Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Tree of Life (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree of life 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.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Missing vertebrates: the 30 most commonly found in books[edit]

These animals are the most commonly found scientific names in Google books which we don't already have articles or redirects for. The list includes synonyms. For details of how I made this list see the notes here. I welcome you to create articles or redirects for these.

Each scientific name is found in at least 147 books or volumes published after 1950, and all are in the top 1% of most common scientific names.

  1. Tor tor - Deep bodied masheer or Tor mahseer (many synonyms[1] including Barbus megalepis)
  2. Salpa fusiformis - common salp
  3. Embiotoca jacksoni - Black perch or Black surfperch or Butterlips
  4. Ascidia nigra = Phallusia nigra (syn)
  5. Nandus nandus - Gangetic leaffish
  6. Thalia democratica - (appears to have no common name other than salp)
  7. Ammodytes americanus - American sand lance
  8. Phallusia mammillata = Phallusia mammilata (misspelling) - white sea-squirt or warty sea squirt (but is not Styela clava)
  9. Epinephelus guttatus - Koon or Red hind
  10. Ammodytes hexapterus - Pacific sand lance
  11. Synbranchus marmoratus - Marbled eel (ambiguous) Mottled Swamp Eel
  12. Oligocottus maculosus - Tidepool sculpin
  13. Dendrodoa grossularia - Baked bean ascidian, baked-bean ascidian. (syn: Ascidia grossularia)
  14. Embiotoca lateralis - Blue seaperch
  15. Fritillaria borealis - Oikopleura (no synonyms)
  16. Diplodus annularis - Annular bream
  17. Elassoma evergladei - Everglades pygmy sunfish --- I plan to knock this one out. Feel free to help @ Draft:Elassoma evergladei Bananasoldier (talk) 08:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done Bananasoldier (talk) 02:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  18. Poecilia mexicana - Atlantic molly -- Draft:Poecilia mexicana Bananasoldier (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  19. Microgadus proximus - Pacific tomcod
  20. Myliobatis aquila - Common bull ray
  21. Sarotherodon melanotheron - African sunfish
  22. Sceloporus cyanogenys - Blue Spiny Lizard (It appears this is the preferred name[2] and Sceloporus serrifer, which we have an article for, is a synonym)
  23. Dormitator maculatus - Fat Sleeper
  24. Myctophum punctatum - Spotted lanterfish
  25. Diplosoma listerianum - jelly crust tunicate or Gray Encrusting Compound Tunicate. (no synonyms)
  26. Tribolodon hakonensis - Big-scaled redfin I'm doing this one. MeegsC (talk) 02:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  27. Mormyrus kannume - Bottlenose
  28. Stenobrachius leucopsarus - Northern lampfish
  29. Lithognathus mormyrus - Sand steenbras

(Correction: title should be "Missing chordates" rather than "Missing vertebrates". I didn't noticed some sea-squirts had made the list.)

Please feel free to edit this list to add notes. —Pengo 04:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Took one from the list, for a quick stub: Girella nigricans -- OBSIDIANSOUL 05:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Pengo - so you'll do a run on insects soon? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, almost forgot about them. :) Do you want arthropods specifically or all invertebrates? —Pengo 05:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok, Casliber, I've posted a list of insects to WikiProject Insects. The top four are Diptera (flies) and the fifth is Rhopalosiphum padi, the bird cherry-oat aphid. I still haven't made a list of the non-chordata non-insecta invertebrates.
I've also made lists for WikiProject Fungi, WikiProject Microbiology (bacteria only), and WikiProject Plants. —Pengo 08:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC) ...and antsPengo 05:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC) ... and Gastropods
Pengo - cool! not fussed whether insects or arthropods - a whol lotta stubs to make....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
@Pengo: Thanks for making this list. It's been very fun working on Draft:Elassoma evergladei (anyone feel free to join in!), and so far I've only used 1 book from Google Books! There's a lot more to do. Face-smile.svg Bananasoldier (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
@Bananasoldier: That draft looks pretty good. Don't forget to publish it! —Pengo 03:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Confusion over taxonomy of subtribe Panina and taxon homininae (are chimps hominins)[edit]

NAC: No consensus. This RFC wasn't stated with a question lending itself to closure with a consensus. However, multiple editors have noted that there is no consensus among taxonomists as to which of various taxonomies to use for anthropoids. (In other words, some scientists say that chimps are hominins, and some say that they are not hominins. If a consensus is desired, a new RFC that asks a specific question would be useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)}} [Striking closure of RFC whose originator was planning to close out. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)] [I stand by the conclusion. It just isn't a closure because the RFC was not a well-formed RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)]

I have noticed some contradictions on and across several pages relating to the taxonomic classification of Chimpanzees. In essence some pages use the system where Homininae split into Gorillini and Hominini and then Hominini divides into Hominina and Panina. Other pages use a system where Homininae trifurcates into Gorillini, Hominini and Panini. Several pages use both in different Parts. (Chimpanzee lists Chimpanzees as Hominini in the lede but Panini in the infobox). I can't find sources detailing a controversy or an overturn of the historic system. Which should be used and can I get some help making the pages consistent?

