of animal articles, scroll down.
  • If you are looking at this page for some explanation of my actions as a wikipedian, I offer the following:
  • I am a heavy user of Wikipedia. I have it within reach practically 24/7 and surf from article to article, reading. I don’t write much, but when I do, it’s because I’m trying to read the article, not because I’m trying to write it.
  • I like all kinds of articles, but I seek out things that don’t make sense to me. Often, that feeling goes away when I read articles, which is good.
  • Other times, cognitive dissonance remains. Cognitive dissonance is interesting. I like resolving it. I also like crossword puzzles.
  • Sometimes the problem is I have missed something. Fortunately, I know how to get someone on wikipedia to fill me in.
  • Other times, Wikipedia needs clarification for the benefit of the users. My contributions result from me trying to read it, not to write it. I am very proud of my contributions, but I really just want to know for myself.
  • But sometimes the problem lies not with Wikipedia, but with the state of knowledge available to Wikipedia about something. At this point, sometimes I do research and in the process contribute to Wikipedia the missing piece. Or I’ll email experts, trying to get them to contribute.
  • And sometimes experts don’t agree. Sometimes they are at war with each other. Sometimes I stumble onto sore points where experts have their reputations at stake. I’m sorry about that, but I will try to pit one expert against another not because I like blood sport, but I just want to get to the bottom of something that’s being glossed over.
  • Sometimes I learn that no one knows the answer. (If anyone needs an idea for a doctoral thesis in any of the topics I touch on, just ask, I’m full of them.) At this point, Wikipedia just needs to be upfront about it.
  • Sometimes something isn’t knowable for knowable reasons. I try to get wikipedia to address this as squarely as it can.
  • It’s important to remind the authors to address themselves to the probable reader, not to other experts. I am one of those who performs this function. Experts are way to out to dazzle each other sometimes. Give us the gist; organize out what I might want to skip; why does this seem to contradict this other section or this other article. It’s not a job that’s ever going to earn me the undying love of writers in the way that User:LilHelpa earns their love. It’s a dirty job, but someone’s got to do it.
  • I also like sorting stuff. Sometimes I’ll just find something messy and neaten it up. It’s relaxing. I’ve spent countless hours sorting wolves and such.
  • I hope this helps. If you have anything you'd like to say or ask, please leave me a message on the talk page. I promise to try to help you. Chrisrus (talk) 04:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Animal Articles[edit]

The following words refer to existant referents which have no scientific synomym; that is say, English words that do not correspond to any taxon; any Greek or Latin-based Taxonomic word: no catagory such as order, family, genus, or species. Please feel free to edit it or leave me a message about this list and what I do with it. Chrisrus (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Dog Split into two taxa, C.l.dingo and C.l.familiaris
  • Mole If you are a talpid and a mole, you're a True Mole. There are two "moles" that fit the English word, but are as unrelated as mammals can be.
  • Quail Any small roundish ground bird that reminds English-speakers of the British quail.
  • Whale Unless you say a porpoise is a whale, which is true, but English doesn't care.
  • Bullfrog Any bullish frog.
  • Civet Any such basal carnivore.
  • Vulture Evolved twice, but they're really not all that alike.
  • Fish Did you know that there is no taxon that equates to the English word "fish"? Not anymore!
  • Fox New and old world foxes evolved separately.
  • Squirrels English word's referent is rarely inclusive of woodchucks and such. "Squirrel" washes smoothly into "chipmonk" based on the tail.
  • Shrew-mole Neither here nor there.
  • Mistletoe And many other plants evolved more than once.
  • Monkey Defined as what it isn't.
  • Mongoose Many recently moved taxa.
  • Mole-rat Evolved more than once.
  • Mole-shrew Any shrew that has taken to a mole-shrew lifestyle and so evolved.
  • Porcupine Any rodent so evolved. Has happened twice.
  • Anteater Properly refers to the South American anteaters, but applies to any animal that has so evolved, which has happened repeatedly.
  • Ant bear Any large lumbering anteater.
  • Wolf Canis lupis = Wolf + (Dog = Dingo + Dog). Also includes rufus and probably others that are part Canis latrans.
  • Coyote Google "Canis soupus", you'll be glad you did. The Eastern Coyote is a hybrid.
  • Worm Any wormy thing, and some not so wormy things. As simple no-brainer for natural selection, it has evolved again and again. There will be worms on other planets, too.
  • Bacteria What I said about "worm" applies here. As unrelated to each other as any taxa can be.
  • Pig A central referent orbited by progressivly vaguer orbits. Suina is pretty much all pigs, too, now that the hippos have been removed. Some of these basal animals might not be pigs. Evolved twice, unless the common ancestor of the Suids and Tayassuids was also a pig.
  • Jackal Any Canis species or subspecies that doesn't seem big or lupine enough for the word "Wolf"
  • Human, that article defines it as fully modern homo sapeins, but some experts use it for any Homo species, while others insist that the term be restricted to the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens. At the moment both Homo sapiens Homo sapiens sapiens.
  • Tube Worm Collection of taxa dealt with not only with a disambiguation page but also an article called Tube worm (body plan)
  • Skunk This article is not about skunks but rather the wider skunk family of animals, including their closest but still quite distant relatives, the Stink badgers, who, despite being more closely related to skunks, aren't called badgers for no reason. In fact, it took recent DNA research to convince many experts that they weren't badgers and have only been since then been declared a member of the wider skunk family, although they never said they actually were "skunks."
  • Shrew-rat No taxon covers them all. The taxa that do aren't all "Shrew-rats". Chrisrus (talk) 22:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)