User talk:Dysmorodrepanis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Important note:[edit]

This editor sometimes leaves annotations for sources, most often in articles on biological taxa. Typically, these articles need expansion and/or copyedit before the information from the source is added.

If you do not understand abbreviations written between <!-- -->, this will probably help you. Here are some journal titles ready to use for your edit. For anything else, ask. Most of these sources are available online.

If you do not understand the rationale behind all this, read and understand this and this, as well as WP:NOTDIR, WP:LINKFARM, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT PAPERS.


From previous Talk page:

"Hello Dysmorodrepanis, would you be interested in updating the Elachista article with new information from a recent publication about Australian representatives of the genus? I am going to make species articles and wanted to update the species list on the genus page, but I dont want to disrupt the nice layout you made."

Yes check.svg DoneHave added the species. Where the Australian groups were entirely new, I preserved the sequence of species. Otherwise, I have re-sorted alphabetically but the original sequence is in the page source code as annotation, so we can use it when we get that info for the other species. I have changed the undescribed spp. to the standard format (for "species group" I have simply used "cf. [type species]") so you can make articles for these too if you want. "cf. [type species]" is not necessarily 100% correct but it's sufficient to show they belong to these sppecies-groups and their actual relations (or rather, how far they are unknoen) can be written on the species page. If we'd introduce "nr." and "undescibed member of species group" besides "cf.", it would be harder to find them in the list. "cf." means "comparable to" without any specific hypothesis on relationships, so it's the loosest term and works always.
There are now two large blocks of spp. which have no images, so if you want, you might try and see if you can dig up some. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't notice your reply yet! Thanks for adding the info to the genus page. The cf should be ok I guess. I just took the "nr" from the original publication. It would be difficult to get images of these species though. They are just discribed, so the only available pictures would be in the original publication and I guess they would be copyrighted, although we could say that would be fair use, since no other images are available anywhere in the world. But I think I wont be trying to upload pics with that argument, because I am guessing it wont be accepted by the copyvio police. :) Ruigeroeland (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


Thank you :) I hope the photos have been useful for you and I hope in the near future to be able to upload more. --IvanTortuga (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


This redirect should not be speedy deleted because speedy deletion should only take place when the limited criteria specified on the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion page are met, and for redirects in particular, the criteria here. This redirect does not meet either of those criteria so should not be speedy deleted. I am not saying that the redirect is correct or that it should not be deleted, just that the correct place for any redirects that need deleting that do not meet the very limited speedy deletion criteria is Wikipedia:Redirects for Discussion. Davewild (talk) 16:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

It is a G6 speedy deletion as per "pages unambiguously created in error": The term does not refer to the page to which it redirects. It was only created by editor error. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey[edit]


New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Dysmorodrepanis! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Help with the Tineidae[edit]

Hello Dysmorodrepanis. I started filling the genus articles for the Tineidae using the Global Taxonomic Database of Tineidae and info found on wikispecies. I've started with the "Genera incertae sedis" and done A to P. I am working my way through the list, but there are quite some, so I would like to ask if you are willing to chip in and cover some of the genera? Any help would be greatly appreceated! Cheers Ruigeroeland (talk) 11:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Asplenium ruta-muraria.JPG[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Asplenium ruta-muraria.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 21:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Photo was created by uploader, not published before. What shall I do? Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Acrimonious Acraea[edit]

Any chance that you can clean up Acraea_(genus) and include whatever the other sources are saying? Shyamal (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

No, this is WP:COI and must be dicussed by some admins. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted to an earlier version given that the 2008 paper does take into account the hypothesis of Pierre, 1987. Shyamal (talk) 03:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! This is really something for the Lepidoptera/Insects project to discuss. Perhaps Dyanega knows what to do, he knows more about these matters than I do. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Clarkeophlebia argentea, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Brachia, Manica and Scape (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

No it is not unintended. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 10:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Perrin's beaked whale images[edit]

Hi. I noticed your hidden message about scanning images of Perrin's beaked whale while editing said page. Four photos also appear in Leatherwood and Reeves' 1982 paper on cetacean identification in the eastern North Pacific (p. 98). There is also this: image. Perhaps the same one you were referring to in Mead (1981)? Wish I had a scanner. SaberToothedWhale (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Hector's beaked whale behavior section[edit]

Hi. Does the following info appear to be leftover from before the split between the Hector's and Perrin's beaked whale articles?