Affected Pages: Hominini, Sahelanthropus, Homininae, Chimpanzee-human last common ancestor, Ape, Hominidae, Homo, Chimpanzee, Primate, Homo Floresiensis#Bone structure, Timeline of human evolution, List of mammals of Burundi, List of primates, Human, Panini,Common Chimpanzee, Bonobo

Also may be affected Hominin and Panini (primates)

Apologies if this is in the wrong place SPACKlick (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you have a typo, should "system where Hominina trifurcates" read "system where Homininae trifurcates"?


  • Homininae
    • Gorillini
    • Hominini
      • Homo
      • Pan


  • Homininae
    • Gorillini
    • Hominini
    • Panini

Those are the two, correct? IOW, we could rephrase this whole debate as, "is Panini a group of animals, or is it just a sandwich?" Britannica kind of makes it sound like we shouldn't use Panini; see here. Hopefully someone knowledgeable will help us out here. Thanks! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Correct I had a typo in the second list. Your first version is not correct, it should be Hominina and Panina rather than Homo and Pan but other than that yes. This is the distinction. You could ask the debate as "Does panini exist as a group of animals" however my primary focus (because the labels are irrelevant) is about the trifurcation of Homininae. It shouldn't happen and I've never seen a source that suggests it does. However I've seen a lot of people using panini recently and I don't have my finger on the pulse enough to know if this is a change in the taxonomy that's generally accepted now. SPACKlick (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Wikiblame just pinged that the first insertion it could find dates to this edit in September 2012. I've notified the use to see if they can explain why the change. SPACKlick (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Let me start by saying that you're probably not going to like my answer. The more palatable short version is that the taxonomy is not universally decided, with some putting chimps in Hominini and others in Panini. (The bad news: there doesn't appear to be any consensus in the literature and that we have to decide so that we can be consistent across our articles.) I ran into the exact same problem within Strepsirrhini, particularly with handling of its infraorders.

From an outside view, taking in primatology and all of its related fields under one umbrella, the situation becomes a veritable mess, with a host of reasoned arguments scattered across the literature. However, if you look at things more closely, focusing on specific fields (paleoanthropology, primatology, molecular phylogenetics, etc.), you should see a clear trend... or at least I did with Strepsirrhini. Each of these fields is very narrowly focused, where primatologists (who primarily study *living* primates) generally don't care much about (or even know about) fossil primates, whereas paleoanthropologists have to accommodate a much wider diversity of primates. In your case, you are very, very lucky for two reasons: 1) Molecular phylogeneticists delve into the fossil history (or at least the recent stuff), so they're slightly more mindful of that diversity. (With Strepsirrhini, the infraorder split was an order of magnitude older, so molecular phylogeneticists can only sample—and hence focus on—living primates.) 2) There are many more paleoanthropologists studying human evolution than strepsirrhine evolution. This gives them a bigger voice, and the taxonomies they favor will stand out more in a Google search. The downside, of course, is that it prevents one taxonomy from rising to the top of the pile. (With Strepsirrhini, paleoanthropologists are a miniscule minority, yet to write about Eocene primates and not make overgeneralized statements about living strepsirrhines, you need to use the systematics they favor... despite being a minority of Google Scholar and other Google searches.)

