Talk:Northern green anaconda

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Faendalimas (talk | contribs) at 03:16, 25 March 2024 (→‎Suggest Deletion: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Article picture?

Snake yawn!

The article used to have File:Anaconda (Eunectes akayima).jpg (right) as an illustration added by @Haplochromis, which was later removed by @UtherSRG as being of the wrong species (as the title might seem to indicate). However, the newly discovered species E. akayima is a split from E. murinus, rather than the discovery of an entirely new population. The pictured snake, found in Northern Venezuela, is squarely in the range of E. akayima rather than (post-split) E. murinus.
As the pre-split name E. murinus encompasses both currently defined species, it shouldn't be surprising that an E. akayima would have been labeled this way at the time, and the range is more consistent with it belonging to that species. Should it be added back as an illustration, or would jumping from "E. murinus in northern South America" to "E. akayima" constitute original research? Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 17:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If added back, it should be removed from the E. murinus article as no longer belonging to that species. Also, if added back, the file's description should be updated to indicate why the file's name is misleading. As for whether or not to add it back in, I think the OR/not-OR dividing line is fairly thin here. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've already removed it from the E. murinus article given the reasonable doubt induced by the split. I see Haplochromis already edited the file's description on Commons, so it should be good to add back. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 22:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's ok then! XD - UtherSRG (talk) 11:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton talk 20:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that Will Smith took part in the expedition that discovered the northern green anaconda? Source: Fry, Bryan G. (2024-02-19). "Scientists shocked to discover new species of green anaconda, the world's biggest snake". Retrieved 2024-02-29.
    • Reviewed:

5x expanded by Chaotic Enby (talk). Self-nominated at 22:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Northern green anaconda; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

GA Review

Passed. Geardona (talk to me?) 04:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Northern green anaconda/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Geardona (talk · contribs) 04:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Notes

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Footnotes must be used for in-line citations.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Review

  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) Seems to have a little bit of science-y talk, but not too technical Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) See prior, no glaring issues, needs a few more wiki-links maybe, but not fail-able over something as small as that. Pass Pass
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) Did a quick spot check, seems good Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) No problems I can see, although the one maybe reference is used in a appropriate way. Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) No original research detected Pass Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) Earwigs not detecting anything Pass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) Despite being a little recent, covers major aspects. Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) Yes, no problems I can see Pass Pass
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    Its an article about a snake, how can it have an opinion? its fine. Pass Pass
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Notes Result
    No edit wars. Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) The reviewer has left no comments here Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) The reviewer has left no comments here Pass Pass

Result

Result Notes
Pass Pass Good job! Nothing I really can think of saying here.

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Eunectes akayima is not a valid species!

Recently, two rebuttals to the work of Rivas et al. (2024) were published, in which the authors provided evidence that Eunectes akayima is not a valid species. This page should be removed or re-structured completely. The only Green Anaconda species currently recognized is Eunectes murinus.

https://mapress.com/bn/article/view/bionomina.37.1.1

https://mapress.com/bn/article/view/bionomina.37.1.2 2800:E2:B27F:FD28:34A2:1D35:E77F:9E1B (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additions! I don't think a controversial status should be a reason for removing the page entirely, but it would be a good thing to add these works to the page. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 02:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the Spanish page a detailed text explaining why this species is now considered invalid was added, in case you want to include it:
Recently, two articles have been published criticizing the description of this particular species. In the first one, the authors discuss the difficulty in accurately determining the provenance of the type material of the species described by Linnaeus and its implications when describing a new species. This is because the only known specimen of the type series of Eunectes murinus was part of the curiosity cabinet of King Adolf Frederick of Sweden, which could have been acquired through naturalia merchants, thereby increasing uncertainty about the material's provenance. The suspicion of Suriname as a possible type locality is based on a well-documented idea in the literature that many of the specimens Linnaeus described in his Systema Naturae came from there. This could be true, although valid only for material that can be linked to Linnaeus's "South American emissaries", such as Pehr Löfling or Daniel Rolander, which is not the case. However, the purported new species, Eunectes akayima, as mentioned by its authors, could also be found in Suriname, making it impossible to determine which of the two evolutionary lineages the green anaconda described by Linnaeus over 250 years ago belongs to and which corresponds to the new species. On the other hand, the authors of the new species violate several articles of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, thus compromising the integrity of their description, regardless of their evidence. For example, the authors confuse the terms validity and availability, making the name Boa gigas [= Eunectes gigas], proposed by Latreille in 1801 for a species with a distribution similar to that of the purported new species, unavailable without any valid reason, which would have priority over Eunectes akayima. Because of this, the name Eunectes akayima was synonymized with Eunectes murinus. The second article, on the other hand, considers the name Eunectes akayima as a nomen nudum, so unlike the previous one where it is considered available but invalid, here it is considered unavailable. The difference between both critiques lies in the interpretation of what the authors consider a diagnostic attribute, so that for the former, the justification for the use of the species' evolutionary history and distribution satisfies the availability criterion of the Nomenclature Code, while for the latter, it does not. In both cases, the authors of the respective critiques consider that the description of this new species does not meet the requirements of zoological nomenclature and therefore do not recognize it as valid. 2800:E2:B27F:FD28:4D91:592D:7751:D31C (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 16:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest Deletion

This should be deleted the recent description has been shown to be a mess, as stated above the name is nomen nudem, its also not a senior synonym for the taxon in anycase. If the northern form is a species it will be Eunectes murinas with the southern form being the new taxon, though it has several pre-existing names also. There is no scenario where this name will be seen as valid, the Lectotype for Boa murina set by Dubois et al is from Spanish West Indies, ie Trinidad and hence represents the northern form and the oldest name for a Green Anaconda of any form. This is a case of jumping to make a page about a new species before the dust has settled. I strongly recommend delete and wait and see what happens in next few months as there is more work on this in production. Its not ready for a page yet and is presenting false information. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 03:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Northern_green_anaconda&oldid=1215435506"