"With only two probably sightings, there is little information on the behavior of this whale. This species may be unusual for a Mesoplodon because, in both sightings, one of the animals seemed inquisitive and actually approached the boat."

It sounds exactly the same as the encounters described for the probable Perrin's beaked whales off Southern California in 1976 and 1978. SaberToothedWhale (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting point. Would need to dig up the original sight record for Hector's (Australia - can't have been Perrin's). I have put it on the Talk page.
BTW I have added 2 Mead and the Messenger sources as fulltext links and also found this. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Atara (genus)[edit]

There is a deletion discussion. As you had contributed to the disambiguation page Atara, you might have an idea. --Pevos (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Yellow-breasted chat[edit]

I am the author of the article about Dolichonyx oryzivorus in the Spanish Wikipedia and I found a paper that said that the bobolink, an icterid, is closely related to the yellow-breasted chat. When I wrote that in the article’s taxonomy section, it aroused some controversy due to the fact that the yellow-breasted chat was originally classified as a parulid. Then I resorted to the article in English about this bird to learn more about its taxonomy and it suggested that its classification as a parulid is obsolete. I saw in the history page of that bird’s article that you’d made several contributions to it and I was wondering if knew anything about its current classification. Have you heard or read anything about its phylogenetic links with Icteridae? If you happen to know any free-access paper available in the internet about this matter, I’d appreciate you let mi know in my talk. Thank you! --Pablo.ea.92 (talk) 10:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Immunology[edit]

I see you have edited some of the pages within the scope of immunology. Please have a look at the proposal for a WikiProject Immunology WP:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Immunology and give your opinion (support or oppose). Thank you for your attention. Kinkreet~♥moshi moshi♥~ 09:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Science lovers wanted![edit]

Science lovers wanted!
Smithsonian logo color.svg
Hi! I'm serving as the wikipedian-in-residence at the Smithsonian Institution Archives until June! One of my goals as resident, is to work with Wikipedians and staff to improve content on Wikipedia about people who have collections held in the Archives - most of these are scientists who held roles within the Smithsonian and/or federal government. I thought you might like to participate since you are interested in the sciences! Sign up to participate here and dive into articles needing expansion and creation on our to-do list. Feel free to make a request for images or materials at the request page, and of course, if you share your successes at the outcomes page you will receive the SIA barnstar! Thanks for your interest, and I look forward to your participation! Sarah (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


I'd like to add this green sp. :Arhopala chamaeleona mizunumai, ♂表.JPG [1] to this page.But can't get it on the right. Can you? Best regards Robert aka Notafly (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


Habe gerade mit Begeisterung drei Deiner hochgeladenen Tafeln von Katzenfellen gefunden, die Ginsterkatzen gleich bei Pelzarten eingebaut. Könntest Du mir Bescheid geben, falls noch mehr Fellbilder kommen? Herzlichen Dank vom --Kürschner (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Wird gemacht! Hast du die Servalfelle schon gesehen? Die groß- und die kleingefleckten Servale galten damals als verschiedene Arten. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Ocotea Lauraceae[edit]

Hello, how are you? I have edited in Ocotea I saw that you edited it before. Can you help me to edit again Ocotea? Palecloudedwhite wipe out the article over and over again. In any case I thank you it very much. Curritocurrito (talk) 10:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! I can't do it soon, but I will look over it. Thanks! Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 04:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


Category:Athene, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 04:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Knowledge of Dipterocarpaceae[edit]