In this situation, I advise using the most encompassing taxonomy so that we can be consistent between articles about living *and* extinct species. I'm primarily interested in strepsirrhines, so I don't know what to tell you. Doing some quick searches on Google Scholar, I found the following:

  • This article (paleoanthropology) favors the use of Panini as explained on pages 31 & 32 (pages 3 & 4 of the PDF). It refers to the overuse of the term "hominid" as "traditional taxonomy" (possibly a subtle knock against the simplified taxonomy of primatologists) and claims the use of Panini emphasizes current cladistic taxonomy.
  • This article (paleoanthropology) lists two taxonomies on page 21 (page 3 of the PDF), uses Panini in (favored) Table 1a, which focuses on phylogenetics. Table 1b, however, is considered a "traditional 'premolecular' taxonomy".
  • This book (paleoanthropology) only lists a taxonomy down to Homininae, but does not list tribes. (Search "Homininae" and go to page xii.) It also focuses solely on extinct primates. This is quite typical, as many sources will not distinguish tribes.
  • This article (molecular phylogenetics) gives a radically different taxonomy (page 594, or page 10 of the PDF), which it sort of explains on the next page in Table 6. Molecular phylogeneticists will occasionally stress the need to define temporal boundaries for each rank and subrank of the Linnean taxonomic system. So if a genus is defined as having split into species starting ~6 million years ago, then chimpanzees would be placed in genus Homo with us. Of course if this approach takes hold, then the very rich human evolutionary lineage will be constrained to one genus. Although I like this approach at times, I generally view it as proof that science needs to move away from traditional Linnean taxonomy and design a new, more flexible classification system. But I digress...
  • This article (molecular phylogenetics) doesn't even bother breaking Homininae down into tribes (see Figure S1), but does for Old World monkeys. Again, a lot of articles will not touch this topic.

Note that my searches did not pull up any traditional "primatology" sources (focused solely on living great apes). This doesn't surprise me since there are very few living species, giving little reason to break things down between family Hominidae and the genera (Pan, Gorilla, and Homo)—see MSW3 for an example. For that reason, you may be luckier than I was. I didn't think about this when I started this long reply.

In summary, my advice is to follow the taxonomy in Table 1a in the article by Wood and Richmond (mentioned above) unless someone can make a stronger case. It seems to be the most flexible and generally accepted taxonomy. Once the matter is settled, I can help clean up the articles since I was slowly making my way through primate articles and switching everything to the {{Automatic taxobox}}. – Maky « talk » 19:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I don't remember the detailed reasons I had for initially inserting Panini into the article, although I do agree that the Wood & Richmond table mentioned above does summarise what I understood to be the case. But these things aren't always definitive, and, so long as whatever we do is consistent, I have no argument. Anaxial (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree that it's complicated and that's why I was seeking consensus rather than just applying BRD. However the table in 1a doesn't include Gorilla's in Homininae and trifurcates Hominidae which is very non-standard from my (admittedly limited) experience. 1b is very out of date listing gorillas and chimps as Pongids. The Jaques link moves all Apes into Homininae making Gibbons a tribe and Great apes a tribe, And has chimps in the genus Homo which clearly won't work when considered in a palaeoanthropological environment. PLOS has the traditional tree butas you say gives no names below homininae. The google book puts Pan in with the Pongids and fails to mention Gorillas at all. The first article gives a good definition of the groups but leaves an issue. All the references you've provided and I've seen break the groups down the same way
  • Great Apes
  • Orangutans
  • Sumatran Orangutans
  • Bornean Orangutan
  • Black Apes
  • Gorillas
  • Eastern Gorillas
  • Western Gorillas
  • Smaller Black Apes
  • Chimpanzees
  • Common Chimpanzee
  • Bonobo
  • Humans
  • Austrilopiths
  • Homo
So I'm not sure how to reflect that cladogram across the various different group names used. SPACKlick (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I would go with the taxonomy listed at Hominidae#Classification. It seems to be the most accommodating for living and fossil species and represents the phylogenetic history. However, the source it cites doesn't quite cover it, so one will need to be found. Again, finding a set of authoritative sources that all agree and lay down a taxonomy usable by all fields will not happen. The best we can do is find a taxonomy that is acceptable and allows the most encompassing field (paleoanthropology) to operate under our use of taxoboxes and adopted terminology. – Maky « talk » 20:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I am by no means an expert in this field, nor do I know what reliable sources say, but isn't there a trend towards classifying things much more by clade than by the historical fuzzy groupings? That being the case, there should never be a trifurcation, because that's not something that occurs in evolutionary history (unless there were two rafting events that took place simultaneously, or something equally unlikely!). If you're going to go down the route of classifying humans as hominini and chimps as panini, don't you still need some other term to cover the parent group that includes humans and chimps but does not include gorillas? Or do you stop reasoning about that clade altogether? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Neither am I an expert, but I believe Robin Dunbar has something to say on this classification, but I would have to look it up. Neither is classification by any means a matter of universal consensus, but as far as I'm aware a whole lot has happened in the past five years, so I would suggest discounting sources older than a few years. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Conventionally, taxonomists now refer to the great ape family (including humans) as hominids, while all members of the lineage leading to modern humans that arose after the split with the LCA are referred to as hominins. The older literature used the terms hominoids and hominids respectively[1]

