Talk:Red side-necked turtle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Turtles (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Red side-necked turtle is part of WikiProject Turtles, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use turtle resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
It is requested that a picture or pictures be included in this article to improve its quality.


I have updated the synonymy to utilise Rhodin, 2011, I kept some of the information from Fritz and Havas, 2007. However some of the species in the earlier synonymy are now included in Mesoclemmys gibba. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 21:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there is a reason you have kept some of the dashes? Can we remove those? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
yep missed them, should be gone now. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 22:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


In the example "Chelys (Hydraspis) rufipes Gray, 1831", what is meant by the "Hydraspis" part? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Hydraspis is an old name for Phrynops and Gray decided it was a sub genus of Chelys not considered correct in any way but is a part of the history. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 22:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
So according to Gray(at that time) its binomial name was Chelys rufipes? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Thats correct, Chelys is a junior synonym of Chelus or the Matamata. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 14:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merger with the Rhinemys page[edit]

As this is a monotypic genus and with little additive content by having both a genus and a species page I propose that the two pages be merged under the species page. A number of other monotypic genera are already dealt with in the same way I think it makes sense to continue this practice. A redirect for the genus name can be made for searching to assist readers. The combined genus and species page would have more content on that page than either could alone. Faendalimas talk 15:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep I am recommending the genus article be a redirect to the species article. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 23:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • This is common practice and dosen't need to be discussed. Just do it! (Is that copyvio?) Dger (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose

  • Comments
    • I would oppose redirecting(moving article) from the species to the genus even when WP:FNAME has been read to imply doing just that. My thinking is the article title should matches it's contents, and not confuse the reader. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)