Hello, How are you? I need your help. I ask you if you could enlarge Dipterocarpaceae article making better known this group of trees in Wikipedia, adding links to "Dipterocarpaceae" and information about "Dipterocarpaceae" existence on topics as trees articles in tropical articles or botanical or biodiversity articles. Do you know people that could be interested about Dipterocarpaceae article? They are welcome too. Thank you very much.Curritocurrito (talk) 18:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I would. In fact I would have long worked on it, but it's... huge. I am stuck since long with this which will have to be almost twice as long when it's finished. Dipterocarps are basically the same, a can I didn't dare to open yet. I might look into it a bit...
I fully agree that more people should be able to read up on them.
As a start, would you think that making an article out of the redirect Dipterocarpoideae makes sense? This looks like something I could like to do. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

pronunciation information[edit]

Please provide an ipa transcription when providing pronunciation information.Curb Chain (talk) 08:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

If I have the IPA transcr I do. If I don't have it, adding one would be WP:OR since the IPA is formally regulated and we are not allowed to "invent" IPA transcrs. As per WP:CHALLENGE, the only thing we are allowed to do in this case is giving trivial/uncontroversial pronunciation data in an informal way. Usually it shouldn't be given at all in such cases, but when this is likely to result in gross mispronunciations etc it is better to make the reader aware of this. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