This is a very good point, and one I had forgotten about. However, this classification of restricting honinins to everything after the split with chimpanzees will give another taxonomy. Does someone have a source that lists it in detail? I don't have time to look this morning. – Maky « talk » 16:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with CFCF sources should be 5 years or less--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Just two cents from a randomly summoned editor, but before today I had never even heard of Panini as a grouping, only Panina. The trifurcation scheme is not one that I'd support. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 01:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC) // coldacid (talk|contrib) 01:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Summoned via WP:FRS; please {{Ping|coldacid}} if you respond to my comment.

<>Thank you SPACKlick, and Maky, et al, for fronting this discussion. Robin Dunbar says that "Conventionally, taxonomists now ..." refer to the great ape family as hominids, and to the humans (and closely related) subtribe, after their split from chimpanzees, as hominins. These new meanings are, even now, replacing the older terminology. Dunbar is a reliable (and a very recent) source, and here we have an authoritative start-point to edit/correct the errant Wp articles, to wit:

<>I suggest we proceed as follows.

1) Go to a key article and section---e.g., Hominidae#Taxonomic history---and insert new narrative to (briefly) explain the unsettled state of taxonomy among the professionals re humans and chimps. Explain that taxonomists are now referring to the two primate groups with revised meanings from their historical taxons; cite Dunbar (here> [2]); also cite the Australian Museum, which provides an excellent narrative of the changing terminology, including this quote:

This new terminology is being used in many scientific journals already, and it is only a matter of time (but possibly many years) before everyone catches up to using the new term. - See more at:

2) Explain that Wp uses the current 'convention' described by Dunbar---that is, that hominids refer to members of the great ape family Hominidae (which includes all the branches orangutan, gorilla, chimpanzee, and humans, extant or extinct); and that hominins refer only to the subtribe Hominina, humans and their closest relatives after splitting from chimpanzees. 3) Edit/revise Hominidae for consistency with the 'current convention'. 4) Go to the next affected article and edit for consistency; repeat, etc.

<>Seems we have what we need to proceed now with clearing this problem: revise/write consistently with the growing 'convention' until the new 'taxonomy consensus' is published by the professionals. Please respond.Jbeans (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

What you describe above amounts, it seems to me, to promoting a new and as yet not established terminology. That isn't Wikipedia's role. Of course we should discuss this usage, among all the others currently in use. But we follow, not lead. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, our method is always to report and follow the 'established norm', and to not innovate. But, our obligation is to see that the reader is correctly informed, is not misinformed, or brought to confusion---as is now the case re the taxonomy/terminology of primates, humans, chimpanzees---as currently reported on our article pages.
Presently, the 'established norm' is in disarray---there is no established terminology that most of the players use in agreement or common meaning. Should we not inform the reader of that problem?; Step 1), see my previous, would do that part, even if we do nothing else.//sorry, gotta go; pls respond.Jbeans (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
When sources disagree on terminology, we do, I agree, have a particular problem, since it's very hard to write clearly and maintain neutrality. Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by revise/write consistently with the growing 'convention' but this suggested to me that we should be adopting one convention rather than another. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I understand and agree with your concern re Wp mustn’t choose sides when sides are competing---we merely report them and inform the reader. But, re this situation---changing terminology of the taxons among humans, chimps, etc.---there appears to be no competing per se still on. Of course when interpreting events, it's a matter of nuance (and each of us brings our own nuance)---so here is my understanding of the current situation: In paleontology/primatology, there is no longer the historical consensus on the 'established terminolgy' that once decided this question; see the at
I mean by ..growing 'convention'.. the one reported by Dunbar (nb: he did not use the term 'convention', see above). As I understand the current situation, the traditional terminology is being abandoned (in efffect) by the professionals, in favor of that 'convention' that Dunbar reported). Is this a correct interprtation?; if so, our present decision-point is not: "adopting one convention rather than another"---apparently, there is no ‘another’.Jbeans (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think I agree with your interpretation of the situation. It depends which area of Paleontology, primatology and anthropology you read where people are drawing lines because they tend to leave as much room for further specification within the areas of interest. In all cases Panini seems to be an atypical name[3] from the reading I do which is why I was surprised by it. I think we need a wider survey of sources across the last 3 or so years to see if there is consensus, consensus by discipline or active controversy. SPACKlick (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Please let's clarify what we don't agree on. I touched on several points---but we agree on the point you specified; that is, I have not advocated (nor do I favor) the classification of chimpazees as Panini; nor have I advocated the Wood & Richmond table 1a mentioned above. Please be more specific.Jbeans (talk) 12:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with the following points you made
  • the traditional terminology is being abandoned (in efffect) by the professionals - Some professionals have developed more specific terminologies within some fields.
  • in favor of that 'convention' that Dunbar reported) Not all those changing preferred style are moving towards Dunbar's style although undoubtedly some are.
Crucially however no amount of editing the referent of hominid and hominin will solve the trifurcating homininae and the currently used but controversial existence of the tribe panini. SPACKlick (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I shan't argue for the points you object to; actually, my observations were derived from the general tenor of the opening discussion and the citations provided, plus the report by the Australian Museum [4]. (Btw, the quote by Dunbar (see above) seems to be more one of observing the scene rather than advocating a style; so now I must get a copy of that ref and read it for myself.) But, re solving the 'trifurcating homininae' or the 'existence of the tribe Panini', it seems we now have a paradox: if no amount of editing will help, then apparently 'we can't get there from here'.(?) Frankly, I admit I don't understand why those Wood and Richmond cites (that posit a trifurcation event without justifying same) are considered credible source(s) for a trichotomy taxonomy---but I'll not argue that either. But, maybe we could fix some plain errors; where are the other sources currently referenced on Wp pages that propose a trifurcation event or a 'tribe Panini'?

