Talk:Lithobates

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

I.T.I.S. uses Lithobates www.itis.gov — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.80.64.240 (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on 6 July[edit]

I edited this page to bring it up to date with the literature, and to follow a major new taxonomic revision by Yuan et. al (2016). One of the original authors of the page thanked me for bringing it up to date, but another person inappropriately reverted the page to an outdated version, without citing any new literature that refutes Yuan et al. (2016). Given that the authors of Yuan et al. (2016) represent all the primary systematists of this group from Europe, Asia, and North America; and given that the authors of Yuan et al. (2016) include the primary authors who supported an older taxonomy in the past; and given that Yuan et al. (2016) present considerable new data, analyses, and discussion of the group, it is therefore clearly appropriate to update this page. If someone has a citation to a published paper that refutes Yuan et al. (2016), then they should add it to the revised page. But clearly, reverting to an out-of-date version that does not follow the curent literature is unacceptable!HerpSystematics (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Go read the talk page on Rana (genus), where everything is explained. HCA (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I waded through that very long discussion, and it seems clear that the resolution reached was to cite all the relevant literature, and to continue updating as more information was published. The Yuan et al. (2016) paper appears to be a clear consensus among the many systematists who used to disagree in this issue, and it represents a huge jump in the data available and phylogenetic understanding of the group. Given that it is by far the most comprehensive, inclusive (both in the terms of frogs and frog systematists), and recent paper on the subject, it obviously cannot be ignored. It seems odd to me that you are trying to fight this, given that you championed the use of Lithobates based on its use by Che et al., and yet those authors are now among the principal authors of the Yuan et al. (2016) revision. Clearly, if you think that there is another paper that refutes Yuan et al. (2016), you should add that as well. But reverting all my work (which is entirely accurate, and supported by other authors of the relevant pages) and deleting the references to the latest literature on the subject are clearly inappropriate.HerpSystematics (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I'm just frankly totally sick of this discussion. It dragged on far too long last time, and now I fear it will rear its head again. Yes, there is a new paper out. Good. But it's premature to apply that taxonomy everywhere, since for all we know, in 4 months there'll be a rebuttal from Frost and others (who are conspicuously absent from this so-called "consensus"), and then we're back to square one. If you want to include a mention of it, fine, but WP has strict rules about WP:OR and WP:Secondary. It is inappropriate to describe a paper in the glowing terms you did, and the rules are that we cannot change the taxonomy until it's in the database. This page has it right, but the sort of massive revision done to Rana (genus) without any consultation remains massively inappropriate and should be reverted (with potential edits discussed in the talk page before being implemented. HCA (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not happy with this sentence: "AmphibiaWeb, available at http://amphibiaweb.org/, an online compendium of amphibian names, follows the most recent systematic revision of Rana in recognizing Lithobates as a subgenus." AmphibiaWeb isn't actually following Yuan (rather than previous papers by Hillis) as far as I can tell; AmphibiaWeb appears not to have been updated since 1 May (the Yuan paper came out June 10). There is a list of papers papers published in June ([1]), but Yuan's isn't included, (probably because the list focuses on papers relevant to conservation rather than systematics). I also don't think it's far to call Yuan a "systematic revision"; I expect detailed accounts of species for that type of publication. Plantdrew (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that suggestion, but that is not correct. The previous taxonomy of Hillis, which was followed in previous versions of AmphibiaWeb, has been replaced by the taxonomy presented in Yuan et al. (2016). For example, Yuan et al. (2016) put Rana vibicaria in the subgenus Lithobates, as opposed to the earlier arrangements by Hillis. AmphibiaWeb has adopted the Yuan et al. taxonomy exactly (I just checked the appendix of Yuan et al. against all the species listed in AmphibiaWeb), and AmphibiaWeb has been updated several times since June 10. I'm not adding the reference to AmphibiaWeb back in yet at this point, but someone needs to do that eventually, since it is an important online reference and it follows the Yuan et al. (2016) revision.Ranapipiens (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add the reference to AmphibiaWeb back and leave the rest the same.Ranapipiens (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lithobates. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lithobates. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lithobates&oldid=1203708405"