Dysmorodrepanis: I'd like to try to finish off the upper taxa for Neoaves since it may be a little thin? Do you know much about Livezey and Zusi 2007? It looks like they have a comprehesive history written but Dinoguy mentioned to me the fossil stuff is outdated. On the birds side they add another level (They add the Natatores and Terrestronithes) between Neoaves and the classes (Gaviiformes, Procellariformes, etc.) Any idea how it fits in?....Pvmoutside (talk) 20:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd probably keep hands off neoavian clades right now and simply make a narrative. Say what clades have been proposed since the Sibley taxonomy (perhaps even Peters, eventually we might go back as far as the early 18th cent.), note that the track record is absolutely shity so I would take everything with much salt. E.g. "[clade] was proposed by [names] in [year] and contains these-and-these birds".
FWIW, I am looking into the data for my DrSci thesis and thus I (have to) keep well away considering I have perhaps the largest collection of pertient data in the world at my hands ATM and are sifting through it, but I can tell you that though there seems to be a basic dichotomy (Aequornithes - "higher Landbirds"), the position of some major and many minor groups (columbids, "Gondwanagruids", "core Gruiformes", Charadriiformes, Mirandornithes, Cypselomorphae, bustards etc) is decidedly mushy. "Natatores and Terrestronithes", jeez. I think we should be more aware that the basic methodology of cladistic analysis will (for practical purposes) always try to come up with a dichotomous tree and has been optimized 2 decades for coming up with reasonably well-supported trees. Still we are hard pressed to get anything reliably reproducible at >>80%, likelihood except by playing very fast and loose with the data.
The basic structure within the "higher LB" and Aequornithes is dubious; OTOH Cypselomorphae/Strisores for example is resolved, but it is not clear where they go. Only that they are very weirdly different from other birds. Parrots also seem to have a crass AT bias, but not in all loci. Mousebirds, it's more CG bias.
The problem is that some lineages are crassly autapomorphic "rogue taxa". The mol analysis depends much on how well the alignment is made, honestly, and I don't know how thorough they are in the published studies. For a comprehensive analysis, you would likely need 3 whole person-days of work. Per non-mt locus that is. But mt spuriously resolves that deep back into time (signal is probably not higher than noise at the root of Neornithes, and what is worse: noise is very nonrandom. The analysis axiomatically almost-presumes that it is random. "Almost" because there are crude fixes, but these are not sufficient, working at the wrong "level" of noise. E.g. you can account for differentially-evolving motifs, but not for differentially-evolving taxa.) Bad alignment, rogues fuck up everything. It must be seen to be believed.
This much I can say with certainty: The present state of cladistic methodology does not dependably allow to identify the correct phylogenetic hypothesis in this and similar cases; the methodology is too optimized to yield clear results, which yields too many type I errors to be worth much. Yes, it's the best there is. But no, it's not near as good as it needs to be. 2-5 years, probably closer to the later, or longer.
So, Natatores, Pygopodotubinares[*], Gaviomorphae, Steganograllatores, Terrestronithes, Dendrornithes, Anomalogonates, "Subsection Picoclamatores"(?! There isn't even a fricking "section"), Passerimorphae... is that all or did I miss some (In fact I missed a bunch)? WTF. Get actual. Honestly everything between "parvorders" and ICZN land (superfamilies) never was any good so far. The last 3 compete with the "Eufalconimorphae" in (phylogenetic) form but not content. Terrestronithes and/or Dendrornithes are "near passerines" really (and I would immediately support a mass merge of everything between these and the orders into the vernacular name, because see below).
The same holds true for anything beyond the main waterbird-landbird dichotomy. Coronaves and Metaves should have set off the warning bells. Anyone can be a brave and important avian taxonomist these days, the software is there, just build a dataset and name your "clades". Which ones are true? I think the methodology is too crude/misoptimized by far to be sure.
As a formally trained evolutionary ornithologist, I advise you to remain equivocal about the matter for at least 2 more publication cycles. Probably better 3-4. Maybe I will find something, probably someone else will find something, more likely than not Mayr will be the one to make the decisive breakthrough; no matter, it is not there yet. The methodology is not there yet. The published results make complete sense as such, but this is only because I have seen how unstable the entire thing is. You follow the SOP and will find robust clades. Problem is, tweak the taxon sample a bit and you will find other "robust clades". One must really play with it to see how much the maths are optimized to yield "robust clades" no matter what half-digested data you put into it. If no signal is found, it is created ex silico, and PAUP* and PhyML (these I have tried, but others are probably no difference) are pretty damn good at it.
So I'll stick to the two main neoavian clades we know with near-certainty to be good and briefly sum up the caveats I have found. We may not use my results, but we may presumably use the advance warning they give ;-)
Aequornithes, storks are messy. They don't want to go anywhere, as do pelicans. They hang around where they should (shoebill and hammerkop) more often than not, but if they do they stand alone usually. Generally, pelicans and storks tend to like nothing else. They are also seen at the fringe of Aequornithes often. But I don't really believe this is true. It may be, in which case it's likely Chicxulub is the reason. Suffice to say they don't align well. The rest is clear as regards the "pelagic birds", but the juncture to these as well as the basic structure of the rest (storks, pelicans, herons-ibises and maybe an assortment of "core Gruiformes", Mirandornithes, and some other rogues) is shity. The molecular samble of stork diversity sucks (there is basically no sufficient taxon set for any locus, just 2-3 short mt snippets but possibly only 1 in fact), and they are simply dissimilar otherwise. Their placement in the "most likely/parsimonious" tree is a best fit and highly labile vs. adding/removing taxa. I think this may be (in multilocus analysis as is SOTA these days) a combination of extreme synapomorphies of a pelican-stork group (which may be sister to herons + ibises) with strong autapomorphies in some other loci, resulting from a deep divergence (their "clading behavior"[**] is a bit like owls, see below). "Suliformes" makes the taxonomist in me cringe. I have started a mv discuss.