Indeed, re the lede on page Hominini, I note that one reference provided for 'the tribe Panini (chimpanzees)' [5][6] (see Bradley), seems to report the opposite, i.e., it says, "support for a human–chimpanzee clade is now overwhelming". This would imply a taxonomy (subfamily Homininae, tribe Gorillini, tribe Hominini with subtribes Panina and Hominina) that is like that described in the lede of page Chimpanzee---not the taxobox, see below; and consistent with that detailed at Hominidae#Extant. Thus the Bradley citation seems to refute (rather than support) the hypothesis for an equal trichotomy (for humans, chimps, and gorillas) with a separate 'tribe Panini'. (The second of the two refs is Wood and Richmond.)

On that (Chimpanzee) page, the Wp editor who supplied the 'tribe Panini' edit in the taxobox provided no source (see Anaxial's comment above). This edit created the (existing) on-page contradiction between the article's lede and taxobox, which even today presents inconsistent information to the reader. Can you agree to let's fix this---i.e., may I revert this Panini? Jbeans (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm off the opinion we remove all uses of panini till more solid sourcing can be found because until this is settled consistency is the better part of editorial valour. SPACKlick (talk) 12:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree; and let me go first to fix the easy one! Jbeans (talk) 02:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
And here is the updated page 'Hominini'---a bit more involved; pls advise of any glitches. Jbeans (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
...and updated page 'Homininae'. Jbeans (talk) 05:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Here is 'Chimpanzee–human last common ancestor'---updated and revised. Jbeans (talk) 15:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Incoming redirects to this set of articles may need to be checked and retargeted. Hominin and human clade redirect to CHLCA , but should go to [[Hominini] based on the text of that article. Plantdrew (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing to it---I've fixed it, after tripping over 'Double-Redirect'. Jbeans (talk) 11:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Here is Primate---minor c-e and redirect of 'hominin'. Jbeans (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Here is Human evolution, lede through 'Bipedalism'---maintenance of 'hominin', and c-e. Jbeans (talk) 04:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Here is Human evolution, through 'Evidence'---maintenance of 'hominin' and c-e. Jbeans (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Here is Human evolution; all sections completed re maintaining term 'hominin' (and some c-e). Jbeans (talk) 08:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Here is Hominidae ---all sections completed re maintaining term 'hominin', plus c-e). Jbeans (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Homo floresiensis and Primate ---all sections completed re maintaining term 'hominin', plus c-e). Jbeans (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Ape, aka Hominoidea ---lede and two+ sections completed re maintaining terms 'hominin' and 'hominid', plus c-e). Jbeans (talk) 05:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Ape, aka Hominoidea ---+section: re changing taxonomy (and re maintaining terms 'hominin' and 'hominid'; c-e). Jbeans (talk) 03:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Chimpanzee ---lede and 2 sections: c-e. Jbeans (talk) 23:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Australopithecine ---lede: c-e. Jbeans (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Human ---lede + sections: c-e; hominin and hominid. Jbeans (talk) 05:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Omo remains ---lede + sections: c-e; here is a prospective problem for several articles out there: 'traditional' hominid competing with hominin; pls review this approach (for dealing with the problem)---and advise. Thanks. Jbeans (talk) 12:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Here is Timeline of human evolution---ie, the final section, Homo: edited to maintain the correct distinctions between 'hominin' and 'hominid'. Note this section, in the first paragraph, acknowledges the existence of the opposing camps re 'the' question: Are chimps hominins? (Wp cannot answer this question). But the issue behind this question is closely connected to, although different than, the problem of consistently using the terms 'hominin' vs 'hominid' across the pages of Wp. Jbeans (talk) 04:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── While editing the primate-related articles (see above work-list) this editor concentrated on the 'other' question, which, rhetorically, is: Why the confusing mess across the pages of Wp re using 'hominin' and 'hominid'? (Pls don't answer that---the why is indeed rhetorical). Instead, let's discuss fixing those pages so that, at minimum, (1) Wp is internally consistent in using the two words, and (2), the reader won't be confused by these two words when reading Wp. <>So what do editors say now: Are 'hominin' and 'hominid' used consistently across Wp pages now? (For convenience, the meanings used here are):

