Talk:Viviparous lizard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Viviparous lizard is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use amphibians and reptiles resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Biota of Great Britain and Ireland (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biota of Great Britain and Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the biota of Great Britain and Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Proposed rename[edit]

I think that this article should be renamed to viviparous lizard, because it is more descriptive name; also common lizard isn't common everywhere.

I did a Google test, and looked also for examples I considered important.

  • "viviparous lizard" +"lacerta vivipara" produced 605 hits.
  • "common lizard" +"lacerta vivipara" produced 832 hits.

Rather even, I would say. I don't know how much the Wikipedia article influenced the result. The article doesn't even mention the name "viviparous lizard".

I didn't want to search without the scientific name, because common lizard could be a different species around the world or used in the text like "X is a common lizard in Barbados." All the English reptile books that I've read use the name viviparous lizard, but I live outside English-speaking countries, so I'm not sure, if I can generalize it. -Hapsiainen 17:40, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

I would also recommend to use the name Viviparous Lizard to avoid confusion. Moreover, the new scientific name is Zootoca vivipara ! -- Fice, June 4, 2005
Interesting. Do you know which authors have proposed the new name? It is Zootoca in some of the databases linked above. -Hapsiainen 18:39, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Well, as far as I know, the name Zootoca was first mentioned already in 1830 (by WAGLER). But the original name Lacerta vivipara stayed dominant in use – until to our days. In 1996, MAYER & BISCHOFF classified some species of Lacerta newly and postulated to separate the Viviparous Lizard. They reactivated the name Zootoca. The fact that only one species belongs to this genus (with just two subspecies) has surely not promoted the acceptance of the new name Zootoca vivipara JACQUIN, 1787. -- Fice, June 4, 2005
I saw some related pages: [1], [2]. When you see just a list of some authors' opinions from different decades and centuries, it is hard to decide what is the most descriptive classification. If you think that Zootoca is the best, then change the text. I am no-one to change it back. But you you should provide even a vague explanation why the classification was changed. Otherwise someone else might change the page back.... Oh, and Wikipedia needs then a Zootoca article, too. -Hapsiainen 22:41, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Hello Hapsiainen, obviously there is – like so often – controversy among the scientists about a taxonomical question. Here it is how to treat Zootoca – as a genus or as a subgenus. Unfortunately the original essay of Mayer & Bischoff (1996)* is not available to me at the moment – probably it concerns a molecular-biological/genetic investigation. At least I know that Wolfgang Bischoff is a “famous” reptile specialist of international rank. So I am willing “to believe” him and his colleague and to accept Zootoca as the new genus name (perhaps with a note on the alternative name Lacerta). As I saw in your links, in the meantime already four subspecies are differentiated. – Greetings, Fice, June 5, 2005
  • [”Beitraege zur taxonomischen Revision der Gattung Lacerta (Reptilia: Lacertidae). Teil 1: Zootoca, Omanosaura, Timon und Teira als eigenstaendige Gattungen” / "Contribution to a taxonomical revision of the genus Lacerta. Part 1: Zootoca, ... as independent genera" / – Salamandra 32 (3): 163-170.]

Edit from BabyPug49 Oct 20-Oct 21[edit]

Added section on color polymorphism of Lacerta vivipara about 600 words.

BabyPug49 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Here are some references for color polymorphism in Lacerta vivipara


1. Vercken, E., Massot, M., Sinervo, B., Clobert, J.2006. Colour Variation and Alternative Reproductive Strategies in Females of the Common Lizard Lacerta vivipara. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 20(1): 221-232.


2. Vercken, E., Sinervo, B., Colbert, J. 2008. Colour Variation in Female Common Lizards: why we should speak of morphs, a reply to Cote et al. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 21(4): 1160-1164.


3. Vercken, E., Sinervo B., Clobert, J. 2012. The Importance of a good neighborhood: dispersal decisions in juvenile common lizards are based on social environment. Behavioral Ecology 23(5) 1059-1067.


4. Svensson, E.I., Abbott, J., Gosden, T., Coreau, A. 2009. Female polymorphisms, sexual conflict, and limits to speciation processes in animals. Behavioral Evology 23(1) 93-108.


BabyPug49 (talk) 02:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BabyPug49 (talkcontribs)

Overall, great article! I think you did a lot of work to make a well thought out article and I really liked that any scientific terms were linked to other wikipedia pages to help readers understand your article. My only suggestion is to be careful with grammar mistakes! Good work Mdanzo0807 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mdanzo0807! I went back and proofread my article and fixed the grammar mistakes. I also worked on making the links a little better in terms of the name of the link itself as well as the placement of the link in regards to the order and flow of the article. Thanks for your suggestion! BabyPug49 (talk) 04:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC) 11/8/2015

In response to comments made by Evol&Glass:

Hi! I tackled each one of your critiques and tried by best to take them into consideration as I edited the article. I believe I addressed all the comments that were made. I tried to make the article sound less technical, and more like every day speech; I removed the lines where I addressed specific articles or referred to literature. I also tried to clear up the portion about reproduction and color patterns. I tried to clear up the section on plasticity and how color is related to genetics and environmental factors, but not plasticity. I took out the portion about the spectrophotometer and generalized that. Finally, I aimed to summarize more and clarify what I meant by diversity and density. BabyPug49 (talk) 11/8/2015 —Preceding undated comment added 04:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello BabyPug49!

I thoroughly enjoyed reading your article about color polymorphism in lizards. Since you described the female polymorphism in discrete color categories, I think a visual or some example of actual lizards with these colors could enhance the content of this section. I added links to some biological definitions that might need more clarification. I found your section about the effects of color polymorphism on reproductive behavior and the resulting levels of fitness for different polymorphs. The content was clear and concise and organized well. I found no grammatical errors or need for edits. Great Job!

Honey4bees (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Final Changes to Color Polymorphism:

I cut down a lot of unnecessary information and changed the flow of the article. I expanded on each color morph and described their evolutionary advantages. I also mentioned why their morph is maintained in the population. I made major structural changes in the article, which hopefully make it flow easier. I added a conclusion which restates what I wrote about earlier.

BabyPug49 (talk) 01:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC) 9 December 2015 19:39 (UTC)