"Higher landbirds", the resolution is bad indeed, and I have played around with essentially all available loci that gave somewhat comprehensive phylogenetic resolution (almost 50), and tested most with controlled pruning of taxa. The latest paper (follow-up of the original Eufalconimorphae) finds the retroposon data consistent with a hard polytomy/explosive radiation (basically all major lineages diverged out of the same there-and-then latest Cretaceous/earliest Paleogene species). I can say that the sequence data is quite supportive of a Piciform-coraciiform clade. The Courol, I need to talk to Mayr about specifics before I can say more. It is weird. Bucerotimorphae (which should really be either of Bucerotiformes and Upupiformes) may belong in Coraciiformes; they are molecularly autapomorphic usually and where they are not, they do not tend to stand out much. NW vultures are almost certainly not close to storks, but may be the only "raptors" really close to owls. With owls the mol data are rarely trustworthy, because there is insufficient sampling (you need to have a Phodilus or it will neither be stable nor likely in the correct position): usually they won't even clade easily, the barn vs true owl split is really deep); any case they tend to stand out and taxon sampling is pretty shitty, but they favor clading with woodpeckers and rollers very markedly. NW vultures also are undersampled, you need a condor and one other (there is a condor on each branch, and if the other goes with the wrong condor, you know the sister of NW vults is spurious and most likely wrong). Trogons, mousebirds are also oddballs and taxon sampling is insufficient usually, and the Cariamidae are fully dependent on the fossil record. "Taxon sampling is insufficient" because it is mathematically impossible to discern their correct placement other than by chance from mol data alone (you need at least 3 spp. per longbranch to be sure, because if cannot at least find ((ab)c) when the other data clearly says it's (a(bc)), your results are unfalsifiable and thus epistemologically insufficient for hypothesis testing. Any case, we have no mol data for Chunga, and if "Cariamiformes" are in fact closer to "core Gruiformes" than all of falcons, the Secretarybird and the "Gondwanagruids" are to either I won't even raise an eyebrow.
FWIW, the "Bucerotimorphae" and the Passeriformes (as well as trogons and mousebirds, though not always as markedly) generally sit on long branches. The first often incredibly so. Something very odd has happened there.
That all being said, there may be 3 major clades within "near passerines"/"higher landbirds", and one almost certainly is Piciformes+"Coraciiformes" s.l., and the cincher for the entire group is how Passeriformes relate to these. Oh, and "near passerines" are a clade; even "higher landbirds" might conceivably redirect there. The big questions are: Are any "Metaves" in there too (i.e. are "higher LB" and "near-Pass" the same, cladistically)? and Is there any way to cut through the basal polytomy (or does this not even make sense)?
As regards the fossil record, there may be some reanalysis soon, but nothing grand within the next 2 years I guess. Mayr might whip up something, but I have drawn a list of the taxa withon my own scope (mainly non-Aequornithes Neoaves) and it is quite immense already. As a rule-of-thumb, look to Mayr and may whatever God there may be keep him safe from harm. He's the only worker with near-complete oversight and takes care to study his "clades" for years before naming them (not just 1 run of tests). His major proposals have all been robust. If there is a single arbiter in the world I would consider decisive, it's him. Neither the IOC nor the mol people have the oversight of the fossil record, but he keeps fairly up-to-date with the mol papers and by now has a sufficiently comprehensive grasp of what's what in molphyl.
As a fail-safe approach, we might seriously consider taking Near passerine and merge/redirect all the proposed subclades (Eufalconimorphae and a bunch of the redlinks above) there, as well as Higher landbird. This would be an article where first, the landbird lineages are listed ("near passerines"/"core higher LB" mainly, then the possible candidate lineages of the "Metaves"). The second part would be a narrative of the different taxonomic schemes.
One a scheme has been proven watertight, we can add a taxobox, rearrange the taxonomic list, scratch up a short "description" section (essentially: "what are the apomorphies?") and turn the second part into a "Taxonomic history" section.
This way, NPOV is always maintained, and the primary-source/OR problem is completely avoided. The gist of it would be "We know almost for sure that such a group exists as a good monophyletic lineage, but our knowledge is presently insufficient. Here is what different authors have found out, and what they propose."
Given that the different ways to split up the Neoaves beyond the fundamental dichotomy are irreconcilable and that the problem of analytical weakness exists, there is a high risk of ORing a scheme into "officialness" that turns out to be wrong. This is why I kept the lid on "Metaves" but actually started on Cypselomorphae and Galloanseres - "verifiability not truth" is far too lenient here. "Verifiability" will get us to conflicting "truths", which are in part or whole actually untrue.
Oh, and try to avoid Hackett et al (2008). It is really one of the more grandiosely wrong papers. Taxon sampling is not actually bad in general (for the scope, it is impressive), but in some points it is insufficient, and they threw a lot of data in the final analysis they knew (or should have known) to be bad (I have reanalyzed much of their data, hence I know. If they actually followed the book, it is more surprising they did in fact get many things right. I'd like to see their alignments, it must have been sheer hell to do it). That they got the Metaves shows their entire Neornithes are suspect.
TL;DR: Mayr (2011) with a grain of salt. Turn this into a narrative and then proceed at Aequornithes and Near passerine for the "aquatic" and "terrestrial" "mainstream Neornithes".
Then, wait til the matter is settled (molecular + morphological signals agree considering the specific noise found in either; the tree matches the fossil record and is biogeographically and ecologically plausible). 3-5 years I guess/hope... maybe less though.
Until then, to account for the "weird Neornithes", "Coronaves/Metaves" etc, start with the pre-Sibley arrangement (basically Peters/Clements/H&M checklist style, which did in fact implicitly recognize Aequornithes) and discuss the taxonomic and nomenclatorialdevelopment. If there is still time, go back to Bonaparte (1850) or something.
That way we get a well-rounded article that is comprehensive, understandable, and imparts all the information without breaking NNPOV and NOR, and avoids turning out to be nonsense after half a decade (which would be very embarrassing. I am glad nobody ever wrote a "Coronaves" article... there are some WP:TOL groups who make stubs for each and every supposed clade that is named; this is starting for birds too but the experience shows it is best avoided. These stubs are usually very low-quality and don't progress - they are too specialist and obscure - and create a hell of a lot of work to streamline if these proposals are changed or refuted. Whereas if we stay more circumspect and noncommital, this is easy to fix. We can achieve more in less time that way, and maintain a higher standard of acuracy.)
[*] So Torotix clemensi is Pygopodotubinares? We better have a RS - secondary, natch - to back up such a bold assertion. To my knowledge, the only cladistic study it has ever been part of has been is Varricchio (2002), the results of which are in the article (I put them there) and they ain't got nuthin' on no Pygopodotubinares...
(As a side note, I think that auto-taxoboxes should be ruthlessly suppressed. Making it tough for new editors, also they are hypercorrect and spurious, and usually conceal the actual information which must be coded manually in such taxa incertae sedis)
[**] This is actually what we'd need: a way to quantify or at least make comparable the "clading behavior" of lineages across the two dimensions of taxon dataset and locus dataset. This would be it. Unfortunately I cannot - as of yet - figure out a way to do it. I had like a dozen ideas, but they are all not sufficient. Might be I'll discuss this with Wiehe (of Haubold & Wiehe, he's the only one I know who might figure it out.) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