1) hominin: those species of genus Homo and closely related extinct species that rose after the split from the line of the chimpanzees; and as described here, Hominini (at top-o-th'-lede); and

2) hominid: the taxonomic family of primates known as the "great apes", including the four extant genera---the orangutans (Pongo); gorillas (Gorilla); chimpanzees (Pan); and the humans (Homo); and as described here, Hominidae, the lede---especially beginning at "Several revisions over time ...". (The former, or traditional, use of 'hominid' is essentially the same as that of the modern 'hominin', including that it also excluded chimpanzees from within the larger name for humans and species close-to-humans.)

Please note, the soothing simplicity of fixing (these two separate) terms across multiple Wp articles is complicated by: [1] As a very practical matter, only one meaning at a time can be used on these pages for (the same) word, 'hominin', IMO; ie, the position of one of the opposing camps must, of necessity, be used in order to write Wp articles; and then, only an acknowledgement of the other position, as a practical matter, can be applied---again IMO; what's your opinion? [2] Some instances of the traditional use of 'hominid' must be protected on a page, as when the term using the traditional meaning is noted in a report or quotation---as here, Omo remains (see at bottom of the lede); note that some formatting device on the local page can illuminate the traditional usage---probably italics will do most of the time. Jbeans (talk) 05:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

  • (Back to the work-list indent): Here is article "Homo", the lede and first section; c-e and major rewrite here---this is a key article in the matter of "hominin" v "hominid" usage, and it is critical that it reads plainly and correctly; please advise. Jbeans (talk) 02:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • And here is "Laetoli"---which is closely linked to "Homo"---there were at least 15 corrections of hominid to hominin. Pls review and advise me of any glitches---here, or at Talk:Laetoli. Jbeans (talk) 05:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Here is "Hominini"---edited to correct references to "hominin". Jbeans (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


If I may be so bold, I'm concluding based on this discussion that we are moving forward on not using Panini as a taxon anywhere, and that Pan is a subset of Hominini. I'll try to fix up the taxonomy templates to reflect this change, at least. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree, with the caveat that it may need be taken back if we learn that indeed there is a quarter among the specialists who lobby for chimps as a 'separate tribe' status, ie, equivalent to Hominini and Gorillini. AFAIK, the opposing position is that chimps should be grouped as species within the Homo genus---so ok if this is actually the case. (Sorry, but must resume exile from 'wording'---imposed by outsiders---for a few more days). Jbeans (talk) 13:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem with this is, now that things have been re-sorted, there is no article that corresponds to an extremely important referent: the human clade. May we split one off from these articles? Chrisrus (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


  1. ^ Dunbar, Robin (2014). Human evolution. ISBN 9780141975313. 
  2. ^ Dunbar, Robin (2014). Human evolution. ISBN 9780141975313. 
  3. ^
  4. ^
  5. ^ Bradley, B. J. (2006). "Reconstructing Phylogenies and Phenotypes: A Molecular View of Human Evolution". Journal of Anatomy 212 (4): 337–353. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7580.2007.00840.x. PMC 2409108. PMID 18380860. 
  6. ^ Wood and Richmond.; Richmond, BG (2000). "Human evolution: taxonomy and paleobiology". Journal of Anatomy 197 (Pt 1): 19–60. doi:10.1046/j.1469-7580.2000.19710019.x. PMC 1468107. PMID 10999270. 

Edit request on Taxobox[edit]

A request for a taxobox change has been posted at Template_talk:Taxonomy/Angiosperms#Template-protected edit request on 4 April 2015. This is just a notification, I'll leave further actions to more experienced content and taxobox editors to discuss. Please describe needed changes as detailed and specific as possible. GermanJoe (talk) 14:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Collaboration with Wikispecies[edit]

I have suggested a start of a new project on Wikispecies for those Wikispecies users who are interested in collaboration with WikiProject Tree of Life and to promote an intensified cooperation between Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life and Wikispecies. Please feel free to join the discussion on WS Village pump, and if the project gets support, participate! Dan Koehl (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

New Essay[edit]

There is a new essay, "Identifying primary and secondary sources for biology articles", you are invited to comment on.DrChrissy (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Redirect tags & synonyms[edit]

Which template/tag should be used when redirecting from an alternative scientific name (for example a junior synonym) to an article located at the common name? R-from-alternative-scientific-name only provides for redirect-to-scientific name; R-from-scientific-name presumes the redirected page is the correct/current scientific name. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I've been struggling with this for awhile. The redirect category structure for organisms largely presumes that scientific names will be used as titles; redirects to/from monotypic taxa also presume that the target is a scientific name. Some consensus is needed. There's been some previous discussion about this at Template talk:R from alternative scientific name#Meaning of this template and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive64#Question about redirect templates.
Personally, I think a new redirect template should be created for these. {{R from alternative scientific name to common name}} (with a catchy shortcut that doesn't require so much typing)? Or maybe {{R from alternative scientific name}} could be modified to take another parameter "|common" that would display an appropriate message about the target (that could get complicated though; with existing parameters for type of organism (currently "fish", "fungi" and "plant", it would need to accept two parameters, and there would be 8 different messages displayed from the permutations of "common" and organism type).
I'm not sure what the best solution is, but I'm not comfortable tagging synonyms redirecting to common names with "R from alternative scientific name". Plantdrew (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Neither am I, hence my question. Another possible solution would be to either change the {{R from scientific name}} to read "from a scientific name" rather than "from the scientific name". Because a synonym still is a scientific name, just not the right one. I suppose you are right that we need a consensus. I'd also prefer a new template because a lot of people overlook parameters and thus would still be scratching their heads which template to use. As for a catchy shortcut, that's something we can worry about once we get there. I'd rather have a lengthy-to-type but correct template than no proper template as is the case right now. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Definitely not "R from alternative scientific name", since this is meant for scientific name → scientific name redirects. What is the rationale for wanting to distinguish between redirects to common names from accepted scientific names and from alternative scientific names? Given that R cats are for maintenance purposes, not for readers, why do we need separate categories? Peter coxhead (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Because the text from R from scientific name clearly states "This is a redirect from the scientific name of an organism to the vernacular ("common") name.". A synonym is a scientific name, certainly, but definitely not THE scientific name, and seeing the redirect page state otherwise may be confusing. Furthermore, for updating/correcting-purposes, the categorization is *important*. In some ways, a redirect-from-synonym is basically the taxonomic form of a redirect-from-misspelling. They're useful to have for navigation, but barring some specific exceptions -shouldn't- be the term used in an article. (Admittedly, there are a few more valid reasons why one would use a redirect through a synonym than why one would use a redirect through misspelling. Nonetheless, the great majority of the time they're used "on accident"; as in, the person who added the link believed it to be the valid terminology.
Doesn't really matter for that if it's linking to accident through the redirect acident or linking to Paralobesia viteana through Endopiza viteana or linking to Siamese mud carp through the junior synonym Crossocheilus thai. In the great, great majority of cases, those links should be corrected.
But to correct something, you first have to be able to -find- it. For which categorization is needed. Such categorization is in place for misspellings (acident -> accident); for synonyms to scientific names (Endopiza viteana -> Paralobesia viteana) but not for synonyms to common names, meaning that it's well-possible for articles to use outdated or incorrect terms unnoticed for a long, long time.
(Note: Crossocheilus thai is not linked 'cause that redirect doesn't exist yet. Nor has it even been listed on that page yet—same for the whole bunch of other synonyms the species has. Lots and lots of articles miss the great majority of their synonyms, let alone the actual redirects from those synonyms. Species articles are underdeveloped in a good many areas.) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
The only point of these things it categorizing redirs for later cleanup or analysis. So, is there any practical use in distinguishing between a redir from a junior synonym to a vernacular name, vs. from the conventionally accepted scientific name to a vernacular name? Or even between a redir from junior sny to vernacular vs. from junior syn to accepted scientific name? Do we care about the R from, the R to, or both?  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The human clade has no article of it's own[edit]

There are countless articles such as monkey that have imperfect taxon/clade overlap. Even though the human clade has no clear taxon, an independent article about the human clade should be split off from these other articles.