Hi Dysmorodrepanis. I see you left a tag on this article because the layout was so horrible. (Yes it was!) I tried to fix it up a bit today and removed the tag. Would you take a look and see if it seems better to you? If it is not good enough let me know what you think I should do. All good wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 00:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


Hello Dysmorodrepanis....I've split the Antpittas from the Formicariidae based on the Rice studies and both committees of the AOU recognizing the new family. I've not changed the Formicariidae, but have made a stab at the the new Antpitta article, moving some info from Formicariidae. I'll refrain from further changes for a bit (moving species, changing Formicarridae) until it can be vetted some......Pvmoutside (talk) 12:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Cool! It might be premature - the base of the Furnarioidea is not as well resolved as I'd like it to be mainly due to undersampling of the tapaculos... though they're working on that, and in any case, they are certainly distinct at some level, and we had that split coming since 2005. So, yeah: cool! 18:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)



Was für eine schöne, sorgfältige Überarbeitung. Vielen, vielen Dank! --Kürschner (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


Hello, I wanted to found out anything good on this so called "cleanup" but I have immediately reverted that. Removing authorities and even references is too much crazy. (Also columns and small caps are redundant, about small caps: User_talk:Snek01/Archive_1#RE:_removing_uncesssary_small_tags_-overlinking). Thanks for your understanding that all gastropod articles are written exactly that way. I really hope that you will understand that these your changes that are not necessary are a real complication for me and that you do not wish that. If you have any questions --> Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods. I am very sorry for bad news because I KNOW that your intentions are good. Cheers, --Snek01 (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Your badly-written, bad-English, badly-sourced and badly-layouted articles are not exactly a gem of Wikipedia, and there is no reason whatsoever why you can claim exemption from the general rule "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here."
If you do not want other people to improve your contributions, please leave Wikiepdia immediately. Nobody will keep you from setting up your own private homepage, where you can format and phrase stuff as you like, but such behavior of yours has no place here.
The "authorities" and "references" I removed are in violation of WP:RS. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 11:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)[edit]