The article human used to say we were the last of the hominids: "the human clade", a branch of bipedal great apes.

Now it seems that there has developed imperfect semantic overlap between "hominid" and "the human clade".

The human clade doesn't have to have a taxon to be an article.

Taxa are indispensable, but clades are real referents at least as important as taxa.

The human clade is clearly one of the most important branches on the tree of life and would be well linked to from many articles elsewhere.

Just because something is a clade without a clear taxon doesn't mean that it isn't important enough to have an article about.

What do you all think about this idea?

Chrisrus (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

But how is the "human clade" distinct from, say, Homo? And do any sources use "human clade" as a distinct term? FunkMonk (talk) 23:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
How about this: From "The Social Conquest of the Earth" by Edward O. Wilson: "Chimpanzees and bonobos have an evolutionary history reaching back six million years, the estimated time when their line split from the human clade." Chrisrus (talk) 23:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
So what you mean is the clade that excludes chimps? And again, is this group widely mentioned as a group in the literature, and as synonymous with that definition? FunkMonk (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
The human clade is a bipedal branch of great apes.
Here is another source:'the%20human%20clade%22&f=false
So again, that seems to be defined as a clade that excludes chimps? We need to be able to define something before we can make an article about it. FunkMonk (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Just useless food for thought here, but isn't it time for everyone to live as one yet? If not, carry on trying to agree on a better idea. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:30, June 13, 2015 (UTC)
Again, The human clade is a bipedal branch of the great apes. As you know, we are the last of them, but there have been many others both on our sub-branch and other sub-branches. Chimps primarily knuckle-walk and aren't part of the human clade because their knee joint and pelvis shapes and so on. Chrisrus (talk) 06:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Seems reasonable enough, if it can be defined without cherry-picking just the sources that treat it as "the bipedal branch of great apes". If, say, two definitions emerge, we'd have to cover both of them, and it might be more of a WP:CONCEPTDAB.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
What beyond the above citations would allay these concerns? Chrisrus (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

My understanding, without referring back to sources, is that taxonomically the clade including humans and all things more closely related to humans than to chimpanzees is (the subtribe) Hominina. Anthropological classifications often disagree with this excluding chimpanzees from hominina. The article human should cover this and point to an article, possibly called "Early humans" which describes it in detail. SPACKlick (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

But look where these links direct: Hominina and early human. Chrisrus (talk) 06:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
So create new content if you feel there's something missing.SPACKlick (talk) 09:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
So you support merging from these articles a new human clade article, but only grudgingly. Is that correct? Chrisrus (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I support the creation of an article for the human clade. I would propose calling it "The Human Clade" until a better name is found per commonname and redirecting Hominina to it. There's no grudging about it. SPACKlick (talk) 09:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
The term Hominina is probably more widely used than "human clade", so no, it should not be redirected to the latter. Hominina is more inclusive, so cannot redirect to a less inclusive term. FunkMonk (talk) 09:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Hominina currently has no article. The article "The human clade" has slightly different scope from the scope Hominina would in theory but it would be the article closest to the same scope (using one of the two common definitions of hominina)
Human clade is within the scope of Hominina, therefore it should redirect there, and an article be created for the latter. FunkMonk (talk) 11:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I disagree that the scope is entirely contained. Either way. I have no interest in creating the article and would leave the choice of which scope the article is written about to the creator of the article. SPACKlick (talk) 12:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I would lean away from having a separate article. I think the answer to FunkMonk's question, if I'm not mistaken, is that Hominina is not quite the same as "crown clade humans" because it doesn't include Australopithecina. Is that correct? AFAICT we have no single article for the human crown group (since Hominini includes Pan). But I don't think making a new article about a taxon that is not normally used is really the best way to resolve this. It would be a rehash of what's in Homo and Australopithecina, wouldn't it? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I wouldn't say that. There is a group commonly talked about that is everything more closely related to you than to a chimpanzee. It's just that various disciplines refer to it in different ways making any name have the right scope be tricky. SPACKlick (talk) 08:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project[edit]

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These possible copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest (if such a copyvio is present).--Lucas559 (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)