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 17:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Trematochromis listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Trematochromis. Since you had some involvement with the Trematochromis redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). —Kusma (t·c) 07:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 13:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
It would be great if you could fix the redirect and pages as you suggested (I do not feel comfortable editing this type of articles when I have no idea what I am doing). —Kusma (t·c) 10:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Categorisation of Trematochromis redirect[edit]

Oftentimes once an RfD has closed with a redirect kept or retargeted, I check to see if its categorisation is sufficient and accurate. In this case I was looking through WP:TMR to see what would be appropriate because there is no categorisation as of yet. Unfortunately I don't have the requisite biology knowledge to be certain of the best choice(s). Do you have an opinion on the matter? BigNate37(T) 16:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there a category "redirect from synonym" or "redirect from alternate name/alternate scientific name"? If so, this is it. (It is only rarely catted, I can't find an example out of hand. If I find one by chance I'll let you know.) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Ah yes. "{{R from alternative name}}" it is, Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


Minor Barnstar.png The Minor Barnstar
Thank you very much for identification contradicting information in the Heterobranchia article. It was accidentally made by myself in 2009. Snek01 (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

You should probably delete your requested move section, especially now that Apteva has tried to patch it to make it work, and go to Wikipedia:RM#Requesting_controversial_and_potentially_controversial_moves and copy the text for the right way to do it, so you can get your rationale in their and cause it show up correctly in the listings at WP:RM. Dicklyon (talk) 06:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hm, it's not controversial, the title is simply plain wrong capitalization. (Except if it can be shown that it was capitalized like this in the original source) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Fixed it. Thanks for the notification! Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Merge of Hispinae and Cassidinae[edit]

I just noticed that you have an old sandbox entry for the combined article. I combined the two and they are currently located at Hispinae but I am aware that several authors hold Cassidinae to be the correct name to use for the lumped treatment. Please feel free to move/amend contents. Shyamal (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Rodrigues Starling for GA?[edit]

I see you've worked extensively on the Rodrigues Starling article until recently, and it looks to be in good shape, so perhaps you could make it a good article? I've churned out some FAs and GAs based on short articles you've started long ago, and I almost feel like I'm stealing your work, heheh. Would be a nice addition to the Mascarene bird GA and FAs we have now. I'm thinking of working on the Hoopoe Starling, Mascarene Parrot, and Newton's Parakeet at some point too. I'm not so keen on articles that don't have a plenty of images, though. FunkMonk (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Bit difficult to GA since there are few secondary RS (most are very brief). If you wanna give it a shot, go ahead. Need any further source, ask me. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't be a problem, even the Rodrigues Rail is a GA, after all. Sure you wouldn't want to perhaps co-nominate it? It's your work, after all. Or is that only possible with FAs? FunkMonk (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Dabbling ducks[edit]

Category:Dabbling ducks, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Taranet (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Diving ducks[edit]

Category:Diving ducks, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Taranet (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Old World babblers[edit]

Have you seen the discussion on WT:BIRD about the Old World babblers? Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Heh. Cool. Yeah, I think this arrangement suits us just fine.
Seen this and this? Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


Hallo, could you advise on the oldest (reliably known) fossils of Procellariiformes? Suspect a quick look at the last sections of the article will be enough. With many thanks - Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Noctuidae vs Erebidae[edit]

Mmm, first of all I am new here, and second, I don't really understand what to put in those articles: Eublemma cochylioides and Eublemma recta. The thing is is that the site bellow indicates that the current genus is within Erebidae family. The site is trusted, so is it O.K. if I change Noctuidae to Erebidae as that site indicates?:

I did changed them, but I don't want to continue doing it any further until you will O.K. it or not.--Mishae (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Well it's either Noctuidae or Erebidae, and either could accuse the other of WP:NPOV, because there is major dispute among the scolars and it is not settled. But if Erebiidae are accepted, then Erebiidae is the correct family.
(BTW it is Erebidae and Noctuidae, and Eublemma cochylioides and Eublemma recta. These copyerrors are more and more common and they mess up our standing with the professional readers, students etc. It's like the Encyclopedia Britannica having half the "their" mis-printed "thier".) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Breakfast[edit]

Hello, Dysmorodrepanis.

You are invited to join WikiProject Breakfast, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of breakfast-related topics.
To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:African Warblers[edit]

Category:African Warblers, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ucucha (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead...[edit]

and did it but rejigging led to a taxonomic headache....see here and offer your thoughts.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

rumblings in Hydrozoa[edit]

Hi Dysmorodrepanis

I am busy adding Cape Peninsula (South Africa) marine animals to Wikipedia and generally as I add species I check further up the classification line... which uncovered a bit of a problem (can of WoRMS as one of my colleagues was unable to resist pointing out)... because WoRMS no longer agrees with Anthomedusae as a valid category see -- it is now called Anthoathecata, and the subcategories vary from those given in the article. Further upstream from that, Leptolinae is also now not accepted... I am not sure of changing protocols so I thought I'd start with asking you how to proceed!

thanks Seascapeza (talk) 03:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

rumblings in Hydrozoa II[edit]

Hi again.. trundling on through Hydrozoa and now at Leptothecata as WoRMS would have it... see but the Wikipedia is still on Leptomedusae along with some non-WoRMS accepted taxa. Again... I am hesitant to start upsetting higher order stuff so.. can you help? best wishes Seascapeza (talk) 03:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

WoRMS basically uses different names for the same clades (orders in this case):

and hence Leptolinae --> Hydroidolina.

In general we cannot just so use junior synonyms because some source does. It's technically legitimate in this case but it's not standard nomenclature. In this case the confusion goes back to this paper. At least according to Google Scholar, the last years' authors still preferred Anthomedusae, but were split roughly evenly on the leptos. Any case it's clear there is still dispute which name is appropriate.

If you need to adjust the internal systematics of the orders, go ahead. I would need to check on the literature for details, but there are some changes, eg Tubulariida are not Capitata but the new Aplanulata. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 02:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

about "Müllers"[edit]

Dear Editor!

I noticed that in enwiki articles (and therefore in other Wikipedias as well) in some of the infoboxes of animals not the proper zoologist's name is shown.

For example in the article List of authors of names published under the ICZN.

Salomon Müller (1804–1864) is shown as "S. Müller", while Johannes Peter Müller (1801–1858) is simply "Müller". However, in many articles the "Müller" link points to "Salomon Müller".

I think that the link "Müller" should refer to "Salomon Müller". There are two examples for it: Exilisciurus; Celebes Dwarf Squirrel.

The following zoologists can be found in their list:

No, it's too ambiguous - each had their specific area of expertise. I think we should use J.P.Müller, O.F.Müller, P.L.S.Müller and S.Müller in taxoboxes, and make a disambiguation. Those "Salomon Müller" articles were probably parsed from some database restricted to Indonesian taxa or mammals. Most Müllers I edited myself were O.F. or P.L.S. OTOH (most my edits are birds and insects). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 02:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

DenesFeri (talk) 08:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

A small cup of coffee.JPG Thank you for bringing your zoological expertise to the article Turkish hamster. There is too much hamster misinformation in this world. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter[edit]

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

Eurasian Eagle-Owl Maurice van Bruggen.JPG

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey[edit]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Anthomedusae may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • * Family [[Rhysiidae]] <small>Hickson & Gravely, 1907</small>; tentatively placed here)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 15 February[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: Leptomedusae etc[edit]

Hi, and thanks for your message. I tend to use WoRMS as my primary reference for systematics but of course they aren't always up on the latest developments. Will check out your links for the confusion and see what needs changing of the articles I come across. best wishes Seascapeza (talk) 03:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


Category:Chats, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. BDD (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Suborders of birds[edit]

Category:Suborders of birds, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. BDD (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Khalf al-Mutayibeen listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Khalf al-Mutayibeen. Since you had some involvement with the Khalf al-Mutayibeen redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Technophant (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)